Australian Justice Desmond Fagan says that “Muslims should publicly denounce ‘belligerent’ verses of the Koran that have been used by Islamic extremists to underpin terrorism.” He said this “while jailing two terror-plotters.”
This judge is on the right track. Verses from the Quran and Hadiths underlay all the actions of Islamic supremacists and jihadists, who are loyal to the Sharia above all else and aim to subvert free societies. This obvious fact continues to be ignored by Western leaders who are too timid to about offending the new Sharia police that wield de facto power over the public discourse in the West. Meanwhile, many mainstream Muslim leaders routinely practice taqiyya and deceive intimated Westerners.
The Quran is clear in its hostility toward disbelievers:
(8:12) “(Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels… “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”
The Quran also contains many other belligerent verses, as well as anti-Semitic messages, calls for the killing of gays and apostates, teachings about the inferiority of women, and more.
One example: it should be common knowledge by now that Hamas aims to obliterate Israel (“from the river to the sea”), an aim that is driven by this Quran verse:
(2:191) And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.
That the Arab Muslims were not actually “expelled” is not relevant as far as Hamas is concerned; they insist they were expelled, and so this verse applies.
A few other anti-Semitic passages:
(5:33) Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land.
Read in the context of 5:32, 5:33 is a warning to the Jews.
(5:63) Why do the rabbis and religious scholars not forbid them from saying what is sinful and devouring what is unlawful? How wretched is what they have been practicing.
(5:64) And the Jews say, “The hand of Allah is chained.” Chained are their hands, and cursed are they for what they say.
There are many others, including 5:82, which says that the Jews are “the most intense of the people in animosity toward the believers.” Still, people believe Hamas affiliates such as CAIR, which are actively engaged in “anti-racism” initiatives and even ally with Jewish groups. And CAIR and its allies charge “Islamophobia” against anyone who brings up these uncomfortable Quran passages. Instead of condemning violent, hostile and abusive Quran passages, Muslim groups in the West insist that “Islam is a religion of peace” and that jihadists have misinterpreted Quran verses and they then they proceed to scream “Islamophobia” when the heat is turned up. They are bent on minimizing the truth about the Sharia and in so doing, aids it unimpeded spread.
There is a reason why mainstream Islamic groups do not condemn jihad; all of the actions of Hamas; the calls to murder gays in many mosques; the “Islamophobia”-pushing Recep Tayyip Erdoğan with his solid backing from Hamas; the many venomous proclamations of the foremost Islamic scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi; other Islamic scholars and luminaries who advocate the death penalty for gays and apostates and teach the inferiority of women; the deeds of major Islamic states including Saudi Arabia, Iran, Qatar, Pakistan and others, which not only implement abusive verses of the Quran domestically, but also export the jihad ideology worldwide; and the like. That reason can be found in all the supremacist, hateful, and violent teachings in the Quran. Those teachings make large-scale Muslim integration in the West unlikely to happen.
Judge Fagan said the “lethal messages derived from ‘hostile passages’ of the Koran were not effectively countered by suggestions from ‘various quarters’ that the verses had been ‘cherry picked’ or that Islam was an ‘interpretive religion’ of peace.”
A case in point comes in the standard reply from Keysar Trad, founder of the Islamic Friendship Association of Australia. In response to Judge Fagan, Trad that said “imams continued to disavow violent interpretations of sections of the Koran.” Really?
We continue to be extremely vocal in countering that. As much as we can find an opportunity to put the correct context to these situations, we do……The underlying premise of Islam is peace and peaceful encouragement for people to do what is right.
Australian Muslims should publicly denounce “belligerent” verses of the Koran that have been used by Islamic extremists to underpin terrorism, a judge said Thursday while jailing two terror-plotters.
Justice Desmond Fagan said the lethal messages derived from “hostile passages” of the Koran were not effectively countered by suggestions from “various quarters” that the verses had been “cherry picked” or that Islam was an “interpretive religion” of peace.
“The incitements to violence which terrorists quote from the Koran cannot just be ignored by the many believers who desire harmonious coexistence. Those verses are not ignored by terrorists,” Justice Fagan said in Sydney while delivering his judgement in the NSW Supreme Court.
“Terrorists’ reliance on verses of the Koran to support an Islamic duty of religious violence has been seen with more or less clarity in a number of NSW and Victorian cases,” he added. “If Australian followers of the religion, including those who profess deep knowledge, were to make a clear public disavowal of these verses, as not authoritative instructions from Allah, then the terrorists’ moral conviction might be weakened.”…..
jimjfox says
Judge Fagan is courageous and honest in unmasking islam for what it is.
Of course ‘offended’ islamic ‘scholars’ are trotting out the usual lies but
this may be a watershed moment for some of the Australian media.
I will try to contact him to give my support.
mortimer says
Judge Fagan has OFFICIALLY OPENED THE DISCUSSION of the GENOCIDAL RAGE and RANTING in the Koran. I pray other jurists and lawyers will follow.
A LEGAL CHALLENGE TO THE KORAN under the HATE SPEECH LAWS of many countries could actually DESTROY ISLAM.
keith Oades says
Careful what you wish for. The bibles (old and new testaments) have verses that could in this day and age be consiseded “hate speech”.
The fact that a NSW judge has grown a set is awesome. We just need the idea to spread to the morons who run this country.
carpediadem says
Noone is following anything in Jewish and Christian Bibles to take over the world, unlike Koranic command to conduct eternal jihad until all the world is under the command of Sharia.
David Cooper says
One Glaring difference.We have devised laws which prohibit any antisocial activity or statement which may be mentioned in Biblical text. Muslims can floow and interpret passages from their Koran as they see fit.That is their Sharia Law,most of which is unacceptable in civilised society.
Frank Anderson says
Mortimer, the hate speech laws of countries outside the US are written to criminalize any negative comment of islam. There is no reasonable snowball’s chance in the desert that the corrupt legal system that adopts and enforces those law would allow their use against islam.
In the US, a declaratory judgment action to show islam is nothing more than a criminal conspiracy pretending for 1400 years to be a religion has some arguable chance of success, fi the resources necessary are assembled and committed for the duration of the fight.
freedom says
Frank
The largest desert on Earth is the Antarctic………….. plenty of snowballs there Frank.
That said (tongue in cheek, obviously), ……I do agree with you, regarding your assessment of the chances of enforcing those laws. But I disagree with the way you expressed it.
When you say …….
“the hate speech laws of countries outside the US are written to criminalize any negative comment of islam. There is no reasonable snowball’s chance in the desert that the corrupt legal system that adopts and enforces those law would allow their use against islam” (sic)
One could easily assume that you are inferring a few things from that statement
One of them being – that all legal systems in countries outside the US that have such laws, are corrupt. Yet from the above article we have Justice Fagan from Australia, (a country that has such laws, ergo a country you suggest whose legal system is corrupt) saying in open court something against Islam.
It may or may not of been your intention to infer such a claim, but, if it be the former…. then so be it, …… if it be the latter then hence this post.
Frank Anderson says
Hate speech laws as all other “hate” laws are on their face discriminatory and a violation of Equal Protection under the US Constitution, which does not apply outside the US, and which barely applies here. Hate speech laws are enacted and enforced by corrupt governments to suppress freedom of speech and punish dissent. Show one jurisdiction where hate speech laws are being applied to the murderous teachings of islam which have led to the murder of between 300,000,000 and 1,000,000,000 people in 1400 years, between 1 and 4 human beings every 3 minutes for 1400 years.
Anjuli Pandavar says
A LEGAL CHALLENGE TO THE KORAN under the HATE SPEECH LAWS of many countries could actually DESTROY ISLAM.
—
Brilliant insight, Mortimer. It’ll also instantly cause all masks to drop and true colours to be revealed. Who will bring a legal challenge against the Qur’an and who will rush to its defence? Where is the legal system still sufficiently free of Shari’a corruption? Whichever way, it’d set off the most beautiful domino-effect in history.
the hermit says
Australian Senator Pauline Hanson in 2016 called for a ban on muslim immigration to Australia. The same year, Hanson announced policies including a ban on building new mosques until a royal commission into whether Islam is a religion or a political ideology has been held, and installing CCTV cameras in all existing mosques. She has called for a “moratorium” on accepting Muslim immigrants into Australia. In Pauline Hanson’s 2016 maiden speech in the Senate, she said that “We are in danger of being swamped by Muslims who bear a culture and ideology that is incompatible with our own” and called for banning Muslim migration. The speech prompted a walk out by Senate members of the Australian Greens] After the 2017 Westminster attack she repeated her stance on banning Muslims from entering into Australia.
Needless to say, our other gutless politicians have thrown her under the bus since then. Mosques are still being built, and the muslim enclave in Melton, Victoria (Melbourne) still exists. It seems a Judge can criticise islam, Hanson can wear a burka into Parliament as a stunt to expose how sick islam is, but no other bastard gives a stuff.
Frank Anderson says
jim, any contact with a judge that is not through a lawyer in the regular conduct of legal proceedings is a mistake. In the US such a contact can easily be treated as a crime. It would take an Australian lawyer to discuss how it would be treated there.
I once had a case which was vitally important where several hours of argument after MONTHS of preparation were spent trying to keep it alive, when a complete, uninvolved interloper chimed in to compliment the judge, and my side was destroyed. Judges do not need public approval or support for their rulings, and certainly do not respond to public criticism unless it is in the form of a judicial complaint intended to get them censured or removed. Please keep away from this and let the parties have their day of do their work.
Please consult a currently licensed and practicing attorney in your jurisdiction for any legal advice.
gravenimage says
Thanks for that information, Frank. That had not occurred to me.
Frank Anderson says
GI, there is NO BENEFIT whatever possible by improper communication with a judge. It is the best way in the world to take away any possibility of a favorable ruling and destroy hope of a victory. Unless filing a complaint with the bar, or judicial disciplinary process, leave the judges alone.
gravenimage says
OK, Frank.
Paul says
“If Australian followers of the religion, including those who profess deep knowledge, were to make a clear public disavowal of these verses, as not authoritative instructions from Allah, then the terrorists’ moral conviction might be weakened.” Good luck with that one!! The idea that the whole book is the literal word of God is one of the central tenets of the religion. There are only two kinds of “moderate” Muslims: those who are largely ignorant of the the contents of the Koran and Hadith, and apostates. A large number of the second type started out as the first type, but at some point they wanted to know more about their own religion, often to defend it against critics, and what they found when they delved deeper repulsed them so much that it caused them to leave. But to ask a believing Muslim of any stripe to denounce even a single word of the Koran is like asking them to spit on it and burn it. Not gonna happen…
mortimer says
Muslims who DENOUNCE the 164 JIHAD VERSES will end up LEAVING ISLAM.
Indeed, if they actually denounce the jihad verses, other Muslims will say it amounts to APOSTASY.
We must all challenge Muslims as often as possible to TURN AWAY FROM JIHAD TERRORISM and admit that this doctrine if applied in today’s world would cause the final nuclear destruction of our planet.
thebigW says
Yeah we “must” do that if it has a snowball’s chance in hell; but it don’t.
Save Europe says
Glad I found you on another thread. I’m supposedly not allowed to respond to your response, on Sweden and NATO yesterday !??
To respond to your cowardly post – I MYSELF and tens of thousands of others NEVER called you racists. STOP supporting Leftists, which you are doing by not supporting fellow Rightists in Europe – in Europe – by insulting Eurooean Rightits against Islmisation.
I’m not Swedish by the way!
gravenimage says
I don’t think most Muslims care about causing destruction–rather the opposite, in face. Mortimer–with all respect–you keep assuming that devout Muslims are rational people.
Kepha says
Devout Muslims are rational people. It’s just that they start from a very different set of axioms.
PRCS says
Their ability to rationalize barbarity concerns me.
gravenimage says
Kepha–wit all respect–this is using the idea of rationality in so broad a way as to render the concept moot. One cannot act rationally if the basis of one’s axioms are utterly *irrational*.
And it goes beyond this, in any case. Many Muslims completely reject the concept of reason.
There is the characterization in Islam of the rational mind as a lowly, donkey, to be contemptuously left behind when you enter the Mosque.
gravenimage says
with all respect
freedom says
Paul
You say in your last sentence……
” Not gonna happen”
Yet you mentioned earlier …….. “apostates”
So in effect Paul you have stated something that HAS happened before you state that it will NOT happen.
Are you getting lessons off Rumsfeld?
Frank Anderson says
In light to the basic rule that lying whenever advantage can be obtained, any simple denunciation of selected passages is not worthy of trust. To be a slave of allah, one is forced to “believe” the whole package or be put to death for revision and apostasy. Yes Or No?
thebigW says
The fact of taqiyya makes any hope or signs of “reform” just ways to dupe us (an’ also to fool OURSELVES) into letting Muslims destroy our society in the future.
Frank Anderson says
We agree. I suggest taking a look at Viktor Rankl (psychiatrist/Holocaust survivor) in his book Man’s Search for Meaning, where he identifies and explains the “delusion of reprieve” that is used to avoid facing reality. In the death camps it was necessary to survive. Now it is not.
gravenimage says
Yes, Frank, pious Muslims accept the whole ugly package of Islam.
I do think that Infidels pointing out that Muslims will not reject the violence of Islam can be useful, though, in terms of educating non-Muslims.
Frank Anderson says
We agree. In addition to informing non-believers, a few “believers” may see both the “light” and encouragement they need to become the most respect of all, FORMER BELIEVERS. A net gain for our side of TWO each.
ronald says
A ban on islam is a step closer.
Makenomistake says
Yes, something that strong !!
mortimer says
The Koran must first be CHALLENGED IN COURT as true HATE SPEECH before we can ban Islam.
Once the Koran is OFFICIALLY DECLARED to be HATE SPEECH and GENOCIDAL IDEATION, Islam will be banned.
PRCS says
1. Banning Islam–the ideology–is NOT going to happen here.
2. The Qur’an–in its entirety–is NOT going to be declared to be hate speech.
3. It must be factually and effectively argued–in court if necessary–to make unequivocally clear that specific (make a list) aspects of Islam’s texts cannot be legally PRACTICED here as doing so would violate U.S. law.
These ‘pie in the sky’ notions of banning an ideology from people’s minds or that a book can be banned from every library, book store, Internet page, private property, etc. is idiotic.
thebigW says
ban the Koran but not ban Muslims? So what do we tell the 20+ million Muslims we’re allowing to settle in and take advantage of our societies? (20 mill is a lowball estimate of all Muslims in the West and that population is GROWING) You Muslims can live here, but your whole damn meaning and purpose of life is now ILLEGAL? LOL, that’s the most wildly unrealistic thing I’ve heard in a long time. I don’t see how that’s any less radical than just kicking them all out.
gravenimage says
If the Qur’an were banned–unlikely, in any case–it would just criminalize Anti-Jihadists who read that book to educate themselves about Islam.
And thebigW is right–when Islam was isolated and there were few Muslims in the West, we were mostly safe from Jihad.
The biggest threat we face is Muslims flooding into the West.
Or Else! says
In-your-face duplicity.
Peaceful verses: exemplars of the “religion of peace”. No need to delve further.
Violent, supremacist verses: have to be understood “in context” “in Arabic”…
In context with what? For 1400+ years, Islamists have had no problem with “context”. Islam doesn’t spread without jihad and totalitarian control.
Monsters.
Just ordered Raymond Ibrahim’s “Sword and Scimitar”….which outlines 5 pivotal jihad battles. Ibrahim says the atrocities committed by the jihadis–outlined proudly by Islamic historians–make the Taliban look like boy scouts…..”in context”, of course. Pffft.
PRCS says
“Violent, supremacist verses: have to be understood “in context” “in Arabic”…”
I do wish the judge had told Australian Muslim “leaders” to state the appropriate “context” for Islam’s violence.
If, as they often obfuscate with “those verses were from a specific time and for a specific purpose”, they should be challenged to make that clear.
The goal would be to create a public argument about that amongst Australian Muslims.
thebigW says
Sounds like a waste of time to me.
Makenomistake says
This observation of a learned judge about islam , that it has the seed of violence in its primary book , is absolutely true. It is bewildering why, despite knowing everything of islam now , people are so strangely shy about coming out with the truth about islam. How much more of evidence do we need to do it. Only exposing the true face of islam will ensure its death. And the early, the better for mankind.
mortimer says
And the young boy cried out, “BUT THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES ON!”
(… a complete grasp of the obvious)
Michael Copeland says
Now that a judge has said it perhaps the idea can be allowed to enter the mainstream media.
When Robert Spencer says it, as he has been saying it for years, he is dismissed as a bigot and hater.
Anjem Choudary backs Spencer up:
“As a Muslim, I must have hatred for anything non-Islam.”
PRCS says
And, of course, the press, politicians, and other Muslims (the usual suspects) routinely vilified Choudary as pretty much everything but knowledgeable.
Prebangian says
Jordan’s King Abdullah forbade Jordanian Imams to teach the Jihadist verses. French President Macron, based on a report on Islam by 300 leading French intellectuals, published a letter in the Parisienne news paper imploring Islam to update the Koran to exclude the Jihadist verses. It’s good to know that others argue for the same improvement to Islam. It seems more of the world should bring to light what what others are urging and try to get even more people to support his cause.
mortimer says
The Koran’s 164 Jihad Verses: K 002:178-179, 190-191, 193-194, 216-218, 244; 003:121-126, 140-143, 146, 152-158, 165-167,169, 172-173, 195; 004:071-072, 074-077, 084, 089-091, 094-095,100-104; 005:033, 035, 082; 008:001, 005, 007, 009-010, 012, 015-017, 039-048,057-060, 065-075; 009:005, 012-014, 016, 019-020, 024-026, 029,036, 038-039, 041, 044, 052, 073, 081, 083,086, 088, 092, 111, 120, 122-123; 016:110; 022:039, 058, 078; 024:053, 055; 025:052; 029:006, 069; 033:015, 018, 020, 023, 025-027, 050; 042:039; 047:004, 020, 035; 048:015-024; 049:015; 059:002, 005-008, 014; 060:009; 061:004, 011, 013; 063:004; 064:014; 066:009; 073:020; 076:008.
Michael Copeland says
Somebody tell Judge Haddon-Cave in UK, you know, the judge who told the muslim he sentenced:
““You’ll have plenty of time to study the Koran in prison…the Koran is a book of peace.”
gravenimage says
All too many dhimmi tools believe this foolishness.
freedom says
……..piece….
Joseph Shellim says
HOW DID MUSLIMS SUDDENLY BECOME ‘PALESTINIANS’ AFTER 2,000 YEARS? The Shocking Truth: https://www.quora.com/How-DID-MUSLIMS-SUDDENLY-become-PALESTINANS-after-2-000-YEARS/answer/Joseph-Shellim?share=dd0d66c6
Michael Copeland says
The judge could invite those imams who say the violent verses are not applicable to sign a “Statutory Declaration of Peaceful Intent”. This is an item that can be used in evidence in court.
“Harry Richardson explains The Declaration of Peaceful Intent as a Stat Dec.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xu7PnlqEgtU
“A Declaration of Peaceful Intent”.
A simple declaration for muslims to sign
http://westindanger.com/media-files/Declaration-of-Peaceful-Intent-for-Muslims.pdf
“Harry Richardson asks a Christian [pastor] to sign the declaration”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaJc6TG4ko0
Only half the amount of time, and all signed ?
thebigW says
LOL asking lying wolves to sign a paper promising not to kill us.
Makenomistake says
No half-measure can handle the problem. Islam is a global problem now.
duh swami says
Dear Allah…There were a few verses in your book that disturbed me, so I removed some and ignore others…I hope you don’t mind…
elee says
Wow! A white man who actually read the screed in question……and advocates holding people responsible for the poison incitements they unleash!
mortimer says
Keysar Trad claimed Islam is ‘peaceful’. So is Trad a leading scholar? No, he is not.
Khomeini rebuked the Islam-is-a-religion-of-peace crowd … people like Trad:
“Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them, put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]….Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other ayahs and hadiths urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.”
-Ayatollah Khomeini
infidel says
But as expected, the Koranimals have rejected the Judge’s call..
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/islamic-leaders-reject-judge-s-call-for-muslims-to-denounce-verses-of-the-koran
thebigW says
but I’m still hoping that when I put my hand on a red hot stove burner again (and again and again), maybe next time it won’t burn me.
gravenimage says
Yep.
somehistory says
Any one who knows the verses and does not condemn them, is either afraid to condemn them, or they agree with the verses.
If all of the verses in the evil, filthy book that are advocating violence in its many and varied forms were removed, it would be a very, very thin book. Any verse that encourages hatred of others and violence toward others…be it rape, striking necks with the sword, death, etc…would need to be removed. No moslim is going to do that. No moslim is going to condemn the verses to which the judge refers.
thebigW says
It’s a damn useless exercise, since the Muslims who WOULD agree with the Judge would be doing taqiyya (but from the looks of comments here, their taqiyya would WORK with most of us…). You know how you don’t get fooled by Muslims so as to save your great grandchildren’s grandchildren? You don’t trust ANY of ’em. PERIOD. Which means there’s NO NEGOTIATIONS, no more talking with ’em. Time for talk should be over long ago. Why is that so hard for Jihad Watch commenters?
somehistory says
There are quite a number of moslims where I live. I can’t leave home without seeing at least one or more. I don’t trust any of them, always on guard for whatever they might be thinking, and watching them for any sudden movement.
I certainly don’t trust anything any of them might say…unless they were screaming that they planned to kill me. I have had many interactions with moslims for many years. I have to admit I have not sat down and read their evil book, but I’ve seen enough of the verses quoted to feel as though I have read it all. It belongs in the fire. And I’ve seen enough and read enough to know that if a moslim believes the book, and has not renounced islam, then at any moment one could become violent. I do not make friends with those who lie. And moslims can’t be trusted to tell the truth.
Frank Anderson says
Several months ago Indiana Tom suggested reading PhD Bill Warner’s An Abridged Koran. Warner started with his Simple Koran, which I believe put the work in chronological order, and removed (abridged) verses that were repetitious or not to the point of dealing with non-muslims. I read the book on Kindle and am highly satisfied. I did buy other “standard” translations and compared the Abridged as I went along. Worth considering.
somehistory says
When it comes to that filthy book…I leave it to the “experts” and i concentrate on the part I know more about…the ways to counter terrorism, profiling the terrorist, etc. I’ve spoken personally with moslims and heard what they “believe.” I’ve listened to them on video and news programs and I have read many of the foul verses on this site and a few others. But I won’t read any more the filth that is written in their book. Others may feel they need to read it, and that is their choice. I don’t need to read it to know how demonic it is. To me, it’s much like drinking poison would be.
Kepha says
When will progressives and liberals disavow their commitment to genderbending; or simply assuming that history is on an inevitable trajectory to the ideals they profess in 2019?
Geoffrey de Brito says
Australian Justice Desmond Fagan says that, “Muslims should publicly denounce ‘belligerent’ verses of the Koran that have been used by Islamic extremists to underpin terrorism.” And, “If Australian followers of the religion, including those who profess deep knowledge, were to make a clear public disavowal of these verses, as not authoritative instructions from Allah, then the terrorists’ moral conviction might be weakened.”
Unfortunately, Tragically… Muslims CANNOT do that.
Muhammad’s most basic claim is that he is NOT the Qur’an’s author. That Allah sent the archangel to repeatedly visit Muhammad and perfectly dictated ALLAH’s words to Muhammad for transcription. Angels are incapable of making mistakes and Gabriel was there to make sure that Muhammad got it exactly right. Since fallible mankind is literally incapable of ‘correcting’ infallible Allah not one word can be changed, eliminated or added.
So, to change the Qur’an… Muhammad MUST be declared to have been either deluded or a LIAR. In either case, Islam’s theological foundations collapse because if Muhammad got something as basic as the Qur’an’s authorship wrong… what else did he screw up?
And that is WHY ‘moderate’ Muslims are silent and insist that it’s all a misunderstanding because they KNOW that the ‘radicals’ ARE the most DEVOUT of Muslims.
Shea says
This is awesome
gravenimage says
Australia: Judge tells Muslims to publicly denounce “violent Koran”
………………..
Wow–this is unusual! Kudos to Judge Desmond Fagan.
the hermit says
Its all happening…a judge with balls we applaud….well no it isnt…
An Australian Anglican minister has recently released a book condemning
the koran…BUT…
mosques are still being built throughout Australia…the muslim enclave in Melton, Victoria
is still with us, and muslims throughout Australia continue to lie about islam…note how Keyser Trad in his usual slimy manner avoids the issue…
Whilst our dhimmi politicians continue to be conned by islam, and the loony left continue to go on their loony way supporting islam, islam will continue in Australia, and before too long we will be similar to Canada….
sidney penny says
Time to ban the quran? (koran)
http://voiceofdharma.org/books/tcqp/index.htm
http://voiceofdharma.org/books/tcqp/chii4.htm
The Calcutta Quran Petition
The Koran, also spelt as Quran, the so-called religious book of the Muslims the world over.
It is a Book which incites violence, disturbs public tranquility, promotes, on ground of religion, feelings of enmity, hatred and ill-will between different religious communities and insults other religions or religious beliefs of other communities.
Non-Muslims have to learn to knock out Islam’s ideological fangs which are rooted in the Quran.
The Book has verses which preaches cruelty, incites violence and disturbs public tranquility. Chapter 4
The Book promotes religious enmity, hatred and ill-will between different religious communities. Chapter 5
The Book insults other religions or religious beliefs of other communities. Chapter 6
While the Koran abounds with saying which incite violence, insult the religious beliefs of other communities and even exhort the Muslims to kill and murder non-Muslims, the problem is aggravated by yet another fact which has been true in the past and is universally true in our own times that unlike other communities Muslims are, and even fresh converts tend to become, highly orthodox people and follow the sayings of the book with a fanatical zeal with the result that whichever country has their sizable number amongst its population can never have peace on its soil.
This was said in 1985 and it is still true today in 2019
The offending expressions contained in the Koran and quoted above are not so offensive in their translation in which they are so quoted as they are in the original verses in Arabic or in Urdu, the very sound of whose inimitable symphony not only sends the Muslims to tears and ecstasy but arouses in them the worst communal passions and religious fanaticism which have manifested themselves in murder, slaughter, loot, arson, rape and destruction or desecration of holy places in historical times as also in contemporary period not only in India but almost all over the world.
sidney penny says
The real issue raised by the Petition was not what Muslims believe about the Quran but what behaviour patterns the Quran inculcates in its votaries vis-à-vis the unbelievers.
sidney penny says
Robert Spencer in his books and this website also looks at the behavior of Muslims ( rather than looking at what Keysar Trad says the Imams say) and asks why do so many Muslims from all over the world misunderstand the peaceful religion of Islam.
Kepha says
They say that the Vedas and Upanishads institute things like the caste system, too. In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna, disguised as a charioteer, tells the king he must do his Kshatriya duty and slaughter all those members of a rival clan no matter how human they are, since it is time for war.
Long ago, commentators noted that liberal parents beget radical children–those types who use fascist thuggery to silence people with whom they disagree (and will probably agree a few years after becoming parents) while calling themselves “Antifa”.
sidney penny says
This judge is on the right track
Yes it is read and behave.(badly)
Lydia Church says
Dear Robert,
I left a long comment the other day and am still left wondering.
As anyone could see by now I totally support what you are doing and I thank you on a regular basis.
But I am left with a question since this keeps arising.
Do you agree with the Bible in calling sodomy a sin or not?
I can quote a long list of Bible verses that prove that homosexuality is a sin. If one believes that the Bible is God’s Word, then that is included and that settles the matter. There is more than just the five verses I usually list. I recently read that you identify with the Eastern Orthodox Church. I am pretty certain that their stand agrees with the Biblical one too. Do you not agree with their stand then? Of course we don’t go around hurling gays off of buildings for a number of reasons that I listed in previous comments. But that does not give them the green light either.
Now you stated this in the article:
“The Quran also contains many other belligerent verses, as well as anti-Semitic messages, calls for the killing of gays…”
But the Old Testament also calls for ‘the killing of gays.’ But not as murder, as punishment.
Here it is:
“If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.” Leviticus 20; 13
So in calling out the koran on this, it automatically would also be calling out God and the Bible on this since both happen to contain the same issue; the death penalty for sodomy. islam is still false and the koran not the word of God, but Leviticus 20; 13 is God’s Word. If one calls out the koran and not the Bible, arguably it would be a double standard. If one calls out both or only God’s Word the Bible, they stand in rebellion against God and His law in the Bible. If one calls out neither in this case, that would be the best route. There are plenty of things in the koran that are worthy targets and it is not a good idea to pick one of the few things that happens to intersect with the truth in the Bible. This may focus antagonism against us Christians for what the Bible says. I stand behind everything the Bible says. And I’m not saying to hide it either. But it brings it into the spotlight wherever it is. The point is that if one is fair game, then so is the other. Since there is also emphasis on what the texts say and not only what the actions are, then this even more so. There is enough persecution already against Christians in the West for taking the Biblical stand that homosexuality is a sin and for not complying with sinful laws. That is the reason I keep bringing this up and wondering why this keeps coming up.
So do you agree with God’s Word; the Bible?
I will check back later for a reply.
Thanks!
: )
gravenimage says
Robert Spencer does not read all the posts in the comments section.
If you have a direct question for him, it would be better to use the “Contact Us” box on the right-side of the JW page.
sidney penny says
Keysar Trad was Hilaly’s spin doctor at the time.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/anger-as-sheikh-likens-unveiled-women-to-uncovered-meat-1.1021206
AUSTRALIA: Australia’s leading Muslim cleric has compared women who do not wear a headscarf to uncovered meat and has hinted they are to blame for sexual assaults, prompting calls for his deportation.
In a Ramadan sermon last month, Sheikh Taj El-Din Hamid Hilaly, the mufti of Sydney’s biggest mosque, said sexual assaults might not happen if women wore a hijab and stayed at home.
“If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it . . . whose fault is it? The cats or the uncovered meat?
“The uncovered meat is the problem,” Sheikh Hilaly said, according to a newspaper translation.
Aussie Infidel says
Judge Fagan’s statement is like a breath of fresh air on this issue. At last we have a judge who clearly understands that the violent verses in the Quran provide the motivation for jihadis to commit their heinous crimes. This is a welcome change from those useful idiots who insist that jihad has “nothing to do with Islam.” Hopefully Judge Fagan’s pronouncement will set a precedent for future cases – including a challenge to the legitimacy of this belligerent creed. While Islam is undoubtedly a religion (because it has a supernatural component), that is mere window dressing to give it an air of respectability. But Islam also has a violent political component which seeks to subjugate all other religions and cultures – and silence any criticism of its authenticity. Consequently, Islam represents a threat to our national security, and should be proscribed forthwith – not as a religion, but a subversive, criminal ideology
However, Australian Muslims will not publicly disavow the violent verses in the Quran out of fear of retribution. Anyone who challenges these verses would be deemed to be an apostate and liable to be targeted by the militants. According to the Sharia, apostates “deserve to be killed” (Reliance of the Traveller, 08.1). Muhammad was a warlord and understood the use of fear and terror to control people.
“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror’.” (Bukhari 4:52:220). Muhammad himself was a self-confessed terrorist.
Islam is a barbaric medieval ideology which has no place in a civilised society.
the hermit says
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-09/double-lives:-the-secret-ex-muslim-network-in-australia/9811340
I wonder how many people are aware of this…
No Muzzies Here says
Think there will be a mass repudiation of the violence in Islam? I don’t either.
patriotliz says
Short of banning ALL foreign Muslim entry into a non-Muslim country, how about making a public/recorded statement w/ signed contract by the Muslim migrant/visitor denouncing the ‘violent’ Koran as a requirement for them to be able to ENTER and/or STAY in Australia as well as any Western freedom-loving country….DUH! It would have been perfectly acceptable to have made the same requirement of Muslims already residing in America after 9/11 in lieu of being placed in determent camps or being expelled from the country. We really are way too tolerant of people following an ideology that explicitly commands them to kill us—Oh wait, they “really don’t follow that…that’s not Islam”…says the Muslims and Islamic apologists after hundreds of additional Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11. “Oh NO!”…says the Leftist apologists…”that would be discrimination against potential terrorists who may want to attack America…but we don’t really know for certain—because we have to give every Muslim the benefit of the doubt that they really don’t adhere to their professed ideology.” OK…lets make EVERY person migrating/entering our country denounce VIOLENCE prescribed by ANY ideology that attacks non-believers of that ideology, be it religious, political or theo-political ideology. Why is it so difficult for Western nations to protect themselves from evil? Just HOW tolerant do we have to be of EVIL ideologies w/o being afraid of being called EVIL ourselves? We won WWII didn’t we?…w/o any shame/guilt of being discriminatory toward German Nazis or Japanese imperialists. It is natural not to tolerate those who don’t tolerate you…except for Jesus Christ and the current Pope…actually Christ was not tolerant of evil but the current Pope is.
Aussie Infidel says
Patriotliz,
No amount of vetting or even banning Muslim immigrants will now prevent jihad. Islam is already established in Western countries, and imams preach those violent verses from the Koran in their sermons in every mosque – as do the mullahs in the madrassas. They all have captive and receptive audiences for their rhetoric of hatred and violence against the kuffar. Anyone who speaks out against these verses in the Koran, will be regarded as an apostate, and receive death threats. While ever Islam is allowed to practise, it will continue to indoctrinate the current Muslim community. So there will always be a number of militants amongst them who will be radicalised to commit jihad. Because the Muslim birthrate is double the western norm, the number of potential jihadis will continue to grow. It’s simply a matter of demographics.
There are only four ways to stop Jihad peacefully – reform Islam, ban it completely, deradicalise the militants, or proscribe it as a subversive organisation and a threat to our national security.
However, we cannot simply expect Muslims to denounce violence – because as already explained, the fear factor will prevent that from happening. Like most religions, Islam uses fear to keep its followers in check, but it is far worse than any other religion. So reform is out of the question.
We cannot ban Islam as a religion because it is against our Constitutions to do so (the US First Amendment, and section 116 of the Australian Constitution), even though Islam has a violent political component. There would be no chance that religious people would support any referendum to change the constitution. Religion is regarded like a sacred cow – never to be challenged for any reason – because their followers fear that challenges to their own faiths will follow. In trying to protect religious freedom, we have unintentionally made a rod for our own backs – and ironically set ourselves on the path of religious and cultural annihilation. And what’s more, the Muslims know this and use our laws against us.
Mortimer and others have suggested deradicalising the militants psychologically. While this might be possible in the long term, given the differences between people, we can be sure it will not work with everyone, particularly the psychopaths, who would be most in need of reform. Also we do not have the political will, or the resources, or the window of opportunity to do so. The job would be enormous, and the demographics would simply beat us. But the few working in this area should be encouraged to continue. However, many Muslims throughout the world have already abandoned their faith, and formed ex-Muslim associations. But because of the Sharia apostasy and blasphemy laws, they live in constant fear of their lives.
https://freemuslims.wordpress.com/2016/07/04/ex-muslim-associations/
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-09/double-lives:-the-secret-ex-muslim-network-in-australia/9811340.
We have to be much more proactive politically and take whatever action is necessary to stop this ‘virus of the mind’ from indoctrinating future generations of Muslims, whose ancestors we foolishly allowed into our countries. Although Islam is classified as a religion, it is also a criminal political ideology, and must be proscribed as a threat to our national security. If we cannot guarantee our security, nothing else will matter. Under the Sharia, all our freedoms – including freedom of religion would soon disappear. De-legitimising Islam will prevent it from being practised in the West, and allow much more effective vetting of immigrants, and surveillance of those already here.
Maybe then there might be a reformation to purge Islam of its violence. But it’s much more likely, that it will then simply ‘wither on the vine’.
gravenimage says
Muslims still make up a small population in the West. Don’t give up yet.
Doug4500 says
I didn’t realize there were TWO Korans!!
?⚡️