Husic, Parliament and Creeping Sharia

By now all of you would have heard about the first Australian front bencher being sworn in, using a Koran instead of the Bible. Ed Husic, a Labor MP from western Sydney was appointed a Parliamentary Secretary this week, and swore his oath on his father’s Koran with Governor-General Quentin Bryce.

This caused no small stir. As one news report said, “Anonymous internet trolls attacked Mr Husic, the Australian-born son of Bosnian immigrants, on his Facebook page. ‘You have created history of the worst order, to swear in on a Koran!! This is Australia with Australian Laws,’ said one poster calling herself Dinki Di Sheila. ‘Swore to serve Australia using the same book terrorists do to serve al-Qa’ida . . . Disgusting,’ said another.”

In another article we find this: “Some called it un-Australian and unconstitutional. ‘Our allegiance should have been to Queen and Country first Ed. That means saying the oath on the holy bible not the Koran…. Shame, Shame, Shame,’ posted one user, Ross Peace. ‘I am so disappointed in this government that they don’t have the spine to stand up for the Australian way of life’.”

So what are we to make of all this? Let me suggest three things which can be said.

One. This is not the first time this has happened. Overseas we have seen similar things occurring. For example, in November 2006, Keith Ellison, a Democrat from Minnesota who was the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, declined to take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the Koran instead.

This too caused a major controversy. Jewish commentator Dennis Prager weighed in pretty heavily on this: “What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.

“Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison’s favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don’t serve in Congress. In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath.

“Devotees of multiculturalism and political correctness who do not see how damaging to the fabric of American civilization it is to allow Ellison to choose his own book need only imagine a racist elected to Congress. Would they allow him to choose Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf,’ the Nazis’ bible, for his oath? And if not, why not? On what grounds will those defending Ellison’s right to choose his favorite book deny that same right to a racist who is elected to public office?

“Of course, Ellison’s defenders argue that Ellison is merely being honest; since he believes in the Koran and not in the Bible, he should be allowed, even encouraged, to put his hand on the book he believes in. But for all of American history, Jews elected to public office have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they do not believe in the New Testament, and the many secular elected officials have not believed in the Old Testament either.

“Yet those secular officials did not demand to take their oaths of office on, say, the collected works of Voltaire or on a volume of New York Times editorials, writings far more significant to some liberal members of Congress than the Bible. Nor has one Mormon official demanded to put his hand on the Book of Mormon. And it is hard to imagine a scientologist being allowed to take his oath of office on a copy of ‘Dianetics’ by L. Ron Hubbard.”

Two. It is not required to swear an oath with a hand on the Bible. Indeed, Kevin Rudd refused to use a Bible for his swearing in, and atheist Julia Gillard gave the oath a miss, choosing instead to go with a non-religious ‘affirmation of office’. So Husic could simply have declined to use a Bible as well. There was no need or requirement for him to bring in a Koran.

Three. The issue really is not so much about a Muslim MP versus non-Muslim MPs, as about the Bible versus the Koran. The Bible has an historical place in Australia and the West for very good reason. It is in large measure due to the Judeo-Christian worldview that the West even exists.

Image of The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success
The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success by Stark, Rodney (Author) Amazon logo

Yes ancient Greece played a role in the formation of Western values such as democracy, but only to a limited extent. As Rodney Stark wrote in The Victory of Reason: “While the classical world did provide examples of democracy, these were not rooted in any general assumptions concerning equality beyond an equality of the elite. Even when they were ruled by elected bodies, the various Greek city-states and Rome were sustained by large numbers of slaves. And just as it was Christianity that eliminated the institution of slavery inherited from Greece and Rome, so too does Western democracy owe its essential intellectual origins and legitimacy to Christian ideals, not to any Greco-Roman legacy. It all began with the New Testament.”

Primarily it is the worldview of the Bible that gave rise to all the great achievements, institutions and documents of the West, such as the Magna Carta, the US Constitution, the rule of law, the value of the individual, the separation of powers, and so on. It certainly was not the Koran which helped bring about Western civilisation.

Australia is what it is because of the Bible, not the Koran. So to allow a Koran to be used instead of the Bible means that we are not only dismissing the very heritage and foundation of who we are, but we are affirming and endorsing a book which is inimical to our very values.

I cannot go into it here, but the Koran is not a book one would go to to learn about such things as freedom, democracy, human rights, and the separation of church and state. All that and more can be gleaned from the Bible (both Jewish and Christian) but it cannot be derived from the Koran.

Thus this whole affair could have been defused by Husic using a bit of common sense and respect for this country, and simply declining to use the Bible, as his Labor mates Kevin and Julia did. But by insisting on dragging a Koran into all this, we have another case of creeping sharia and stealth jihad.

And it does not matter how much the media claims that Husic is a non-practicing Muslim. As he said recently, “I often get told that I describe myself as non-practising when in actual fact I don’t go round saying that. Like I just say ‘I’m Muslim.’.”

Fine, let him be a nominal Muslim MP. But things will not stop there. What happens when a more devout Muslim gets elected? What if he starts making other demands, such as only having halal food and drink served in the parliament, or demanding time off for Ramadan, or insisting that women MPs be separated from the men?

Don’t laugh, this is happening all over Australia already, so it is just a matter of time before it happens in our parliaments. For this and other reasons, it was a bad idea for Husic to bring in his Koran. That fact that it is his dad’s Koran must mean that he does not read it anyway. So why did he even bother? Australia, be forewarned.,_not_keith_ellison,_decides_what_book_a_congressman_takes_his_oath_on/page/full

[1297 words]

21 Replies to “Husic, Parliament and Creeping Sharia”

  1. Thankyou Bill for shedding light on these matters. I couldn’t believe what I was reading in your earlier article on Taqiyya, when a reader commented in passing on the Australian Minister of State who was sworn in on the Koran. I had to research the matter and was amazed!

    It seems to me that the dogma of multiculturalism is making useful idiots of us all, as we bend one knee to the anti-capitalist, Common Purpose agenda inspired by Saul Alinsky and the other knee to the punitive agenda of Islam. Both covert ideologies, both expansionist, both coming from the top down in their pervasiveness,both using intimidation to achieve their ends, both a threat to freedom.

    Jesus said “I am the way, the truth and the life” and I believe and trust in Him, not these competing ideologies on a collision course to win ascendency and power. “For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory, for ever and ever,Amen” are the words Jesus taught us to pray to our Father in heaven, who is our God of more than justice but above all of love; love of God and love of our neighbour as ourselves.

    Christianity has wrongly persecuted people in the past and many sins have been commited under its auspices but we should rediscover the humility and love that Jesus taught us.

    Rachel Smith, UK

  2. I wonder how Israel handles this?

    What happens when Arab citizens of Israel are elected to the Knesset? How do they take an oath of office?

    John Angelico

  3. Perhaps the greater issue is the fact that so many pollies took their oath on the Bible which they did not believe.

    Peter Barnes

  4. SHAME on the Governor General – She has a DUTY to UPHOLD the AUSTRALIAN HERITAGE & Judeo-Christian Values & to not pander to Politicians demands of using the Koran.
    The Koran should be banned from Parliament!
    The Politician should either renounce Islam Publicly or get out of Parliament immediately.
    Islam is not compatible with Democratic Government – it is an ideology based on hate & higher-minded thinking.
    The Governor General should Publicly Apologize or resign immediately.

    Barb Hoc

  5. Couldn’t agree more.
    Interesting, though that Rudd refused to swear on the Bible. He presents himself as Catholic, Anglican, etc, etc. In the end, what does he really stand for?

    Dunstan Hartley

  6. Rudd’s refusal to take oath on the Bible is the logical conclusion to refusing to believe its content.

    Another example of blind craziness and hatred by those who reject God, saying there should be no holy book involved in politics but if Christians can use the bible, Muslims should be able to use the qur’an.

    Hang on, contradict much?

    So your problem is not with Islam really but with Christianity? You just want to pretend its also with Islam for the sake of denying Christians.

    It’s one or the other according to logic but these guys show their antichristian discrimination through illogic.

    Simon Fox

  7. As you say Bill you are fore-warning us, but and there is always a but, will it translate into a fore-arming of a stupid self-serving populace in the fight against the rising tide of Islam? I think not!
    Leigh Stebbins

  8. What is the correct application of James 5:12 and the related teaching of our Lord Jesus on the swearing of oaths [Mat 5:33-37]?

    In a political climate where backflips on policy are all too common and core promises and core values of public figures are far from set in concrete, to swear an oath by Almighty God on the Holy Scriptures is to risk using the name of God in vain. Taqiyya is a political technique used by politicians who themselves have no loyalty to Islam – The will to power knows no absolute truth… How about a radical, Christian option of a solemn affirmation suffixed by the prayer, “So help me God.”?

    John Wigg

  9. While astonished that Kevin Rudd refused to swear on the Bible, it will take a revival to turn our nation to a position where the biblical world-view will be the common cultural consensus. How can we impress on our politicians that democracy cannot succeed without a biblically-based cultural consensus? To this end Peter Barnes’ comment is profound.

    Eric Frith

  10. Seriously? For Husic to swear on the Bible would have been blasphemous for him and scandal and sacrilege to Christians. The purpose of an oath is to swear upon something one holds sacred. The Bible is not sacred to a Muslim. And Christians should be scandalised if the Bible be used to swear an oath by a non-Christian. Unless of course Christianity has become devoid of meaning so that it no longer matters.

    Also democracy is not a Christian invention. Tell that to the ancient Greeks.

    Clara Geoghegan

  11. Further, you should perhaps study medieval Islam which brought the West huge advances in opthalmology, obstetrics, algebra – and even conserved some Classical and early Christian writings which might otherwise have been lost in the Dark Ages. You cannot tar all Muslims with the same brush or you run the risk of radicalising the moderates – at our peril.

    Clara Geoghegan

  12. Thanks Clara. But you obviously have not even bothered to read my article – or at least read it carefully. I clearly stated that Ed need not have used the Bible at all, just like his other Labor buddies. I clearly said that this would have alleviated many of our concerns altogether here.

    And your second rather vacuous complaint I get all the time from angry atheists. I sure don’t expect to get it from someone who claims to be a Christian. If you bothered to carefully read my article, you will see that I noted that while Greece made some contributions to democracy, it was a far cry from the democracy we enjoy today, which most certainly was the product of the Judeo-Christian worldview. Just consider the fact that the majority of Greeks were slaves – hardly a great example of democracy. Sorry, but I will stick with scholars like Stark and others here who certainly do know what they are talking about in this regard.

    And your unhelpful line about “radicalising the moderates” is of course something I have dealt with far too often here to have to repeat yet again.

    To be honest, why in the world you seem to be attacking your own faith here, while acting as an apologist for Islam, is beyond me.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  13. Thanks again Clara. There are many myths about Islam, and this happens to be one of the biggest ones. The idea that science and learning flourished under Islam has been shown to be basically a myth. While minor developments did occur during this period, the truth is, much of this happened in spite of Islam, not because of it. For example, most of the supposed achievements of scientific advancement during this period happened not because of Islam and Muslims, but took place at the hands of Jews and Christians who were imprisoned by Islam or living in dhimmitude under them. Indeed, while Islam benefited from the Greek sciences, this was translated for them by Christians and Jews living under their domination.

    And much of this was of course not scientific innovation, but really a case of borrowing and transmission, as with paper-making coming from China, the algebraic concept of zero brought in from India, or the translation of some books by Aristotle, etc. And things like Islamic architecture were of course heavily dependent on Byzantine. Thus regrettably it is you who needs to do some reading here. You might start with Robert Reilly’s important volume, The Closing of the Muslim Mind.

    But perhaps your zeal to promote Islam is due to a love of coffee, something I can share with you! But again, this had nothing to do with Islam. Islam did not “invent” coffee – they simply popularized an existing discovery by Africans who were part of the Arab slave trade.

    And the “Dark Ages”? Really?! That of course was the pejorative term which Enlightenment atheists and secularists used of the Middle Ages which was in fact a period of great flowering of science, learning and the preservation of Christianity – all by Christians. Don’t you even know what the monks and monasteries were doing during this period for example? Again, I get this foolishness from atheists all the time.

    Given that you were someone I once knew as a Catholic, it almost sounds like you have abandoned the cross and taken up the crescent with all your misguided Islamic apologetics here. How bizarre: bagging your own faith while pushing a faith which is hostile to it.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  14. This is really a storm in a teacup. Christianity, Islam and Judaism are all Abrahamic religions and being so, have many similarities. We would all fare better to understand more about each other than spread alarmist views.

    Catherine Voutier, Victoria

  15. Thanks Catherine. But respectfully, those who talk about these great similarities are usually those who know nothing about Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, The differences between the last two for example are fundamental, implacable, and un-bridgeable. The very heart of Christianity is the truth claim that God’s son Jesus died on a cross and rose again for our sins. Islam vehemently insists that it is blasphemous to suggest that God has a son, and denies that Jesus died and rose again. You don’t get much more disparate than that.

    But I lay out these huge differences in much more detail elsewhere, eg:

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  16. I haven’t read the quran, but I recall a television program where someone said that its not a requirement for muslims to tell the truth. If is that is in the quran, then what are the expectations from someone swearing on the quran?

    Dom Amato

  17. To Catherine,
    All three acknowledge one God but it is difficult to get much further. However the more you study all three the better you’ll understand the problems.

    Katherine Fishley

  18. It seems to be impossible to get sensible fair and open discussion on these matters in the media, without being labelled a Racist or worse, eg. as in the case of Geert Wilders. Is it too late to preserve Western Judeao Christian Culture? One approach might be to encourage the distribution of the Koran together with the Bible, so that enquirers can make their own assessment of their teachings.
    Richard Pratt

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *