Abu Hamza's Defence to put Koran on Trial

Readers may remember this decision in which the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal adjudicated a complaint by the Islamic Council of Victoria under that State's new Religious Vilification legislation alleging that two Christian evangellists had incite[d] hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, Muslims on the basis of religious belief. The Tribunal held that views attributed to the Islamic faith:

...represented the views of a small group of fundamentalists, namely, Wahabbists, who are located in the Gulf states and who are a minority group, and their views bear no relationship to mainstream Muslim beliefs...

Now, a British terror-sympathizing Imam on trial for inciting hatred against (guess who!) the Jewish people, for inter alia citing the famous hadith in which the trees call out to the Muslims to kill the Jews hiding behind them, defends himself thus:

Edward Fitzgerald, QC, for the defence, said that Abu Hamza’s interpretation of the Koran was that it imposed an obligation on Muslims to do jihad and fight in the defence of their religion. He said that the Crown case against the former imam of Finsbury Park Mosque was “simplistic in the extreme”.

He added: “It is said he was preaching murder, but he was actually preaching from the Koran itself.”

Mr Fitzgerald cited two verses of the book that Abu Hamza would rely on, among many others, as theological justification for the words that had led to him being charged. They were Chapter 2, verse 216 and Chapter 9, verse 111. He said that all the great monotheistic religions had scriptures that contained “the language of blood and retribution”.

That should get the Courts turning intellectual somersaults.

Mr Fitzgerald's comments are here. His final coment about monotheistic religions is half right. Some scriptures (like the book of Joshua) contain such language in the form of history. Some, like the Christian Gospels generally reserve blood and retribution as the prerogative of the Almighty. Islamic holy texts (namely the Koran and ahadith) differ from the Jewish and Christian Bibles in that they positively encourage believers to shed blood and exact retribution. So, come and get me Islamic Council of Victoria!

In the seemingly far-off days before so-called "Human Rights" statutes, the law was simple; and the limits of free speech were comparatively clear. However, in the last 30 years, western governments, in various outrageous attempts to appease religious minorities (and it would be remiss of me to omit that in Australia, the Jewish community has used such statutes enthusiastically to deal with perpetrators of Holocaust denial and anti-semitism generally) have made a right pig's breakfast of the concepts of freedom of speech and of conscience. The UK prosecutes an Imam for preaching Jew-hatred; but if one attributes such views (which have plenty of support in the Koran and ahadith) to anything but a "minority" one is inciting hatred against Muslims, under Victorian law. Oh Allah!