Click here to view the embedded video.

Another prescient example of this is Danny Nalliah, pastor of the fringe church “Catch the Fire Ministries“. Nalliah has previously been alleged to have expressed the desire for God to burn down mosques. For this and other comments Nalliah was taken to VCAT by the Islamic Council of Victoria for inciting religious hatred. The ICV action was a failure both legally and in the wider court of public opinion. It allowed Nalliah to portray himself as the victim of a secretive religion which was furiously trying to avoid scrutiny as it infiltrated the nation. Money, sympathy and support flooded into Catch the Fire Ministries and Nalliah became a celebrity in the Evangelical community. The federal treasurer Peter Costello appeared on stage with Nalliah and embraced him, as did the then deputy Prime Minister John Anderson.

The case was finally settled earlier this year, with a points victory to Nalliah. This has allowed him the confidence to discover his voice once more and to bless us with the profound insights that can come to those whom God speaks to directly.

This is the best bit:

The Lord told me to spend some personal time with Prime Minister John Howard and to prophetically prepare Federal Treasurer Peter Costello as the future Prime Minister of Australia. (I don’t know the exact timing, but I was obedient to the voice of God).

Nalliah goes to to declare his prophethood:

I know this prophetic declaration is very controversial, but at this critical crossroad in our nation’s destiny, it’s not time to tickle the ears of man, but to please the Father in Heaven, by boldly proclaiming His Authoritative Word of Righteousness, Justice, and Truth to the Church and Nation!

The mainstream readership of the News limited papers took a less charitable view of Nalliah’s intervention.

Still blissfully unaware of the wider community’s perception of him, Nalliah has met with the League of Rights, a fringe group who deny the Holocaust and peddle the authenticity of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This is not the first time Nalliah has shared a platform with the league.

This all begs the question, why on earth would it be in our interests to shut this man up? Note that during the 5 years of the legal battle Nalliah was treated sympathetically by the mainstream press. This has changed immediately once the case was concluded.

The glare of the media spotlight has been especially unflattering to Nalliah and his views. It has been a much more effective tool against him than the legal process could ever have been.

We have examined the issues involved in previous posts; here, here and here

The question that we ask our readers is:

Are Muslim pupils better served in Islamic schools or rather should they seek education in other independent or government schools?

In many Muslim communities around the world, the plethora of different groups and organisations is often lamented as a cause or perhaps sign of our disunity. Why, it is asked, do we need several organisations each holding lectures or running classes? Why do we need several organisations each attempting to represent Muslim interests to the general public, government or the media? Why must each group pursue its own objectives, acquire its own resources, hold its own conferences and so on?

However, an alternative view might be that what we see as disunity is really just healthy competition between people and groups with competing ideas and objectives about what should be done and how it should be done; and, like in other areas of life, this competition between Islamic groups, sects and organisations has led to some improvements in the range, quality and reach of products and services. Can we ever really be ‘united’ as a community and is it even something we should work towards?

What do you think?

This week, the topic is:

It is often said that Muslims should buy from Muslim businesses. It is better, the argument goes, that our money stays within the Muslim community and we support our co-religionists even if it might mean paying slightly more or settling for less in other respects. However, an opposing argument says that we should buy the product or service that best suits our needs in terms of cost, quality and aesthetic value regardless of who produced it.

So, what do you think?