The Keys to the Armory

An Australian reader emailed us last night with the following message:

I thought you might be interested in an article written by a female Muslim captain in the Royal Australian Navy. It appeared in the June 2015 issue of the Royal United Services Institute Journal of New South Wales Incorporated (scroll down to : “Islam in Australia in 2015: an Australian Muslim perspective – Mona Shindy”).

Together with some other ex-military men I had asked to meet with our Assistant Minister for Defence (Stuart Robert MP). Mr Robert has yet to respond, but at the meeting we intended putting forward our objections to Muslims in the Australian Defence Forces (ADF) and their growing influence in Australia. Our request followed Mr Robert’s announcement he wanted to see more Muslims in the ADF, and his recent appointment of a Muslim imam as an advisor to the ADF.

When I first read the article I found so many lies and distortions in it I thought it was a practical joke. However, it is not. Google confirms Captain Shindy does exist, while also confirming the genuineness of the article.

That such a well-known journal would publish this nonsense is inexplicable.

The article is available in PDF format: “Islam in Australia in 2015: an Australian Muslim perspective”.

As it happens, Mona Shindy is the most senior Muslim in the Royal Australian Navy. Her article is a mixture of routine Islamic dishonesty and progressive multi-culti boilerplate of a sort to make the reader’s eyes glaze over after the first three sentences. The introduction to her paper will give you the flavor:

Islam is a religion based on submission to the will and laws of God, under which a woman is equal to a man and the killing of innocent people is a sin. Terrorism, an abhorrent act, has nothing to do with Islam. A ‘victim mentality’ evident in Australian Islamic society is fodder for terrorist recruiters. Breaking the terrorist cycle must involve communication, education and equity.

It seems uncharitable to take exception to this young woman’s words. She may very well believe the soothing bromides she cobbled together to form her article. Or she may be engaging in taqiyya and kitman (lying and misdirection to achieve sacred ends); there’s no way for us to tell. But in either case, her statements and explanations are straight out of the Muslim Brotherhood playbook. They make essentially the same points as does the oily oratory of Tariq Ramadan or the rhetoric of Imam Faisal Rauf.

The following paragraph is from the section on “Islam and Muslims”:

Islam teaches that the killing of innocent people is a sin. Why then have Muslims been linked to terrorism? Terrorism is an unjustifiable, abhorrent act that has nothing to do with Islam. The extremist behaviour of groups purporting to be Muslims has been overplayed by the media for years constantly linking terrorist behaviours to Islam, e.g. use of the description ‘Islamist’, rather than separatist or militant. Of course, such groups claiming authority for their actions under a banner of ‘Islam’ has not helped, but it is not legitimate to associate the politically-driven behaviours of unsavoury individuals or groups with the teachings of a religion they claim to follow. Extremist groups have emanated from many religious communities over the years. Well-known examples include many of the atrocities in World Wars I and II, such as Hitler and the extermination of the Jews; and the longstanding conflict between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland. [emphasis added]

So what “sacred misdirection” may be found in the assertion that “the killing of innocent people is a sin”?

In order to answer that question we need to take a little side-journey into the niceties of Islamic law. As Reliance of the Traveller — the foremost authoritative source on Sunni Islamic law — reminds us (§r10.3), under sharia, “giving a misleading impression” is an acceptable practice:

Scholars say that there is no harm in giving a misleading impression if required by an interest countenanced by Sacred Law.

And to do so is mandatory if the interest is mandatory. Advancing the spread of Islam, by jihad or other means, is mandatory for all Muslims. Therefore, assuming Capt. Shindy is a believing Muslim, it is mandatory for her to mislead her subordinates, her fellow naval officers, her superiors, and the Australian public, provided that in so doing she advances the spread of Islam in Australia.

Now we need to understand the definitions of certain words as understood by Islamic law. Muslims who are well-versed in sharia do not mean the same thing we do when they use the word “innocent”. They know our definition is different from theirs, and they are content to mislead us, because our misunderstanding of their meaning advances an interest countenanced by Sacred Law.

So what do believing Muslims mean when they say “innocent”?

According to the tenets of Islamic law, the world is divided into two houses: Dar al-Islam, or “the House of Submission”, and Dar al-Harb, or the “House of War”. The former comprises all the territory whose inhabitants have submitted to Allah. Dar al-Islam is the only possible zone in which there can be peace. The rest of the world — the portion governed by infidels — is considered to be permanently at war with all Muslims.

Islam defines “noncombatants” as “innocent Muslims” — that is, those believers who have not transgressed against the laws of Allah. No one else can be considered “innocent” under Islamic law.

The infidel’s status is harbi, “enemy”, because he comes from the territory of war. Therefore, according to the inexorable logic of the relevant Koranic verses — the uncreated word of Allah — there is no such thing as a noncombatant infidel. All non-Muslims in Dar al-Harb are enemies, and the believer may and should strike terror into their hearts and kill them when necessary.

Therefore, when Capt. Shindy refers to “innocent” people, she is not including any Australian people except those who have already submitted to Allah and accepted the Islamic faith. All others are considered enemies, and may be killed when it is expedient to do so if they refuse to convert to Islam.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

In the next portion of that paragraph, Mona Shindy implicitly invokes Islamic law concerning blasphemy, insisting that terrorists not be described using any terms derived from “Islam”. This is because calling them “Islamic terrorists” would reflect badly on Islam, and thus violate Islamic law, which forbids defaming Islam in any manner, and which is to be applied to both Muslims and non-Muslims.

Now, if those who heard Capt. Shindy’s words or read her paper were rational beings capable of independent thought, they would say something like this:

Captain Shindy, you describe yourself as a Muslim. The terrorists who blow up schools and behead captives also call themselves Muslims. How am I to decide which of you is telling the truth? Perhaps you are a Muslim, and they are not. Perhaps the reverse is true. Or, perhaps all of you are Muslims, but you are not telling the truth about the terrorists.

How am I to resolve this conundrum? Must I simply take your word for it?

Alas, no such reasonable enquiries will take place. Her audience is not made up of rational beings capable of independent thought, especially those who have risen into the higher ranks of the armed forces. Their minds have been crippled by decades of politically correct multicultural indoctrination. They will simply accept the superficial feel-good meaning of her words, and any embedded lapses in logic will go unquestioned.

The rest of the paragraph employs standard Alinskyite misdirection, bringing up the venerable red herrings of Hitler and Northern Ireland to divert our attention from the violence of Islam. If she had been more thorough, she would have included Timothy McVeigh and Anders Behring Breivik in her list of terrorists from “many religious communities”.

Once again, if her audience were alert and amenable to logic, they would ask her about the relative proportion of such “other” terrorists, when compared with the tens of thousands of Islamic terrorists who have engaged in murderous activities — and those just in the fourteen years since 9-11.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

There is much more that can be gleaned from Capt. Shindy’s paper, but it would take too long and use up too much space to plumb it at greater depth. Let’s just take a look at these excerpts from her conclusion:

In the present era, we need strong government and community leaders who are more strategic in their approach to Muslims; and who focus strongly on peacemaking and promoting social cohesion. They need to implement strategies that adequately support the needs of all citizens and that celebrate the contribution of all as part of the ‘Australian identity’.

Mainstream Muslims need to be supported and protected. The promulgation of negative views of Muslims increases prejudice, fear and uncertainty. This can lead to disadvantage, including reduced employment prospects, vilification and victimisation; and these provide ammunition for terrorist recruiters.


In short, real change can and must occur in Australia’s relations with its Muslim citizens. It will need strong leadership, a change in the dialogue, better exploration of grievances and community challenges, and implementation of a national education programme promoting understanding and inclusion.

Notice that any improvement in relations between “communities” depends upon the attitude and behavior of non-Muslims, and not upon Muslims. This is the standard Islamic line that depicts Muslims as perennial victims, and non-Muslims as their unfair persecutors. Nothing about Islam ever causes any problems; only misunderstanding or bigotry on the part of non-Muslims creates inter-community frictions.

Tellingly, there is also an implied threat of violence in this conclusion: Any violence that occurs is a result of your failure to submit to the requirements of Muslims. If only you were to act properly towards Muslims, there would be no more violence on the part of those who call themselves “Muslims”, but aren’t really.

These conclusions are inherent in everything that Mona Shindy says, but don’t expect her Australian audience to discern them. The Muslim Brotherhood has been notably successful at undermining the Western capacity to think and reason clearly, to the point where such conclusions are simply unthinkable.

The Australian military, like its counterparts in all other Western countries, has invited a self-acknowledged enemy inside the fortress and given it the keys to the armory. It has voluntarily admitted these potential destroyers into its ranks, and is utterly oblivious to what it has done.

38 thoughts on “The Keys to the Armory

  1. Bravo!

    The growing worry that our beloved nation , Australia , is on a slippery slide of unthinking brain-dead subservience to multiculturalism is hugely magnified and moved to centre stage not only by knowledge that such a female has been appointed to senior rank in the Royal Australian Navy, but that the hitherto highly regarded Royal United Services Institute has seen fit to publish such a litany of distortion.

    Could there be a more apt analogy than “a gift of the keys to the armoury!”

    • Well now we know why so many asylum sorry scum got to Australia with [derogatory female epithets] like that in our Navy & ADF

  2. “Any violence that occurs is a result of your failure to submit to the requirements of Muslims. If only you were to act properly towards Muslims, there would be no more violence on the part of those who call themselves “Muslims”, but aren’t really.”

    And that really is the nut of it. Muslims simply cannot concede. They MUST be accommodated more and more to a greater degree than any other immigrant group to a first world country. It simply must happen if we wish to continue our lives in a non violent secular society. Hence, foot baths in airports, halal meat in public schools, turning beds toward Mecca in hospitals, special muslim prayer rooms at university and job sites etc., etc., etc….
    Always under the same mantra; if you had a better understanding, you wouldn’t find this quite so scary! Submission, that’s what all the kool kids are talking about.

    Great essay, thanks for posting!

  3. I received a reply from a letter I wrote to Cameron asking about his Anti extremism Bill now going though Parliament. I received a reply from a Moslem called Kaleed Odoo literally threatening me with arrest. His words “We will not tolerate hatred in our country!” He addressed me a “Mr” instead of “Bishop”. Who are the “We” in question I asked by reply, and what are “British Values” you rfere to, The sharia?

  4. The main issue with posting here – maybe not so much an issue – is that we are preaching to the choir. Nothing wrong with that, though it would seem all too many believe these believers and they have sooooo many excuses. People in the US are like – well if you draw a cartoon of the profit – you deserve what you get, though they do not appear to mind as much if a real profit is drawn – since THAT is about free speech!

    on a brighter note -this sound track rock (minus the annoying ads)

  5. The “Peter” posting above was not me. We must have another one. It is not an uncommon name.

    This woman acts as though she is some sort of fifth columnist and what she says is clearly a distortion of the truth. The frightening thing is, people out there are taking t seriously.

  6. Excellent article. Consider this dishonest verbiage:

    “promoting social cohesion”
    “They need to implement strategies that adequately support the needs of all citizens…
    “Mainstream Muslims need to be supported and protected.”

    All these really mean “recognise Sharia law for muslims”.
    That in turn means to disregard Constitutional law, and accept treason.
    Treason is part of “social cohesion”, after all.

    Australia, take the blinders off!

  7. “Personally, I don’t trust one Muslim in our military …[I]f they truly are a devout Muslim, and follow the Quran and the Sunnah, then I feel threatened because they’re commanded to kill me.”
    Tennessee State Rep. Rick Womick, Air Force veteran

  8. One can readily envisage the process by which Ms Shindy rose to become a navy captain. Her very joining of the navy would have involved a lowering of normal entry criteria, so keen would the institution be to bolster the numbers of female Muslim members.

    Her application for officer candidature would have been a foregone conclusion irrespective of her qualifications and worthiness. Any chance she would not pass the course would have been eliminated by the fear of an “anti-discrimination” lawsuit.

    Any promotion she applies for will be granted, so pleased with themselves will the navy brass be that they have a Muslima officer they can point to and pat themselves on the back over their diversity and inclusiveness.

  9. Captain Shindy will have taken an Oath of Allegiance. Islam, though, authorises muslims to lie in the cause of Islam.
    Remember the Times Square failed Jihad Bomb Mass Murder?
    The muslim bomber, Faisal Shahzad from Pakistan, is a naturalized U.S. citizen. The judge reminded him of his Oath. His reply?
    “I sweared, but I did not mean it.”

  10. Captain Shindy speaks of “extremist groups”, such as “Hitler and the extermination of the Jews”. Hitler was allied with the Islamic leader Haj Amin al Husseini, Mufti of Jerusalem, who helped design the extermination programme, was accommodated in Berlin, and visited the death camps incognito. “Killing Jews is Worship that draws us close to Allah,” he said.

  11. “What should concern us is why he [Tarek Kamleh, muslim doctor who left Australia] and others can come to believe that their religion justifies participation in the imposition of an intolerant and VIOLENT RULING SYSTEM, and the belief that their own government HAS NO RIGHT to stop them from being part of the project.”
    That is Islam – Inflict Sharia Law on All Mankind (I.S.L.A.M.).
    Quoted in comment by mortimer

  12. Multi-culturism and the Euro heaped piles together have succeeded in weakening the individual countries so much that they can no longer respond as nations to threats on their once secure borders. Pathetic really that such an experienced bunch would buy lock stock and barrel into the the belief that human nature has changed and they can they can now play God with Muslim abandon.

  13. And if you refuse to buy halal certified foods your a racist,and if you don’t allow muslims to participate in polygyny and claim for 4 wives and 21 children on the welfare that you support with your tax your a racist,and if you don’t allow illegal muslim fortune hunters into your country your a racist,talking about fortune hunters guys,here,s a good Dutch truck driver trolling a couple of fortune hunters if they were seeking asylum they don’t have to pass through half a dozen European countries where they can claim asylum,instead they want to make it to my country Britain,maybe its because Morrisons the supermarket lets muslims shop for free,,,,,,tried to upload a link guys but they have deleted them.Just google BOYCOTT MORRISONS

  14. Captain Mona Shindy’s photograph shows a demure female officer who appears to have just left the hospital after being bandaged up for extensive skull fractures; oh wait, that’s just her Enemy Uniform in Plain Sight Blithely Ignored by Supposedly Robustly On-the-Job Conservative Prime Minister Tony Abbot…

  15. I believe it’s important to note Israel does allow Muslims into their Military force. I honesty do not know how they select who is extreme and whom is not and who is lying and who is not. But Israels record at picking these Muslims have been very good so far.

    I’m fairly confident that Israel doesn’t have a policy that is based on this statement “Breaking the terrorist cycle must involve communication, education and equity.”
    They may have said something like that overtly but not as a matter of policy.

    Note: the US and European policy of selecting followers of Islam has been a abysmal.

    • There are some interview tactics that can be used to catch even the most determined taqiyya artists. While Israel may be using such methods, you can bet that nobody else is.

      • Any Muslim who does not talk with the brazen candor of Anjem Choudry is, we must reasonably assume, lying to us. No need for any taqiyya technique. We need to cultivate a rational prejudice against all Muslims.

        Why do I say that? Oh, I don’t know… *he says, with the raging flaming volcano of data about Islam looming just over his left shoulder…*

  16. I’m trying to figure out how being nicer to real, honest-to-goodness Muslims would result in less violence by people who only claim to be Muslims but are really acting contrary to Islam.

    The argument is essentially: If we’re not nice enough to Muslims, we’ll push them into abandoning their good, decent Islamic principles and they’ll start doing evil things that give Islam a bad name. Or: If we insist on linking Islam to terrorism, a lot of good Muslims will be so offended by this slander against their religion that they’ll be induced to act in accordance with our bigoted and completely false suspicions about Islam.

    I can’t be the only one who thinks this doesn’t quite square the circle.

    • Anything to round up the herd, and keep them under control, submitting to sharia of whatever shade.

  17. Compare and contrast:

    When Muslims do violence in the name of Islam, invoking core Islamic texts as justification, and winning applause from many other people claiming to be Muslims, our president (inter alia) insists that it’s absolutely wrong to link the action to Islam or allow it to color our view of any other Muslims.

    When one lone psychopath (perhaps under the influence of psychotropic drugs) commits a heinous massacre and is immediately denounced by everyone — even by segregationists and neo-Nazis — our president (inter alia) declares that the act reflects a malignancy lodged deep inside the (white) American soul, and basically implies that white people in general are implicated in the crime.

    • These double standards are brought to you by neo-Marxist zero-sum conflict ideology.

  18. Calling Timothy McVeigh a “terrorist from “many religious communities”” is utterly ridiculous. McVeigh was raised Catholic but publicly admitted that he didn’t follow closely, then claimed to be an atheist, and in the letter he sent to a news station the day of or before his death he claimed that “science [was his] religion.” Typical misdirection of fact, like people including McVeigh as a “religious extremist” in books of political ideology or US history.

    • Actually, that was my point. McVeigh was from “many religious communities” in the sense of “none”.

      BTW — I don’t know if you’ve ever seen him referred to as a “Christian terrorist”, but I have.

      • Ah, I guess I missed where the excerpt of the Australian article ended and your commentary began. My mistake. No, I’ve never seen him referred to in that particular way, usually with the generic “religious extremist” moniker.

  19. Rule no 1

    Never get fooled by a word

    When a muslim talks about an”innocent”, he means ‘muslim’. Only a muslim can be “innocent”. Actually, he might as well say “one of us”. Same meaning

    • A very important point. Next time you hear a Muslim claiming that Islam is most assuredly against the taking of “innocent” lives, understand that the concept of innocent used is a very peculiar one: no non-Muslims are innocent, only Muslims can be.

  20. I am sooooooooooooooo muslimed-out that I am starting to hallucinate: I am starting to think that Muslims really ARE a race, and I am really seriously becoming a racist.

    Do I need help?

  21. Sigh…

    What is becoming apparent to many more people living in the free world is that Islam is not a race, nor a religion, but an Arab supremacist ideology with but one over-riding goal: world conquest.

    It’s articles like this one which puts Islam in it’s true place as a subversive political organization masquerading as a religion. Without these, we will fail as a civilization and let the monsters of Islam win.

    Thanks for the analysis and the truth.

    We need to spread the truth behind Islam far more than ever.

    Time for the world to wake up and see what is going on and do something concrete about it.

  22. Ed May aka baron bodissey
    why are you not in prison for hate preaching?
    you write articles that really describe you & your followers
    – amazing that such an uneducated person like you can type a few words, albeit garbage

    • Ms. Andrews.

      Have you read the qu’ran? Would you classify that as hate speech? Should purveyors of that be in prison as well along with those who preach it? Please detail.

Comments are closed.