Skip to main content

Dutton and Turnbull’s Comments Deplorable, Policies worse still

Media Release
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull yesterday effectively endorsed the lowly remarks of his Immigration Minister Peter Dutton linking Lebanese Muslims to terrorism and suggesting that allowing Lebanese Muslim immigration in the 1970s was a mistake.
Hizb ut Tahrir / Australia adds its voice to community organisations that have rightly condemned these remarks, noting the following:
1.   Those whom Dutton condemns us unworthy of acceptance are in fact worthy of venerable praise. Facing the tribulations and horrors of war, Lebanese migrants in the 70s, like many others in this period, were forced to flee their homelands, fearing for their lives and livelihoods. Upon arrival in an entirely foreign land and culture, they were met with yet more tribulation and hardship – language barriers, forced career changes, homesickness, discrimination. Yet throughout this ordeal they put their best foot forward for the sake of their children. Dutton and Turnbull’s reproach of such people reflects on their own lowliness, taking away nothing from the admirable sacrifices of immigrants and refugees.
2.   Dutton’s remarks were manifestly derogatory and absurd. How can an entire community be held responsible for the crimes of a small minority committed decades later? Crimes are committed by elements of every community. Singling out one reveals the true intent of Peter Dutton. His grudge with Lebanese Muslims has more to do with Syria than local issues, as indicated by the security document leaked from his department in February this year which singled out Lebanese Muslims as the “most prominent ethnic group amongst Australian Sunni extremists”. The fact is that had Muslims travelled to Syria to support the Assad regime, instead of going to support the innocent people brutally oppressed by his regime, Dutton would be fine with that. “Terrorism” and “foreign fighters” are an excuse in a disgraceful and bloody political struggle between global and regional powers over Syria.
3.   If Dutton and Turnbull are so keen to learn lessons from past mistakes they can start with the “emigration policy” of King George III (a.k.a. colonialism), which led to the brutally violent founding of Australia on explicitly racist and inhumane grounds, and the effects of which persist to this day. They can also reflect on the role of western foreign policy that led to many of the humanitarian crises around the world in recent history, creating refugees in the first instance. Australian politicians love to boast about taking in humanitarian refugees, while consistently turning a blind eye to Australia’s role in creating them in the first place.
4.   At the core of such comments and policies is the abiding strategy of Australian Governments of both persuasions to blame Islam and Muslims for the ugly consequences of their own policies. By revolving the debate around beliefs, extremism, and immigration attention is deliberately deflected away from the fact that the primary cause of terrorism is politics and foreign policy. The focus on migrants is a cheap and irresponsible, but not surprising, attempt to play to prevalent racist fears of the threatening, subversive foreigner.
5.   It is worth reiterating that the “terrorism” which Dutton is ascribing to Lebanese Muslims is based on politicised convictions achieved through draconian anti-terror laws and a blatantly politicised anti-terror regime from the days of Howard through Rudd, Gillard and Abbott. The media trials, sensational raids, bullying spy tactics and circumstantial evidence used to garner convictions – mostly coming at just the right time to be paraded by authorities to push through more oppressive laws – are well known.
6.   The Muslim community is well accustomed to this sort of cheap politics, the dangers of which have only augmented in recent times. We acknowledge the community’s strong stance against this and urge her to continue to stand firm in the face of open hatred and exploitation. We advise those who in the past have been used by the government for its agenda on the pretence of “engagement”, only to be disregarded at every turn, to reconsider their approach. Importantly, we remind the community that our success rests solely with Allah and Islam.
﴿وَمَنْ يَتَّقِ اللَّهَ يَجْعَلْ لَهُ مَخْرَجًا
Whoever upholds taqwa of Allah, He shall make for him a way out (of difficulty).” [65:2]

Media Office of Hizb ut Tahrir in Australia

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

An advice to Muslims working in the financial sector

Assalam wa alaikum wa rahmatullah wabarakatahu, Dear Brothers & Sisters, We are saddened to see Muslims today even those who practise many of the rules of Islam are working in jobs which involve haram in the financial sector. They are working in positions which involve usurious (Riba) transactions, insurance, the stock market and the like. Even though many of the clear evidences regarding the severity of the sin of Riba are known, some have justified their job to themselves thinking that they are safe as long as they are not engaged in the actual action of taking or giving Riba. Brothers & Sisters, You should know that the majority of jobs in the financial sector, even the IT jobs in this area are haram (prohibited) as they involve the processing of prohibited contracts. If you work in this sector, do not justify your job to yourself because of the fear of losing your position or having to change your career, fear Allah as he should be feared and consider His law regard

Q&A: Age of separating children in the beds?

Question: Please explain the hukm regarding separation of children in their beds. At what age is separation an obligation upon the parents? Also can a parent sleep in the same bed as their child? Answer: 1- With regards to separating children in their beds, it is clear that the separation which is obligatory is when they reach the age of 7 and not since their birth. This is due to the hadith reported by Daarqutni and al-Hakim from the Messenger (saw) who said: When your children reach the age of 7 then separate their beds and when they reach 10 beat them if they do not pray their salah.’ This is also due to what has been narrated by al-Bazzar on the authority of Abi Rafi’ with the following wording: ‘We found in a sheet near the Messenger of Allah (saw) when he died on which the following was written: Separate the beds of the slave boys and girls and brothers and sisters of 7 years of age.’ The two hadiths are texts on the separation of children when they reach the age of 7. As for the

Q&A: Shari' rule on songs, music, singing & instruments?

The following is a draft translation from the book مسائل فقهية مختارة (Selected fiqhi [jurprudential] issues) by the Mujtahid, Sheikh Abu Iyas Mahmoud Abdul Latif al-Uweida (May Allah protect him) . Please refer to the original Arabic for exact meanings. Question: What is the Shari’ ruling in singing or listening to songs?  What is the hukm of using musical instruments and is its trade allowed? I request you to answer in detail with the evidences? Answer: The Imams ( Mujtahids ) and the jurists have differed on the issue of singing and they have varying opinions such as haraam (prohibited), Makruh (disliked) and Mubah (permissible), the ones who have prohibited it are from the ones who hold the opinion of prohibition of singing as a trade or profession, and a similar opinion has been transmitted from Imam Shafi’i, and from the ones who disliked it is Ahmad Ibn Hanbal who disliked the issue and categorised its performance under disliked acts, a similar opinion has been tran