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.”…