This article speaks of "'defensive jihad,' which differs from terrorism because it is meant to counter aggression against Muslims and does not threaten innocent people." Which sounds great, until you realize that some Muslims believe that no non-Muslims are innocent, and that unbelief itself is an act of aggression. When self-proclaimed moderate groups take up these contentions and refute them, their moderation will be beyond question. But not until then.
"Judge Rejects 'Defensive Jihad' Argument," by Curt Anderson for Associated Press (thanks to all who sent this in):
MIAMI — Jurors who will soon debate the guilt or innocence of Jose Padilla and two other men on terrorism support charges cannot consider whether their actions were justified by Islamic law, a federal judge ruled.U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke agreed Thursday to a request from prosecutors to instruct the jurors that each of the men can be convicted even if they "may have believed that the conduct was religiously, politically or morally required, or that ultimate good would result."
Jurors are expected to begin deliberations after closing statements Monday and Tuesday. Padilla and co-defendants Adham Amin Hassoun and Kifah Wael Jayyousi are charged with being part of a North American support cell that provided finances, supplies and recruits to al-Qaida and other Islamic extremist groups.
A cornerstone of the defense during the nearly three-month trial was the idea that Islamic teaching provides for legitimate "defensive jihad," which differs from terrorism because it is meant to counter aggression against Muslims and does not threaten innocent people.
But Hassoun attorney Ken Swartz said his closing argument will not focus on whether violent actions might have been justified. Swartz said he plans to emphasize that any money or supplies provided to overseas groups was meant for humanitarian assistance.
THAT'S REFRESHING
...good things keep happening....Islam is beginning to suffer one defeat after another....time to pick up the pace...
This article, or an equivalent, was posted for comments at Raw Story. After the following comment was posted, the entire link was removed, even from their archive.
August 10th, 2007 at 10:06:19 From: Fallaci Admirer
Virgil Goode is right
The defense for jihad is its Islam. That is why we shouldn't have Muslim immigration. QED.
Following brings up blank page:
http://www.rawstory.com/comments/35937.html
Note, Fallaci Admirer is a name I use at Raw Story.
So, really, the judge has insisted that the men must be tried under American law alone and that sharia law must not take precedence or even be considered.
Good.
It shouldn't matter what a person's religion says: the law is the law.
Honestly, it blows my mind that the defense presented the case as defensive jihad, and closing arguments will focus on humanitarian funding. Seems to me that he would have had a better case going for an insanity plea. What a legal whore!!!
I'm kind of disappointed. A national platform for a jihadist to try to convince the infidels that Islam's concept of "Defensive Jihad" allows (actually, mandates) Muslims to kill or subjegate all non-believers. That would have been ... interesting. One can imagine the defense educating the jury (and the viewing public) about core Islamic beliefs and defining terms such as "innocents" and "mischief" and "aggression", with the prosecution taking the side of our leaders and media by defending the Religion of Peace and blaming the actions on poverty and lack of education and mental impairment and anything else they can think of. An open adversarial debate could have been very educational for the infidels.
Suppose Abdullah/Jose had convinced the public that his actions were not the act of a lone deranged individual, but rational attempts to carry out the will of Allah as described by Mohammad's Qur'an and the ahadith. This is Islam. This is what Islam has to offer us, as long as we allow it to fester and grow amongst us.
Fiat Justicia, et pereat mundus:
The law is the law is the law.
The idea that 'Islamic law' should even be considered is revolting.
It is perverse in the extreme that members of a criminal cult such as Islam enjoy all the benefits of the civilized justice system and are able to use it against us by elevating the criminal code of the sharia to the same level.
That has to end. Now.
The attorney's for the defence better get out the crying towels right now.
They might console their clients by speculating what they would have received in a foreign country - likely death.
Some of us think that that should be made the penalty, federally instituted, for active jihadism.
Only if we can use "Islamic punishment" (whereby we chop off their opposing hands and feet, crucify them, and then behead them) should such an "Islamic defense" plea ever be floated by these jihadists.
This kind of case makes more sense being judged by a military tribunal, and ending with a military hanging, because we are at war with these lunatics, who are "illegal enemy combatants", not ordinary "criminals".
Thousands more infidels will have to die at the hands of such Islamofascist killers before the West wakes to the full threat of the terroristic Jihad.
And cuts the legalistic silliness.
Jurors who will soon debate the guilt or innocence of Jose Padilla and two other men on terrorism support charges cannot consider whether their actions were justified by Islamic law, a federal judge ruled....U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke agreed Thursday to a request from prosecutors to instruct the jurors that each of the men can be convicted even if they "may have believed that the conduct was religiously, politically or morally required, or that ultimate good would result."
-- from the article above
Of course Hitler and the Nazis, Stalin and his Politburo, all believed that they were engaged in conduct which in the end would lead to "ultimate good." It was good for the Bolsheviks to kill the Kulaks and starve the Ukrainian peasants and kill or drive out the intellectual bourgeoisie; good for the Nazis to kill the Jews and all of the other lesser breeds in order to ensure the triumph of the Aryans of Deutschtum. It was good and right and just, by Soviet lights, to establish labor camps from Kolyma to the Caspian longitudinally, from Minsk to Magadan latitudinally. Such things removed the "wreckers," as Andrey Vyshinsky put it during the Purge Trials, removed the cosmopolitan "parasites" ("tunoyadtsy"), as a decade or two later the Enemies of the Party and the State were called, from the good, decent, fine folk who made up the Party's membership, the vanguard of the people, in a land where "life became ever better, ever gayer" ("I zhizn' stala lushche, i zhizn' stala veselee").
And in Nazi Germany, marching along by the thousands, eyes right, heil-hitlering all together, again the justification for every kind of cruelty and monstrousness, in which so many Germans so enthusiastically participated, while after the war they suddenly discovered that it had all been a matter of Hitler and few of his cronies, and they "didn't know" what had gone on, and besides, wasn't it time for everyone to let bygones be bygones, so as to fight the Russians?
Now comes the totalitarian system of Islam, totalitarian in esse if not always in posse, but now, with the appropriation of Western weaponry, and Western technology that allows the spreading of the Full Message of Islam to the most remove village in Waziristan, either by audiocassette, or videocassette, or satellite television, or the Internet, and that also makes travel by visiting Muslim agitators and missionaries much easier, so that now, deep within Dar al-Harb, Muslims have burrowed and are working to undo the very legal and political institutions created slowly by, and too often taken for granted by, the Infidels among whom those Muslims have been allowed to settle, deep behind what they themselves have been taught to regard as enemy, because Infidel, lines.
Of course they think that if the entire world is forced to submit to Islam that result will be "good." How could anyone who calls himself a Muslim, and means it, conceivably think otherwise?
But we who are not Muslims need give it not the slightest respect or value. Why? Because we are not Muslims. If we were to attribute "good" to such an outcome, we would be Muslims. But we are not. End of story.
...thanks HUGH....it is necessary to keep repeating the truths of history......if left up to the Islamic elite, history would be rewritten and past lessons forgotten....it is so necessary to never forget....
This is one we want argued before the court. Then we can have expert testimony of what islam is and what islam isn't. Where is CAIR? This is clearly a case where a moslem is being discriminated against. Look at the irony and absurdity. Padilla attacks on 9/11 because his religion commands him to do so. The press will not report this because according to their trade union agenda islam like all religions is bad and is one of peace. And the court will not allow Padilla to put on evidence that clearly shows his religion requires him after lawful fatwah to plan, assist, particpate and engage in murder and mayhem.
The court should allow him to show his evidence and then tell him the practice of his religion will be no defense to his crimes. Either way an alarm about islam is disabled.
The cat's out of the bag for the definition of "jihad." er, I mean "personal struggle." No wonder CAIR is letting this guy hang.
Ibriham Hooper is surely secretly fuming that any jihadist would admit, even tangentially, that jihad involves some aspect of violence.
I wonder how many muslims are on the jury?
or
When the muslim population grows (as it will), how many muslims will be on the jury in future cases involving muslims?
Hmmm...so...he meant to murder, but in a defensive kind of way. *sigh*, ooooooook, lol.
So, in its own twisted way, it makes sense...he "must" kill infidels, because when they find out that he intends to kill infidels, they will stop him by any means necessary, so he must kill them first."
hence, "defensive jihad".
*head-shaking in disbelief*
He actually expects people to buy this *ahem* "logic".
Nothing like the enlightening mind of a jihadist... schizophrenia anyone?
LOL