[aladin]

Dear Aladin,

I will deal in more detail with your email, but first please answer this for me as I do wish to have more understanding.

You say you are a moslem and an Australian, but which are you first, a moslem or an Australian ?

To whom do you owe your first loyalty, your family or islam and where in relation to those would you place Australia ?

I look forward to your response, whereupon I will happily comment on the many issues you raised in your email.

One more thing, there are aspects of your culture that I find somewhat unpalatable, so if that makes me a racist, wouldn't you also be one for the same reason ?

Regards,

David.

[Sam]

Assalamualaikum Aladin,

You're beating a dead horse Al

Tell him that you are both a Muslim and an Australian, and then ask him why you can't be considered both. What has your religion got to do with your nationality anyway?

And if being Australian supporting:

- locking up children in jail;
- breaking into innocent peoples' houses with machine guns and masks;
- supporting the outragous sanctions on Iraq which has caused the death of over half a million children since the gulf war;
- abandoning Australian citizens currently locked up in camp X-ray;
- Lying about the unfortunate situation of assylum seekers for political gain;
- stopping someone from visiting Australia purely because of their religion;

then I'll call myself a Muslim first any day! Tell him you're a Muslim first, and it's not even illegal, and it's actually a good thing because as a Muslim you will be more truthful, honest and just than any "Australian" politician ever will be....

my rant for the day...

wassalam

Sam.

[aladin]

Dear David,

They can say anything about you but they can never say that you ignore those
who take issue with what you have to say. Thank you for responding to me at
all and thank you for doing it so promptly.

Let me now answer your questions.

I consider myself to be an Australian Moslem as well as a Moslem Australian.
There is no point asking which one I am first as being a Moslem is my faith
and being an Australian is my nationality and hopefully the twine shall
never meet. And why would they? Why would Australia ever require me to do
something that goes against my faith. By the same token, why would Islam
ever ask me to do something to violate the laws of this country that I've
come to accept as my own? I can not see it ever happening. But if you were
requiring an answer either way, let's pose a frightening hypothetical
question. What if, with all that's happening in the world, the political
climate became so intense and living in this once peaceful and lucky country
did not provide the same security it once did. What if at that point, the
U.S waged a holy war against all Islamic countries and John Howard lent
unwavering support to his "new best friend"? Suddenly, as Australian Moslems
we might find ourselves living in a place reminiscent of 1930s Germany. The
Australian people are led to believe, through media drum-ups, that the
Moslem citizens they've lived with so peacefully for so many years are now
the devils incarnate. Which way would I and most of us go? We would be
forced to follow our faith. After all, David, all that one really has is his
belief - his faith.

Regarding your question of first loyalty - my first loyalty is to my family
and religion. I assign equal importance to both. My religion would never ask
me to harm or disobey my family but if my family was to ever ask me to
disobey the teachings of Islam, then my loyalty would be to Islam. Australia
is the country that feeds me, clothes me, provides me and my children with a
living. I am forever indebted to this country. But the debt of gratitude is
for my own business and not something I need to make public for I am not
merely a guest here who needs to constantly show thanks and appreciation. On
the contrary, I am as Australian as you are and deserve to be called an
Australian as much as you or anyone else who tries to condemn us because of
our faith. How different is that to Nazism?

I hope that this has answered your questions. Please understand that none of
the atrocities that have been committed are representative of Islam. This
religion is not based on brutality and butchery. Infact, there are many
similarities between Islam and Christianity. If Judaism and Christianity do
not condone terrorism and murder, how could it be that Islam does? We are
not barbarians. Only those who are terribly misguided condone these sorts of
brutal acts. I assure you that these people have nothing to do with Islam.

I would like to wrap up by asking you two questions:

Which aspects of Islam do you find "unpalatable"?

From where does your knowledge of Islam come from? Have you read books, seen
ABC or SBS doccos or have you been given the media's abridged version of
Islam?

Best regards,


Aladin Abasseri

[Methinks]

I make no apologies for the brand of Islam I follow. So at the risk of being flamed a Kufr, I draw attention to the following article which speaks for the way I feel on the issue. I welcome any constructive feedback. I may post it to David Oldfield but I wish to hear the opinions of others first.


From: http://www.alislam.o...d/loyality.html

The Question of Divided Loyalty
Some Parallels From History
MIRZA BASHIR AHMAD (1893-1963)
Translated from Urdu by Professor Mohammad Aslam

During the U. S. Presidential election two contestants were in the field: Nixon and Kennedy. Kennedy being a Catholic, doubts were raised over his loyalty to the role of President. Catholics are followers of the Pope, and strict in their religious affiliation. If U.S. interests demand one thing and the Pope (or Kennedy's own faith) another, what will Kennedy do? Of two conflicting loyalties, which one will he choose? Will he choose his country and his high office? Or, will he choose his Catholic faith? Will he play the role of President hundred percent? Or will he compromise it by his fealty for the Pope?
Astute Kennedy survived the question and got away with a simple answer. Should the two loyalties-the Pope and the Presidential office-conflict, Kennedy said, he would give up the Presidential office but remain a simple Catholic. (Time, September 26, 1960).
Kennedy's answer proved satisfying to Americans. The election swung in his favor and he became President. For the next four years now he will be the Head of the U.S. State. As U.S. Head, he will hold the reins of world politics; the reins of one of the two steeds which pull the chariot of world affairs, the reigns of the other steed being in the hands of the Russian dictator. Gog and Magog in mortal conflict! God help this poor world!
On closer view, however, Kennedy's reply could not be correct even in Christian terms. Was not Jesus confronted by a similar question? And what was Jesus' reply? Did he not say (Matt. 22:21-22) "Unto Caesar, Caesar's and unto God, God's"? Kennedy did not say this. Maybe, he did not wish to risk unpopularity with American voters. Maybe, if he had done so, American voters would have become confused, uncertain whether Kennedy was a good enough American. This does not make Jesus' reply, however, less clear or less correct. Loyalty belongs to different contexts. In each context it takes its own course. Determined to remain loyal in every context and honest to God in our judgment and understanding, we should have no difficulty, confront no conflict. Jesus, however, was speaking to the Israel, not to men in general. His reply was limited by his context, by his country and his people. He thought only of Caesar. He did not put the matter in universal terms. Islamic (or Ahmadiyya) conceptions are different. Islam (or the Ahmadiyyat) is universal. It is for all men, everywhere, in all sorts of contexts. The teaching of Islam sets forth the subject of loyalties in terms, which cover every condition and all circumstances. The principles of Islam are universal. They relate to all kinds of situations. Muslims, therefore, have no difficulties, no reservations on the subject. No anxiety, conflict or confusion. We can hold our heads high. We are neither ashamed nor uncertain as to what we must do in any given circumstances. This clear conscience, we owe to the grace of our God. We concede this with humility. Read the verse in the Holy Qur'an (3:60):


"O ye who believe obey God and obey the Prophet and obey those in authority from among you."
The Arabic expression "in authority from among you" should not mislead any one into thinking that loyalty to authority is limited only to Muslim authority. No, not at all. The verse teaches obedience to authority as such. "From among" (Arabic min) also means over or of or in. The verse teaches decorum and discipline in public affairs. It makes loyalty to ruling authority an Islamic duty. Ruler and ruled are pictured in the verse as one group. Always, the verse implies, a community or people consist of both rulers and ruled. The ruled owe obedience to the rulers. This being so, it becomes idle to dispute over the meaning of the verse; to construe that rulers whom Muslims are to obey must be Muslims is simply absurd.

The Promised Messiah, Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement (on whom be peace), writing about the verse laid down very clearly:

"The Holy Qur'an commands, 'Obey Allah and obey His Prophet and obey those in authority among you.' Believers are to obey those in authority, besides God and His Prophet. To say that 'those in authority' does not include a non-Muslin-Government would be a manifest error. For, a government-or authority-whose ordinances are in accordance with the Shariah (that is, they are not in conflict with it) is 'authority from among you.' Those who are not against us are among us. The Qur'an, therefore, is unequivocal on the point. Obedience to governmental authority is one of its imperatives." (Works and Speeches, Vol. (i), p. 261)
So also in the Hadith, the Holy Prophet (on whom be peace and the blessings of God) says:
"He who obeys me, obeys God; he who disobeys me disobeys God. He who obeys his authority obeys me; he who disobeys his authority disobeys me" (Muslim, Kitab al Imarah).
In this hadith the whole subject of obedience becomes illuminated. Loyalty and obedience belong by right only to God, Creator, Master, Lord of Men and Nations. Others have authority derived from Him. They reflect the Authority, which is God's. A Prophet is vicegerent of God, a Messenger, bearer, of divine ordinances. To obey the Prophet is to obey God. Similarly one who has authority among men is responsible for discipline, for order among God's creatures; a guardian of their lives, property and honor. Obedience to such a one is most pleasing to God. It is obedience to God. Obedience, at whatever level, is one and the same: it is obedience to God. Truly said the Holy Prophet, 'Obedience to me is obedience to God and obedience to authority is obedience to me.'
In accordance with all this (the Holy Qur'an, the Holy Prophet's Hadith, the writings of the Promised Messiah), the present Head of the Ahmadiyya Movement, Hadrat Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad, inculcated loyalty to one's State. He said clearly:

"Our belief is that Islam requires every one to be loyal to the state under which he lives... To think that Ahmadis in India or Pakistan will remain loyal to their respective Governments only so long as the Ahmadiyya Head requires them to be so, is senseless and stupid. The Ahmadiyya Head has no prerogative in this matter. His role is to recapitulate, to implement, the teaching and spirit of Islam, not to alter one jot out of it. He is to fulfill not to destroy... Loyalty to a Government or State, according to us, is ordained by the Holy Qur'an and the Qur'an is the Book of God... The Ahmadiyya Head or Khalifa has no right to alter an ordinance contained in the Holy Book. The Khalifa is a deputy, not a dictator. A deputy it bound to authority in the same way as are all the others." (al-Fazl, April 5, 1949)
On another occasion, he said:
"Officers of Government, assistants, clerks, every one: your obligation to carry out orders or directions issued to you by the Government is a special and a serious one. When Government makes a thing binding, then, there can be no deviation, not even by a hair-breadth. Honest belief implies nothing else. When a person elects to serve a Government, forthwith he enters into a solemn covenant. It is that he will be unsparing, sincere and honest in carrying out the duties and obligations assigned to him. If he breaks the covenant, he makes himself answerable both to Government and to God. He engenders his faith, his relation with God." (al Muslih, June 18, 1953)
In common wisdom also, it seems but plain that a movement which seeks adherents, fellow-members, and believers, in all parts of the world cannot but hold on to the principle that every one has to be loyal to the Government under which he lives. Anything short of this would mean disaster. Disorder and disruption rather than peace and goodwill. Disastrous for the movement, and productive of large scale conflicts, such as might destroy good human relations all over the world. If Ahmadis have the least bit of wisdom, they will not entertain a policy which will put an end to their own existence, or jeopardizepeace in general. Ahmadis today are to be found in many parts of the world, outside Pakistan and India; in Malaya, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, parts of East Africa (such as Kenya, Uganda, Tanganyika), parts of West Africa (such as Nigeria, Ghana,Sierra Leone), Switzerland, Holland, Germany, UK, USA, Canada, South America and so on. Even outside Pakistan and India, in places their numbers run into thousands, and the numbers are on the increase. Such a movement brooks disaster, if it begins to oscillate between different loyalties. Divided loyalty can only be fatal for such a movement-fatal both spiritually and physically.
One imaginary situation is often posed. Two countries, both with Ahmadi populations, go to war, Ahmadis in the two countries profess loyalty to their respective Governments. What are Ahmadis going to do in such a contingency? Will they still side with their respective Governments and engage in mutual killing? The question is not a new one. Neither for us, nor for the rest of the world. Our answer has always been this: Yes, even in such a contingency, Ahmadis will remain loyal to their respective Governments. This belief of ours is not of our making. It is a belief taught by God and explained by His Prophet. It is a belief we cannot alter or dilute. If loyalty to their respective Governments results in the killing of Ahmadis by Ahmadis, well that is there and, there is nothing more to be said or done. It is but a consequence, an obligation entailed by our religious belief. Principles have priority over persons. Persons may be sacrificed for the sake of principles, not principles for the sake of persons. Such mutual killing will be forgiven by the Wise and Merciful God of the Qur'an. It will be the result of His own teaching, of conditions, over which we have no control.

The situation, however, is not so imaginary. History is full of instances in which professors of the same creed have fought each other. Hindus have fought Hindus, Christians, and Muslims.

Believers have put to death other believers of the same religion sometimes several hundred thousand in number. The most cruel wars in history have been fought without cause, and with the most tragic consequences. What then if Ahmadis have to fight against Ahmadis? They will fight and kill one another, if necessary, to save a divine principle: the principle of loyalty to the state to which one belongs. Such wars are an understandable obligation. So, Ahmadis may fight on opposite sides. But while they fight they will also pray for the return of peace, a peace which makes the world safe for truth and justice.

True, Ahmadis owe spiritual allegiance to one leader or Imam. How, one may ask, can they be permitted to take part in mutual killing? The answer is again the same: The Ahmadi Imam is no dictator or ruler who can do what he likes or order his followers as he pleases. The Ahmadi Imam or Khalifa is himself subject to Islamic Law, the Shariah. The Shariah is above the Khalifa, not the Khalifa above the Shariah. We may quote from the statement of the present Khalifa again (the second Khalita of the Promised Messiah):

"No Khalifa has the power to alter any of God's ordinances. The Khalifa is no dictator. He is only a deputy. He is bound to. carry out a law, to put through some one else's commands. He is subject to that law, those commands, as much as all the others in the fold." (al-Fazl, April 5, 1949)
We should also remember that the Ahmadiyya Khilafat is a spiritual institution. It has and seeks no political power, no statehood. Ahmadis seek to advance only by spiritual methods. They and their Head are content to live as loyal citizens under Governments, which guarantee freedom in religious matters.
Then, have not Catholics fought Catholics, belonging to different countries, different states? And yet Catholics owe allegiance to the Pope, believe in him and obey him, as though he were God on earth, (being successor of Christ, the God incarnate). And not Catholics only. Muslims also have fought Muslims. Muslims fought Muslims in the time of the Abb aside Khalifas, whose Khilafat was received as authentic by all Sunni Muslims? Again during the Turkish Khilafat, Muslims of different countries fought one another and yet they owed allegiance to one Khalifa or Imam. These facts are eloquent. They speak and speak loudly. They prove that followers of one and the same creed, owing spiritual loyalty to the same leader or chief, can go to war against one another. Why not Ahmadis? Why cannot they be trusted to do the same? Why cannot they be loyal to their Imam and yet be loyal to the states under which they live?

To be brief, the Ahmadiyya stand is clear and clean. Need we reiterate that we Ahmadis living in different countries, under different states and Governments, are loyal to the countries in which we live, to the states and Government under which we live. Ahmadis of Pakistan are loyal to Pakistan, deeply concerned to exert and to pray for its progress and prosperity. Similarly Ahmadis of India are loyal to India. The position is inevitable. It is the position the late Quaid-i-Azam perceived so clearly in 1947. He commended to Indian Muslims the duty of loyalty to India. Ahmadis in Indonesia; are loyal to Indonesia, Ahmadis in Syria and Egypt to the UAR, Ahmadis in West Africa to their African Governments, Ahmadis in Germany are loyal to Germany, Ahmadis in Britain are loyal to Britain, in America to America and so on. This is the divine command and the voice of our hearts. And he who does not believe us and attributes some other belief to us, offends against God and grievously wrongs us. "And our last words are, True praise is for Allah alone, the Lord of all the Worlds."

[jules]

oooo frist post here!!

i think even replying to scum like that is just giving him attention that he doesn't deserve.. im sure no australians take one nation seriously (i mean they thought our economic problems could be solved by printing more money, hahah).. well maybe a few bigots in QLD, but you get that.

its obvious he is just s*** stirring.. trying to evoke an emotional response from you then ‘promising’ to reply after he has got his ammunition..

he probably forms his opinion of islam from the ever so educational site islam.org.au…

[irfyte]

assalamu alaykum.

sorry for my late reply. i am probably too late, but what can i do? i only discovered how to use this thing properly just now.

david oldfield has always been a racist and a ratbag since his days in the liberal party during the mid-1990's. he was once the liberal candidate for manly, and many people who worked on his campaign report him making anti-Asian remarks even back then.

however, unlike his former employer pauline hanson, oldfield is a very smart and very sneaky operator. be careful with him. if you ask him a number of questions, he will only answer the ones he can comfortably answer and ignore the rest. but if he asks you a number of questions, he will make sure you answer all of them. he will then take a sentence you (or some other muslim) made and find some alleged contradiction and then try and push you into a corner. and if he finds out you know what he is upto, he will finish it there.

this issue of loyalties is often raised with muslims. and i have no understanding why. i guess it is because many of us are migrants and at the moment questioning our loyalty is the flavour of the month. the opposition many muslims have to australia's involvement in the war can mean (in a simplistic sort of way) that our loyalties are elsewhere (perhaps even to So-damned Insane!).

the facts and arguments about all this are so many and so comprehensive that you would have to write an entire volume to do some justice to them. i am unqualified to write such a book. but i can say a few paragraphs:

1. shariah or islamic law has many departments. it is not just about punishments for crimes. one area of shariah deals with the status of bilateral promises and agreements (bilateral = involving 2 parties). according to shariah, a promise is sacred. there is an example of a sahabi who was imprisoned by the Makkans just before one of the first 2 battles. he killed one of his captors and managed to free himself of the other. the second captor allowed the sahabi to go free on condition that he not participate in the battle in the army of the Prophet . when the sahabi reached the Prophet , and when the Prophet heard about the promise, he forbade the man from fighting. and we all know that the army of the Prophet was desperately short of manpower. So the Prophet held a promise to be more important, even if it was a promise made to a non-muslim from a tribe at war with the islamic state.

2. the shariah also has a special department dealing with muslims living in a minority situation where their rights are respected. muslims living in such a situation has been tolerated by all schools of law. even the most reluctant school in this regard (the Maliki school) has a very comprehensive set of rulings.

3. if non-Muslim governments are prepared to protect the rights and liberties of their muslim subjects and are even prepared to allow muslims to run for parliament and be elected to high office while so-called muslim governments do not allow this, why shouldn't we show loyalty to our non-muslim government?

4. it is a basic Qur'anic requirement to obey Allah, His Messenger and 'those with authority over you'. this has been interpreted to include governments of various kinds.

in short, there is no necessary contradiction between loyalty to islam and loyalty to australia. this is our country, and it is upto us to play an active role in shaping the policies and laws of this country. if we sit on our laurels and allow islamophobia to spread like the 'SARS' virus, we only have ourselves to blame.

and as always, God knows what is best.

ma salama

[afroz]

Irfyte said:

Quote

in short, there is no necessary contradiction between loyalty to islam and loyalty to australia

I could not have said it better myself. Those asking the question of loyalties either has a problem with Islam, or has a problem with a Muslim being an Australian.

Was Salaam
Afroz