SHOCKING: Sydney Terrorist Told Obama Not to Hide His True ISLAMIC FAITH

Wednesday, December 17th, 2014

Barack Obama has repeatedly stated that he is a Christian — not a Muslim, as some people allege. However, it was just revealed that an infamous terrorist did not believe him, and wrote letters to Obama as a “dear brother” of Islam.

That person was Sheik Haron Monis, a Muslim cleric who recently gained notoriety for taking hostages in Sydney, Australia.

According to Gateway Pundit, the Islamic radical sent at least one message to Barack Obama back in 2008, before the election.

In his letter, Sheik Monis warned Obama not to hide his Muslim faith, because it would be a sin to lie about his beliefs.

“You will be apostate by denying your religion, I advise you to avoid such a big sin,” wrote the cleric.

Sheik Monis also made a reference to receiving a letter from Barack Obama himself, which suggests that they might have corresponded several years ago.

However, that possibility has not been confirmed, and it is equally possible that the Sheik simply had delusions of grandeur.

“I got your message,” Monis wrote to Obama. “Hiding the religion for political purposes is not permitted. When a Muslim is asked about her/his religion, she/he must tell the truth.”

The Muslim cleric then scolded Barack Obama and reminded him that he should not conceal his religion.

“You think it is permissible by Shariah law to hide your religion to achieve some positions to be able to help Islam and to give a better service to Muslims.”

“You are wrong, Shariah law doesn’t allow you to do so, your reason for hiding your religion Islamically is not a legitimate reason,” concluded the cleric’s letter.

We will not claim that Barack Obama is Muslim based only on the writings of a radical terrorist.

However, this illustrates an interesting point: People within Islam itself seem to believe that he shares their religion.

It is a fact that Obama has often sympathized with the religion of Islam and defended it from critics.

At the same time, he has distanced himself from the Christian faith, even though he claims it as his own.

We have compiled a list of quotes from his own mouth that verify this trend.

Barack Obama’s beliefs are hidden in his own heart, and it is impossible to know where his true faith lies.

What does matter, however, are his words and actions — and those are frustratingly weak when it comes to calling out radical Islam.

Posted on 17 Dec 14 by Conservative Tribune

[Editor’s Note: This does not necessarily entail the beliefs, thoughts, or theories of the local Act chapters or the National Act office…they are my beliefs, thoughts and/or theories. Funny, a few years ago a Pakistani leader nominated Obama to be the global Caliph…they do nominate Christians for that…as well as former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had said numerous times that Obama “…was a good Muslim brother…”…but Americans like to go along with “He said he was a Christian…”, even though 99% of what he does/says is against Christian theology, as well as 99% of what he does goes along with Shari’a or what Muslims want…

The most absurd thing, in my opinion, is that Muslims are saying what Sheikh Man Haron Monis is a crazy person….Muslims don’t think like him…but when you look at, and study, the Qur’an, you will find out that he did exactly what Muhammed commanded him to do…so, in essence, he is being a better Muslim than all the “moderate” Muslims…]

Mosque leader’s fatwa forbids Muslims from wishing Merry Christmas

Posted on December 23, 2012 by creeping

Allah would rather Muslims congratulate a murderer than wish someone Merry Christmas – or congratulate any non-believer on any non-Muslim occasion. Why is any sane individual opposed to ending Muslim immigration to Western nations? via No merriness here: mosque puts fatwa on Christmas.

THE Lakemba Mosque has issued a fatwa against Christmas, warning followers it is a ”sin” to even wish people a Merry Christmas.

The religious ruling, which followed a similar lecture during Friday prayers at Australia’s biggest mosque, was posted on its Facebook site on Saturday morning.

The head imam at Lakemba, Sheikh Yahya Safi, had told the congregation during prayers that they should not take part in anything to do with Christmas.

Samir Dandan, the president of the Lebanese Muslim Association, which oversees the mosque, could not be reached for comment on Saturday.

The fatwa, which has sparked widespread community debate and condemnation, warns that the “disbelievers are trying to draw Muslims away from the straight path”.

It also says that Christmas Day and associated celebrations are among the “falsehoods that a Muslim should avoid … and therefore, a Muslim is neither allowed to celebrate the Christmas Day nor is he allowed to congratulate them”.

The posting of the fatwa has shocked many Muslim leaders. The Grand Mufti of Australia, Ibrahim Abu Mohammad, said the foundations of Islam were peace, co-operation, respect and holding others in esteem.

“Anyone who says otherwise is speaking irresponsibly,” he said.

“There is difference between showing respect for someone’s belief and sharing those beliefs,” Dr Ibrahim said.

Dr. Ibrahim said the views did not represent the majority of Muslims in Australia. “We are required to have good relations with all people, and to congratulate them on their joyous events is very important.”

The fatwa quotes the teacher Imam Ibn Al-Qayyim as saying that congratulating disbelievers for their rituals is forbidden, and if a “Muslim who says this does not become a disbeliever himself, he at least commits a sin as this is the same as congratulating him for his belief in the trinity, which is a greater sin and much more disliked by Almighty Allaah than congratulating him for drinking alcohol or killing a soul or committing fornication or adultery”.

As noted above, a prominent executive of ICNA and the brains behind the Why Islam dawah campaign wrote the same anti-Christmas screed on his personal blog years ago, ICNA Leader in His Own Words:

The foremost thing to realize is that Christmas is a big innovation [bidah] which is leading a big part of humanity to shirk (associating partners with God). Christianity has transgressed the limits set by Allah; therefore showing happiness and joy on Christmas, Halloween, Easter, Good Friday is like shaking hands with Satan and telling him to carry on the good work.

Therefore, a Muslim can’t enjoin in any aspect of Christmas in the disguise that Jesus is our Prophet too, we are just honoring him by celebrating Christmas. We should recognize the bidah of Christmas and the Prophet’s warning that all bidah should be rejected. Therefore, accepting Christmas invitations, attending Christmas parties, buying small plastic Christmas trees to please the kids (some Muslims actually do) should be avoided.

By greeting Christians with ‘merry Christmas’ we are legitimizing Christmas, by driving out on Christmas eve to witness the decoration of houses, we are appreciating bidah with our eyes, by placing our kids on the laps of Santa in the malls we are handing them in the hands of a fiend, by closing our Islamic Schools or shops during Christmas we are giving it our silent approval, by selling Christmas items in our shops, we are strengthening the pillars of Kufr.

Indeed Islam came to tear down the pillars of kufr and replace them with the pillars of Islam.

And just like the imam in Australia, and ICNA/MAS/CAIR and other Islamic groups in the U.S., the goal is the same wherever Muslims go and is iterated clearly in the prior sentence.

Go out of your way this year to wish any Muslim you see a very Merry Christmas!

Posted on 23 Dec 12 by Creeping Sharia

 [ Definition of fatwa: A fatwa is an Islamic religious ruling, a scholarly opinion on a matter of Islamic law.

‘Islamophobia’ Defense Succeeds for Muslim Shooter of Australian Cop

Posted on October 17, 2011 by creeping

‘Islamophobia’ Defense Succeeds for Shooter of Aussie Cop:  via Islamist Watch.

An Australian Muslim was acquitted of attempting to kill or grievously injure a police officer, based in part on the judge’s decision that a vague and unsubstantiated “anti-Muslim feeling in the community” had helped make the perpetrator skittish enough to open fire out of fear. The verdict in the non-jury trial came in June, but a suppression order kept it hidden until last month.

On November 8, 2005, four policemen were dispatched to arrest a man identified in publicly available records only as BUSB. Upon being approached in a Sydney suburb, BUSB spun around, pulled out a gun, and fired, hitting a sergeant in the hand. Another officer then shot and wounded BUSB, who was taken into custody.

“The man maintained he did not fire at police but at the horizon in what was intended to be a warning shot so he could flee,” the Daily Telegraph reports. He “testified he was sick at the time and jumpy about surveillance and possible police questions.” Laughable? Yes. But Judge Leonie Flannery accepted the argument, agreeing that BUSB may have fired a “warning shot in panic.” More disturbing is her malformed sentence explaining the purported cause of BUSB’s anxiety:

 

I am not satisfied that he put the Browning [pistol] in his pants because he was planning to shoot his arresting officers, rather he did so because he was concerned for his safety, and the state he was in brought about his illness, his concern that he was going to be arrested, and the climate of anti-Muslim feeling in the community at the time, he believed that he might be harmed by the police.

The context makes her decision even more alarming: the officers had been sent to arrest BUSB on terrorism charges. Judge Flannery’s ruling acknowledges that BUSB “had with him … two loaded guns in connection with the preparation for a terrorist act.” Found to possess jihadist propaganda, weapons, acids, and instructions for explosives, BUSB pleaded guilty to terrorism counts in 2008 and is serving at least 14 years — facts presumably known to Judge Flannery.

That BUSB did not get off scot-free does not excuse the judge for ratifying the defense’s assertion that the shooting was mitigated by “an environment of anti-Muslim feeling, which engendered in the Muslim community a high sense of paranoia.” Islamists often claim that bias against Muslims motivates investigations and prosecutions, but this may be the first criminal case in which “Islamophobia” was successfully employed to defend a Muslim’s violent deeds.

Columnist Gerard Henderson ponders, “Would a Jew be entitled to cite a climate of anti-Semitism in the community as affecting the intention of an act which he/she had committed with respect to police? What about a Hindu?” To ask these questions is to answer them. Jews, Hindus, and others are treated like adults; Muslims frequently are viewed as children lacking self-control.

“Islamophobia” is no longer just a tool to silence critics of Islamism. In at least one jurisdiction, it has morphed into a legal defense for terrorists who shoot cops. If there is any remaining doubt regarding the pernicious trajectory of the “Islamophobia” meme, the above case should dispel it.

It seems just about any “defense” will get Muslims out of legal trouble down under.

Posted on 17 Oct 11 by creeping sharia

AUSTRALIA: Muslim man recently acquitted of shooting a cop using an ‘Islamophobia’ defense is now in jail on terrorism charges

Posted: October 8, 2011 | Author: barenakedislam

An Australian Muslim was acquitted of shooting and attempting to kill a police officer in June, based on the judge’s decision that an unsubstantiated “anti-Muslim feeling in the community” had helped make the perpetrator skittish enough to open fire out of fear. Now, it turns out that this man was found to be a fervent and committed terrorist who wanted to carry out an attack in Australia.

Daily Telegraph  The Sydney-born man admitted supporting violent jihad and was inspired by the 2005 London terror bombings. He had material praising Osama bin Laden, and guns, ammunition and chemicals to make the explosive TATP, known as “mother of Satan”.

The Daily Telegraph last week reported how in June this year District Court Judge Leonie Flannery acquitted the 34-year-old of shooting at police with intent to murder. Judge Flannery found he was carrying a loaded gun down his pants when police arrested him in 2005 over the terror plot but that it was because he feared for his own safety due to “Islamophobic” feeling in the community.

Now, it can be revealed he is in the state’s highest-security prison, Supermax in Goulburn, serving a minimum sentence of 14 years and maximum of 18 years and eight months for terrorism-related offences. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Whealy, who sentenced the man on terror charges, yesterday lifted a suppression order on his judgment.

It revealed the man pleaded guilty in November 2008 to two counts of committing an act in preparation for a terrorist act and two of possessing a thing connected with the preparation for a terrorist act. He had collected two loaded handguns, 900 rounds of ammunition for military assault rifles, five litres of battery acid, five litres of hydrochloric acid and a Nokia telephone handset – all items he intended to use as part of the plot.

The judgment said he posed as a man called Jeffrey Leydon as he contacted chemical suppliers inquiring about sulphuric acid. He had a collection of jihadist documents “extolling the virtues of Osama bin Laden”, praising martyrdom during violent jihad (holy war), and footage of at least two “gruesome” executions. He also possessed instructions on sniper training, weapons, and the assembly and detonation of explosives.

In psychological interviews in custody, the man said he began to question the situation of Muslims worldwide after September 11, 2001, and the impact of the London bombings had impressed him by bringing the city to a standstill.

“He said he thought if he could do something similar in Australia without hurting people, it would extend awareness of the aggression against Muslims and alert Australians to oppose the government and stop the nation’s alliance with the United States,” a psychological report stated.

Justice Whealy found the man was “a committed terrorist whose actions posed a significant danger to the community”. His earliest release date is November 7, 2019.

Posted on 8 Oct 11 by BNI

Sharia Law and Polygamy in America

The column below (highlights added) by Andrew Bostom zeroes in on one aspect of the threat of sharia to the West: Islamic polygamy. An NPR article in 2008 cited sources estimating that as many as 100,000 Muslims live in polygamous families in the U.S.

Note that the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America has issued fatwas sanctioning polygamy, in keeping with sharia law. One ruling declares American law prohibiting polygamy “against Islamic law.”

---

http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2011/07/21/australia-sharia-sanctioned-polygamy-and-child-marriage/

Australia: Sharia-Sanctioned Polygamy and Child Marriage
Posted By Andrew Bostom On July 21, 2011

^[1]

Despite an overall apologetic tone borne of transparent obeisance to cultural relativism, two legal academics, Dr Ann Black and Dr Kerrie Sadiq from The University of Queensland TC Beirne School of Law are “suggesting ^[2]” in their research publication, “Good & Bad Sharia: Australia’s mixed response to Islamic Law” (due to be published in the University of New South Wales Law Journal on Monday July 25, 2011) that,

Australia is right to act with caution in dealing with Sharia law.

Why are even these obviously ^[2] devout votaries of the academic social religion of cultural relativism concerned about the practice of Sharia in Australia at all, or what they term, with revealing euphemism, “legal pluralism?”

One reason was extracted from the forthcoming paper of Drs. Black and Sadiq, and cited by The Australian’s legal affairs editor, Chris Merrit ^[3]:

Valid Muslim polygynist marriages, lawfully entered into overseas, are recognized, with second and third wives and their children able to claim welfare and other benefits.

Merrit’s background article on Black and Sadiq’s findings also noted ^[3] how this practice of Muslim polygamy in Australia involved “marriages where one party is under the lawful marriage age.” And Merrit provided this additional context ^[3]:

The findings come soon after Ikebal Patel, president of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, triggered a backlash inside the Islamic community when he called for Australia to compromise with Islam and embrace legal pluralism …The latest research has found that while polygamy is unlawful, mainstream law accommodates men who arrive in Australia with multiple wives and gives some legal standing to multiple partnerships that originate in Australia.

More alarming “context” not addressed by the report of Drs. Black and Sadiq, and in fact dismissed by Dr. Black ^[2] in these words, “The ‘foreignness’ of Sharia law is increased by media reports which highlight ‘differences’ and feed into fears about the Muslim presence in Australia,” was provided by The Australian Daily Telegraph ^[4]:

On Sunday, a recent convert to Islam in Sydney was allegedly lashed 40 times with electrical cable by men from his mosque, in a terrifying home invasion, as punishment for drinking alcohol – forbidden under Shariah law. Two people have been arrested in connection with the attack.

The staid report by two Australian cultural relativist academics should (but won’t) make our mainstream media talking heads curious about how mainstream Islamic opinion views polygamy in the United States. For example, what have the esteemed mainstream Islamic clerics of the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA) opined regarding polygamy? The AMJA ^[5] mission statement maintains:

[The AMJA was] founded to provide guidance for Muslims living in North America. … AMJA is a religious organization that does not exploit religion to achieve any political ends, but instead provides practical solutions within the guidelines of Islam and the nation’s laws to the various challenges experienced by Muslim communities.

A report in The Muslim Observer ^[6] published October 21, 2010, highlighting AMJA’s “seventh annual American conference of imams,” confirms that the organization is accepted ^[6] as such by the mainstream American Muslim community. AMJA and its recent “training” conference for American imams were described ^[6] in these banal terms:

The organization AMJA (Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America) has a list of scholars associated with it which stretches from Al-Azhar University to Virginia’s Open University, and back across the ocean to the professors at Saudi universities. Its website, amjaonline.com, provides fatawa on many issues and promises 24-hour access to scholars who can give legal opinions on the issues people face. AMJA focuses on providing fatwas to Americans, and believes it is able to provide culturally appropriate fatwas although many of their scholars are not American–because they have some American scholars and because of the technological ties that bind AMJA’s American scholars with those abroad. AMJA just had, in Houston, its seventh annual American conference of imams, and two local Michigan imams attended, namely Imam Musa of Bloomfield’s Muslim Unity Center, and Imam Ali of MCWS. Mr. Sadiqul Hassan of AMJA explained that “the event was the 7th annual imam workshop.” Mr. Hassan said that AMJA is “a fiqh council basically,” with “scholars who live abroad and inside the U.S.; we have experts in different fields to educate about life in the U.S. — fatwa are based on life in the U.S.”

Not only does AMJA extol polygamy in accordance with the Sharia, AMJA endorses its extra-legal (i.e., vis a vis US law) application here in America, as can be readily gleaned from these two “fatwas” or Islamic legal rulings:

Fatwa 2134[7] Dr. Main Khalid Al-Qudah Date 2006-10-27

>Polygamy in Islam is permissible for different reasons, like:
1- The sexual energy of men is more than that of women in general. So, in some cases, one wife is not enough to fulfill the conjugal desire of her husband
2- Pregnancy and delivery negatively affect the shape and physical attraction that women have.
3- Worldwide, the percentage of females is always more than that of males, eventually, there must be a solution, either to permit adultery and prostitution, or to allow polygamy
4- One husband could take care of more than one wife at the same time; socially, financially, and even sexually as I mentioned above. However, the opposite is not right because of the physical and psychological capability that Allah the all mighty gave men.

Fatwa 3370[8] Scholar Dr. Hatem al-Haj Date 2007-08-08

Comment from Muslim questioner: We know that polygamy is against USA law. But I heard from my friend that as long as you don`t register your marriage to the registrar, it is okay to have more than one wife here in the states, i.e., all the wives are living here. The argument that he made was that the law that prohibits marrying more than one is against the shaariah so, it is okay for us to break it…There are some scholars in the USA are practicing polygamy without the knowledge of the authorities using that argument….

Dr. Hatem al-Haj’s response: Polygamy is halal in Islam and may be highly recommended when the number of females is bigger than that of males to afford all females a decent life that suffices their physiologic, emotional and other needs. The US law about polygamy is against the Islamic law, for no one can make prohibited that which Allah specifically made allowable.

The news items, blogs, educational materials and other information in our emails and on our website are only intended to provide information, news and commentary on events and issues related to the threat of radical Islam. Much of this information is based upon media sources, such as the AP wire services, newspapers, magazines, books, online news blog and news services, and radio and television, which we deem to be reliable. However, we have undertaken no independent investigation to verify the accuracy of the information reported by these media sources. We therefore disclaim all liability for false or inaccurate information from these media sources. We also disclaim all liability for the third-party information that may be accessed through the material referenced in our emails or posted on our website.

…and still more muslim demands!!

Give us our own laws, say Islamic leaders

• John Masanauskas
• From: Herald Sun

…..and now….coming straight from Australia….more muslim demands!!! Everywhere Islam rubs its elbows, there is going to be trouble. Muslims do not feel they are equal to non-muslims.  Muslims  feel they deserve special rights. If they don’t get them, they pout…they cry…they whine…..then they demand, and lastly , they threaten. If you are a muslIm….and you move to a non-muslim country. One that is governed by Democratic laws and not the barbarian Islamic Shairah Law….then you are expected to live and abide by those laws. DON’T come to this country and expect to be given special treatment because you’re a muslim. 

That is discrimination!!!

Muslims are familiar with that word. Because they use it all the time to classify things that they do not agree with…like the banning of the burqa. 

Its a two-way street there buddy!! -BBJ

ISLAMIC leaders want Muslims in Australia to get interest-free loans for religious reasons.

The nation’s Islamic leaders want recognition of sharia law as it applies to banking practices, according to an exclusive Herald Sun survey of imams.

There was also a call for recognition of sharia law as it applies to family law.  (But…but….wouldn’t that be discriminatory to non-muslims???)

Should Australia recognise some aspects of sharia law? Have your say below:

The survey showed some imams are sceptical that Osama bin Laden’s death will be of benefit to ordinary Muslims, and they are unhappy with the way US forces disposed of his body.

The survey has also revealed:

STRONG condemnation of MPs who criticise Muslim women for wearing the burqa/nijab. (Can’t allow the burqa……its a safety issue)

CONCERN that ordinary Muslims are still being linked to terrorism. (Hey!! We have to call it like it is. You Imams are giving us plenty of excuses to continue that criticism right here….right now.)

DISGUST that innocent people in Muslim countries are being killed in the “war on terror”. (Then send out the word to your brothers in the Sudan and Nigeria and Somalia and Kenya and the rest of the middle east to stop persecuting Christians and stop burning the churches.)

The survey was conducted in the wake of a $55,000 Federal Government training program for imams on Australian laws and values. (Well obviously THAT was a waste of money)

They have been told to preach core Australian values such as the fair go, freedom, and responsibility.
Imam Yusuf Parker, from the Alhidayah Centre in Perth, said Australia should consider recognizing sharia law as it applied to finance and family law matters.  (“Give them and inch and they’ll take a mile.”  Don’t let them get started)

Imam Parker said Islam forbade the charging or paying of interest “so finding interest-free loans will again help Muslims to practise their Islam better”.

(Nope…sorry….can’t do that….that would put Muslims in a special superior class)

“Other than the two major issues mentioned, I don’t see other sharia law that Muslims would seek to have legally recognised,” he said.

Fellow WA imam Sheik Burhaan Mehtar said sharia law often was raised to scare non-Muslims, but a dialogue would lead to better understanding.

“Islamic banking and the non-slavery of humans is a classic example. Interest is slavery,” he said. (So how is muslim slavery of blacks by Saudi Arabia and Sudan still allowed to happen??)

Islamic Council of Victoria board member Nazeem Hussain said legal and tax barriers currently prevented local banks from offering Islamic finance products.

“That’s a massive market … we’d encourage the Government to seek ways to tap into that market,” he said.

Imam Parker said bin Laden’s demise might serve as closure for those convinced he masterminded the 9/11 attacks.

“But the reality is that the negative impact on Islam and Muslims has not changed, and it will take many decades for that to change,” he said.

Sheik Burhaan Mehtar said the symbolic victory of bin Laden’s death would remain hollow while people in nations such as Afghanistan suffered a “terror of death delivered from the skies” by the US and its allies.

Gold Coast imam Imraan Husain reflected a general view that bin Laden’s burial at sea was a violation of Islamic funeral rites. (TOUGH SHIT…..you’re lucky I wasn’t in charge of his burial.)

Victorian imam Sheik Ramy Najmeddine said Muslims felt there was an unfair link between terrorism and Islam.

“But we believe this is being broken down by the good work that members of both the Muslim and non-Muslim community are doing.” (Thats a joke right?)

Sheik Mohamadu Saleem, a spokesman for Board of Imams Victoria, accused some MPs of trying to get political mileage out of the burqa issue. “It is mere political expediency,” he said.

Victorian imam Abdinur Weli said:  “If only Muslims are the people who are told what to wear, then it is discrimination.”

 

….shouldn’t this article have the other side of the conversation? Where is the governments replies? Doesn’t  the everyday Australian have anything to say about this?  BBJ

Posted in:  The Infidel Taskforce

 

 

AUSTRALIA: New law tells Muslim women, “Lift your veil or go to jail.”

Posted: July 5, 2011 | Author: barenakedislam | Filed under: Islamization of the West | 45 Comments »

Do not pass go. Do not collect $200 or a bigger payoff by filing an “Islamophobia” lawsuit.

NEWS AU  (H/T MattB) –THE NSW government has been accused of politically intimidating Muslims with its proposal to change the law so police can demand the removal of burqas for identification purposes. Muslim women can be forced to remove their face veils during routine car stops under new powers granted to NSW police.

The NSW powers, among the toughest burqa laws in the world, are aimed at ensuring police can properly identify motorists and others suspected of committing crimes. Under the NSW laws, police can now order people to remove any kind of head covering, including garments such as burkas and niqabs, during routine stops.

However, Hizb ut-Tahrir, a global political movement that wants Muslim nations united under a caliphate said, ”For us, it’s a case of political intimidation,” Sydney spokesman Uthman Badar said. ”It’s not a police issue, it’s the fact that a non-issue has been turned into an issue. It happened before with the anti-terror laws and this is doing the same thing.” (Maybe Australians are telling you to abide by their laws or get the hell out?) READ MORE: NEWS AU 

Posted in:  Bare Naked Islam

Propaganda at it’s finest:

Faith ‘Jesus: Prophet of Islam’ — New Muslim Bus Ads to Debut in AustraliaIf you ask the organization Mypeace in Australia, Jesus wasn’t God, but he was a good prophet of Islam. That’s just one of the messages the group is set to debut on Australian buses in September. And it’s just one of the messages already plastered on billboards around Sydney.

As CNS News reports, “roadside billboards in the metropolitan Sydney area carry one of four simple slogans: ‘Jesus: A Prophet of Islam,‘ ’Holy Qur’an: The Final Testament,‘ ’Muhammad: Mercy to Mankind‘ and ’Islam: Got Questions? Get Answers.’

Now, those posters have now been adapted, and will appear on the outside of Sydney buses this fall:

“Mypeace.com.au a Muslim Organisation based in Sydney is launching a bold venture and the first of its kind in its public awareness campaign by placing ads about Islam on Sydney buses,” the group’s site explains. “Starting on September 27^th of May 2011, for four weeks, several buses in Sydney will start carrying messages on the religion of Islam. Each ad will invite interested individuals to call MyPeace’s toll free number … and converse live with a Muslims to ask questions about Islam; request a free copy of the Quran and Islamic literature.”

The group adds that the bus ads will appear on the backs and sides of 40 buses traveling throughout Sydney.

But the ads are causing quite a stir. One billboard claiming Jesus is a prophet of Islam has already been vandalized, and now an Australian bishop is speaking out.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

CNS News reports:

“In Australia with its Christian heritage a billboard carrying the statement ‘Jesus A prophet of Islam’ is provocative and offensive to Christians,” Julian Porteous, auxiliary bishop at the Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney, responded in an article.

“Central to Christianity is the belief that Jesus Christ is more than a prophet,” he said. “He is the Son of God. He is acclaimed Lord and Savior of humanity. This statement is a direct assault on Christian beliefs.”

Porteous said religions should not “set out to antagonize those with differing beliefs.”

“Dialogue between the religions can only take place when it is founded in mutual respect. It is not fostered by provocative statements.”

Porteous urged Mypeace to withdraw the ads.

Considering the tenants of the Christian faith, and what Islam believes about Jesus, the group‘s claims are not in line with Christianity’s understanding of Jesus. For example, as CNS points out, Islam denies Christ’s “divinity, crucifixion, and resurrection.”

Still, in a video posted on Mypeace’s website, it claims that Islam is the “religion of Jesus and Moses:”

Posted in:  The Blaze

Muslims to push for sharia

• Patricia Karvelas
• From: The Australian
• May 17, 2011 12:00AM

Government says no to sharia law

Watch

Government says no to sharia law

The Attorney-General has offered an emphatic no to requests for the introduction of sharia law in Australia.

Play

0:00 / 1:16

Scrubber

mute

Share

Fullscreen

THE nation’s peak Muslim group is using the Gillard government’s re-embracing of multiculturalism to push for the introduction of sharia in Australia, but it says it would be a more moderate variety of Islamic law that fits with Australian values.

The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, in a submission to a parliamentary inquiry into the government’s new multiculturalism policy, argues that Muslims should enjoy “legal pluralism”.

In an interview with The Australian, the organisation’s president, Ikebal Adam Patel, who wrote the submission, nominated family law and specifically divorce as an area where moderate interpretations of sharia could co-exist within the Australian legal system.

In the submission, the AFIC acknowledges some Muslims believe Islamic law is immutable, regardless of history, time, culture and location.

“They claim that Muslims may change, but Islam will not,” it says.

Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.

Related Coverage

• Government says no to sharia law

• Quest for Sharia law is out of line Herald Sun, 1 day ago
• Victoria says no to Muslim grants Herald Sun, 1 day ago
• I hear ya on sharia, but please no hysteria Perth Now, 1 day ago
• Call for taxpayers to fund Muslim schools Adelaide Now, 1 day ago
• Imam wants sharia, but A-G says no way The Australian, 1 day ago

End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.

The AFIC argues this is not the case and sharia can be applied in a way that fits in to Australia and is not extreme.

“This means most of the regulations in Islamic law may be amended, changed, altered, and adapted to social change.

“Therefore, Muslims Australia-AFIC takes the position that Islamic law is changeable according to the requirements of different places and times, and therefore suits the values shared by Australian people,” the submission says.

A hardline reading of sharia confers unilateral divorce rights on men, while women who initiate divorce are stripped of their property and financial entitlements.

A more moderate interpretation and common practice in Islamic countries is to recognise divorce by mutual consent.

In the interview, Mr Patel said: “I’m saying that instead of letting the extremists within Islam take over the agenda, we are saying there is a path whereby it will work for all the communities in a moderate way.

“It is important for someone who is Muslim or a practising Jew that aspects of our religion which can be incorporated within the greater legal system are introduced.

“This is about personal issues about family, and won’t affect any other Australian,” he said.

“It’s about a system that does not impinge on the rights of any other Australian.”

In its submission to the inquiry, the AFIC says criticisms of sharia as being biased against women and treating them as second-class citizens are wrong.

“It is important for Muslims to seriously consider this criticism,” the submission says.

“But it is also important for the Australian government to respect the rights of Muslim women who want to keep and maintain the way they dress, eat and interact with others, as long as such behaviour does not inflict harm to others.

“Muslims in Australia should accept the Australian values, and Australia should provide a ‘public sphere’ for Muslims to practise their belief. It takes two to tango.

“This approach demands a compromise from Islam, which should be open to other values, and also to make a similar demand of Australia.

“It is not only Australian Muslims who should reconcile these identities, but all Australians.”

Mr Patel says the AFIC, as the peak body of Islamic organisations in Australia, “strongly supports that multiculturalism should lead to legal pluralism . . . and twin tolerations”.

The submission cites regulations governing Islamic finance and halal certification in Australia as examples of how legal pluralism can work.

British law since 1996 has allowed for alternative dispute resolution through sharia tribunals, the rulings of which are enforceable in county courts and the High Court.

The submission calls on the inquiry members to consider “hard questions” from Muslim communities.

“Muslims are required to have social integration with the majority of people in Australia: what does this really mean? Should Muslims remove the hijab, dress like others, drink alcohol and go to the pub to demonstrate they have actually integrated?”

In most Western countries, the submission notes, the idea of an “Islamic family tribunal or arbitration is likely to fuel the debate on radicalism and liberalism”.

“But is it true that Australia will never consider Islamic law?” it asks.

“It seems that in two areas, namely Islamic finance and halal food, the Australian government has been actively involved.

“So although the Attorney-General ruled out introducing Islamic law, or sharia, at the same time Australian financial institutions are encouraged to do much more to attract Muslim business by developing innovative products which comply with Islamic law.

“Apart from the economic motive, how can we reconcile the conflicting statement and fact?”