Australian terrorist leader gets 15 years

by Mex Cooper

Published Tuesday February 3, 2009
from the Sydney Morning Herald

Original piece is http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2009/02/03/1233423200213.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

Printable version

Tell us what you think

Brian I"m afraid you"ll have to be a bit more patient with me, I work two jobs at the moment while also studying so I seldom get time to respond quickly and thoughtfully so no need to count me out of the discussion so early. 1. Marz would you care to provide evidence for your assertion that only Muslims are considered innocent? I was referring to those civilians who are not armed. That is a non combatant. Their religion has nothing to do with it they are still considered innocent. 2. Paul2, The problems you see are not the fault of Islam, rather a lack of Islam. Simply because the actions of such terrorists contradict the Qur"an and Sunnah themselves. 3.Brian, you seem to have missed my point. These issues of criminal behavior and lack of education are in fact caused by socio and economic problems, not with religion. That is why the figures you gave are not consistent with the whole world. Islam in fact promotes education and forbids criminal behavior. Therefore to say that this issue is related to Islam is unwarranted. Next, the Iranian authors credibility is obviously lacking there because taqiyya in itself is simply hiding the fact that you"re muslim if your life is in danger or pronouncing a different faith or even insulting the Prophet if you are compelled to. Saying that it"s our obligation to lie to non Muslims is silly. Again, you need to check your sources because this is not acceptable. Regarding Muslim run democracies, Brian did you even think thoroughly before asking that question? Turkey, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Bosnia, Albania and others are democracies. Nevertheless, to be quite honest with you I"d much rather have a democracy based on the lines of the US that has a similar constitution with separation of powers rather than a tyrannical king that can do as he pleases. Most Arabs feel the same and that"s why they"d much rather live in the West. But I don"t think the West wants this for the Muslim world, it"s much easier to control the Muslim world with dictators and this is quite evident by the fact that the West supports the dictatorships and monarchies in the Middle East, the majority of such governments (aside from two that I know of, Kuwait and Qatar) hate democracy and repress people who try and promote it. Next your personal question to me, why am I not organizing a campaign throughout Australia to reaffirm toward every single radical Muslim that their actions are reprehensable? We"ve actually done this. AFIC and the State representative body of Muslims in every state in addition the Board of Imams in every state has gone through and condemned such people. We do not allow them to have high positions in our community and when we find someone with such a position we discredit them and remove them from influence. This includes in areas such as prison chaplaincy etc, we found that certain elements were trying to infiltrate into the prison system and radicalize inmates but we had their access removed and their materials banned from correctional facilities. However there are still some "Imam"s" that have influence as leaders of congregations in the community that teach objectionable and radical Wahabi ideas, just like there are radical Christian and Jewish leaders that do similar things.. There is not much you can do about them because no matter how much you discredit them, they will still have a small group of devout followers. I"m afraid there"s not much else you can do about these people because this is a democracy and people have the right to free speech, if you disagree with free speech perhaps you might like to reconsider your question about why there are "no" Muslim run democracies because it would then be the case that you only like democracy when it suits you. You then made a statement regarding Taqiyya, actually your source has some fundamental faults with his interpretation of it. Taqiyya is a means to protect ones life if it is in danger. If someone comes to you and says they will kill you if you do not renounce Islam or kill you if you do not insult the Prophet peace be upon him then you have the right to renounce Islam or insult the Prophet because you were compelled to do so, there is no sin on you for that. The idea that we can simply break promises whenever necessary is not true. Nor is there any examples during the life of the Prophet peace be upon him that he did such a thing, in fact he adhered to truces that he made with the Pagans which were humiliating on the Muslims even though the Muslim army was strong at that stage. That is because we are obligated to be honest and not lie. There is only 3 occasions when we are allowed to lie. If there are two people fighting who have a quarrel with each other you can tell each of them that the other said nice things about them as a means to build some room in their hearts for reconciliation, you can lie to your partner if they ask you if you think they are attractive for example "Honey, of course your butt doesn"t look big in that dress, you look beautiful as always" to avoid hurting their feelings and Taqiyya if you have a situation like I mentioned above. Next, you state that speaking to an orthodox Muslim about discourse on the Qur"an would cause them to cut your head off, well so far I have not cut anyone"s head off and I"ve had such discussions with many non-Muslims and Muslims, nor has anyone else I know so I think you"re sensationalizing it considerably there. Regarding apostasy, there is a big debate within the Muslim scholarship at the moment as to whether it is okay to leave Islam without punishment, many scholars, in particular in the West are of the opinion that someone"s religion is their own free choice, if they decide to leave then so be it. They can not be held accountable on this earth for their choices as there is no compulsion within Islam to stay Muslim. In fact I"d much rather that people who don"t want to be Muslim leave Islam, because what is the benefit in keeping people against their will? It only stirs resentment and hypocrisy. Plus we"re the fastest growing religion in the World, not through simply births but conversions to Islam (not by the sword, sorry if that disappoints you). Right now the Muslims are the largest religious group in the world. Catholicism is 2nd. So what makes you think we are worried about our numbers? Next, you state "To be honest, if I was a Muslim cleric, I would preach that "we should show the world of non-Muslims, how well can achieve peace and progress with the West through medicine, science, philosophy, through engineering, through building infrastructure and towers of education where we open our hearts and minds to all, unafraid of their input and arguments! I would teach that we must be the models of ethics and moral behavior through learning and reason, and not repression and violence. If our children stray, I would believe in the values they have been taught, knowing that they would return when the time was right, because I truly believe in these values I preach, and not because I fear they will be forgotten." I agree 100% with you and in fact all the scholars I know and trust preach the exact same things as you"ve mentioned. You speak about suicide bombers also attacking groups of civilians Brian, actually you"ll find no disagreement with me that the tactic of suicide bombing is wrong and I and the majority scholars consider it forbidden in Islam, just like we consider targeting civilians to be forbidden in Islam. People who resort to such tactics are uneducated about true Islam and are easy prey to those who wish to misguide them and use them for their own perverted goals, those so called scholars who promote such things are unable to find a single bit of reliable evidence in Islam that backs up such disgusting ideas. Regarding your assertions in your latest post. Islam means submission, not subjugation... It is submitting to the Will and Order of God, and yes we are God fearing people, but what Christian or Jew is not? Or is the idea of Hell not taught anymore these days? But even more so we are God loving because we understand the blessing in the revelation that has come forth. Islam doesn"t fear freedom, it embraces it and promotes. You will find that culturalism and tribalism that is rampant throughout the Muslim world is that which fears freedom. You see many people fear the freedoms of the West because they are aware that their own ideals are bankrupt of all legitimacy. So they fear having other ideas influence their children because they know their children will accept them. The problem there is that they mix such culture and tribal practices with their understanding of Islam and force those teachings on their children, their children reject their parents ideas because the way that these practices treat women and address other issues is morally and ethically bankrupt. The prophet Muhammad peace be upon him said regarding these tribal and cultural practices that they were like rotten meat and to leave them. But those ideas contradict the teachings of Islam so don"t expect me to go and defend them. Next, covering women head to toe. Islam doesn"t promote the burka, it"s a tribal practice like mentioned above, Islam however states that a woman should cover everything but her face and hands when around males that are not related to her. This is very simply because in Islam we understand the nature of man, man is a visually based creation, they lust and are attracted to beauty and things that would stimulate their sexual needs. This is a natural part of being a man. If you disagree with me then perhaps you could explain why sex sells and why sexualized advertising is far more successful when targeting men than non sexualized advertising? Women should not be judged however on how attractive their body is (which most certainly happens in the Western corporate environment where studies have shown that women that are not attractive according to the standards which have been forced on us by the media are less likely to get jobs and promotions than those which are attractive to those standards. Why should a woman be judged on her body and physical beauty instead of being judged on her intellect and the content of her character? All of this is not to say that women are responsible for men"s sins and transgressions, in fact this would be a completely ridiculous assumption to make. Each person is responsible for their own actions and will be judged accordingly, if a man commits fornication with a woman he can not say that she had no head scarf on so he couldn"t help himself, and if he uses that excuse then he"s just a weak and pathetic person that really has no right to call himself a man.. A man should control his sexual impulses, it"s not for the woman to do that for him. Many countries with Muslim majorities do deny women equal rights, I wont disagree, but again this is not due to Islam, rather it"s due again to the tribal and cultural practices of their society. If the West had such a problem with it as they claim to, they"d stop giving legitimacy to those governments that promote such ideals and stop providing them with the huge sums of money that they get. Stop legitimizing these tyrants and we"ll deal with them. Change is a process that needs to take place but it becomes very difficult to achieve when the West supports these regimes, and in the lands where the West does not support such regimes but interferes with the country by sending covert operations groups in there or by rhetoric of war it causes a further problem of the people of the land fearing their country being attacked and being aware of interference that they are more likely to support their dictators or vote someone into leadership that is more hardline. Change must be undertaken by the people, and it will happen but requires time and support. The best weapons the West can use are not bombs or blockades, rather it"s the shining example of freedom of democracy, showing the people that they have the opportunity to have similar things if they just throw off the shackles of tyranny and tribalism and embrace freedom and democracy. Islam and the ideals of democracy are not contradictory to each other, in fact when you research deep enough into Islam you will find no document closer to Islamic ideals that defines the governance of a people than the constitution of the USA. Next, the video link that you posted. I watched it and laughed to myself at the so called facts there. Actually the statistics and percentages provided are not correct. Again I ask you, have you gone and checked the facts on this or do you just believe everything you see? I"ll address some of the issues on there. Let"s start with the issue on France. Actually the causes behind the riots in France are not related to trying to establish Islamic law or an Islamic state there, rather the problems are related to the socio-economic and political problems that North African migrants are facing in France at the moment, in particular the youth that are facing huge numbers of unemployment and also if you want to be honest the police in France are quite racist in these areas. These problems all built up together and caused an explosion which was the rioting. The acts of the French government that forbid religious groups from wearing their religious symbols like crosses, kufi"s, hijabs, yarmulka"s etc in schools is also counterproductive and also led the youth to feel victimized. In a proper Islamic state Jews and Christians are allowed to practice their religion to the maximum that they want and appoint their own clergy. They have the right to implement their own laws in their own communities so I think at the very least in the West a Muslim, Christian and Jew should be able to practice their religion and not be forced to hide it to please secular people. The fact is that it shows that those people who"d limit the rights of practitioners of religion are themselves not embracing freedom or democracy, rather they fear other ideas. But not much is said about their actions. I think it"s also fair that if you have to pay taxes to the government you should be able to have those taxes spent on your needs in the community. Just like in Sydney in some places they have automatic pedestrian lights at signals that allow Jews adhering to the Sabbath to cross the road safely without touching the lights. Why not, if you have to pay the tax you should have it spent on your needs also.. That is a part of taxation. The issue of ghettoization of communities, actually this is not limited to Muslim communities nor is it inclusive of all Muslims. Thus it is not related to religion. The issue of Halal food. Well actually it doesn"t secure more jobs for Muslims because a Muslim is allowed to eat food that is slaughtered correctly whether it"s done by Muslims or not, that is why we can also eat Kosher meals. Kosher food however has to be done by Jews. Also yes Muslims shouldn"t eat meat that is not slaughtered correctly, we don"t put pressure on fast food giants to change their meat supply like was implied in the film at all, rather we might make a suggestion to them that if they want more business for us, they would use meat slaughtered correctly. It"s entirely up to them, it"s not like we"re threatening to close their businesses down if they don"t. McDonalds in Coburg decided to go Halal and had a 300% increase in their business.. That just sounds like good business practice to me. Next, the issue of violence and rioting against non Muslims and governments in countries that have Muslims at a certain percentage and above is actually not correct. Guyana, which was mentioned in the film has had no such issues, it is the same in fact with most of those countries that were mentioned. It also mentioned that in places like Qatar the non Muslims are oppressed and exposed to mass amounts of violence, running them out. I"ve been in Qatar for the last 6 months and Christians are respected and guaranteed their rights. They don"t even pay the Jizyah tax that it mentioned in the film. Christians can wear their crosses and have churches and practice their religion without people harming them or government interference, there were even Christmas trees and scenes of the Nativity in Malls across Qatar. This is why I say it"s obvious that you don"t really have the right intentions in seeking the truth about Islam, because if you did you"d check the facts that were in the video. Rather you"ve now exposed your true intentions and it"s obvious that you"ll just accept anything because you are guided by hate. You"d make a good Wahabi or Neo Nazi. But that"s okay, I wont judge Judaism or Christianity on actions of people like you, I know enough and am educated enough to not judge according to such things.

Posted by Aqeel on 2009-02-04 08:10:26 GMT

This morning, I read about a black garbed religious Iraqi woman, reflecting her faith in Islam, who arranged for the sexual assualt and raping of 80 women - to then recruit them into murderous acts of suicide bombing as a means of restoring "their honor and dignity." I have to say, I"ve become deeply troubled in regard to how many ghastly examples there are, and how despicable supposed religious Muslims act today. I am hard pressed to understand how any religion in this enlightened age can produce such callous, and diseased people. I only await my new friend Aleeq to help guide me to new insights, for I am perplexed.

Posted by Brian on 2009-02-04 07:54:15 GMT

Brian, a very perceptive analysis and one that I found myself nodding in agreement with. The violent, angry father and the submissive, religious mother are the parents of nightmare -- Hitler"s parents fit this bill. Mr Murdstone and David Copperfield"s mother also conform to this, although David"s suffering is ameliorated by his loving nanny. When there is no loving witness for the suffering of the child, the child must internalise the rage. And so he does. And so they do in their in tens of millions. Black rage and negativity is the fuel of terror. We are in for a very big fight. And it must be approached ideologically.

Posted by Gabrielle on 2009-02-03 23:25:57 GMT

For some reason, I suspect Aqeel will not longer be participating our growing dialogue. It’s a shame, and I hope I’m wrong, as I believe there is a lot to be gained through this debate and I hope to provoke his responses. I believe he sees himself as moderate, and sees my lack of insight into Islam as an ignorance that disqualifies my opinion, and that perhaps I’m a bit intolerant. Ok; I can live with that. Let"s build on that and expose some perspectives. Here, I appeal to his validation of my perceptions as I will attempt to validate his perceptions. In both cases, I hope we can do so without resorting to ad hominems. It just gets too boring in that event. So, here’s my assertion: Islam means subjugation, i.e. the subjugation to God. In order to subjugate anyone, they must have fear – the fear of consequences. So I assert that Islam is built on fear. Fear of God, fear of punishment, fear of freedom, fear of women, etc. Fear of women, you say? How could any Islamic man be fearful of women? I would answer that instead of a man learning to control and socialize his sexual impulses, he forces a woman to cover herself from head to toe – which to me would be completely analogous to covering our cities and roads with leather, rather than putting leather shoes on our feet. I assert that the Islamic world denies the equal protection under law (and ethics) of women, thus denying them their basic human rights. So, I assert, before we should be indict the government of China about their abuses of human rights, we should be address the mothers – and mother’s to be - of every child in the Islamic world, i.e. some 650.000.000 female people, or what would comprise the world’s third largest nation if it were one, in regard to their inalienable rights and freedoms, and the full access to the decision making process of their societies. Brutality and dogma would result in any world where women have no choice, or voice. It was the case in medieval Europe, and it"s the case in every Islamic nation, i.e. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, etc. etc. Women are captives within their own structural repression. They are the component all societies need per force. And as every man’s mother, they also embody the emotional intelligence and sensitivity every man requires, and that the world sadly lacks every time war and aggression are implemented as tools of intercourse. I assert that women are the component that traditional Islamic ideology lacks! Islam has omitted the touch of mother"s love and wisdom. And, if that be the case, simply compound the effect of that through 1400 years, add general illiteracy and hate propaganda in their schools, feelings of sexual inadequacy and insecurity (that must evolve from such a twisted view of women), give their clergy and royalty unbridled control, hand control from father to son, place oil resources and petro-dollars at their feet, and armies and terrorists at their command, and I believe you have the Islamic world as the Western world perceives it: a dark, dangerous, harsh, terrorist ridden, backward, and dogma ridden imperialist ideology, where clergy have little real desire to find a way to relieve human suffering, and politicians have many powerful excuses to perpetuate it. Without reference to centuries of the harsh tyranny institutionalized by the Church and Christian monarchies, I say, drawn a line in the sands of time, here and now. Ask yourself what societal references do we have of the “success” of Islam, in terms of human happiness? I ask you to return to wherever Islam has a political majority: Iran, Iraq, Gaza, Pakistan, Syria, Indonesia, etc. (with the single possible exception of Turkey, which made great strides under constitutional secularism, but which is quickly losing it’s secular identity). Do you contend that countries with a complete Islamic make up are harmonious, peaceful with creative, productive and mobile populations? I refer to Albania, Malaysia, Qatar, Sudan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and Yemen. We should expect true happiness, peace, and contentment due the obvious strengths of Shar’ia law, and rule by Qur’an! In fact, we see half their populations under 35 years old seeking a way out – half! Do you understand what a declaration of failure and decay that represents? It proves my original contention: Islam is fear. It is governed by fear. It represents a sad truth, and misguided truth, if the truth is to be told. The most frightening fact of all is that with present birth rates, Muslims will occupy 50% of the planets population by the end of this century. Aleeq, you have but to wait that long! And please see: http://perfectlyhuman.multiply.com/video/item/8/What_Islam_is_Not

Posted by Brian on 2009-02-03 16:57:17 GMT

Interesting debate between Brian and Ageel. Brian you are spot on! Ageel, you say "there is a clear prohibition in Islam on deliberately targeting [innocent] civilians". So much depends on Islam"s definition of "innocenct". From my knowledge of Islam, I would contend that it is only Muslims who are ever considered innocent, and that status is denied, by definition, to all infidels ("non-believers" such as Jews, Christians and others who do not accept Islam. Therefore there is no moral conflict in Islam with killing non-Muslims as they are never "innocent". Such is the absolutist arrogance of Islamic teachings, and why it is so dangerous and deceitful.

Posted by Marz on 2009-02-03 12:57:17 GMT

Benbrika"s sentence reflects on the Australian Mohammedan community and the so-called liberals who condemn any steps our society takes to protect itself against terrorists. As Brian pointed out fulsomely, the local Mohammedan community"s failure to condemn its jihadi members shows where its true loyalties lie. The violence of Mohammedans outside the court is an indication of worse things to come as Mohammedans and their severqal wives increase their numbers at social security expense. The failure of their religious leaders shows their identification with the jihadis. Aqeel"s defense of Islam is typical propaganda (dawa)similar to Sheikh Hilali"s pronouncement in (faulty) English that the Sydney race rapists deserved death and a year later gave a sermon in Arabic condemning the sentences, comparing "immodestly" clad women to meat that cats cannot resist. Aqeel knows full well that in Judaism the harsh primitive laws have been ameliorated by Talmudic pronouncements and he ought to know that such changes were put into writing about 130 years before Mohammed started his dreamings. Aqeel also knows that the Koran has a myriad of contradictory passages, but in Mohammedan societies the one who is the most exteme, the most zealous for Islam, will be the leader. Aqeel may well be a kind and enlightened person - there are many Muslims like that - but the question is what do such people do to update their religion, as Jews and Christians have done and what does Aqeel do, not as an individual, but as a member of the umma? And that is the problem: Mohammedans stick together right or wrong and deny documented facts - as Aqeel does - of Mohammedan criminality, aggressiveness, duplicity and sexism. Muslims must free themselves of their text and of their supremicist myths before they can modernise their societies and themselves, much less present themselves as exemplars that others must emulate.

Posted by paul2 on 2009-02-03 12:56:03 GMT

Ageel, Your ad hominem attacks toward me are both disappointing and a blessing in disguise. Actually, I have to thank you. You allow the participants of this forum to read precisely how critique of Muslim religious fanaticism and terrorism, quickly unmasks the supposed "moderate" Muslim. You challenge the credentials of your critic, and an accuse him of racism, rather than admitting that the Islamic community must be responsible – at least in some part – for that criticism and disdain. Let there be little doubt that in Europe, where I reside, 67% Muslim adults do NOT have a bachelors degree. How I wish they did! Very close to 67% are unemployed, with very little interest in gaining employment due the high levels of state subsidies. Of all kids under 18 years old involved in criminal activities, 71% are Muslim - this while Muslims are only 4.8% of the general population. Do you understand what that represents? Oddly, the waves of Polish, Jewish, Hungarian, Vietnamese, Chinese, Korean refugees did not produce similar statistics. According to you they would have acted similarly. I agree that there can certainly be better services and preparation of refugees in flight, upon entering a new country, and once a country agrees on refugee conventions - for sure. Yet, most refugees enter a new country, they feel a sense of debt, and appreciation. They act and express thankfulness for the opportunities afforded them, the new chance. Despite the difficulties with language, culture, etc. they make great attempts at integrating and contributing to those countries. That’s the source of pride expressed by the Koreans and Vietnamese when they came to Europe, and the scholastic excellence of their kids reflected it. Chinese language and culture is far different from European"s. Yet, at no time in history has Chinese integration into Western civilization produced terror, crime, abuse and an outright strategy of overtaking the religions of the host countries - as a ideological goal of the immigrating Chinese people! Regardless of where we look: France, Germany, or Holland, the overwhelming issues underlying these countries security today are the huge burdens of hostile Muslims, and line item costs represented in their Muslim populations, be it for transfer income, crime or unemployment. Street violence, violence in jails, schools, not to mention the violence in the homes of Muslim families is the cornerstone of the proud Muslim ghettos in all European countries. Cities that once belonged to the citizens of that country, are no longer safe for it’s citizens. Here, I don’t speak of Jewish or Australian enclaves. I speak of Muslim enclaves. In Scandinavia, nearly every woman in flight from spousal violence against them and their children is Muslim. The largest line item in the Danish national budget is transfer income to Muslim immigrants. Why do over 50% of Middle Eastern Arabs under 35 years old want to reside in the West? Because of the democracy and religious freedoms they are afforded? Why are there no Muslim run democracies? Why are Muslim women in such a struggle to free themselves from the medieval dogmas of their Muslim males? Why should a Muslim woman cover herself rather than expect a Muslim man to learn some sexual restraint? Why do we spend hours in airports for security checks, because of Hindu or Buddhist terror? My sole personal question to you, given my racist and ignorant lack of qualifications is: Why are you not organizing a campaign throughout Australia to reaffirm toward every single radical Muslim that his actions are reprehensible and causing a global hatred of Muslims? Amir Taheri, an Iranian author of ten books on the Middle East and Islam, said regarding taqiyya, "Muslims have every right to lie and to deceive their adversaries, and a promise made to a non-Muslim can be broken whenever necessary." Yes, I agree that Jews were afforded comparatively better conditions during the medieval period than frolm Christians. Yes, the Church colluded with European monarchies to pillage and repress populations in Europe for centuries. It’s all recoded. But Christians and Jews have undergone a renaissance, a revolution of ideation. They recognized that the expressions of free individuals was nothing we need to fear. Freedom is cause of celebration. That is precisely what is required in Islam: a step towards humanity. A Jew would invite debate and discourse on the Old Testament. A Muslim might behead you it. In fact, orthodox Muslims would find the study and discussion by a non-Muslim a cause for a death sentence. Leaving Islam is a death sentence as well. I contend that Sephardic Jews would never throw Ashkenazy Jews off of 50 foot walls or buildings, or bomb them at places of worship, just because they had another cultural or philosophic leaning. Muslims do it all the time, in many areas of the world. To be honest, if I was a Muslim cleric, I would preach that "we should show the world of non-Muslims, how well can achieve peace and progress with the West through medicine, science, philosophy, through engineering, through building infrastructure and towers of education where we open our hearts and minds to all, unafraid of their input and arguments! I would teach that we must be the models of ethics and moral behavior through learning and reason, and not repression and violence. If our children stray, I would believe in the values they have been taught, knowing that they would return when the time was right, because I truly believe in these values I preach, and not because I fear they will be forgotten. Our millions of examples of high achievement would shine before the world, our path of peaceful excellence should show the way! With over a billion souls, we would possess thousands of Nobel prizes, and not merely a dozen or so. Our tolerance and modernity would assure all that Islam is the path to higher spiritual sensitivity and appreciation of life!" Instead, you"ve accumulated terrorist regimes who proclaim their love of death, professing they will always be victorious over those who protect life! What religion, what civilization wants to profess an ideology of death and destruction? Who would revel at the concept of being able to abuse 72 virgins in Paradise? What ‘virgin in Paradise’ would want a terrorist as a consort? Who would feel proud preventing women from education, mobility, and freedom of personal development? Who would want that for their sisters, wives and mothers other than an ignorant, insecure, sadist? What religion would pride themselves in sending their children into a crowd to blow themselves up or teaching children hatred and bigotry? What man of religion would ask his followers to kill and maim other people, and in the name of God? Finally, Aleeq, allow me to ask most respectfully, and honestly, what kind of God, or Prophet, would ask such things of us?

Posted by Brian on 2009-02-03 12:25:15 GMT

Jihad most certainly is a part of Islam, whether it be in the context of the spiritual struggle with ones own desires or actual physical war it has always been and always will be a part of Islam. However, there is a clear prohibition in Islam on deliberately targeting civilians in attacks like was planned at the MCG, the 9/11 attacks, the Madrid Bombings, 7/7 in the London Underground and various other atrocities. In fact, many scholars of Islam have gone to the extent of saying the people that have committed such attacks on innocent people"s deeds were so contradictory to Islam and abhorrent to the fundamental ideal of justice therein that they would have to have made repentance and said the declaration of faith again to even be considered Muslim, which in these peoples cases would have been completely impossible as they were already dead. Therefore they died in a state of disbelief as non Muslims and further more the punishment for killing themselves and innocent people carries the punishment of eternal damnation.

Posted by Aqeel on 2009-02-03 12:06:00 GMT

I agree with Ageel"s original comment - Saudi money should not be allowed into the country to spread the hateful ideology of Wahhabism. I think that 15 years for plotting to kill thousands seems quite light. Abdul Nacer Benbrika will certainly promote his hateful ideology in prison - he should be locked up in a very secure place without any disciples near him for a very long time indeed. And then he should be deported back to Algeria.

Posted by Mark on 2009-02-03 10:56:10 GMT

Apologists for terrorists and their actions (including sections of the western press)are deliberately blind to the facts of history from the time of their Prophet..or are they actually DECEIVED (??)re the truth of Muslim action for centuries in Europe, Africa, the Middle East..you name it. And of course, Muslims" source for violence ... their holy book ... justifies their actions 100%, despite all the tumult/shouting/argument to deny it. I am still waiting for my "educated" Muslim friends to have a glimmer of honesty and rational-thinking and speak out vehemently against such outrages. But, on the whole .... they remain quiet. Many in the western world are increasingly aware that most major acts of unprovoked violence against peoples everywhere are done by those of this faith (though our media soft-soaps and edits out so often the term "Muslim" or turns to villify those who dare to oppose them).

Posted on 2009-02-03 10:30:30 GMT

Brian, the problem is that you neither have the background of knowledge to interpret such hadith and Qur"anic verses nor do you seem to have any intention in knowing the truth about such Islamic teachings. Rather it seems that your intention in your "literal educative research" was intended to try and find fault with Islam. I could do the very same things with Christianity and Judaism and in fact with any ideology ism or schism and come up with similar results. Most Muslims profess an "orthodox" interpretation of Islam, but that doesn"t necessarily mean that they do follow orthodox Islam. There is a criteria for it. Your next point about Muslims that are not educated is quite preposterous, the fact is that in the US 67% of Muslim adults have a bachelors degree in comparison with the wider community as a whole that has 44% that have a bachelors degree. In Australia the numbers are similar to this. Which completely shows that your assertions are incorrect. Next, your assertion that Muslims are more likely to be criminals. Well actually I would disagree, I do not think this issue is related to religion at all. If one looks at the Lebanese community in Australia of which is represented by both Muslims and Christians you will find equally higher percentage representation in the criminal justice system of inmates from both faiths which indicates that it has a lot more to do with issues that refugees face when they enter the country and how they adapt to their new environment, in particular after having migrated after fleeing conflict. There needs to be appropriate support structures in place for refugees. For those that are not refugees and are just migrants there can be issues with identity, being a first generation Australian can be difficult when your parents has come from very cultural upbringing. Parents try to bring their children up in the same way they were brought up which can cause problems due to the different environment. The issue in this case has more to do with culture than religion. The problem is when parents start mixing the two and enforcing their culture as a religion which then conflicts with Western Society. In regards to converting people to Islam, we as Muslims can not convert people, we can only tell people about Islam and show a good example of it, if the person wants to convert then that is their choice. It is strictly forbidden for us to try and forcibly convert them. Regarding terrorism, I"m afraid that your assertion that all religious terrorism has a Muslim counterpart in it is simply uneducated. I think you need to check the figures because there is religious terrorism committed by Christians, Hindus, Buddhist and yes Jews also. There is not a war between Muslims and Jews, if it were in our religion to simply kill Jews there would be none left, we"d have wiped them off of the face of the planet by now, rather it is in our religion to protect them, their rights to practice their religion, their holy places, their property and their wealth. That is our obligation as Muslims. We have demonstrated this time and time again over history when the "Christian" hordes were trying to exterminate the Jews. You try and incite hate in Islam just as a White Supremacist Neo Nazi would incite hate in African Americans and Mexicans, you use similar tactics and tricks to try and convince people that Islam is a huge threat but really, it shows the hate that is contained in your heart Brian. Perhaps if you hated a little less you"d not have such uneducated ideas. Aqeel

Posted by Aqeel on 2009-02-03 10:28:56 GMT

Excuse me, Aqeel. I wrote: "A Jew may attempt to convert a non-Jew." That is incorrect. It"s is NOT permitted to attempt or promote the convertion of a non-Jew to Judaism by a Jew. It is absolutely illegal to act as a missionary toward non-Jews, in any manner other than as a model of behavior (and trhat doesn"t occur too often!). Promoting conversion is considered wrong, and once discoverd, no Orthodox Rabbi will sanction the conversion.

Posted by Brian on 2009-02-03 09:46:08 GMT

Aqeel, Please excuse the inferences; I was not implying that you were an "ignorant Muslim." I had no idea you were Muslim. But, 3 things immediately come to mind: firstly, that I underwent a literal educative research period with another contributor of this forum, Gaye, who forwarded tens upon tens of Koran and hadith excerpts, which clearly identified killing, harassment, and terror as legitimate tools of forcing either conversion or the simple repression of the Muslim, and women in particular. Needless to say, one can identify texts in the Bible - both old and new - which could be used to do the same. But, Jewish law requires the Oral Law (Talmud) to interpret Written Law (Torah). Historically, Jews who refuse to us the the Talmud to interpret Torah have been literally rejected for the danger of their views. Secondly, there are so many instances world wide of radical Muslims, both young and old, who profess an orthodox view of Islam, where violence and absolute dogmatic refusal of Western values or compromise with them, that there can be little doubt that radicalism is not limited alone to Wahabism. At the same time, ample Saudi Arabian funding is clearly promoting Wahabist views globally. Of that there is not doubt, and in that regard I agree with you. It’s a remarkably well funded problem. The Saudi’s own over 7% of the stock market equity in the US! Secondly, and perhaps most important is the amount of Muslims who are not particularly well educated, in general, and if so, they are so primarily in literal or traditional religious terms. If we look at Gaza, or the Palestinian as such, regardless of where they reside, they are not identified as "educated," or even seeking general education. Unlike the waves of Jews, Koreans, and Vietnamese who rose as top percentile students in high school and university, rarely do we see Muslims excel in Western education. My assumption is the family, as a platform for these developments, is not serving the function we expect and require. Youth crime has become identified with Muslims. In all European countries where Muslim populations are 5% or more, huge percentages of youth crime contain Muslims. In Scandinavia, a Muslim child has a 30 times greater likelihood of being criminal than a European child. In Europe, the institutionalized percentage of battered women is overwhelmingly Muslim. In Scandinavia, the vast majority of rapes are perpetrated by Muslims (67%). Muslim kids are not being taught what societies here expect; they apparently are not being socialized along the lines of what creates peaceful, law abiding and contributing citizens in the extent that such a large proportion of a clearly minority population is responsible for such a high degree of social, political and economic disturbance, crime and disproportionate cost. Personally, I never felt an inkling of religious antipathy toward Muslims as a youth. I do now, unfortunately. It"s impossible not to when we know that nearly every terrorist act and "religious" conflagration throughout the world has a Muslim counterpart in it. The issues is not Israel or Jews, as such, it’s Muslim again Jew, Muslim against Christian, Muslim against Hindu, etc. It"s a sad record and a dangerous trend. A Jew may attempt to convert a non-Jew. A Muslim has an obligation to convert his surrounding to Islam, essentially by any means necessary. Obviously, I would prefer that was done through excellence in science, matyh, music, medicine and philosophy. Unfortunately, it’s not the case. I am contemptuous of the greater Islamic community for not doing more, in a serious, organized, legally integrated campaign of education and world wide strategic policy to stamp out the rise of radicalism within it"s midst, and to step the trend of stigma you must feel due these anti-social criminal and deeply misdirected if not psychopathic trends, emerging so broadly from the bosom of Islamic clerical and ideological influences.

Posted by Brian on 2009-02-03 09:35:57 GMT

Brian, you"re not talking to an uneducated and ignorant Muslim here, quite the contrary and I can assure you that there is no such evidence supporting the killing of innocent civilians. Perhaps you might be able to find verses that you would be able to take out of context or translate incorrectly but for an educated Muslim it is clear that such things are forbidden. That is precisely the problem, the Wahabis do not use logic in their understanding of Islam, their literalism causes them to just take a verse from the Qur"an or a hadith and apply it to all situations where it benefits their disgusting beliefs without using appropriate logic and context that any science requires to use. I could just as easily take any other religious text and misconstrue it"s teachings to show that this religion promotes the killing of innocent people, the same as others do with Islam. But that would not be appropriate because it"s not taking into account the context and application of it at the time.

Posted by Aqeel on 2009-02-03 08:51:06 GMT

I"m afraid you are simply not correct. The is a plentitude of evidence supporting the fact that Islamic law does promote the killing and terrorising of innocents, in particular, the non-believer. It is dirrected toward the conversion or death of the infidel. The actual word of law incites Muslims to attack the Jew "where he is." In over 40 countries of the world, at this very moment, religious based conflicts with Muslims verses primarily Christians, base themselves on these principals. Unfortunately, those radical Muslims - Wahabists as well - are those who fulfil what is being asked of them in religious texts. The question should be asked, "Why aren"t these texts being modified in verbal teachings, so they"re not interpreted literally? In old testiment teachings, such as "an eye for an eye," Jews learn this is not meant literally. Rather that just compensation must be given on a case specific basis, therefore an "eye for an eye" means the compensation for a violinist losing a finger is different than a lawyer losing a finger, either in an accident or or act of willful violence. Muslims are taught that their holy texts are to be understood at the literal level. As such, religious texts" represent manifests which directly incite violence and terror, while escaping Western jurisprudence due their definition as "religious texts." That is the issue, and what I feel must be addressed the moment the Koran reflects itself in clerical doctrine, sermons of death and violence, and any speech which incites violence and killing, based on those dangerous doctrines.

Posted by Brian on 2009-02-03 08:29:26 GMT

Islam doesn"t promote the killing of innocent people, these would be terrorists ideology comes from the Saudi Arabian Wahabi movements, they are the source of the terrorism. The government shouldn"t allow their money to come into this country to fund Islamic organizations because such money in many cases comes with conditions to spread their hateful ideology.

Posted by Aqeel on 2009-02-03 08:10:15 GMT

If this had been a neo-Nazi group, and the list of names were Germanic rather than Arabic, we would recall the unfathomable atrocities of Nazi Germany, and make examples of these people in light of that. We’d formulate the clear and present danger for what it is: a murderous, globally co-ordinated imperialistic ideology. But here, psychopathic Muslims, all hell bent on the destruction, maiming, and death of people who think differently, are given relatively mild sentences for the conspiracy to commit crimes against humanity within the cloak of ‘religion.’ The religious aspect forced definitional accommodations, i.e. that ‘jihad could be interpreted many ways.’ Not true! Their intent and deepest wish is to fulfill a religiously promoted act of commiting cold blooded murder at random against people unknown to them, i.e. the planning of mass murders of random Australians. When I think of the fact that the greater Muslim community doesn"t stand up and scream its revolt, rejection, contempt and condemnation of the sickness, wrongness and simple psychopathic roots behind this pseudo-religious dogma, then I recognize how dangerous this sociologic cancer is. The Islamic community screams about so many things – but not this! We see no demonstrations, outcry, and organized resistance to the murderous, insidious, indescribably nauseating policy of cultural genocide that cements Muslims within Islam! It’s solely that fact that there are so many of them that prevents Islam from being made illegal. And the fact that the most radical are those who actually adhere to the very letter of Islamic law and teachings, is the core issue. Murder and genocide is a core tenet particular to the ideology of Islam. The disguise of “religion” has to be thrown off this blatant call for violence and murder as a means of world domination. That is fascism per force, not religion. At some point, as impractical as it seems, the free world – if we can call it that any longer - must legislate against any and all calls for violence in connection with "religious" principals, i.e., where any cleric or follower wherein the public or private domain, wherein a sufficiently documented statement of violence against other people is made, be deemed as incitement to violence with intent to injure or kill, racism, conspiracy to murder, and thereafter be prosecuted with the full extent of the law.

Posted by Brian on 2009-02-03 07:39:28 GMT

We certainly have a legal system. I just question if we really have a justice system. 15 years? A joke!

Posted by Wazza on 2009-02-03 06:45:33 GMT

"Warped teachings" eh? Since when was Bongiorno competent to rule on matters of Islamic theology? When our judges no longer feel obligated to offer deferential apologies for Islamic teachings, we will all sleep a lot safer in our beds at night.

Posted on 2009-02-03 06:43:14 GMT

Of course Benbrika shows no signs of having changed his ways -- or "contrition". How can he? He"d have to change his religion to relinquish the jihad imperative.

Posted by Gabrielle on 2009-02-03 06:01:49 GMT