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.