My thoughts on the horrific Bondi Beach terror attack

           On the day when this atrocity took place, I just got up from bed and came to know of what happened at Bondi beach, Sydney on the 1st day of Hanukkah. I love the Jewish people as a Christian and was saddened and grieved to hear of the murder of Jews by the evil attackers. The moment I came to know the group that was targeted by the terrorists, I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt which ideology was behind it - Islam. If some says "how do you know?, it could have been Neo-Nazis", well guess what?, Neo-Nazis, as evil as they are, do not have a religion and a belief system with a God who makes it righteousness to kill Jews and a means for them to earn brownie points with that God with corresponding incentives for the Jihadis in the hereafter- something that makes Islam way more dangerous to Jews than Neo-nazis (let us not forget that it was Amin Al-Husseini the grand Mufti of Jerusalem who urged Hitler to kill the Jews instead of deporting Jews from Germany at the start of WW-II which was Hitler's original plan) because of Muhammad's orders to kill Jews in the name of Allah is in the Islamic religious sources and therefore Muslims are taught to believe it is from Allah their god, the way Islam does by spurring individual moderate Muslims who have been indoctrinated or dare I say, told the truth about Islam which 90% of their non-extremist fellow Muslims around the world do not know, a doctrine that surfaces in the preaching of their religious leaders only when Muslims in any country are above 90% above the natives and other groups but not when Muslims are a minority in any land (usually!).

 

       Besides, which other ideology vilifies Jews to the point of seeking their extermination around the world as a mandate from its god for which they would be rewarded in the hereafter?. What many moderate Muslims including the humane person who wrestled the gun away from the attacker do not know or may even refuse to accept is that Muhammad the key figure in Islam hated Jews and killed Jews towards the end of his life (for instance "The Battle of Badr" and "Khaybar raid") setting the example for his followers and to top it off, Muhammad said that the end would not come till the rock behind which a Jew hides says "O Muslim, O servant of allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him (Authentic Hadith "Sahih al Bukhari" - 2926)". If you wish to know the full detail of this Jew hatred, please read one of my previous blog articles entitled "Anti-Jewish and Anti-Israel hatred in Islam: proof that Israel's rebirth as a nation in 1948 is not what caused the start of Muslim persecution of Jews in the world and in Israel but Islamic Jew-hatred is older...". Am I then saying that all Muslims are evil - NO but the underlying ideology of Islam IS!. I am saying that the 90% peaceful majority in Islam does not matter because the bad guys are the true face of their religion because they imitate their man Muhammad at the end of his life, hence Islam has an inherent problem with Jews, Christians and other religious groups that stems from its written religious sources like the Quran, Ahadith and Sira literature.

    What then are we to do as non-Muslims?. At the level of countries, proper screening must be done before allowing total strangers into Western countries for which their respective governments must be held accountable to know the background of the individuals and their past history of criminal activity if any or whom they associate with. When the authorities have the slightest suspicion about such people, they should be deported from Western lands to whichever country they came from. As for individual non-Muslims, we must be well-informed about Islam and its evil agenda for the world so as not to fall aprey to not just their deceptive Dawah tactics but also their violent activities in case they show such propensities. In this case, I was shocked to note that Sajeed and Naveed Akram were a father and son duo from India which is my home country, particularly from the city of Hyderabad from the state of  Telangana. A city known for its huge Muslim population where Indian authorities have noted such activity in the past and have stopped their plots. While the Indian authorities have noted that Sajeed, father of Naveed who was also involved in the terror attack at Bondi beach in Sydney, never had any criminal records prior to his departure from India in 1998 for Sydney Australia. Authorities in Australia on the other hand, have determined that Sajid was indoctrinated online and went with his son for military-style terrorist training in the Philippines which proves that they became terrorists after moving to Australia. While Sajeed himself was killed by the authorities there during the shoot-out, his son was taken into custody for questioning once he woke up from his coma which he recently did and admitted to his Indian origins as a Muslim. So if Naveed is deported back to India, I doubt that our country would want to receive him and if he is brought back eventually, he would either face the death sentence or life imprisonment so that he is not a threat to anyone's life anymore here in India or abroad. 

 i) Should Ahmed Al-Ahmed's exemplary act of bravery exempt Islam as an ideology from bearing the blame for such attacks in the eyes of Non-Muslims like ourselves: 

   While it is true that Ahmed Al-Ahmed stopped Naveed for a while by pulling his rifle away from him and got shot a few times by Naveed thereafter and this is indeed an act of courage and heroism in the face of evil worthy of appreciation, no doubt Ahmed is a good human being in our eyes as non-Muslims but according to Islam's most trusted sources the bad guys are the good Muslims as per Muhammad and allah. The difference or conflict in belief between Ahmed Al-Ahmed as a moderate Muslim who stood against Naveed should in no way cast doubt on the fact that Islam's most trusted sources side with the evil Naveed in his vile actions against Jews (and in extenso against Christians like myself and other Non-Muslims) thereby not severing Islam's association with terror as given in its written sources and Islam's association with terror must always be seen as such by non-Muslims across the world including Jews and non-Muslims in Australia as well. Why so? - to dissociate the terrorist act from Islam just because of Ahmed Al-Ahmed's brave action of stopping the terrorist (as brave and as noble as it was) would not help in stopping future terror attacks by such evil terrorists like the Akram duo because the terror attack is Islamic. Even if every Islamic terrorist attack had a moderate Muslim hero like Ahmed al Ahmed rising to the occasion to stop it from happening, nothing can and must exempt Islam from being understood by us non-Muslims as the chief motivating reason behind these attacks, being misled to go down the route of exempting Islam from its role in such attacks is mad and is akin to closing the eyes to the reality of what their sources scream at anyone reading them or even referring to them to see what they say.

       In short, although Ahmed Al-Ahmed was indeed a brave man who did a huge role in stopping Naveed in his shooting spree and must be lauded by non-Muslims for the same, the Islamic sources side with the terrorist Naveed because Muhammad (the best example for Muslims for all times and everywhere) himself killed Jews at the end of his life setting an example for his followers albeit a bad one from our perspective but a good one from Muhammad's perspective because Muhammad was a bad man towards the end of his life and a terrorist. The Australian authorities are confused in this regard because they made the above mistake by dissociating Islam's role in the attack in their minds and started associating it with Naveed's association with India because of 1 Australian moderate Muslim (Ahmed Al-Ahmed) stopping Naveed momentarily in his tracks. Such a dissociation of the terrorist action from its underlying ideology which is Islam, is a dangerous and a misleading train of thought, if the Australian authorities are to successfully thwart future attacks by people of the ilk of Naveed and his father Sajeed, they should see Islam within the framework of how it arose from Arabia and spread to other countries - by the sword by Muhammad and his companions, hence not worthy of our trust, this does not mean peaceful Muslims like Ahmed cannot be trusted, they can based on their moderate beliefs but it must be understood that the moderate version of Islam represented by 90% of the world's Muslims is a whitewashed, Walt-Disney version of their faith where clear passages calling for violence in their most trusted written sources like the Quran, Ahadith and Sira are reinterpreted to mean something harmless and hence misleading, for instance, war can be reinterpreted to mean peace - its exact opposite or a sword can be interpreted to mean a flower. Hence Ahmed is good and peaceful but Islam is violent and dangerous. 

ii) Does changing gun laws help in his context?:
    
    Contrary to what the Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said, changing gun laws is not going to help in any way in this situation because we have been seeing countless terror attacks around the world since 9/11 and not all are carried out using guns. The problem here is the ideology, not the means because let us bear in mind that even if guns and knives were removed from the equation altogether, there have been instances in the past wherein cars and vehicles have been used to kill innocent bystanders by Jihadi terrorists. Islamic Terrorists like Naveed and his Dad are lowlives who care little for the lives of innocent people and can resort to any means at their disposal to wreak havoc in the lives of innocent people like those Jewish people who gathered to celebrate Hanukkah at Bondi beach.

iii) Would authorities fixing microphones and cameras in mosques help in averting such indoctrination:

   This is something that is followed and has been followed in countries like Japan and it allows the police to get a clear idea of what is being preached from the stages of these mosques to help the authorities get a clear idea of whether these are sites of what is seen as extremist indoctrination. Not all mosques may fall into this category but there may be some where such preachers preach messages that could be interpreted to be in line with how Islam was historically followed hence such mosques where extremist preachers preach such messages can be closed permanently for preaching harm to commoners and such preachers arrested.To facilitate understanding of what is being preached at such mosques, such preachers must use the language of the country and not Arabic, Urdu, Pastho etc., while preaching messages.

iv) How would boosting security during festivals like Hanukkah or Christmas help reduce the recurrence of such instances: 

   I would say that boosting security measures wherever Jews, Christians or other Non-Muslims are gathered for worship is a very good measure that can avert such harrowing scenarios. Outsiders must be made to identify themselves at such locations without being allowed to walk in with total impunity as if they are walking into their own house. When Muhammad waged wars and conducted raids against neighbouring non-Muslim peoples towards the end of his life, he always did it at a time when they least expected it like the dead of night or when they were celebrating a festival or at a time of peace, any deviation in history by any follower of Muhammad from this behaviour and others exhibited by Muhammad only makes the follower an exception and a bad follower of the violent man that Muhammad was towards the end of his life. Hence, festival times like Christmas, New Year, Hanukkah, Yom Kippur etc are the times when security measures at the respective places of worship, whether churches or synagogues, need a boost so as to ensure safety and protection of all the people gathered at those places of worship. Such security measures must be extended to wherever people are present in large numbers like railway stations, bus stops, airports etc. 

v) Increased cybersecurity:

    Cybersecurity and prevention of access to sites deemed harmful from an ideological perspective must be seriously considered in all countries that seek to uphold peace and good-will of all men. Bringing down such online terror infrastructure can help in reducing the possibility of preventing the radicalisation of moderate Muslims. Such websites that spread the message must be thoroughly deplatformed and taken down from servers that may host them and individuals like Naveed who are under the scanner of government-run anti-terror bodies must be constantly under surveillance to prevent them from harming innocent people.

vi) Legal immigration at a limited level as opposed to unlimited illegal immigration: 

               While Western Leftists are illogically clamouring for unlimited illegal immigration from underdeveloped and developing countries to developed countries. A more judicious and smart way to handle the immigration crisis in the West is to only encourage legal immigration provided that all the requirements are met by the one seeking immigration to a Western country in search of a better life or whatever the purpose. This is because when people are allowed into the West without bringing them in through the proper channels with all the requisite papers and via proper screening, bad individuals like Akram can always slip through causing harm and damage like what happened at Bondi beach in Sydney. Thankfully, Trump is handling things the right way in the US and is an example for other Western countries to follow.

  My final thoughts:
                                 Like any other terrorist attack perpetrated by Jihadis in any part of the world, the attack at Bondi beach in Sydney was just as horrific, it bore all the telltale hallmarks of a Jihadi attack and should be identified as such by all so that the enemies of democracy and liberty realise that they are wasting their time. If they think that we, the people of the free world are cowards who yield to their use of fear to control the masses in an organised way like them. Make no mistake, Islam is the cause of this attack and it is a wake-up call for people in the West to recognise Islam for the evil that it represents and to deport illegal immigrants and restrict entry of total strangers into the West who seek to change the very fabric of the enlightened thoughts stemming from the Judeo-Christian worldview that the West's governments are known for along with the ideas of renaissance from the Greco-Roman ideas that Western culture is founded on. Also, there were heroes who fought against this attack like the Jewish couple who died fighting Sajeed Akram, the husband Boris was the first to pull a rifle away from Sajid and fell down after which both of them were tragically shot dead, then Ahmed al Ahmed did his part and was shot as well.

    My main point here is that the involvement of a hero like Ahmed al-Ahmed (who like countless other moderate Muslims follows a watered-down and whitewashed version of Islam) in temporarily stalling the attack cannot and must not be perceived by Australian and Western politicians as something that vindicates the ideology of Islam for what it fundamentally represents - a threat to Western society founded on Judeo-Christian values which it seeks to change by replacing them with Sharia which is totally incompatible with Western secular values like liberty and democracy - hence Islam is totally incompatible with Western society and values. Yes, Ahmed is a hero and deserves recognition by the authorities because he is a good human being but a bad Muslim as per Muhammad himself who was an evil jihadi towards the end of his life and ordered his followers to do as the scumbag father and son Akram duo did which is precisely why Islam is NOT compatible with Western society and ways of life and this is also why Western politicians must not allow unchecked immigration by Muslims into their countries to ensure the peace of their own citizens and their safety.