Frank wrote on Jan 16^th, 2026 at 2:44pm:


Our laws are made by elected officials.

Those officials derive their authority from us, through the ballot box.

There have been no laws in Australia, at the federal, state or territory, or local level, that have been legitimately tabled or voted on which would enforce Sharia law as part of the Australian legal system.

This is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of record. Multiple independent fact-checks, alongside clear statements from governments and legal experts, confirm it unequivocally.

We are not at risk.

It's nothing but a dog whistle.

[Google AI]
Quote:


Another Islamist interpretation of Koranic teachings. Tsk, tsk, tsk...

Quote:


Another Islamist interpretation, Soren, how unusual, hey?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...

irstly, HT members have often been labelled “preachers of hate”(The Investi-gative Project on Terrorism 2009; European Court of Human Rights 2012) as theyinsist on dividing the world into Dar al-Islam (Land of Islam) and Dar al-Kufr (Landof Unbelief) (An-Nabhani 2002). Dar al-Islam is where the Muslims live underIslamic law, while Dar al-Kufr is where unbelievers live according to a man-madesystem of laws. Within Dar al-Kufr, HT believes there is Dar al-Harb (Land of War)where Islam is continually challenged and where colonizers try to occupy andoppress Muslim lands. HT leaders argue that there are some occupied Islamiclands which were colonized after previously being ruled by Muslims and whichnow need to be liberated. In particular, there territories are:

The Palestinian Territories (by Israel); East Timor (by Australia); southern Central Asia (byChina); the Caucasus, Crimea and Khazan (by Russia); Delhi, Kashmir and the whole ofnorthern India (by India); Andalusia, Sabta and Maleela (by Spain); Sicily (by Italy); Serbia,Croatia, Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, Burma and the islands in the Mediterranean Sea; andBurma and the Philippines are seen to be occupying Islamic lands. (An-Nabhani 2002,p.7)

The need to free the occupied lands and to re-establish Islamic law through thecaliphate is an extremely recurrent theme of HT publications, speeches, and onlineposts (Bsis 2015; Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain 2017b,c). Although the majority of HTfollowers believe that the only way to free Muslim lands is to continue the war ofideas with the West and follow the Prophet’s method, others might use HT’s ideas asa springboard to justify violent actions against the enemy.

One such case is OmarBakri, a former prominent member of HT Britain in the 1980s. Bakri argued that HTwas too moderate, and after years in HT leadership, he started to despise the group’sattitude toward theological plurality and its nonviolent attitudes regarding jihad.Bakri thought that the relationship between iman (faith) and action was very weak inHT, and this is why he founded Al-Muhajiroun, a group urging Muslims to usephysical force to fight the West by engaging in terrorist acts (Orofino 2018).At the same time, experts are concerned that even those who agree with HT’snonviolent methods and are happy to remain “vocal radicals”may be drawn intosevere isolation from mainstream society and eventually become completelydisenfranchised (Peucker and Ceylan 2017).

Such a shift toward isolation could be fostered by the second element characterizing HT explored in this section, i.e.,political participation. All HT members worldwide are forbidden from performingany form of active citizenship activities, such as voting or running for politicalpositions. The logic behind this stance is very clear: HT sees all political systemsother than the caliphate as illegitimate, as God should be the only legislator.Therefore, all sources of law that are not related to shari‘aare to be refused
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356359863_Hizb_ut-Tahrir_Revisiting_Its...

Read the whole thing.

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 16^th, 2026 at 9:56pm:

Wisam Haddad targets mosques over counter-extremism work
Jihadist preacher Wissam Haddad has attacked Australia’s leading mosques for ‘countering violent extremism’, accusing them of promoting ‘watered-down Islam’.



ANIC is Australia’s peak Muslim body that only represents imams.

Mr Haddad’s denunciation of the so-called “Dirar” mosques – places of worship he says are mischievous and meant to sow division – is closely tied to his public defence of his “brothers” in Hizb ut-Tahrir, the extremist organisation the Albanese government is preparing to outlaw under proposed federal hate-group legislation.

Mr Haddad argued that mosques that engage with the government, accept public funding or promote interfaith dialogue and democratic participation fall into this category, and therefore lose their legitimacy as true places of worship under Islamic law.

“How many of such places call the youth to interfaith, give fatawa (rules) to the youth to go and join the police, to join the army, and to join the navy,” he said in a fiery sermon last week.

“How many of them have been compromised with so-called government grants in the leadership of such masajid (mosques), external influences that accept money or they accept control in exchange for information on the community and individuals of the community, when they run to promote programs of kufr (disbelief), such as countering violent extremism, when they run deradicalisation programs under the title of social cohesion and security and then report back to the disbelievers when they preach a watered-down version of Islam, a government-­approved version that fit the criteria of Masjid Dirar.”

In a separate video, Mr Haddad expressed solidarity with Hizb ut-Tahrir supporters, describing the government’s move against the group as a “shakedown” designed to force independent Islamist ­organisations into submission.

More here
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/notorious-prayer-hall-fined-after-it-def...

Frank wrote on Jan 16^th, 2026 at 4:07pm:


You're conflating three separate things and treating the resulting blur as evidence. That's the problem.

First, Sharia is not a monolith and it is not a parallel legal system operating inside Australia. In Australian law, it has no force whatsoever. Zero. Our Constitution, statutes and common law are secular, supreme, and exclusive. Nothing derived from the Qur'an or Sunna has been incorporated into Australian law, nor can it be without democratic process and constitutional compatibility.

This is not theoretical, it is a matter of record.

Second, invocations of "Allahu Akbar" by terrorists do not demonstrate Sharia being "applied", any more than a Christian extremist invoking the Bible demonstrates canon law governing a state. Political violence routinely appropriates religious language to legitimise itself. That tells us about extremists, not about Australian lawmaking, nor about Muslims as a class.

Collective guilt is not analysis, it's something much darker.

Third, your comparison between Australian hate-speech laws and Sharia's slander provisions is a category error. Australian hate-speech laws arise from parliamentary process, are subject to judicial review, proportionality tests, constitutional constraints, and can be amended or repealed.

Sharia's theological penalties are immutable by definition. Superficial resemblance does not establish lineage, influence, or convergence. By that logic, any law you personally dislike becomes "Sharia-adjacent", which is not serious reasoning, dummy.

Most importantly, the safeguard you claim to be defending already exists: democratic sovereignty. If Australians do not vote for religious law, it does not happen. There is no stealth mechanism by which seventh-century theology overrides a modern constitutional system without elections, legislation, courts, and public consent all failing simultaneously.

That is why claims of "Sharia creeping into Australia" persist only at the level of rhetoric, not evidence. No bills. No votes. No enactments. No case law. Just insinuation.

Dressing up Islamophobia in pseudo-academic language doesn't make it any less bigoted even if you were smart enough to pull it off.

Swapping "Muslims" for "seventh-century doctrine", sprinkling in Latinised phrasing, and ending with "policy-makers must safeguard…" is not insight, it's cosplay.

You're not warning about constitutional erosion, you're rehearsing a familiar script:

foreign religion > moral threat > vague legal parallels > white civilisational panic.

The giveaway is that no actual Australian legal mechanism is ever identified. Just vibes, fear, and a greatest-hits reel of overseas atrocities loosely stapled to local legislation you already dislike. That's not constitutional analysis, it's racial anxiety with footnotes.

If you want to debate Australian law, cite Australian law.
If you want to debate extremism, address extremism.
But if all you can produce is a mood board of "Allahu Akbar", "kafirs", and imagined legal takeovers, don't pretend you're defending liberty.

You're just recycling prejudice and hoping the word ibid makes it look respectable when you've used it as a "trust me bro".

Frank wrote on Jan 17^th, 2026 at 12:33pm:


Can you point to a single piece of legislation that would support that?