24 June 2015, on behalf of Richard Sibthorpe, submission to the Senate Economics References Committee for

THIRD PARTY CERTIFICATION OF FOOD CONTENTS 1 Introduction p1 2 Item a. submission p2 3 Item b. submission P3 4 Item c. submission P4 5 Item d. submission P4 6 Item e. Submission P5 7 Item f. Submission p6 8 Item g. Submission p7 9 Islam’s Jizya p8 10 My Recommendation p10 11 Conclusion p11 12 Footnotes p12

1 Introduction

While this submission is formulated in accordance with the seven line items of enquiry a. to g. which is laid out by the Senate Committee, it specifically relates to the HALAL component referred to in item a. as it is associated with the Islamic religion. In Islam, halal means permitted, licit. My area of major concern is that while this halal matter is an Islamic religious and Sharia Law parameter, nevertheless it has drawn in and thereby directly effects the wider non Islamic community about Australia – yet this vast majority of Australian citizens have not been asked to participate in this Islamic religious exercise, nor do they have any say in this.

In its enquiry into this subject area, it is essential that the Senate Committee does recognise and understand the direct connection between the Islamic religion with its divinely specified halal food requirement, and how this requirement directly feeds through to increased food prices for each and every non Muslim citizen in modern Australia. This is the case even though this latter majority has, as I believe, no desirability to understand or adhere to these particular requirements of the Islamic religion. To assist the Committee in this area, in this submission I will present some relevant information concerning the nature of this halal requirement within Islam itself.

My submission will also refer to some areas where these halal requirements of the Islamic religion, as they are manipulated and implemented by some, would be clearly objectionable to otherwise genuine Australians if they were aware that this is happening.

I put the case that, to the extent that Islamic halal certification is a religious based food requirement for certain Australian citizens, the non Muslim component of that citizenry should not have to contribute even one cent of any associated costs. In the cause of freedom of religious association, these costs should be 100% met by those who require (and even demand) this divinely prescribed food processing setup with its certification overhead. But as I write, this is not the case and to the extent that this is not the case, non-Muslim Australians are effectively being subjected to an element of Sharia Law, a subjection I shall demonstrate in this submission. This is an abhorrent situation being forced upon me and my fellow citizens by Islam and certain food suppliers and in its meek acceptance of Islamic sovereignty in this area, possibly even by the government of Australia.

My submission follows.

1 2 Item a. the extent of food certification schemes and certifiers in Australia including, but not limited to, schemes related to organic, kosher, halal and genetically-modified food and general food safety certification schemes

Submission for Item a. As advised in the Introduction above, this submission specifically addresses the halal food requirement of the Islamic religion and how this impacts on the broader Australian community. On behalf of that broader community, as this submission will canvass, I have very particular concerns regarding this subject area.

I am comfortable that any food certification requirements that may be associated with other non government non-Muslim elements in Australia, if they exist, do not impose a direct cost overhead to the supplier, and thereby filtering through to the shelf price, as halal certification does. However if I am mistaken here then I accept that, as for halal certification, circumstances should change so that those community elements which require any such certification overheads meet the full associated costs themselves.

The Committee cannot genuinely weigh up the pros and cons of this subject area without being at least generally aware of the religious nature of this halal food requirement with respect to Islam. This is not to presume that I or any Committee member should think they might come to know as much in this area as trained Islamic clergy. Yet for the most part this same Islamic clergy simply interpret the very verses and clauses within the Islamic texts which I and other non Muslims have also referred to. That I and these other non Muslims have made the effort to access and study these Islamic texts has created a serious problem for modern day halal certification agencies which make huge profits in this area. This is because these agencies and representatives rely on non Muslim Australians being entirely ignorant of these texts. To this end, I will use this Item a. submission to provide a minimum amount of detail in this theatre. As I do this, the Senate Committee may be assured that I make no running commentary about these Islamic texts. I just quote them and where it is relevant, in plain English, I interpret them.

A prerequisite is that it is essential for the Committee to understand that in its totality, the Islamic civilisation is in fact a theocracy where there is little to no separation between its divine (i.e. religious) nature and its wider community governance of the daily life of every practising Muslim, every aspect of which is regulated by Sharia Law. In Islam there is no separation between these elements as is the case within a Western Democracy. Islamic Sharia Law emanates directly from its religious texts being the Koran and Hadith. Sharia Law is simply the manmade codified law book of God’s will for humankind as was delivered via His messenger Muhammad in the 7th century.

The early verses of the Koran’s Sura 5 hold God’s instructions regarding suitable food for the Muslim. [FN1] These are reasonably wide-ranging and apart from livestock meat, with respect to fees being paid, in themself put the lie to just about all halal food certification schemes currently in operation for non meat food products. There is no Koranic verse, advice or even inference that justifies Australian food producers handing over large amounts of money to Islamic representatives for the purpose of attaching a simple logo to their packaging. This the Koranic fact. This is what God informs His believers about food in His Koran “All wholesome things have this day been made lawful to you.” (God, Koran 5:5)

Sharia Law is slightly more prescriptive in this area. [FN2] Of the 600 pages of the English translation of Sharia Law regulation, just seven pages of this are dedicated to Food under the following clause headings: Avoiding Doubtful Foods, Animals Lawful and Unlawful To Eat, Other Substances Unlawful To Eat, Hunting and Slaughtering [FN3]. This legal document divides food into three different categories (a) Halal - permitted foods (b) Makruh - foods that may be eaten but which Muslims are not encouraged to eat, and (c) Haram - forbidden foods. More specifically, Sharia Law instructs that Muslims must make

2 sure not to eat the following: pig meat, the meat of carnivorous animals, any form of blood, animals strangled to death and animals not killed for food in the correct way which is called Dhabihah. Dhabihah requires that the slaughterer must be a sane Muslim, Jew or Christian who in the act of slaughtering with a sharp knife so that the blood flows freely, must ensure that the animal is facing Mecca whilst proclaiming that they are killing it in the name of God. God instructs His believers about this in His Koran. [FN4] Game hunted or fished by oneself is ok to eat. Other prohibited food products are jelly that contains gelatine because this is made from the horns and hooves of animals which may be haram (unlawful, forbidden), and certain sorts of cheese because animal products are used in making them. Anything which causes addiction is also forbidden to ingest which includes drugs and alcohol. But more particularly, this law book includes this ‘plain English’ advice about food “This section is an explanation of what is lawful (halal) and unlawful (haram), the knowledge of which is among the most important concerns of the religion, since knowing it is personally obligatory for every Muslim ...... The case of meats is exceptional in this, since most other foods are initially permissible, and one assumes they remain so unless one is certain something has occurred which has made them unlawful” [FN5].

As for my earlier comment about the Koran, meat and gelatine based products and some cheeses aside, within these seven pages there is no Sharia Law regulation, advice or inference that justifies Australian food producers handing over large amounts of money to Islamic representatives for the purpose of attaching a simple logo to their packaging. Sharia Law does not prescribe this transfer of money nor does it authorise this nor does it deem it in any way necessary. This is the Sharia Law fact. So the justification for annual ongoing halal certification fees has to be found elsewhere outside any Islamic religious or legal association.

It is my view that the multitude of agencies which demand these halal certification fees are essentially fraudulent. Meat, cheese and gelatine based products aside, formal certification is hardly necessary and given some certified products do not actually carry the logo, neither is the caper orientated towards the practising Muslim. Rather it is orientated towards the financial welfare of the certifier (see section 9, Jizya Tax commentary to follow).

So we arrive at the main stadium: in religious terms, halal certification of meat is very important to the practising Muslim - it is a Sharia Law obligation [FN6]. But I object to this process as it applies to halal certified meat products supplied to the wider domestic market in Australia. My primary objection is with the Sharia Law regulation which, whilever it is applied in this country, designates many Australian Aboriginals and all other non Jewish/non Christian Australians as second class human beings who because they are of this lesser worth than the Muslim/Christian/Jew, are unfit to labour in the halal food processing chain. So this class of Australians must not (i.e. cannot) participate in live meat slaughter and processing for the wider Australian community. The Committee should understand that this prohibition is exactly what the Islamic halal logo represents. This is an abhorrent and distasteful set of circumstances and in our modern times it should not be allowed to continue. So although Sharia Law codification was drawn up and signed off on in the Middle Ages, via the existing halal meat processing processes in modern Australia, this ancient law is very much in play here and, as it stands, this logo carries with it this disgraceful and demeaning association. I shall elaborate this aspect in my Item d.

3 Item b. current labelling requirements of food certification schemes

Submission for Item b. As this wider submission demonstrates, on a number of basis I object to the status quo re halal certification in Australia. To this end I do inspect products on the supermarket shelves to ascertain if they carry the halal logo. If they do, I put them back on the shelf. I do not buy them given the seriously negative inference the Islamic halal logo carries with respect to many Australian Aborigines and other non Christian/non Jewish Australian citizens.

3 This personal pre purchasing inspection exercise is not straightforward wherever the logo is not clearly or obviously marked. However this is an overhead I have to wear as I stand up for my fellow Australians in this domain where, to now, our government has not.

If halal food product certification is to continue to take place in Australia where ongoing fees are paid to the Islamic quarter, then each and every such product must be clearly labelled to this effect. Australians like myself must be given the choice, and the means to make that choice, to buy or not buy this category of product. We should never be in a position where we are in effect supporting a Sharia Law requirement and funding Islam, without our knowledge or consent.

4 Item c. the need for labelling on products produced by companies that pay certification fees

Submission for Item c. However what should not be acceptable or allowable is where halal certified food products are not halal logo labelled. My understanding is that in certain circumstances some halal certified products do not carry any halal logo. I believe this is because the supplier is aware of people like me who will refuse to purchase their product if we were provided with this information.

This scenario arises where the food supplier pays the Islamic certifying agent its demand for the large sum of certification money, but which agent then does not go the final step and demand that the halal logo appear on the product. This is because the agent is only interested in the money going into their pocket or to fund the Islamic cause. This type of circumstance demonstrates that “halal certification” is not a religious matter given, as put here, the welfare of practising Muslims is clearly immaterial – no one knows that the product is suitable for Muslims to consume because that is not what this is about. It is about money changing hands. This is in line with the Islamic Jizya Tax which I shall separately refer to later on, but when I do, please refer back to this paragraph.

Now wherever this ‘non logo display’ may be so, this is both unprofessional and sneaky. In such a scenario, it is probable I could be assisting the Islamic cause and adhering to Sharia Law, all without my knowledge. A clearly placed halal logo on all halal certified products would eliminate any such unwelcome possibility.

5 Item d. whether current schemes provide enough information for Australian consumers to make informed purchasing decisions

Submission for Item d. I accept that a practising Muslim would find it convenient to have an assuring halal logo placed on all food packaging that meets their religious requirements. This would make life easier for them. So at the end of the day, setting aside for now my serious objection regarding meat supply certification, elsewise I have no objection to the halal logo being placed on food products available to the general population provided the Islamic quarter itself (such as it is) meets 100% of any associated financial costs. No other non Muslim Australian has any responsibility to pay any costs which might accrue directly as a consequence of benefiting or placating Islam and its followers.

Therefore the halal logo must implicitly imply to the purchaser that all associated costs are met by the Islamic quarter and that thereby this logo does not add to the shelf price. If this is not the case then the halal logo must be accompanied by a statement next to it to the effect that the halal certification costs inherent with this product have been included within the purchase price. The buyer must be made aware of this additional purchase price component.

At the earlier Item a., I advised of the Sharia Law requirement that for meat to be fit for Muslim consumption, the animal must be killed in a certain way (Dhabihah) which involves a number of conditions. One of these conditions is that the slaughterer must be a sane Muslim, Jew or Christian

4 person. So in order for a halal logo to be attached to meat products supplied to the Australian domestic supermarket shelf, the foregoing Sharia Law specified preconditions must be met. My understanding is that they are. Where this is so, Sharia Law is being implemented within Australia. This implication is horrendous. Let me explain.

What is disgraceful about this situation is that the non Muslim majority of Australians buy these meat products from our supermarkets. No problem here. But when we buy these products, unbeknown to most of us who are non Muslims, we are participating in a system which designates many of our fellow citizens as being second class and even sub human. I know these are powerful words, but they are accurate. For example, if an Aboriginal Australian who believes in their dreamtime spirituality had a job at an abattoir, then Islam would refuse to have anything to do with any meat supply (such as slaughtering) which he or she processed. This is because in Islam’s eyes, this Australian has contaminated the meat. They have contaminated the meat not by any earthly means, but just because they are who they are. This human discrimination also applies to all other Australian citizens who are not Muslim, Christian or Jewish. This is what the halal logo implies when it is attached to a meat product on an Australian supermarket shelf. It makes me ill to know that this disgraceful human discrimination is formally encouraged in our modern Australia. Let me be clear about this: the halal logo on meat products directly implies that large numbers of Australian citizens, inclusive of many native Aborigines, are sub human and that their very presence is repugnant to Islam to the extent that they contaminate any food products they might be involved in processing. With respect to the Aborigine here, I recognise that in our past white Australia did not always treat them as an equal citizen, but that inequality under the law has long since passed us by.... but now the human discrimination inherent within Sharia Law has actively taken its place in Australia today.

The Senate Committee now has an opportunity to address this abhorrent human discrimination currently existing in Australia. So will the Committee encourage Islam to enter into modern Australia or will it appease it? To assist the Committee in this application, I have tabled a suggestion in the later section 10 RECOMMENDATION area of this submission.

6 Item e. details regarding certification fees paid by food producers and/or manufacturers, and the potential for these to impact on prices for consumers

Submission for Item e. I have no direct knowledge of what halal certification fees are paid to whom. My only access here is to third party information sourced by others as is made available by them on the internet. I have no doubt that these “others” will make their separate submissions which will include a significant amount of information made available to the Committee in this financial aspect area. However what I can generally add is that these amounts which I have read about are phenomenal. Incredible in fact. In my submission Item g. to follow, I refer to a recent front page newspaper article quoting Islamic representatives mentioning halal certification fees in the $millions. I would put it that those who are charging and collecting these halal certification fees have located the goose that lays the golden egg because for little to nil outgoing cost or effort on their part, they are in return directly given enormous amounts of money by Australia’s food producers (which indirectly comes from the wider Australian community). But the best part of this is that it is recurring each year. It will never end. This river of money will never run dry. Where is that end of the rainbow >> if you can locate something that everyone needs - like fresh air - and then put a tax on it? Food comes immediately after fresh air and is the goldseam where even the smallest cut from a population of say 23 million people...... well an aptly descriptive term for such a gold mine would be “a never ending halal food certification scheme which is funded by all Australians”.

If the food supplier is making recurring payments to Islamic agents, there can be no argument that this ongoing financial outgoing must flow through to the shelf price. This is how business works. To argue

5 otherwise is to not have any practical knowledge of the business world. Only a Canberra based public servant or a politician who has never worked in private enterprise could contend that every food associated company in Australia can, each and every year, pay a very significant amount of money to an external third party and then argue that this financial outgoing does not increase their products’ ultimate shelf price. So it is a taken that halal certification increases the shelf price. Now the Muslim population aside, given that a halal certification logo will not increase sales by even one unit among the majority non Muslim population in the wider Australia (using myself as an example, it is more likely to lose sales), we can rule out increased sales as an argument to offset the commercial overhead with respect to halal certification for the domestic market. Thus halal certification increases the price of food products for all purchasers Australia wide. We consumers have a right to be made aware of this cost aspect and that ultimately it is all Australians who are contributing to and paying for this Islamic based requirement.

7 Item f. the importance of food certification schemes in relation to export market access and returns to producers

Submission for Item f. I have no problem with halal certification being applied to food exports from Australia, inclusive of meat products. In fact I support this where it leads to healthy or increased exports. As I will now explain, I do not see this position being in conflict with this wider submission which surely does have serious concerns about halal certification for food products made available for domestic consumption. This is because there are clear differences between the two scenarios.

If halal certification is a prerequisite on exported food products in order to access a foreign market, in the business interests of Australian producers, I would support this certification process. In commerce, the buyer is entitled to get what they want and what they are prepared to pay for. If we do not or cannot meet their purchasing specifications, then they will sensibly go elsewhere. If halal processing procedures and associated certification incurs additional cost, then this will be passed onto the overseas buyer in the normal commercial manner. It is the buyer who will cover this cost, not the general Australian public. The Australian public is not affected here and Australia as a whole benefits from a healthy export food industry.

Where the foregoing includes meat products, in this circumstance I do support the Islamic slaughtering requisites of the slaughterer being a sane Muslim, Jew or Christian. Using my previous example, in this situation an Australian Aboriginal who is not a Muslim, Jew or Christian, could not be hired as the slaughterer. So a human discrimination would be in place but this it is a result of the demands of the overseas buyer, not because of any Australian based regulation, legislation or community perception. It is not Australians who are refusing to eat this meat because a dreamtime orientated Aboriginal might have had the slaughterer’s job. I know this is not right but sometimes a situation calls for a resolution where that resolution does not suit each and every combination of circumstances.

This may not be the best example, but a woman or a non Catholic cannot become a Catholic priest, however this prohibition/discrimination does not degrade or devalue the woman or the non Catholic. Sometimes in special interest situations there are discriminations which we accept and just get on with it. To recap, if in order to maintain our export markets and thereby provide jobs and income for a large numbers of Australians, we have to meet overseas buyers’ particular requirements, then it is sensible to do so. This export related requirement does not degrade certain Australians, including Aboriginal Australians, with respect to other Australians who might be Muslim, Christian or Jewish.

6 8 Item g. the extent and adequacy of information available to the public about certifiers including, but not limited to, certification processes, fees and financial records; and any related matters

Submission for Item g. This brings me to my second area of major concern with halal certification. I refer to the scam aspect of fees and costs. My preamble is that if this is simply a religious based parameter so that genuine Australian Muslims may find it easier to ascertain if a particular food item is religiously ok for them to consume, it is my view that most Australians would have no objection or any real worry about facilitating such an outcome - provided all associated costs were separately met by Islam itself. So this brings us to the “actual cost” aspect. To cut to the quick, annually recurring costs are a scam. If a food processing company must rearrange its internal procedures so as to satisfy the Islamic quarter in this sphere, these set up costs are largely one off and should only draw a single one off upfront cost overhead. As well, this set up cost is surely attributable to the company itself in restructuring some of its internal procedures and mechanisms to comply with Islam’s particular food related Sharia Law requirement. So where does this annual recurring cost to Islam come from, totalling in many cases hundreds of thousands of dollars to be handed over to Islam’s agents each year? Largely nowhere.

It is a scam where some people are getting a lot of money by using Sharia Law as a justification to stand over Australia’s food supply industry. To this end, I would be very interested to see what Australia’s Grand Mufti, Dr. Abu Mohamed, has to say regarding why Australia’s food suppliers should be paying Islamic representatives way over the odds, and continuing this payment each and every year, to satisfy an Islamic Sharia Law requirement that, as I have explained in Item a. above, is largely not applicable. Another name for this is extortion because the only money that should ever be involved should be directly related to an actual or real cost parameter. The next question is who pays this actual/real cost overhead? As I have already put, it should be Islam itself who meets such costs. If Islam is a genuine member of our pluralist society, I cannot see why it would not agree and that genuine Australian Muslims would not want to burden their fellow non Muslim citizens with their own particular inhouse religious associations.

To add some value to the foregoing argument, fairly recently on Tuesday 2 June 2015, there was a front page story in the Sydney Daily Telegraph outlining a position presented by a lately high profile Islamic community representative, Dr Jamal Rifi. [FN7] To quote from the story “Jamal Rifi has called on halal certifiers.... Some collecting millions of dollars a year, to use the money to keep disaffected youths from being drawn to terrorism.” So Dr Rifi knows that halal certifiers are making millions of dollars. Dr Rifi also knows these certifiers are making these millions each and every year. Dr Rifi implies that these certifiers are able to direct these millions to wherever they please (so why not their own pockets I wonder?). But Dr Rifi stops short of telling us where he believes these millions of dollars each year should be directed after all the de-radicalisation is completed, which transformation by the way will be done by Islamic representatives for which, as per Dr Rifi, they will be compensated by all who purchase halal certified food (which is most of us). In his own article in the same newspaper edition, Dr Rifi then went much much further when he said “... After all this is Muslim community money”. [FN8] But it isn’t. It is money which, in its most significant source, is coming from the pockets of non Muslim Australians like myself when we buy our food to feed ourselves. But more the case, we are paying Islam this overhead largely without our knowledge or agreement. In his arrogant manner of arbitrarily claiming halal certification fees as Muslim community money, Dr Rifi is simply applying Islam’s Jizya. He assumes the Jizya is appropriate and is rightfully inplay in Australia. It’s a scam and even though Dr Rifi may be genuine in his endeavour here, he has unintentionally highlighted that he accepts as normal that Islam is entitled to millions of dollars each year from Australia’s non Muslim food purchasers and also that Islam is free to do what it will with this enormous amount of never ending income. This is clearly a multi carriage gravy train.

Yet I do not charge Australian Muslims in general with applying this scam. In fact I have put it above that they would not want to impose this impost on their fellow non Muslim citizens. While I might give him

7 some benefit of the doubt, I remain worried by the ease with which Dr Rifi has assumed that Islam is entitled to directly profit from all Australians via halal certification fees income and is also entitled to use these fees as it sees fit. At its most innocent end, non Muslim Australians should not be, without their permission, paying any costs associated with expanding the Islamic religion in Australia. This is surely Islam’s responsibility. However at the other end of the spectrum is this river of gold likely finding its way to violent areas which we know are associated with Islam and which can only exist if they are financially funded. I have no doubt that a number of other submissions will cover off this area of serious concern in a much more detailed and knowledgeable manner than I am able to do here.

9 Islam’s Jizya. This short form paper explains Islam’s Jizya Tax and its history. This information lays bare the halal certification phenomena as it exists in our modern Western societies. The Senate Committee determination will never be accepted as being genuine unless it can advise that yes, it understands what Islam’s Jizya represents and how it relates to the Islamic mindset.

Jizya means penalty and is the poll tax paid by non Muslims who have historically been subject to Islamic governance. This class of people are referred to as dhimmis. A consequence of not being Muslim was that dhimmis had to pay this ongoing annual Jizya remuneration to their Islamic governor lest there be dire (i.e. final) consequences. The genesis of the Jizya goes back to Muhammad’s time and is as follows.

A number of Jewish tribes resided in separate fortifications at Khaybar, ninety odd miles north west of Medina, Arabia. This included the Banu Nadir who in 625 had previously been exiled from Medina. With the extermination of the Banu Qurayza in 627 finally ridding Medina of its core Jewish population, Andrew Bostom writes of Muhammad’s way forward [FN9] ‘For example, within a year of the massacre of the Jewish tribe, the Banu Qurayza, Muhammad, according to a summary of sacralised Muslim sources, waited for some act of aggression on the part of the Jews of Khaybar, whose fertile lands and villages he had destined for his followers, to furnish an excuse for an attack. But no such opportunity offering, he resolved in the autumn of this year [i.e. 628] on a sudden and unprovoked invasion of their territory. Ali (later, the fourth “Rightly Guided caliph,” especially revered by Shi’ite Muslims) asked Muhammad why the Jews of Khaybar were being attacked, since they were peaceful farmers, tending their oasis, and was told by Muhammad he must compel them to submit to Islamic Law. The renowned early twentieth-century scholar of Islam David Margoliouth observed aptly: ‘Now the fact that a community was idolatrous, or Jewish, or anything but Mohammedan, warranted a murderous attack upon it.’

After sequentially overcoming these Jewish enclaves via warfare and siege, some Banu Nadir prisoners were executed and their women and children enslaved. Muhammad agreed to let the remainder go into exile. He allowed them, as he had done when the Banu Nadir were originally exiled from Medina, to keep as much of their property as they could carry with the exception that he commanded them to leave behind all their gold and silver. [FN10] A hadith records the fall of Khaybar.

Bukhari hadith, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 512: Narrated Anas: The Prophet offered the Fajr Prayer near Khaibar when it was still dark and then said, “Allahu-Akbar! Khaibar is destroyed, for whenever we approach a (hostile) nation (to fight), then evil will be the morning for those who have been warned.” Then the inhabitants of Khaibar came out running on the roads. The Prophet had their warriors killed, their offspring and woman taken as captives. Safiya was amongst the captives, She first came in the share of Dahya Alkali but later on she belonged to the Prophet. The Prophet made her manumission as her Mahr. But some farmers begged him to be able to stay if they gave him half their annual yield. Bukhari hadith, Vol 3, Book 39, Number 531: Narrated Ibn Umar: Umar expelled the Jews and the Christians from Hijaz. When Allah’s Apostle had conquered Khaibar, he wanted to expel the Jews from it as its land became the property of Allah, His Apostle, and the Muslims. Allah’s Apostle intended to expel the Jews but they requested him to let them stay there on the condition that they would do the labor and get half of the fruits. Allah’s Apostle told them, “We will let you stay on thus condition, as long as we wish...”

8 Muhammad recognised this potential at Khaybar and relented, however he warned these remaining Jews that if the Muslims so wish, they will expel them. [FN11] This was the prototype for what was to become the common arrangement between Islam and its Jewish (and Christian) subjects. They would live as lower class residents. They would pay an effective non-Muslim tax (to be called the Jizya), as rent if you like, for continuing to be able to live and work on what used to be their own property and land. They no longer had any ownership rights and continued to depend on the goodwill and sufferance of Muhammad and his Muslims and then down through the centuries, at the pleasure of the current Muslim governor which, as history has demonstrated, could be fleeting. [FN12] This uncertainty and insecurity for non-Muslim dhimmis has remained where they could be murdered or exiled at any point in time and on any pretext. As we saw with Armenia early in the 20th century and as we see in Pakistan and Egypt today (and with ISIS at Mosul), whenever the Muslims’ patience or disposition undergoes an aberration or a change of heart, the dhimmis pay, either with their land or their lives. In Muhammad’s time they paid variously with both and at Umar’s later pleasure, the Jews ultimately paid with all of their remaining land holdings in Arabia where the few who had remained at Khaybar were banished to Syria with the rest of their land being seized by Islam. Bukhari hadith, Vol 3, Book 39, Number 531: Narrated Ibn Umar: Umar expelled the Jews and the Christians from Hijaz... So, they (i.e. Jews) kept on living there [Khaybar] until Umar forced them to go towards Taima and Ariha. God then conveniently locked in this revenue stream for Islam, forever. “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” (God, Koran 9:29)

The Jizya is one of the practical consequences of Islam’s supremacy and inherent superiority over all other non-Muslims. It formed the central plank of Islam’s income during its many centuries as captain of its vast empire and was essential early on when Islam was little more than a war machine. Francesco Gabrieli writes ‘The Moslem State drew its greatest revenues from the tribute of the subjugated infidels, in the first place the personal tax or poll tax, and the land tax.’ [FN13] No doubt other empires throughout history demanded and received similar types of income from their conquered peoples but what makes Islam’s Jizya quite different from these is its divine accreditation. To have God Almighty, the Creator of the universe, lower Himself and get involved in and get His hands dirty in prescribing a discriminatory standover taxation to be levied upon parts of His human creation so that other parts of it can benefit, is quite different. In fact it is incredulous.

The terms Jizya and Jizya Tax are part and parcel of Islamic history and the Koran’s verse 9:29 enshrines this tribute from the non-Muslim world as eternally valid. So it is forever due. While not presently in the ascendency and so not in a position to demand this payment from all of non-Muslim mankind, Islam in the modern West has adapted to this status quo. In a 2013 Egyptian TV program discussion on the U.S. and foreign aid to Egypt, an Islamic cleric articulated Islam’s way forward where he ‘insisted that the U.S. must be treated contemptuously, like a downtrodden dhimmi, or conquered infidel; that Egypt must make the U.S. conform to its own demands; and that, then, all the money the U.S. offers to Egypt in foreign aid can be taken as rightfully earned jizya... According to the sheikh, Egypt must be less cooperative with the U.S. and at the same time insist for more monetary aid. If so, the sheikh believes that “America will accept; it will kiss our hands; and it will also increase its aid. And we will consider its aid as jizya, not as aid.”’ [FN14] Western welfare payments are not generous assistance in difficult times but are a Muslim’s right. ‘Just last February, for example, Anjem Choudary, an Islamic cleric and popular preacher in the United Kingdom, was secretly taped telling a Muslim audience to follow his example and get “Jihad Seeker’s Allowance” from the government - a pun on “Job Seeker’s Allowance.” The father of four, who receives more than 25,000 pounds annually in welfare benefits, referred to British taxpayers as “slaves,” adding, “We take the jizya, which is our haq [Arabic for “right”], anyway. The normal situation by the way is to take money from the kafir [infidel], isn’t it? So this is the normal situation. They give us the money - you work, give us the money,

9 Allahu Akhbar [“Allah is Great”]. We take the money. Hopefully there’s no one from the DSS [Department of Social Security] listening to this.”’ [FN15]

But the real 21st century Jizya is Halal Certification (HC). HC is a replica of Muhammad’s 7th century Jizya Tax where it catches 100% of non-Muslims across the Western world who are all dipping in to pay Islam directly from their pockets. HC is where the Western world food producers and supermarkets are ‘encouraged’ pay an annual fee to Islam for Islam to issue HC approval to attach the halal logo to their product’s packaging. If they don’t roll over and pay this money, they run the risk of being blackballed as being anti Islam, and in our modern politically correct driven climate, that could be a commercial death sentence. So on behalf of Islam, the food supplier puts their hand in their pocket and then simply passes on this financial overhead to the consumer via a higher shelf price. So we non Muslim consumers are all paying for this HC. And of course we all have to eat, so it’s the Holy Grail of the Jizya. But where it becomes a real earner is the annual nature of this payment - just like the Jizya Tax. You see the food supplier must pay Islam the HC fee on an annual recurring cost basis. So it never ends. I mean once the food supplier has organised their infrastructure such that God above is happy that all is unfolding in this process down on Earth according to His Koranic dictates, why/where does Islam incur an ongoing cost such that every non-Muslim must continue to pay to it an ongoing overhead for the food products they want to purchase in the supermarket? No, there is no continuing cost upon Islam. Islam is simply running an extortion racket on an eternal basis. And everyone in the West meekly hands this money over, year by year, money which of course is then unaccounted for.

10 My Recommendation

I present this sensible suggestion to the Committee: that the Senate Committee invite Australian’s Grand Mufti, Dr. Ibrahim Abu Mohamed, to attend as an advocate on behalf of Islam in Australia. The Grand Mufti should be asked to explain to the Committee how or why Australians who are not Muslim, Christian or Jewish, could contaminate meat products such that they were then unfit for human consumption (and the halal certification logo), if these Australians were employed as the slaughterer in an abattoir where the halal certified source animals were processed. Supplementary question: are these large number of Australians somehow morally dirty or otherwise subhuman? This is a quite fair query because this is exactly what the halal logo on meat products sold from our supermarket fridges implies and upholds. Every Australian who then purchases this halal certified meat, either knowingly or unknowingly, upholds this Sharia Law regulation - and thereby encourages it. I think it is a terrible situation that this disgraceful human discrimination is allowed to freely exist in my country, and the Grand Mufti should be asked to explain why Islam is centrally involved in this demeaning of my fellow Australians, including many native Aborigines.

If placed on the spot, there is always the possibility that the Grand Mufti might distance himself from this Middle Ages Sharia Law regulation and thereby bring Islam in Australia into the 21st century. If so, why should we stop here? It might be that, with some encouragement, our Grand Mufti could lead a spearhead internationally to remove this human discrimination from the wider Islam. He could take this initiative to the next meeting of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference...... and it would have all started in Australia, driven by Australia’s Parliament. This potential should not be readily cast aside and it would be our very own Grand Mufti who would be changing Islam’s outlook and way forward inside Australia and then possibly even on a world wide scale. This is a serious proposition made on my behalf. Given the Grand Mufti had no problem travelling to Gaza to meet with Hamas (see this reference in the next section 11), I cannot imagine that a short road trip down the highway from Sydney to Canberra would be a stopper for him.

10 11 Conclusion

What is wrong with my fellow Australian citizens who are not Muslim, Christian or Jewish? Why are they second class humans who are somehow morally and/or ethically dirty such that they have an ability to make food unfit for human consumption just because they handle it? This is what the halal logo represents on meat products in our domestic supermarket fridges. Why are all Australians, each and every one of us, being forced to make a contribution of millions and millions of dollars, recurring, to Islam? - an amount which is unaccountable and which can be used to fund anything inclusive of personal advantage for a fortunate few. I and my fellow Australians are entitled to adequate answers from the Senate Committee.

In its seeking of answers about where the halal certification money goes, I implore the Senate Committee not to assume for the sake of convenience or political correctness that your starting point is that Islam as an entity is a genuine citizen of Australia, ready to integrate with and live by our society’s ways and regulations. The Committee should assume no such thing. Yet if in fact this is truly the case with Islam, which we would hope it to be, then Islam’s representatives will have no issue with fully explaining themselves and truthfully answering any manner of potentially intrusive halal related questions. Surely as a good Australian citizen, Islam would want to do this?

However it is with no sense of insincerity that I put the foregoing. When he was appointed Australia’s new Grand Mufti in September 2011, via his interpreter, Dr. Ibrahim Abu Mohamed’s opening statements included ‘Australians should not be scared of Sharia law because it is consistent with our own culture and values’. [FN16] Now why would he say this? Well what I do know is that Sharia Law is in Australia with respect to halal food labelling and more particularly meat processing. Then just 15 months later at Xmas time, Dr. Mohamed led a delegation of Australian Muslims across the seas to meet with Hamas’ leadership in Gaza City. [FN17] As part of a fulsome speech to the senior Hamas representatives, our Islamic leader expressed his happiness at being in Gaza describing it ‘I have the honour to be among the people of Gaza...the land of pride and martyrdom ...we feel like we are on cloud nine. We feel like we are on top of the world’, but most tellingly ‘I am pleased to stand on the land of jihad to learn from its sons...We came here to learn from Gaza’. [FN18] Eighteen months later in July 2014, an 18 year old Australian boy became our first suicide bomber blowing himself up in Iraq killing a number of innocent people and injuring many others. [FN19] Since then, hundreds of Australian Muslims have gone to join ISIS in Syria and Iraq to kill and die. But while our Grand Mufti seemingly talks about ‘our own culture and values’ with some ownership authority, as at 2011 and after 16 years living in Australia, he had not bothered to genuinely learn the country’s language and more the case, has never had to. His life revolves around an Arabic Koran and as learned as he may be, he obviously has no need to speak the national language fluently. This was also the case with one of his predecessors, Sheik Taj El-Din Hilali who relied on his interpreter Keysar Trad. It seems not speaking English is a key criterion for Islam’s top job in Australia. So what example does this set for young Muslims about integrating into Australian society?

In its management of this subject area, I trust the Committee will show a whole lot more intestinal fortitude and decency than the International Olympic Committee (IOC) did at the opening ceremony of the 2012 Olympic Games when it supported Saudi Arabia in forcing the only two women members of their team to walk at the rear behind all of the male Saudi athletes. The IOC then had the indecency to promote this as a win for women - yes, a real positive it reckoned. [FN20] So down the back of the bus is ok with the IOC. In Australia we note that this IOC example has been absorbed into our culture when in 2015 (yes this very calendar year), women were corralled down the back of the hall when Islamic students held a meeting at the University of Western Sydney campus. [FN21] As for the IOC, down the back of the bus is now acceptable within modern Australian academia. So how much decency and determination and fortitude does this Senate Committee have? In this investigation, please do not assume anything or take everything at face value. Thankyou for accepting this submission.

11 12 Footnotes

FN1 Koran sura 5, verses 1 to 5 FN2 An English translation of Sharia law exists. It is titled ‘Reliance of the Traveller – A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law’ (RofT). It is authored by Nuh Ha Mim Keller and was first published in 1991. RofT text consists of 1232 pages plus 22 pages of introduction. Within the text, books (or chapters) e through o across pages 48 to 648, are Sharia law. The remaining 650 odd pages contain an enormous amount of additional interesting information which complements the front end Sharia segment with respect to gaining a genuine insight into the psychology of Islam. This translation is a direct copy of the 14th century Arabic Sharia recension by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (d 1368) titled ‘Umdat al-salik wa ‘uddat al-nasik’ [The reliance of the traveller and tools of the worshipper]. Throughout the law book are direct references to the source materials for particular Sharia laws and regulations, these being God’s Koranic verses and ancient ahadith. Additionally, the regulations are supplemented with occasional explanative comment from a number of Islamic scholars, both past and more recent. The originating source for this text is the Shafi school of Sharia which is regarded as the orthodox Islamic intellectual and spiritual heritage. A revised edition of the English translation of ‘Reliance of the Traveller’ appeared in 1994. Since then there have been regular reprints in 1998, 2002, 2005, 2008 and 2011. Clearly the book is in demand in the English speaking Muslim world. This is the demonstrated fact. So it cannot be claimed that Sharia law is an ancient code which is now out of date and of no consequence to Muslims. FN3 Reliance of the Traveller, j16.0 to j17.11 across pages 361-367 FN4 Koran sura 22, verses 34 to 36 FN5 Reliance of the Traveller, j16.0 and j16.1 at p361 FN6 ibid, all of j17, p364-366 FN7 Sydney Daily Telegraph, 2 June 2015, pages 1 and 4 FN8 ibid, 2 June 2015, p23, ‘Halal Fees Should Combat Radicalism’ FN9 Andrew Bostom, pii, Preface to the paperback edition, ‘The Legacy of Jihad – Islamic Holy war and the Fate of Non-Muslims’ FN10 Ibn Warraq, p98-99, ‘Why I Am Not a Muslim’. Additional source references for this Khaybar episode of Islamic history are the Ibn Ishaq/Ibn Hishan account, as reproduced in Andrew Bostom’s book ‘The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism’ at page 279-281 and also the Ibn Sa’d account in the same Bostom book at p285- 286, plus the additional Bukhari ahadith Vol 5, book 59: Nos 510, 512, 522, 523, 537, 540, 541 and 550, plus Robert Spencer, p139-140, ‘The Truth about Muhammad’ FN11 The Ibn Sa’d account at p291 in Andrew Bostom’s book ‘The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism’ FN12 Andrew Bostom’s book ‘The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism’ at page 279-281 and also the Ibn Sa’d account in the same Bostom book at p285-286 FN13 Francesco Gabrieli, p79, ‘A Short History Of The Arabs’ FN14 FRONTPAGE MAG, March 19, 2013, ‘Muslim Cleric Calls U.S. Aid to Egypt ‘Jizya’, http://frontpagemag.com/2013/raymond-ibrahim/muslim-cleric-calls-u-s-aid-to-egypt-jizya/ FN15 ibid FN16 The Sydney Daily Telegraph, p12, 20 September 2011, ‘New Mufti assures us Muslim law fits with Australian culture’, http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/new-mufti-dr-ibrahim-abu-mohamed- assures-us-muslim-law-fits-with-australian-culture/story-e6freuzi- 1226141253597?nk=99c54ced50ce85de4b884b6fd966a59d FN17 ibid, 31 December 2012, p9, ‘Australia's Grand Mufti meets Hamas’, http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/australias-grand-mufti-meets-hamas/story-fndo28a5- 1226545439343 FN18 ibid FN19 ibid, 19 July 2014, p11, ‘Sydney teen kills three in suicide bombing on crowded Iraqi market’ and ibid, 22 July 2014, p11, ‘Ordered to die by terrorist network’ FN20 ibid, p5, 10 August 2012, ‘Last place a big win for female equality’ FN21 ibid, 14 May 2015, ‘Radical group Hizb ut-Tahrir segregates males and females at UWS Muslim group meeting’, http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/radical-group-hizb-ut-tahrir-segregates-males- and-females-at-uws-muslim-group-meeting/story-fni0cx12-1227355751307

12