West: Jihad gets a pass

Much as I admire Diana West's writing, this is simply nonsense. The job of the prosecution counsel is to demonstrate that the defendant has broken the law. At the moment, preaching from the Koran is not illegal so the Koran is irrelevant to the prosecution argument. What is relevant is whether Abu Hamza, by his words - Koran-inspired or not - has incited murder and racial hatred.

The job of the counsel for the defence is to defend his client, regardless of whether he personally thinks he is guilty, or, certainly, whether anyone else - The Telegraph, The Spectator, even Jihadwatch - think he is a bad lot. Given the weight of the evidence against Hamza, he has his work cut out. Like the "cultural" defence in the Australian rape case, this is the best the lawyer can do. And, just as that defence did not convince, nor will this.

If a Muslim man rapes an infidel woman because the Koran says he is entitled to do so, the last thing the prosecution should do is bring the Koran into the trial. He should be treated like any other rapist.

Yes, we can all argue that the Koran should be illegal, but that is simply not the point. The Koran is not on trial. Perhaps it should be, but it isn't. Abu Hamza is on trial. Bringing Islam and the Koran into it would be the worst thing that the prosecution could do; it would muddy the waters and could lead to Hamza getting off the hook on a technicality.

Far from being clear sighted, West's article is, on this occasion, muddled and illogical, confusing legal matters with morality and personal opinion.

Last update - 22:39 27/01/2006

UN nuclear chief calls on U.S. to provide Iran with reactors

By The Associated Press

DAVOS - UN nuclear chief Mohamed ElBaradei on Friday called on the United States to provide Iran with nuclear reactors, and urged Tehran to declare a moratorium on enriching uranium for at least eight years.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/675780.html

Interested:

You are quite correct about the legal approach to the matter. The Crown has to prove the charges and the intent with a heavy burden of proof, too, unlike a civil matter where the test is "on balance of probabilities". And likewise the defence has only to raise reasonable doubt as to whether there was both a guilty act and a guilty mind.

I am not familliar with the actual charges against Hook Hamza, but as the preacher at the mosque that has produced so many fine "misunderstanders of Islam", I hope the Crown is capable of doing adequate job in both the laying of charges and inference-drawing to demonstrate that Hamza should be deported.

Interested,

You are correct that the Koran is not the point in this particular trial. I believe Dianne West is trying (indirectly) to make the point about the Islam scriptural issues nobody wants to face.

People must start fighting back when Islamic apologists say "all religions are equally violent in scripture/history". The violence in the Bible is "descriptive": Certain time (3000-2500 years ago), certain place, certain people, certain reason. The violence was extremely limited in scope/area (Israel). The 109 violent Koranic verses are "prescriptive". They fall in line with the Hadiths and example of Mohammed, a ruthless warrior/pedophile. They are unlimited in scope, covering the world: "Slay the unbeliever wherever you find him" (surah 9:5).

The prescriptive commands of the Bible are all non-violent. In fact, the only Biblical Christian verse Muslims quote (all the friggin time!! particularly Mr. Hooper of CAIR) to "prove" violence in Christianity is when Jesus said: "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword". Of course, they don't mention that Jesus' next words were: "for I have come to set a man at variance with his father....". Sword was clearly metaphorical for division between those who became Christian and family/friends who were not. In fact, the term division (vs sword) is used in the Gospel of Luke. All the other prescriptive "commands" from Jesus were about loving enemies, forgiving, etc. NO comparison whatsoever to the violence of the Koran. NONE.

The first 300 years of Christianity saw thousands of early Christian martyrs murdered, yet NOT taking up the sword for God. The First 90 years of Islam saw Jihad conquer all the Middle East, North Africa, Spain, into Southern France, parts of the Byzantine heartland, into Persia, etc. etc. etc. The Jihad continued throughout a 1400 year history. The early years of any religion are probably the best in which to judge the true teachings/scripture. This is certainly true with Islam.

We need to start quoting scripture against the "all religions are equally violent" crowd. Jesus was not Mohammed. People must understand the differences, or they will continue the delusion that "extremism" is the real problem, instead of the scripture of Islam.

I'd like to find ways to Theologically debate this issue with Muslims. Any ideas?

I remember Abu Hamza, bloated taker of the payouts of the uk welfare state, speaking on live TV at the time the space shuttle burned out on re-entry, if I remember he said that allah was judging America for allowing a Jew, and Hindu on the flight, if that isn't racism, or racially aggravated speech (uk's new laws) then what is? Why wasn't he sorted out in acarcrash like they did to faeds' son and lady D.?
Couldn't you have extradited him and found him a bed in Gitmo???

Actually this is a rare instance where I have to disagree with Ms. West. I think Islam will NOT get a pass. Maybe Hamza will, but Islam certainly won't. Each side (defense, prosecution) is doing its best, and through their efforts, the emphasis is shifted from Hamza to the Qur'an. At some point the trial will be not about Hamza but about the Qur'an and Islam, and the verdict will have tremendous effect on the resistance to Islam (I was going to say war on Islam, but at the moment Infidels initiate nothing---they merely resist, react to Islamic provocations). I hope the English elites will resist dhimmitude pressures and arrange for the Qur'an and Islam a verdict of "Guilty."

The defence tactic certainly works for me; the guy is just a good moslem.
The more people who understand that a good muslem will kill you, Christian, Jew, Hindu or Humanist, because he/she has direct orders from allah via mo the murderer to do so, orders that are 'forever' ( unless you submit and pay them extra bucks, bow and scrape and live a life of semislavery ) the more people who will join the resistance to islamic world domination.

Hamza is a true example of a good muslem, as his lawyer, it seems, is pointing out.

For once I decided not to read Ms.West's article, I think I have read more then enough bad news this week, but I have confidence that Tony Blair will not let Hamza escape from his sentence. I remember this Hamza declaring that the Space Shuttle burned because a Hindu and Jew were allowed into it.

That it took this long for Hamza to get into trouble is a testament to the world's double standard for Muslims, in that if you are a Muslim the world expects will have higher standards for an ape or pig then for you.

Guess what would happen if a non muslim made the same remark about that tragedy?

The Koran is getting a good public airing this week which is a good thing.
I too disagree with Miss West, particularly at the point where she says "Both the prosecution and the defense have decided that Islam plays no animating role in the modern jihadist movement of which Abu Hamza is a part"

I believe that both counsel know only to well the part Islam and the Koran play in the wider scheme of things, and airing the book in open court, showing it to Jurors, (who get bored in their secluded room waiting for their part to start and there is only so many times you can read yesterdays Sun)and reading bits aloud to public gallery and press. Hughes J is generally a sound man, lets wait for his summing up first before we jump to conclusions.

Hamza is not only a muslim, he is an excellent muslim. A role model for the rest of them. By his example, the rest of us can see the positive effects that Islam has on its submitters. Looking and listening to him, you can feel the love. Islam is the religion of peace, and you can prove that by studying Hamza's life.
Hamza, in all his glory, should be the poster boy for Islam. CAIR's Hooper has held the title too long. I dont doubt that the grand Mullah, Mufti, Imam or Ayatollah of Iran or somewhere will declare him Mahdi. Oh boy, wont that be fun.
The original Hamza was a warrior, and a nephew of Mohammad, I think. He beat up Abu Juhl because he insulted Mohammad, and later beheaded him in battle and threw poor Abu's head at the feet of the maniac. Hamza would make a great Mahdi...Todays Abu Juhl's are Joo's, Christians, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Budhists, Taoists, occultists of all types, atheists, polytheists,
Pigmy headhunters in the Congo, Satanists, Wiccans, and anyone else who does not believe in Allah or his fake prophet Mohammad. 'Off with their heads', she shouted. The Maniac commands it. Todays Hamza seems up to the task of Mahdiship...so many people to behead, so little time...

I forgot to add this to the above. It's a little hard for muslim beheaders to get to the Pigmy beheaders in the Congo. Partly because of where they live, but mostly because the Pigmys got those pesky blowguns and poison darts. A good blowgun in the hand is worth two swords in the bush. One thing muslims hate is to be stuck with a poison dart.
Really makes em mad. Some day the muslims will probably just nuke the Pigmys. Islams final solution to the Pigmy problem...

It's in the Koran:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=18987_Song_for_the_Ages&only

hello123-

Debating religion with a true believer is like speading manure on the moon.

You get nothing out of it but the waste of a lot of time, energy ...and manure better spread on something with a likelier chance of blooming.

They cannot hear anything from you but the prattling propaganda of an infidel dog.

It's the built-in truth deflector of The Absolutely Certain, whether Moonie, Mormon or Muslim.

Just ask the Mohammedans why they follow a pedophile?

(Everything else is up for endless exegesis. "I'll raise your 20 Suras with my 21 OT verses", ad absurdum.)

But an immoral fact like that of raping a 9 year old and calling it "marriage" (found lovelingly related in many of the Hadiths) cannot be denied by them.

And, if Mohammad wasn't "perfect", then how can the Koran be?

And, then it all starts to unravel...

Duh_swami
Perhaps the Pigmies should offer to give the mohammedans blowjobs instead of blowguns,there'd be a queue from Cairo to Kinshasa.