Sydney's Occupied Territories erupt with bucket loads of Taqiya and Harmony Day Spin

Muslim anger at 'barbaric' genital mutilation

Janet Fife-Yeomans, Mark Morri 

The Daily Telegraph
September 15, 2012 12:00AM

MUSLIM and community leaders yesterday slammed the "barbaric" act of female genital mutilation, saying it has no place in any society.

As police appealed for public help in exposing the practice after the arrests of four people, including a sheik, lawyer Wajiha Ahmed said female genital mutilation had nothing to do with the Muslim faith.

"The Islam that I am born under does not condone violence against women and does certainly not condone any form of FGM," Ms Ahmed, 36, said yesterday.

"Most Muslims I know are offended by any such claims that FGM would be considered an Islamic act."

Radio 2GB's Chris Smith speaks with Minister for Women and Families Pru Goward about the case.

Police have claimed that Sheik Shabbir Mohammedbhai Vaziri, who is accused of involvement in the "genital circumcision" of sisters aged 6 and 7, told his Muslim community in Auburn to lie about its widespread practice.

Community leader Jamal Rifi said a lot of work had been done to educate religious leaders to "condemn such a barbaric act".

"I was disturbed to learn that this is still taking place in NSW after all the work we have done," Dr Rifi said.

"I know for a fact that a lot of girls are suffering because of this and will continue to suffer for the rest of their lives."

The ABC yesterday backed radio presenter Linda Mottram, who asked the vice-president of Muslims Australia, Ikebal Patel, if there should be a "controlled version of FGM available through hospitals, carefully policed and done under strict medical conditions, in order to cater for those communities that insist that this is important".

Mr Patel said he did not share that view and believed the practice was "abhorrent".

An ABC spokesperson said: "Ms Mottram was doing what any good journalist would do, asking questions of the interviewee in order to reveal his opinion about the topic."

Muslim Insurgents Sydney Riot latest Video and Pictures

Should we have an absolute freedom of speech?

March 26, 2011
Opinion
The Age

The lawyer: Wajiha Ahmed

THE concept of ''absolute freedom of speech'' can be defined as publishing wholly what one feels or thinks. The issue I take with this in Australia is the potential for vilification and defamation of a group or an individual's beliefs. As a proud migrant, I brought my personal beliefs from my country of birth, Pakistan. Like many others who came to Australia, we all bring our individual points of view that create a rich and diverse society in which we seek to live without fear of reprisal.

In Australia we ensure that these views and beliefs are respected and protected through statutory channels at state and federal level. We can write publicly what we believe in. We do not have strictures on what websites we may visit, for instance. Our government does not interfere with what we are allowed to know about the world. Such freedom from censorship must be protected, but this must occur within reason.

I do not suggest we should be so restricted on our personal opinions by law that it may promote an abuse of process; for example, the blasphemy law in Pakistan, under which uttering a word or an action can be considered to be against Islam and attracts the death penalty. The recent assassination of the Governor of Punjab province, Salman Taseer, who openly stood up against this law to protect minority groups such as Christians is just one example of bigotry created by the law.

The case of Catch the Fire Ministries in the Victorian Court of Appeal, on the other hand, is an example of a group found to have contravened the state's Racial and Religious Tolerance Act, among other statutes, by virtue of certain publications against Islam. The group argued that it had a right to express its points of view and beliefs.

I suggest that the decision confirmed we should respect all persons and their beliefs without vilification or discrimination. To protect our right to belief without fear, I believe we should not have an absolute freedom of speech.

Wajiha Ahmed is a lawyer, lecturer at UTS and Southern Cross University and a commissioner with the NSW Community Relations Commission.

What is Taqiyya  (pronounced tak-e-ya )

Tradecraft. Persona. Deception. Disinformation. Cover: Western operational terms and techniques. But, Islamic terrorists have their own terms: taqiyya (pronounced tak-e-ya) : precautionary dissimulation or deception and keeping one's convictions secret and a synonymous term, kitman: mental reservation and dissimulation or concealment of malevolent intentions...
Taqiyya and kitman or 'holy hypocrisy' has been diffused throughout Arabic culture for over fourteen hundred years since it was developed by Shiites as a means of defence and concealment of beliefs against Sunni unbelievers. As the Prophet said: 'he who keeps secrets shall soon attain his objectives.'
The skilful use of taqiyya and kitman was often a matter of life and death against enemies; it is also a matter of life and death to many contemporary Islamic terrorists. As so often in the history of Islam, a theological doctrine became operational.
During the Spanish inquisition, Sunni Moriscos attended mass and returned home to wash their hands of the 'holy water'. In operational terms, taqiyya and kitman allowed the 'mujahadeen ' to assume whatever identity was necessary to fulfill their mission; they had doctrinal and theological and later jurisprudential sanction to pretend to be Jews or Christians to gain access to Christian and Jewish targets: 'the mujahadeen can take the shape of the enemy'.
According to Christian ethics lying is a sin; In Islamic jurisprudence and theology, the use of taqiyya against the unbelievers is regarded as a virtue and a religious duty.
Like many Islamic concepts taqiyya and kitman were formed within the context of the Arab-Islamic matrix of tribalism, expansionary warfare and conflict. Taqiyya has been used by Muslims since the 7th century to confuse and split 'the enemy'. A favored tactic was 'deceptive triangulation'; to persuade the enemy that jihad was not aimed at them but at another enemy. Another tactic was to deny that there was jihad at all. The fate for such faulty assessments by the target was death.

by Donald Hudson (Singapore), Sep 1, 2005