But still probably best to drop the problematic word, jihad, and just call it "violence," to be on the safe side. "Judge tells terror trial religiously motivated violence illegal," by Gary Hughes, for the Australian, August 18:
RELIGIOUSLY motivated violence was against the law, no matter which religious group was behind it, the judge in Australia's largest terrorism trial said today.Hear that, all you would-be Buddhist mujahidin?
During his final directions to the jury, Justice Bernard Bongiorno said it did not matter whether the supposed justification for such violence came from the Bible or the Koran.He might just as well have said it doesn't matter what jihad means, only what violence means."Religiously motivated violence is illegal," he told the Victorian Supreme Court jury.
He said the term "violent jihad" had been used by the prosecution in the case, despite the fact it had never actually been said by any of the 12 accused.
The prosecution has claimed that the 12 Melbourne Muslim men allegedly led by self-proclaimed cleric Abdul Nacer Benbrika plotted to wage violent jihad on Australian soil, including attacking sporting events.
Justice Bongiorno said there had been a variety of definitions provided to the jury about the meaning of the term jihad.
But the only definition that was relevant was the one the jury decided to place on "violent jihad".
"It doesn't matter what jihad means," Justice Bongiorno said. "It's what violent jihad means."
Mr Benbrika and the 11 other accused have pleaded not guilty to a range of terrorism charges, including knowingly belonging to a terrorist organisation.Justice Bongiorno is continuing his final directions to the jury.
We still treat them like children, rather than giving them full credit for being the murderous bandits they are. There is a fair bit of condescension in Buangiornos statement, don't you think?
Jihad isn't always violent. Only when needed.
Jihad also means undermining our democratic systems, establishing Islamic rules in our societies and constructing mosques to establish a parallel society outside the reach of democracy and Rule of Law.
Countering Jihad is good for everyone.
If Jihad is not a conspiracy to commit crime, then I don't know what is.
It doesn't matter what jihad means. Period.
The problem is: what to do when Muslims frame it as self-defense, which CAN be a legal use of violence.
Violence seems to follow the "religion of peace"..............can't imagine why?
Judge Bongiorno (fittingly for an Australian, Judge G'day) is slightly confused. The phrase "violent jihad" would never be used by Muslims participating directly in violence against Infidels as part of their "Jihad." They would simply call it Jihad. There is no distinction to be made. It is we, in the West, who for clarity have to affix modifying adjectives to make clear to ourselves that the impulse, or duty, is to conduct "Jihad" and that there are various means to do so. Jihad remains permanent, but the instruments of Jihad vary. In the seventh century, the only kind of Jihad anyone could think of would be that conducted through combat or qitaal. And that is how Jihad would be conducted -- with qitaal so ferocious that it of course went far beyond normal combat in order to "strike terror" into the hearts of Unbelievers -- for more than a millennium.
Until OPEC trillions came along, the idea of a "Money Weapon" that could be deployed against the Infidels -- to pay for mosques, madrasas, propaganda, armies of Western hirelings -- would have seemed fanciful. And until Muslims, by the millions, were allowed to settle deep within Infidel lands, in an unheard-of and, for some, scarcely-believable manifestation of historical amnesia and nearly-criminal negligence by the terminally complacent members of Western political and media elites, campaigns of Da'wa in the Infidel lands, and demographic conquest, proceeding inexorably with Infidels looking on, repeating to themselves "But what can we do?" as if they cannot dare to think of taking what at any other moment in history would have been seen to be the most obvious measures of physical and civilizational self-defense, were not even to be imagined.
But now Muslims are here, and their presence, while already resulting in a situation that is far more unpleasant, expensive, and physically dangerous for both the indigenous non-Muslims, and for other, but non-Muslim, immigrants, all over the highly-desirable-to-live-in countries of the West, also leads to too many cases of confusion, where the personal charm or mateyness or plausibility of this or that Muslim fellow worker, or parent, can mislead Infidels -- so eager to be misled -- into confusing the transient, the temporary, the anecdotal, for an understanding grounded in the evidence of immutable texts, not to be tampered with, and the evidence of 1350 years of history, not to be overlooked.
Mass pedagogy is necessary. But who is doing it? Not the governments of the Western world. And for reasons that deserve to be examined, those most alarmed are mis-represented, too often, as being "on the right" or as being "fundamentalist Christians -- as if Oriana Fallaci, Ibn Warraq, Wafa Sultan, and so many others who, both apostates and Infidels, were to have their own backgrounds ignored in the unseemly haste to label all those most keenly aware of the problem as "right-wing" or with some other equally dismissive, and deadly, epithet.
"The problem is: what to do when Muslims frame it as self-defense, which CAN be a legal use of violence."
self-defense, you mean like Ruby Ridge, Waco, the Whiskey Rebellion, the shot on Fort Sumter...? Seems like most Islamic self-defense is that type of guerilla fighting, not defending your house from burglars type self-defense.
They lost their inner struggle...Sung to the tune of, 'They Lost that Loving Feeling', by the Righteous Bros...
Behavioral therapy, 'We don't care what you think, but we do care what you do'.
But, 'the thought is the father of the deed'...what then?
Two basic kinds of thoughts exist. Selfish and selfless. There are no selfless thoughts in Islam.
Jihad, as a inward struggle is totally selfish.
Focused entirely on the individual, by the individual and for the individual. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with this, and is common in all religions and spiritual systems.
Which is why 'inner struggle' is so often used in defense. It's a good argument, if that's all there was...
Jihad, 'fighting for Allah's cause(s)' is a mixture, selfless in that 'everything is for Allah', selfish in that jihad is a way to Paradise worth dying for, and killing for...'They slay and are slain'.
The thought of these deeds, are those of Allah, the 'Father', as he clearly stated in his book how he expected his slaves to conduct themselves, in terms of 'deeds'. In all his wisdom and glory, he provided the Prophet Mohammad, to demonstrate how He (Allah) wanted these deeds done.
Jihad of the 'violent' type, is a word from Allah, he mentions it numerous times in his book.
He makes it clear that it is important to him
that his slaves follow directions, that are beyond inner struggle, and into the field of action, and deeds. He makes it clear that those who choose to stay at home and not jihad, are in his disfavor...
Uh oh...You know what that means...The overall, self serving goal of individual muslims is, or should be, getting into Allah's Heaven.
That can only be accomplished by following the directions in the book... and then there are no guarantees, except for death in jihad.
The inner struggle fails because it is the least effective way to please Allah, and get into Paradise. 'Fighting kuffars from dar al-harb, and getting killed while doing so, Jihad, is much more effective and immediate.
From article: Religiously motivated violence is illegal,"
Not in Islam, there it is mandatory...Allah rewards it...Personally...
Two basic kinds of thoughts exist. Selfish and selfless. There are no selfless thoughts in Islam.
Jihad, as a inward struggle is totally selfish.
Focused entirely on the individual, by the individual and for the individual. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with this, and is common in all religions and spiritual systems.
Which is why 'inner struggle' is so often used in defense. It's a good argument, if that's all there was...
Jihad, 'fighting for Allah's cause(s)' is a mixture, selfless in that 'everything is for Allah', selfish in that jihad is a way to Paradise worth dying for, and killing for...'They slay and are slain'.
Posted by: duh_swami
There is a subtle difference between the natural individual and Islamic ‘individual’, in that the Islamic ‘individual’ must hone his personality to better serve the collective of the Ummah, so individual’s ‘inner struggle’ is subsumed to this collective enterprise. Unlike the natural individual who faces the world with personal responsibility, the jihadi ‘individual’ does all in his power to better submit to the collective, which is an oxymoron. Come to think of it, all of Islam is an oxymoron, starting with its “religion of peace” deceits. "Selfless individual" in Islam means you surrender your personal responsibility to the collective, an oxymoron.
So any effort by the Islamic ‘individual’ in his spiritual struggle is to serve in full submission to Mohammet’s “fighting for Allah” cause, with superstitious appeals to a lower human nature with promises of sex orgies forever in Allah’s paradise when killed in battle to advance the cause of the Ummah’s collective. “Self defense” in that sense is totally perverted into making better self-sacrificing soldiers of Allah, dying to go to his perverted vision of paradise. Such is the legacy left behind by their ‘apostle of Allah’ which for 1400 years manifested in killing the infidels for their evil Cult of Allah. The “lesser Jihad” is just another oxymoron, which really translates into one’s striving for the collective, which is the “greater Jihad’ of the individual Muslim as a true ‘slave of Allah’, in full submission to this Cult. It’s so twisted. No wonder they riot over Teddy bears and cartoons. What a sick bunch of murderous puppies in their ‘religion of peace’ oxymoron.
"The problem is: what to do when Muslims frame it as self-defense, which CAN be a legal use of violence."
self-defense, you mean like Ruby Ridge, Waco, the Whiskey Rebellion, the shot on Fort Sumter...? Seems like most Islamic self-defense is that type of guerilla fighting, not defending your house from burglars type self-defense.
Posted by: DenverRodeo
But our laws don't recognize acts of jihad as valid. If they want to escape the penalty for murder they will have to turn killing their daughter or wife into an act of self-defense. They will turn killing the infidel who comes to court their daughter into an act of self-defense. They will claim they felt under attack by non-Muslims and did what they could to protect themselves, even if it means blowing up a church. It won't matter that no one tried to harm them or even intended to. The fact that we exist and (seemingly) pose a danger to their faith is something for them to defend against. Some lawyer will argue it for them. This doesn't mean they'll win but they'll certainly try.
Religiously motivated violence is illegal.
Violence in the act of self-defense is not always illegal. Someday a lawyer will find a way to turn jihad into an act of self-defense.
At a recent meeting of concerned Christians, I was given these figures regarding the Arabic word 'katelo' (kill or be killed) According to an Arabic speaking clergyman who compiled this information, inter alia, in the Qur'an, the Hadith and the Sunna, this particular word 'katelo' appears 35,213 times. I'm not sure what the significance of this is -- but it sure doesn't sound like the basis for a 'religion of peace'
'sheik', jewcat, other Australians - perhaps we should be considering how, after the conclusion of this trial, Judge Bongiorno - who, going by his name, is Italo-Australian - might be formally presented, for his instruction, with copies of Oriana Fallaci's final works: The Rage and the Pride, The Force of Reason, The Apocalypse.
It may well be that Judge Bongiorno - like other Italo-Australians that I know, and may I say, by the by, that the great influx of post- World-War-II Italians [and Greeks, too] have been a tremendous cultural asset to Australia - speaks and reads Italian, in which case he could be given Oriana in the original; and certain of the writings of Magdi Cristiano Allam, such as his Lettera Aperta a Tariq Ramadan, would also be appropriate.
My hunch is that within the Italian community in Australia, and also within the Greek community, as also among the Serbs, there may be a residual cultural and personal/ familial memory of the wickedness and vile depredations of 'li Turchi', that it might be good to try to activate, so they can teach, and warn, the rest of us.
Certainly the Italo-Australian lady who is my closest female friend, a formidably intelligent woman of Friulan parentage, has an entirely accurate and quite unprintable opinion both of Muslims and of Islam.
I wonder whether Fallaci has been reviewed in 'La Fiamma'?
Dumbledoresarmy:
It would be a great thing to organise Oriana F's books to Judge Bongiorno -- he clearly doesn't 'get' Islam...
I'm hoping the jury does! I'm putting my dough on the gut instincts of the average Aussie punter -- much more in tune with reality than almost all of our politicians.
Count me in if/when we pass the hat around.
That's a really good idea, dumbledoresarmy...very good...
I find it hard to believe that Australia has allowed Muslims to come and settle there particularly after seeing the effects mass immigration has had in the UK. It seems that every western country wants it's share of ethnics so that they can be regarded as a multicultural society. Even New Zealand has gone down this path. Muslims are boasting that they have established their most southerly mosque in the world in Dunedin (Antartic next stop). Mass immigration for New Zealand on a scale to equal Australia's would be a folly. With only 4-million people the indigenous population would soon be swamped. Currently Muslims number about 1% of the population and there seems to be little awareness by the people or government in the hidden agenda that we know is behind all Muslim immigration.
Immigration isn't the problem. Skin colour and language aren't the problem. Level of education isn't the problem - I'd much rather have an impoverished illiterate Dinka-speaking Sudanese Anglican or Catholic refugee, fleeing Jihad, than a wealthy, smoothly plausible university-educated UK Pakistani Muslim doctor with murder in his heart.
Australia has Jewish, Italian, Greek [Melbourne is the world's biggest Greek city outside Greece...], Lebanese Christian, Coptic Christian, Vietnamese (Buddhists and Catholics), Chinese (Christian, Taoist, Buddhist, secular), Koreans (mostly full-on Christians), and Hindu and Sikh and Christian Indians, and lately quite a lot of CHRISTIAN Sudanese refugees from jihad, as black as coal. All, while retaining substantial amounts of their culture, customs, religion and even language, fit in quite well and certainly don't waste their time whingeing and squawking and hatching plots to kill lots of people, as the Muslims have done.
The Korean, Chinese and Sudanese Christians have been an enthusiastic shot in the arm to many a faltering Anglo-Irish Aussie congregation (in the 1940s-60s the floods of Italians and Poles did much to boost the Australian Catholic population; now many Australian Catholic suburban parish churches are becoming a sort of Filipino Wives' Club, since so many Australians - my husband's brother among them - have married Filipinas).
My closest female friend, as I have said, is Italo-Australian, bilingual in Friulan and English, with cousins all over Gorizia. She is a Christian, Catholic-background. Her brother is married to a lovely - Christian - lady of Malaysian Chinese ethnicity. So their son is an Australian, half Chinese, half Italian.
Another friend, very dear to me, is a classic Eurasian girl: father Bengali Hindu, mother Scots Presbyterian, they met at university in Scotland, and solved the religion problem by both converting to Catholicism, so my friend was raised Catholic...in Darjeeling, until the family decided to migrate to Australia. She now attends the Anglican Cathedral in her home city, and sings in the choir; her family's social life is heavily anchored in the Indian-Australian community [NON-Muslim].
A third friend is French by birth, married to an Anglo/Welsh Australian, with two sons.
Oh, and I forgot my Chinese immigrant uncle, that my dad's sister married in 1963; my two Eurasian cousins; and my Chinese immigrant sister-in-law, who hopes to be producing some little Australians for my brother, pretty soon.
So, to repeat, immigration as such, even in quite large numbers, isn't the problem. The various kafir ethnicities - Northern European, Southern European, Central European, Christianised African, non-Muslim Middle Eastern [Jews and assorted Christians], Indian [if non-Muslim], East Asian [if non-Muslim] can accommodate one another - for at bottom they all recognise variations of the Golden Rule.
ISLAM is the problem.
Example: Christian Lebanese, Maronites...no problem! They've been here since the 19th century, and most people hardly noticed, except to register that David Malouf was a pretty good writer.
But then we got Lebanese MUSLIMS...and they were BAAAD news from the word go - drug-smuggling, organised crime, ultraviolence, gang rapes.
I am quite sure that if we took in, oh, let's say, 40 000 Christians from Iraq, they would fit in. Same deal if we took in the same number of Coptic Christians from Egypt.
And once they got used to being able to sing as loud as they liked, and being able to build a new church subject only to decent and rational building regs, and not worrying about rampaging Muslim mobs every Friday, or whether their daughters were going to disappear, they would shuck off the dhimmi mindset and start educating the rest of us about what Islam REALLY does to people.
It is those who have escaped from Jihad - Sudanese, Assyrians, Copts, the Serbs and Greeks and Armenians also, the Hindus from Bangladesh and Indians and Chinese from Malaysia - that we should be listening to; for it is they who are most dismayed - indeed, horrified - to find that the Muslims have pursued them en masse, to the very places where they (the fugitives) thought they would at last be safe.
Immigration not the problem?
Try telling that to the Brits who have had record levels of immigration. Between 1991 - 2006 2.3 million have come to the UK and only 8% of whom came from East European members of the EU. The volume of immigrants has been so intense that there is no way they could be absorbed into the community.
Meanwhile there has been a mass exodus of mainly white middle-classes to Australia, USA, New Zealand and Canada.
The reality is that immigrants who came and stayed in the UK are almost entirely from third world countries. Despite government propaganda these people add little if anything to the economy and are mostly a drain on social housing, the benefit system and health service.
Even the chief or the racial equality watchdog (himself a black) says that levels of immigration have gone too far and social cohesion is breaking down.
The first city to have a black majority will be Leicester closely followed by Birmingham.
The cultural face of Britain has changed forever due to a lying left-wing government who have spouted the mantra that immigration is good for us. Immigration on a controlled basis could benefit the country but at the grotesque levels we have experienced it is a total failure.