AUSTRALIAN PREFERENCE FOR CHRISTIAN REFUGEES: SANITY AT LAST!

In an OP-ED NYT piece entitled, “Australia’s Immoral Preference for Christian Refugees” (May 3, 2017), A. Odysseus Patrick wrote:

·       Like many Western countries, Australia has agreed to resettle refugees from the wars in Syria and Iraq. Unlike other countries, Australia explicitly favors Christians, even though they are a minority of those seeking refuge.

·       78 percent of the approximately 18,563 refugees from Syria and Iraq granted entry from July 1, 2015, to Jan. 6 of this year identified themselves as Christian…The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees puts the number of registered Christian refugees from Iraq at around 15 percent. The figure for Syria is just under 1 percent.

These stats are highly misleading. For one thing, Christians are afraid to go to the refugee camps and register because they are routinely harassed by the Muslim refugees and even forced to convert.

The Patrick cites another grossly misleading claim:

·       “Christians from conflict zones in Syria and Iraq aren’t persecuted more than others,” said the head of Human Rights Watch in Australia, Elaine Pearson. “In both Syria and Iraq, Muslims have overwhelmingly borne the brunt of most of the atrocities by ISIS and by the Assad regime.”

Muslims have “overwhelming borne the brunt” simply because they (the Sunnis) are the ones who have tried to overthrow the Shiite Assad. They are also the ones trying to overthrow the largely Shiite-run Iraqi government in Bagdad, Iraq. They are the ones who are continuing to rebel against these two governments. Is it any surprise then that it is the Sunnis are bearing the brunt of the fighting and the resulting deaths!

In contrast, the Christians are innocent non-combatants. Why then should they be targeted for rapes, sex-slavery, beheadings, and forced conversions? There is no reason for this apart from hatred and fidelity to the Koran and other Islamic writings. Therefore, it is misleading to play down victimization and genocide of the Christians.

However, Patrick claims that it is immoral for Australia to favor Christian refugees:

·       Selecting refugees based on their spiritual beliefs is a form of state-supported prejudice that secular societies like Australia have a moral obligation to reject.

Perhaps instead Australians (along with a growing number of Westerners) are tired of being raped, living in fear, no-go zones, and even being killed for the sake of jihad. Perhaps they are also aware of Islamic history which has earned for Islam the label of “The ultimate killing machine.” Perhaps they are also knowledgeable of the fact that all non-Muslims live in subjection to Islam in every Muslim nation. Perhaps they are also aware of the teachings of the Quran.

Ibn Khaldun, a 15th century Tunisian historian, has spoken for the majority of the Islamic world writing:

·       In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force... The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense... Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.

This teaching is derived from the Holy Koran:

·       “Make war on them until idolatry is no more and Allah’s religion [Islam] reigns supreme.” (Koran Surah 8:37)

·       “When the Sacred Months are over, kill those who ascribe partners [like Jesus] to God wheresoever ye find them; seize them, encompass them, and ambush them; then if they repent and observe prayer and pay the alms, let them go their way’.” (Koran 4:5)

·       “…kill the disbelievers wherever we find them” (Koran 2:191) and “murder them and treat them harshly” (Koran 9:123), and “Strike off the heads of the disbelievers.” (Koran 8:12, cp. 8:60)

Do most Muslims believe this way? Evidently! Surveys have demonstrated that the majority of Muslims still seek a worldwide Caliphate, which places everyone under Islamic dominion.

It is these teachings that have led to the slaughter and destruction of the Church wherever Islam has gone. And where the Church still exists in Islamic lands, it must submit to Islamic domination.

It is clear that true Muslims do not respect Western laws, including the laws of Australia. They believe that they can only live under sharia. Why then do they come to the West instead of Islamic nations? They might truly be oppressed, but they also believe in the Koran’s teachings about immigration Jihad:

·       Koran Surah 4:100-01: He who forsakes his home in the cause of Allah [Jihad], finds in the earth Many a refuge, wide and spacious: Should he die as a refugee from home for Allah and His Messenger, His reward becomes due and sure with Allah. And Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. When ye travel through the earth, there is no blame on you if ye shorten your prayers, for fear the Unbelievers May attack you: For the Unbelievers are unto you open enemies.

Believing Muslims regard all “unbelievers” as “open enemies.” Therefore, they are not grateful for the shelter and hospitality that they are now receiving in the West. Instead, they will conjure up all forms of Western alleged abuses against Islam to convince themselves that Westerners are evil and rightly deserve the Islamic sword.

They also deceptively use “friendship” in order to advance the Islamic agenda. A believing Muslim is not allowed to truly befriend the non-Muslim:

·       Koran 3:27 “Let not the believers take the disbelievers for friends rather than believers. And whoever does this has no connection with Allah unless it is done [deceptively] to guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully.”

·       Koran 5:54 “O ye who believe, take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors. They are but friends and protectors to each other.”

How do Muslims interpret these verses? This comes from the following fatwa which quotes the Koran in support (www.koranqa.com; fatwa 59879):

·       “Undoubtedly the Muslim is obliged to hate the enemies of Allaah and to disavow them, because this is the way of the Messengers and their followers. Allaah says:

o   [60:4] “Indeed there has been an excellent example for you in Ibraaheem (Abraham) and those with him, when they said to their people: ‘Verily, we are free from you and whatever you worship besides Allaah, we have rejected you, and there has started between us and you, hostility and hatred for ever until you believe in Allaah Alone’”

·       “Based on this, it is not permissible for a Muslim to feel any love in his heart towards the enemies of Allaah who are in fact his enemies too. Allaah says”:

o   [60:1] “O you who believe! Take not My enemies and your enemies (i.e. disbelievers and polytheists) as friends, showing affection towards them, while they have disbelieved in what has come to you of the truth”

·       “But if a Muslim treats them with kindness and gentleness in the hope that they will become Muslim and will believe, there is nothing wrong with that, because it comes under the heading of opening their hearts to Islam. But if he despairs of them becoming Muslim, then he should treat them accordingly.”

Consequently, in view of such deception, there are no reliable means to vet Muslim immigrants.

What does it mean to treat the non-Muslim “accordingly?” The many Koranic teachings on Jihad tell us:

·       Koran 2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing...but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun(the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (Translation is from the Noble Quran)

·       2:216 - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."

·       3:151 - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions [like Jesus] with Allah, for which He had sent no authority".

·       4:89 - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."

·       8:12 - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them."

·       9:5 - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them."

These are not verses about self-defense, but about worldwide conquest. What about the “peaceful” Koranic verses. As any Islamic scholar knows, those verses were given before Muhammad had an army. In his earlier years, the only way to win converts was through preaching a message of peace and acceptance. However, the peaceable verses have been replaced (the doctrine of “abrogation”) by later verses, according to the Koran:

·       2.106  “If we abrogate any verse or cause it to be forgotten, We will replace it by a better one or one similar.” [also 13.39]

If Patrick truly believes that it is immoral for Australia to prefer Christian refugees, why does he not cite the Obama administration for consistently favoring Muslim Syrian refugees over Christian refugees, 99% against less than 1% Christian refugees? This is especially troubling in view of the fact that Syria had been 10% Christian.

Patrick is correct to be concerned about immorality. However, sometimes “good fences make good neighbors” might represent the height of morality when it comes to Islam. If there was just one Islamic nation where non-Muslims were allowed to live as equals, there might be reason for. If there was just one Western nation where a large Muslim minority was willing to live happily without attempting to impose sharia law, which denies human rights on so many levels, Patrick might have some justification for his charge of immorality.

Historically and understandably, nations have favored those immigrants who could best forward the welfare of the receiving nation. Why then does Patrick single out Australia’s preference for Christians?

Patrick minimizes the growing antipathy towards the Muslim:

·       Muslims, especially those from the Middle East, have an image problem in the Western world. Concerns are fed by a legitimate fear of terrorism and the alienness of Muslim and Arabic social norms, clothing and language.

·       In Australia, hostility is fanned by populist politicians and Rupert Murdoch’s tabloid newspapers, which are eager to seize on perceived slights to Anglo-Australian culture by the nation’s tiny population of militant or orthodox Muslims.

If the problem was just with a “tiny population,” perhaps the West could endure the “perceived slights.” However, what has happened in Nice, Fort Hood, Paris, San Bernardino; 9/11; and Orlando are not anomalies when understood in the context of Islamic history and the Islamic holy writings. Instead, these horrors are a direct outgrowth of Islam, a religion that tangibly hates all non-Muslims.

Meanwhile, Western Europe is reeling under the impact of a growing Islamic population. Sweden has become the rape capital of Europe, if not the world. Jews are fleeing, in mass, before Islamic violence and the inability of the West to effectively counteract it.

Why shouldn’t Australia be concerned? If they are concerned about the welfare of their nation, they should be. And why shouldn’t they prefer those refugees who would be grateful and would make a positive adjustment to their host nation?

Instead, we should ask why the NYT and the Western elites show so little concern about the welfare of their own people, nation, and values. While it is admirable that they sense a responsibility for the refugee, there are far safer ways to fulfill this responsibility.