Are charges pending for the Royal Australian Navy's Chief Islamist and government critic Mona Shindy
Congratulations to Major Bernard Gaynor who has done the heavy lifting on exposing Shindy's disloyalty and insubordination. Here's the story in a journal of record, today's edition of The Australian.
Row over Navy’s Islamic account after Tony Abbott retweet
A navy Twitter account has been shut down after its most senior Muslim officer retweeted a counter-terrorism expert mocking Tony Abbott following the Liberal Party leadership coup and backed the Grand Mufti’s response to the Paris terrorist attacks.
Captain Mona Shindy, the Chief of Navy’s strategic adviser on Islamic affairs, appears to have run the account @navyislamic until it was deleted last month, posting a series of tweets about attitudes towards Muslim Australians and terrorism.
Read the whole story at The Australian here.
Mona Shindy can have only one loyalty - that is to Australia. But for years now she's been the Navy's celebrity-Muslim in an apparently self-designed role promoting the cause of Islam. That is very dangerous ground for a serving Naval Officer at the best of times. It represents an impossible conflict when, like now, we we are at war with Islamists.
This extract from Bernard Lewis's scholarly work will help explain the problem with Ms Shindy's promotional work for Islam.
If, then, we are to understand anything at all about what is happening in the Muslim world at the present time and what has happened in the past, there are two essential points which need to be grasped. One is the universality of religion as a factor in the lives of the Muslim peoples, and the other is its centrality.
“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things which are God’s.” That is, of course, Christian doctrine and practice. It is totally alien to Islam. The three major Middle Eastern religions are significantly different in their relations with the state and their attitudes to political power. Judaism was associated with the state and was then disentangled from it; its new encounter with the state at the present time raises problems which are still unresolved. Christianity, during the first formative centuries of its existence, was separate from and indeed antagonistic to the state with which it only later became involved. Islam from the lifetime of its founder was the state, and the identity of religion and government is indelibly stamped on the memories and awareness of the faithful from their own sacred writings, history, and experience. The founder of Christianity died on the cross, and his followers endured as a persecuted minority for centuries, forming their own society, their own hierarchy, their own laws in an institution known as the Church—until, with the conversion of the Roman Emperor Constantine, there began the parallel processes of the Christianization of Rome and the Romanization of Christ.
In Islam, the process were quite different. Muhammad did not die on the cross. As well as a Prophet, he was a soldier and a statesman, the head of a state and the founder of an empire, and his followers were sustained by a belief in the manifestation of divine approval through success and victory. Islam was associated with power from the very beginning, from the first formative years of the Prophet and his immediate successors. This association between religion and power, community and polity, can already be seen in the Qur’an itself and in the other early religious texts on which Muslims base their beliefs. One consequence is that in Islam religion is not, as it is in Christendom, one sector or segment of life, regulating some matters while others are excluded; it is concerned with the whole of life—not a limited but a total jurisdiction. In such a society the very idea of the separation of church and state is meaningless, since there are no two entities to be separated. Church and state, religious and political authority, are one and the same. In classical Arabic and in the other classical languages of Islam there are no pairs of terms corresponding to lay and ecclesiastical, spiritual and temporal, secular and religious, because these pairs of words express a Christian dichotomy which has no equivalent in the world of Islam.2
Now let's hear from the Islamist herself.
Where does she get off criticising our goverrnment? Telling us not to call ISIL Islamic? Pull your head in Mona.
Like many Islam-promoters, Ms Shindy says terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. She is the Navy's Senior Advisor on Islam. If terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, why does a speech delivered by an expert in Islam - not terrorism- focus so much on the motivations of terrorists? How would Ms Shindy know what motivates acts of terror if they have nothing to do with her area of expertise, Islam.
According to Ms Shindy, it's our fault. It's the usual mantra of ostracised, marginalised youth reacting against Western oppression, but it's nothing to do with Islam. Well thanks for that, unless you're a terrorist yourself Mona, then with respect, how would you know?
Here's a bloke who does know because he was a practicing, deadly violent Islamic terrorist Hassan Butt - read his opinion from the UK's The Guardian newspaper in full here.
When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network, a series of semi-autonomous British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology, I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy.
By blaming the government for our actions, those who pushed the 'Blair's bombs' line did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: