Is a transcript of this debate available? It could be exceedingly illuminating, particularly if those who were against the Islamic validity of such attacks did not object to them merely on prudential grounds, but on Islamic theological grounds. If so, this would be one of those rare sightings of that ever-elusive unicorn, an Islamic theological and juridical basis for rejecting jihad violence. Everyone must believe, on pain of charges of "Islamophobia" and "bigotry," that such a unicorn exists, but few, if anyone, have actually seen it. "Terror attacks debated at Melbourne mosque, court told," by Ian Munro in The Age, September 16 (thanks to Raven):
Worshippers at a Melbourne mosque last year were discussing whether it would be allowed under the rules of Islam to attack government institutions in Australia, the Supreme Court heard today.Defence counsel John O'Sullivan, for Abdirahman Ahmed, one of five men on trial over alleged plans to attack Holsworthy Army Barracks in Sydney, said his client was intending to put an end to any debate about whether violence in Australia was allowed under Islam.
Mr O'Sullivan said there was no dispute there was a number of people connected with the mosque which Amhed attended were debating the possibility of acting violently against government institutions in Australia, but he said Mr Ahmed opposed the attack.
Earlier this week, the court was told that Ahmed said it would be catastrophic for Australian Muslims if the attack went ahead.
"In Ahmed's trial the defence does not dispute that there were a number of people associated with the mosque he attended who were debating the question of whether it was permissible according to the teaching of Islam to engage in armed conflict with government institutions in Australia," Mr O'Sullivan said.
But Mr O'Sullivan said the one dispute in Ahmed's trial was his reason for trying to get a religious authority to answer that question.
"The defence says he was in fact intending to put an end to any further debate about the question."...
I'm guessing that we'll never learn what actually transpired in that debate, i.e., a transcript.
I once witnessed a huge argument about the meaning of "jihad" at Dar al Hijrah, aka the Falls Church Mosque in Northern Virginia, when I attended an open house there in 1999 or 2000. The argument among those on the speakers panel at the front of the room got so heated that an announcement was made to stop the screaming: "Everybody go to the tables for something to eat."
When I witnessed that argument, I was ignorant about Islam and its teachings. I wish that I'd paid more attention and taken notes!
I'm not sure that my comment posted....
I'm guessing that we'll never learn what actually transpired in that debate, i.e., a transcript.
I once witnessed a huge argument about the meaning of "jihad" at Dar al Hijrah, aka the Falls Church Mosque in Northern Virginia, when I attended an open house there in 1999 or 2000. The argument among those on the speakers panel at the front of the room got so heated that an announcement was made to stop the screaming: "Everybody go to the tables for something to eat."
When I witnessed that argument, I was ignorant about Islam and its teachings. I wish that I'd paid more attention and taken notes!
Indeed. Many wish they'd paid more attention..
I think Robert has misconstrued the use of the word "debate" in Australian vernacular. In this context, I believe the word "debate" means "casual argument". Hence no transcript would exist.
I'm not going to debate this with you, mate!
Must've been a pretty short debate. Something like this, perhaps:-
- Is it right to carry out violent jihad against non-Muslims?
- The Qur'an and Mohammed say it is. In fact, it's mandatory.
- OK,OK. End of debate.
- Next question .........
Mohammed said "I have been made victorious with terror"
Mohammed is the Perfect Man and role model.
End of debate
The "debate" was probably about when to attack, not about the validity of attacking....
I think you missed the last of the debate:
–Right, mate. But I think we should pass on this one: it might hurt us too.
–Inshallah, let's get a Fatwa on this one. OK, all agree? Now, now the sisters' swimming instruction is canceled again and ...." etc
The harm it would do to other Australians seems not to have been much of an issue.
(arggh, I clicked submit instead of preview)
I think you missed the last of the debate:
–Right, mate. But I think we should pass on this one: it might hurt us too.
–Inshallah, let's get a Fatwa on this one. OK, all agree? Now, the sisters' swimming instruction is canceled again and ...." etc
The harm it would do to other Australians seems not to have been much of an issue.
When a psychotic person says 'don't worry, I wont hit you', you know that hitting you is in his head, so you stand back a little...Having a discussion about jihad attacks means that it was in their heads...
I can't help but think that the debate was about timing rather than whether violent jihad is halal or not. Islam history would seem to indicate that violent jihad is the norm.
Not sure where this should go, if this is the wrong place please delete.
The Seattle cartoonist whose artwork sparked the controversial "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day!" has gone into hiding at the advice of the FBI after being targeted by a radical Muslim cleric, according to the newspaper that published her comics.
Molly Norris has moved and changed her name, the Seattle Weekly said Wednesday, after U.S.-born Yemeni cleric Anwar al-Awlaki placed her on an execution hit list. Awlaki -- who has been linked to the botched Times Square bombing and cited as inspiration for the Fort Hood massacre and a plot by two New Jersey men to kill U.S. soldiers -- reportedly called Norris a "prime target" for assassination and that her "proper abode is hellfire."
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/09/16/draw-muhammad-cartoonist-goes-hiding/
From the article:
"Worshippers at a Melbourne mosque last year were discussing whether it would be allowed under the rules of Islam to attack government institutions in Australia, the Supreme Court heard today."
Now, from a previous article to do with this case:
"The Crown case was that this was to advance the cause of Islam," he [prosecutor] said....
'Before the trial commenced, Justice Betty King warned the jury that thetrial was about the alleged commission of a criminal offence, not about Islam.
"The Islamic faith is not on trial," Justice King said. "It isn't about being a Muslim."
Suuure.
And Justice Betty King said *that* before the commencement of the trial during which, we learn, the court was informed that "Worshippers at a Melbourne mosque last year were discussing whether it would be allowed under the rules of Islam to attack government institutions in Australia".
Now for a thought experiment. Let's see how that paragraph sounds if we imagine applying it to three other religions that have a significant following in Australia.
"Worshippers at a Melbourne synagogue last year were discussing whether it would be allowed under Judaic law to attack government institutions in Australia, the Supreme Court heard today".
"Worshippers at a Melbourne Anglican (or Catholic, or Greek Orthodox) Church last year were discussing whether it would be allowed by the principles of the Christian faith to attack government institutions in Australia, the Supreme Court heard today."
"Meditators at a Melbourne Buddhist monastery last year were discussing whether it would be allowed under the rules of Buddhism to attack government institutions in Australia, the Supreme Court heard today." (I chose Buddhism, here, because there are in fact about as many Buddhists in Australia as there are Muslims, if not more).
I don't know about others here, but the three scenarios I just described have never happened yet and are extremely unlikely ever to happen.
Seriously, does anyone believe that, anytime soon, a Supreme Court is going to be hearing that open discussions of whether or not to carry out violent acts of sedition and treason against the public institutions of Australian society, have taken place in any 'religious' location *other* than a mosque? Anybody willing to lay a bet?
Now...hands up everyone who would be prepared to bet good money that this is not the last occasion on which we will discover that a plot to carry out violent acts of sedition and treason has been hatched within, or in close association with, a mosque. Who'll lay a bet on that? What odds should I give?
Earlier this week, the court was told that Ahmed said it would be catastrophic for Australian Muslims if the attack went ahead.
Because, whether it is catastrophic for non-muslim victims is irrelevant.
Only muslims matter, so it is only their welfare that will be considered as to whether or not killing innocent people is a good idea...
This is why Islam shold lose its first amendment protection. It is not a religion, but a totalitarian, religio-political creed. Imagine if Communism called itself a religion...
.........or Nazism. Would American Nazis argue that "freedom of religion" permits them to build concentration camps and imprison Jews, gypsies, gays and dissidents?
"Worshippers at a Melbourne mosque" but which mosque ?
All the articles I can find carefully omit this detail. Wikipedia suggests they attended the Preston Mosque (which is sunni 'mainstream')- was it there that the debate occurred ?
dda, is there any more information being released in Sydney about which mosque the 'debate' was at?
Now, think of this: Just what would be the reaction to news that Jews or Christians held a debate in a synagogue or church about the admissibility of Jews or Christians commiting violent acts against individuals of public institutions ANYWHERE?
When you were at wikipedia, did you see their mini-article on the 'Preston' mosque itself (it's actually called the Omar bin Khattab Mosque - i.e. it's named after the Second Caliph').
There's a picture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preston_Mosque
Very ugly and forbidding-looking thing it is, too.
The funeral of the big boss of one of our biggest and nastiest and sleaziest Lebanese Muslim organised crime 'families' was held at that mosque, after a rival (from another Muslim crime 'family') assassinated him:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/high-security-at-chaouk-funeral/story-e6frf7kx-1225905792136
(The article had a 'comments' section and I think jihadwatchers may be amused to read what the average Aussie bloke had to say about the late unlamented Macchour Chaouk).
The mosque has a website.
http://www.prestonmosque.org/
If anyone feels adventurous, go and stickybeak around.
Dumbledore's Army wrote:
When you were at wikipedia, did you see their mini-article on the 'Preston' mosque itself (it's actually called the Omar bin Khattab Mosque
................
I found some more disturbing stuff about the 'Preston' mosque there, DDA:
"In the 1990's Islamist supporters of radical cleric Mohammed Omran engineered an election and amended the mosque's constitution while the imam, Sheikh Fehmi el-Naji, was on the Hadj to Mecca. Supporters of Sheikh Fehmi worked hard over the next decade to regain ground, and by 2005 were claiming that they had achieved an uneasy balance within the congregation."
How often do we hear about this sort of thing? There is some ugly power struggle in a mosque, where more hardline clerics wrest power—sometimes violently—from more "moderate" (or less devout) Muslims.
You simply never hear about this sort of thing from Christian or Jewish congregations. Every so often, you'll hear about an Episcopalian church getting—say—a female minister, or a rabbi at a Reform synagogue rather ostentatiously welcoming gays, or the new Methodist minister being a bit too conservative for some people's taste, and some of the parishioners will find a new church or temple. *Very occasionally*, things get contentious enough that some parishioners petition the diocese or its equivalent.
But that's it. I have *never* heard of the sort of violent take-overs you find in mosques on a regular basis. One problem is that this is how the power structure in general works in Islam—where everyone from the Caliph to the local warlord would battle or assassinate their way to power.
Also—how do you "achieve an uneasy balance within the congregation" if part of that congregation is made up of *Jihadists*?. I think there needs to be more scrutiny, at the very least.
Is it permissible for Islam to fight unbelievers? The question is made clear by reading the Koran...
http://westfrat.com/wordpress/?p=67
Westfrat.com