So what if he did say that muslims are demons. FREEDOM of speech should be protected. The right to criticize and even mock should be protected.
I have heard things about my religious beliefs that make my blood boil, but I don't go hunt down the person that put it in print. You come back with intelligent debate, you don't try to kill someone.

Posted by: Carolyn2 at December 17, 2004 8:57 PM

Koran chapter 72 is entitled “The Jinn," and verses 1, 5 and 6 mention the word "Jinn." The chapter speaks of how the Jinn converted to Islam, and therefore are Muslims. Sura 72 can be found here:
http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=DIV0&byte=910644
--
One can search on the term "Jinn" in the Koran here: http://www.quranbrowser.com/
--
Here is a Hadith about the Jinn being converted:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/058.sbt.html#005.058.206
Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Book 58:
Merits of the Helpers in Madinah (Ansaar)
Volume 5, Book 58, Number 199:
Narrated 'Abdur-Rahman:
"I asked Masruq, 'Who informed the Prophet about the Jinns at the night when they heard the Qur'an?' He said, 'Your father 'Abdullah informed me that a tree informed the Prophet about them.'"

Posted by: Mark James at December 18, 2004 12:15 AM

The truth under attack.

What an idiot judge! What an ignorant fool!!

I guess there is always a higher court where this decision can be overturned.

Posted by: Terminator at December 18, 2004 1:05 AM

The judge wrote on the bottom of page 4 of the 6-page PDF: "The second aspect of his evidence which I found to be most unsatisfactory was his treatment of chapter 5, verses 38, 39 and 40 of the Qu’ran. He deliberated referred to verses 38 and 40, but made no reference to verse 39, which refers to Allah as being Merciful, which is a pro-Islamic verse. He gave two explanations for his conduct. One was that he did not have the time, and the second was that Allah was merciful after a person has committed a second offense. I find his explanation both unconvincing and demonstrable of his intention to mislead."

Here is another case where the judge is off base—the first being where the judge understood the defendant to say, “Muslims were demons” instead of the fact that Muhammad taught that some “Jinn (i.e., demons) became Muslims by his preaching.” By the way, the Koran verses in question are produced at the bottom of this post.

The judge wanted to know why the defendant only mentioned verses 38 and 40, but did not mention Allah being merciful in verse 39 (“surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful”). Well, verse 40 mentions Allah being forgiving (“forgives whom He pleases”), so why is it necessary to mention verse 38 which basically says the same thing?!

So, it seems the situation was just as the defendant said—-he didn’t have time during the seminar to be redundant and thus bore the audience! As to the defendant’s second explanation for the omission, I chalk this up to the judge not understanding the intricacies of Sharia Law enumerated by the defendant. Otherwise, the judge botched his recall of the defendant’s cogent explanation.

The judge makes a silly assertion that verse 39 is “pro-Muslim” while verses 38 and 40 are not. A Muslim would never agree that any verse of the Koran could be more pro-Muslim than another verse in the Koran. Besides, the fact that Allah might forgive the penitent after the fact DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT THE GUY IS ALREADY MISSING A HAND OR TWO ! Furthermore, the terms and conditions that Allah sets forth for forgiveness are TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE to any self-respecting non-Muslim. Thus, verse 39--which the judge says is pro-Muslim--is, in fact, as disgusting as the punishment of chopping off the hand of the thief mentioned in verse 38.

Here are the Koran verses in question:
http://www.quranbrowser.com/
Shakir Koran 005:038: And (as for) the man who steals and the woman who steals, cut off their hands as a punishment for what they have earned, an exemplary punishment from Allah; and Allah is Mighty, Wise. 005:039 But whoever repents after his iniquity and reforms (himself), then surely Allah will turn to him (mercifully); surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. 005:040 Do you not know that Allah -- His is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth; He chastises whom He pleases; and forgives whom He pleases and Allah has power over all things.

Posted by: Mark James at December 18, 2004 1:28 AM

Since the Qur'an states in 2:62-65, 5:59-60, and 7:166 that Jews are/descended from Apes and Pigs
(http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/003674.php)
then when is this Australian judge going to legally declare the Koran as villification of Jews? It is just a simple honest question.

Posted by: obl r us at December 18, 2004 1:58 AM

I am Australian and I am horrified at this totally moronic decision. The judge is an IDIOT! Typical loony lefty idiot. I looked at the decision online and it's obvious the judge doesn't have a clue. Yes, the Koran DOES promote violence, killing and looting. Yes, Islam DOES treat women badly - just look around moron! Yes, domestic violence IS encouraged. Yes, Muslims do lie, it's called taqiyaa. You, judge moron are obviously a victim of this but you can't see it because you're a typical blind left wingnut who desperately believes in the fantasy of all cultures are equal and wonderful, but especially non-white cultures.

I am so angry. They have to appeal this decision in federal court, which shouldn't be so rotten as Victoria's. Or at least I hope not. If they appeal, I'm sending my donation. It's just ridiculous. You can make fun of any religion, except Islam. I wonder who got to this judge? Which Victoria socialist thought Gestapo in their Labor govt whispered in the judge's ear? I hope Victoria has the sense to vote that idiot Bracks out in the next State election. What a relief that these Orwellian monsters didn't get in federally!

I'm just spittin' mad!

Posted by: feralee at December 18, 2004 2:11 AM

So lets test our understanding here - if I understand correctly, its a crime punishable by fines or imprisonment to call Muslims 'demons' (even if that is not what was said) - but it isnt a crime for Muslims to call Jews and Christians 'sons of swine' etc etc.

When is this 'law' going to be really tested? Jews are a minority group, why doesnt the Jewish community in Victoria bring a class action against Muslims for hate speech? Its well documented, Jews in NSW could bring a complaint against el-Hilaly any time for his comments about Jews.

The feral Left is aiding and abetting these neanderthals in depriving Australians of freedom of speech. In my opinion, they are solely responsible for this situation, and I sincerely hope that they will one day pay dearly for the irreparable damage they have done to this country. Some of them are so close to being traitors they are worse than the ignorant fanatics they support. Much worse, in fact, because they should know better.

If Victorians vote in the Bracks government again, they will get more of the same until Australians are strangers in our own country.

Posted by: DianaC at December 18, 2004 2:25 AM

Comments on Selected Excerpts of Judge Higgin’s Findings

Koran Search: http://www.quranbrowser.com
Hadith Search: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/searchhadith.html

The judge wrote on pages 2 and 3 of the PDF:
Pastor Scot, during the course of the seminar, made statements—
(1) that the Qur’an promotes violence, killing and looting:
[Note: The judge should see Yoel Natan’s 164 Jihad Verses in the Koran:
http://www.angelfire.com/moon/yoelnatan/koranwarpassages.htm ]
(2) that it treats women badly; they are to treated like a field to plough,
“use her as you wish”
[Note: The judge should see “Your women are your fields—plow them however you want” (K 002:223)].
Further, in Hadith Bukhari, women, dog and donkey are of equal value;
[Note: The judge should see what Serge Trofkovic wrote: “One of Muhammad’s widows, his favorite, A’isha, complained to the caliphs and companions: ‘You have put us on the same level with a donkey and a dog.’ Her words were prompted by Muhammad’s verdict that if a man’s prayer was disrupted by the passing of a donkey, a dog, or a woman in front of him, his prayer was not acceptable, and he had to perform ablution again and repeat his prayer [Sahih Muslim, vol. 1, bk. 9, nos. 490, 493]. Caliph Umar was once interrupted by his wife while talking to another man and told her off by saying, ‘You are a toy; if you are needed, we will call you.’ Ever faithful to his father-in-law’s example, he only reflected the Prophet’s adage that ‘the women is a toy; whoever takes her, let him care for her’” (Trifkovic, Serge. The Sword of the Prophet: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam. Regina Orthodox Press, Inc., Boston, Massachusetts, United States, 2002, p. 161).]
(3) that domestic violence in general is encouraged; [Note: The judge should see K 004:034 where Muslim men are commanded to beat their wives.]
(4) that Muslims are liars [Note: The judge should look up Kitman and Takiyya (also spelled Taqiyya), which are religiously sanctioned dissembling and lying. Both are justified by referring to the Hadith, the prophet’s life, and, of course, the Koran (K 003:028; 005:089; 002:225; 016:106; 040:028). It scares me to think that a judge might not know that some Muslims (lawyers, plaintiffs, defendants, witnesses, experts, etc.) who come before him might be practiced Takiyya-artists.]
(5) that Allah is not merciful and a thief’s hand is cut off for stealing;
[Note: The judge should note that this is forgiveness of the sin, but still the guy is an amputee. If Judge Higgins thinks that this Koranic sense of mercy is truly “merciful,” I’d hate to be in his courtroom.]
(6) that Muslims are demons
[Note: The judge took “demons became Muslims” to mean “all Muslims are demons.” The judge should look up Koran 72:1, 5-6 and Sahih Bukhari, vol. 5, bk. 58, no. 199 (see my post above) where a tree supposedly told Muhammad that Jinn had converted to Islam by Muhammad’s preaching],
(7) that the practice of abrogation that is cancellation of words from the Qur’an and the Hadith solely to fit some particular purpose or personal need;
[Note: The judge should what MacDonald in his Aspects of Islam states: “…he [Muhammad] passed over at last into turpitude is a problem again for those who have made a study of how the most honest trance mediums may at any time begin to cheat (Ibn Warraq. Why I’m Not a Muslim, p. 90). Buhl wrote: “The supposition is forced upon us that the earlier form of revelation may now have been [an] artificial means for keeping alive his reputation, and that in reality he may often consciously have been guilty of pious fraud. (Ibn Warraq. Why I’m Not a Muslim, p. 89). The judge could read this book online: http://www.muhammadanism.org/Tisdall/sources_quran/p026.htm. Here Tisdall wrote: “The Quran breathes the air of the desert, it enables us to hear the battle-cries of the Prophet’s followers as they rushed to the onset [of battle], it reveals the working of Muhammad’s own mind, and shows the gradual declension [sinking] of his character as he passed from the earnest and sincere though visionary enthusiast into the conscious imposter and open sensualist.”]
(8) that Muslims operate a silent six jihad, which is the use of business connections; using money to induce people to convert to Islam, and the training of Muslims in Madrassahs and the statement there are millions of people right now under training in these schools, implying a threat to Australia;
[Note: Since Muslims are probably up to the same no good in Australia as they are in the U.S. (not just pocketbook Jihad, mind you), the judge should read Daniel Pipes’ article “The Islamic States of America?” 24 Sep 2004 http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2100. Also, the judge should read The Sydney Morning Herald: “‘The suspected spiritual leader of [the terrorist group] Jemaah Islamiah, Abu Bakar Bashir, preached…‘The Islamic faithful in Australia must endeavour to bring about an Islamic state in Australia, even if it is 100 years from now,’ he told the gathering” (Morris, Linda. “Cleric [Abu Bakar Bashir] ‘sowed seeds of Australian Islamic state,’” The Sydney Morning Herald, 10 Dec 2002, front-page lead article, see the PDF here: http://www.smh.com.au/frontpage/2002/12/10/frontpage.pdf).]
(9) that Muslims have a plan to overrun western democracy by the use of violence and terror, and to replace those democracies with oppressive regimes;
[Note: Here’s the strategy in short: Muslims say, “Thanks to your democratic laws we will invade [via immigration] you. Thanks to our Islamic [Sharia] laws we will conquer [Islamize] you” (Vidino, Lorenzo. “Forceful Reason,” nationalreview.com, 4 May 2004). Here another way Muslims put it: “Today is Saturday [Sabbath], and tomorrow is Sunday” (Arabic: Al Yom Al Sabt Wa Ghadan Al Ahad)” (Ye’or, Bat. Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide. Associated University Press, Cranbury, New Jersey, 2002, pp. 179, 335).]
[Note: Points 10, 11 and 12 are similar to some of the above points and need no further comment here.]
(13) Muslims in Australia are increasing at substantial rates and have influence or control over the immigration of people to Australia. Figures are quoted which are wrong. It is said the figures are produced by the Bureau, implying the Bureau of Statistics, whereas they came from a different source, and that they are increasing at a rate which was incorrect.
[Note: The defendant probably is only guilty of using the estimates that Muslims themselves promote in Australia. For a long while Muslims in the US were trying to say they numbered 6 or 7 million, but further study indicates it is less than two million (Pipes, Daniel. “How Many U.S. Muslims?” http://www.danielpipes.org/article/76, October 29, 2001). Anyway, Australia may face the same fate as Europe demographic-wise. Bernard Lewis said that Europe would be majority Muslim by 2100 or earlier (Pipes, Daniel. “The Islamic States of America?” 24 Sep 2004 http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2100.]

The judge wrote on page 4 of the PDF:
I find that Pastor Scot failed to differentiate between Muslims throughout the world, that he preached a literal translation of the Qur’an and of Muslims’ religious practices which was not mainstream but was more representative of a small group in the Gulf States.
[Note: Judge, I think you missed Pastor Scot’s point. Sure Muslims are not engaging in terrorism and implementing Sharia Law at the same rates as in the Mideast, since such things are illegal in the West for now. Muslims must work in secret and keep a low profile. However, if Australia imports enough Muslims from the Mideast and Indonesia, and given the difference in birthrates, Muslims will outnumber Aussies quickly. Perhaps Judge Higgins, Junior, will be able to weave his dad’s robes into a turban and call himself a Qadi.]
The above matters constitute conduct on the grounds of the religious belief of another that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion of, severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons.
[Note: Hey, judge, I like your shotgun approach to this crime: Or…or…or… So which one is it? Contempt? Revulsion? Perhaps you should just label Pastor Scot’s presentation “the ugly truth” and leave it at that.]
Furthermore, I find that Pastor Scot’s conduct was not engaged in reasonably and good faith for any religious purpose or any purpose that is in the public interest.
[Note: Well, here you are just plain wrong, judge. He was telling the audience why they should not become a Muslim.]
Finally, I say with regard to Pastor Scot I found his evidence to be evasive and, in two respects, lacking in credibility. The first of those matters relates to his statement that he had published three books and distributed 20,000 copies which he had sold for between $10 to $15, although he gave some away. He in fact named the books that he had written and gave the some away. He in fact named the books that he had written and gave the impression that they had been published. Indeed, that was not the case and he has not published any books, but the three which he mentioned have not yet been completed. He simply photocopies parts of the books and sells them.
[Note: Hey, judge, it sounds to me like Pastor Scot had a great lawyer. His lawyer must have realized you were going to find “the seminary, the newsletter and the article” in violation of the law (as you state on page 6 of the PDF), and figured a way to wiggle out of producing the books in court. Otherwise, your vilification finding would have been 300 pages long with select quotes from Pastor Scot’s three books!]

Posted by: Mark James at December 18, 2004 5:22 AM

I read Mr. Durie's PDF of the particulars of the findings and I must express disbelief that this case has not been dismissed. Nowhere in the alleged comments expressed about Islam could I find anything slanderous or untrue according to my understanding of the religion, general familiarity of the Qur’an and knowledge of the history of Islam.

It is shocking that the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove these accurate observations and not on the Muslims to expand on the substance or lack thereof of these comments. But in attempting to confirm the validity of the comments made and their basis in fact as proven by their existence in Islamic texts themselves, the biased and obviously idiotic judge Higgins fails to let facts get in the way of feelings.

The chill by the way is palpable, Mr. Durie out of fear of the thought police has to dissociate himself from what he describes as "Derogatory" comments of the obviously impaired judge due to a reasonable fear of repercussions. This notwithstanding the fact that Judge Higgins has chosen to be a part of the problem of the undeniable Islamification of the west and not an impediment to it.

Higgin's lack of courage and bowing to the forces of PC and all the rest clearly speak to the fact that he is at the very minimum a moron or at the very worst, a subversive, undermining his nations resolve to defend itself from and resist against its own Islamification.

That makes judge Higgins an UNFIT CRIMINAL danger to the people of Australia in my view. As an American, I am still for the moment free to say these things, something becoming increasing scarce in this wonderful multicultural world were building for our children.

Therefore I would say again, that judge Michael Higgins is a part of what is the unjust and illegitimate repression of the Australian people and their right to defend themselves from the Islamist enemy growing within their country. He is offering aid and comfort to those who are the REAL intolerants and decepticons who do have a plan afoot to destroy Australia in its current form and replace it with a vision based on Islam, that he is sheltering from scrutinty.

Posted by: Andrew at December 18, 2004 6:18 AM

Sorry if I've posted this link before, but this article by Charles Moore, peace be upon him, is a must:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;sessionid=5LNWCTCAPEPVVQFIQMGCM5WAVCBQUJVC?xml=/opinion/2004/12/18/do1801.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/12/18/ixopinion.html

Posted by: Interestd at December 18, 2004 6:37 AM

This was written by Lawrence Auster about the people of the UK, but it also could include people everywhere trying to defend themselves against the jihadists.

Those of us who find our efforts thwarted by those who wish us to disbelieve our eyes, the evidence of our own intellects to ignore all the havoc unleashed by the worlds most misunderstood, peaceful/violent religion, copy this to your documents and paste it where ever you see fit:

"If this news story is accurate [Griffin], then Britain is under a reign of state terrorism."

****"What is terrorism? A transgressive act done to a society that is so outside the norm, so random (meaning that it can happen to anyone), and seemingly so unstoppable that it demoralizes the society and takes away people’s ability to respond."

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/

That's what they are doing, tapping our resolve to resist what we see as an injustice, a threat to our heritage, culture and nation.

Posted by: Andrew at December 18, 2004 6:52 AM

I noticed that some of the links I provided above have commas and periods and brackets at the end that cause the Page Not Found Error. Here the links again, but these work without editing:

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2100

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/76

http://www.muhammadanism.org/Tisdall/sources_quran/p026.htm

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/004333.php

Posted by: Mark James at December 18, 2004 6:58 AM

This was the best judge money can buy!

Any doubt about it?

If he was not well paid for this idiotic judgement, then perhaps he had a few phonecalls, perhaps a few punktured tires, perhaps his wife had an unusual encounter with a stranger in the mall:

Perhaps his children came home crying 'something strange' happend at School...

You know how this works...

Posted by: Terminator at December 18, 2004 8:17 AM

us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20041218/capt.sge.pvv55.181204025602.photo01.photo.default-384x273.jpg

or,

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?g=events/wl/121704almanartvleban&a=&tmpl=sl&ns=&l=1&e=2&a=0&t=&prev=1

Pictures from Yahoo of muslims protesting against French proposal to close Hizbollah TV for telling lies about Jews......that they spreading AIDS in the ME.

Posted by: Uhller_Isshaytan at December 18, 2004 11:50 AM

The Honourable Stephen Philip Bracks
Minister for Multicultural Affairs

Office of the Premier
1 Treasury Place
Melbourne
Australia 3000

premier@dpc.vic.gov.au

Here is the address for the Minister for Multicultural Affairs, The Hon Stephen Philip Bracks. ( He is also the Premier of Victoria )

Please write, its importent to keep all letters very polite, and concise.

A barrage of concern at this inequality will bring it out more, its bearly headlines here.

One letter, mailed is best but email is still good,is counted for a huge amount of voices.
---------------------------------------------------
The Hon John Howard MP
House of Representatives
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600

Here is the address for John Howard, he speaks out on political correctness at times, tell him the eyes of the world are on him over this.

Cheers

Posted by: meredith at December 18, 2004 12:39 PM

Cut my head off if I'm wrong here, but aren't the Moslems winning this case regardless of the out-come of an appeal? Who will brave a long court battle and risk a monster fine to say anything true about Islam in Australia?

Any two men by themselves get slammed. And a dozen men get called cranks. A hundred men are a menace to society. A thousand men are grist for a few minutes on t.v. A thousand men leafleting in front of the courthouse are cause for chat at the pubs across the country. And dozens of men sitting in jail for the night are cause for millions of Aussies to come out to demonstrate for their release--or else.

This is the most exciting cause we've seen in a long time. The weather, if I may, is essential to a successful demonstration of any kind. Aussies have it. By writing letters to those who can come out to voice their support for freedom of speech in Australia-- those who actually count, not those who sit in their clositered rooms deciding the fate of citizens, by demonstrating on the streets-- Aussies have the power to change the texture of their nation. One must find Aussies who are concerned that this court case if it's not stopped and rolled back will roll forward, right over their lives as free men and women.

If Australians were more aware of this site they could find among themselves the few people they need to produce an info-page to pass out at pubs, a page of short quotations dealing with Islam, the nature of the threat to freedom in Austaralia that the case represents, a link to jihadwatch, and a contact so readers can find out more details, such as where and when to gather to demonstrate against the outrage of this case. Pass out leaflets for a couple of weeks in pubs. Organize a time and place to meet on the sidewalk to protest the outrage of this decision. This is a golden chance to make an impact on the future of our struggle.

If one can organize a leaflet campaign to gather protesters for x day at x time at x place, then call the radio, television, and newspapers to let them know what's going to happen. This is a clear case of the people being the media. We have a message, and we have the means to let it be known to the public: computers and photocopy machines. You can contact Australians to act in defense of the nation and the culture.

But equally important, call every mosque in the area and tell them the same thing.

Then, as important as anything else one can do, have a follow-up plan for another demonstration to protest the out-come of the first. Keep up the pressure.

I must remind myself to keep the "civil" in civil disobedience.

I look forward to any responses to this. I return next day to look for last letters.

Posted by: sonofwalker at December 18, 2004 1:32 PM

It is unbelievable that there is a non-Islamic court involved in determining whether some of the jinns are Muslims or whether you can say that some Muslims are--or might be--jinns.

Posted by: unicorns62000 at December 19, 2004 2:50 AM

Clarity and Resolve has a post on this subject here:
http://clarityandresolve.com/archives/2004/12/australian_dhim.html

Posted by: markjames at December 20, 2004 5:11 AM

Other reading on this case:
Little Green Footballs Web log has an entry on this subject here:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=14006_Thoughtcrime_Laws_Claim_First_Victims

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/13217.htm
Excerpt: It now appears the Equal Opportunities Council now does not resolve complaints, but incites them. At the Islamic Council headquarters, Helou alerted several Muslim converts to a seminar on jihad to be run by a Melbourne Pentecostal church, Catch the Fire Ministries...And so Catch the Fire - unknown to its leader, Pastor Danny Nalliah, and its speaker, Pastor Daniel Scot - had among the 250 Christians at its seminar Muslims, sent by Helou seemingly ready to feel vilified.

Posted by: markjames at December 20, 2004 11:01 AM