Violence and the Koran

[DB44]

Now we have all experienced some exposure to Court Judgements and sentencing in particular thanks to George Pell I have a recent very interesting one for you. It can be found here:



This is the sentencing by Justice Fagan of the Supreme Court of New South Wales of two young would be Muslim terrorists. In the course of his reasons he actually considers the role of the Koran and other Muslim "scriptures" in terrorism.

78. Terrorists’ reliance on verses of the Quran to support an Islamic duty of religious violence has been seen with more or less clarity in a number of NSW and Victorian cases: see R v Khaja (No 5) [2018] NSWSC 238 at [72]-[78], [98], [101], [122]. The many Australian Muslims who wish to live in peace with the whole community may reflect that if Islam accepts the entire Quran as Allah’s eternal instruction to believers, without explicit repudiation of verses which ordain intolerance, violence and domination, that unqualified acceptance will embolden terrorists to think they are in common cause with all believers and indeed that they are the spearhead of the religion. The scriptural support for the terrorists’ perceived obligation of jihad cannot be rebutted by Australian courts or law enforcement authorities. If the verses upon which the terrorists rely are not binding commands of Allah, it is Muslims who would have to say so. 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.

79. The incitements to violence which terrorists quote from the Quran cannot just be ignored by the many believers who desire harmonious coexistence. Those verses are not ignored by terrorists. As seen in this and numerous other prosecutions, the hostile verses are inspiring serious crimes. In turn those crimes have the capacity to provoke social division and mistrust.

80. The apparent message of these verses is not answered by non-specific and unelaborated suggestions, from various quarters, that “there are other verses” or that “it is an interpretive religion” or that the hostile passages are “cherry picked”. Assurances are from time to time offered to Western communities that “Islam is a religion of peace” and that the faith of Muslims requires them to obey the laws of a country in which they are in a minority. But in the absence of express public disavowal of verses which convey Allah’s command for violence, as quoted in the jihadist literature tendered in this case, such assurances are apparently contradicted. Certainly that is how the matter is seen by jihadi propagandists and those who have followed them, including these offenders.

The reasons are well worth reading in their entirety and particularly so from paragraph 53 onwards. His Honour talks about the necessity for Muslims to disavow these verses, though interpreting them in a peaceful manner which defies their literal meaning would also be acceptable. However, according to the expert evidence this could be particularly problematic for Muslims who regard the Koran as the literal words of God, and gain further support from the lives and sayings of Muhammad who was continually at war:

68. Dr Shanahan described Islam as a legal and political system not limited to religion in the spiritual and personal sense:

Islam is supposed to be not just a religion but a total system of life, so for any total system of life you need a legal framework. … Islamic law as we know it, or the Sharia, provides guidance for how you are supposed to live your life in the way in which God willed you to do that. … [W]ithin Islamic law, different weight is given to different sources of Islamic law. Obviously the most weight is given to the Quran because that is the literal word of God, but that doesn’t give complete guidance for how people should live their lives. So in those vast areas that it doesn’t mention, … you take your guidance off what are known as thes hadith, and the hadith are the actions or the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad and his companions.

So if Muhammad was chosen out of all people by God to receive the revelations, then it follows that the actions that he undertook and the words that he said should be the next most important source of law within Islam.

However, I must ask how the Western World is able to accept Muslim migrants who have not expressly renounced these verses or at least adopted a peaceful interpretation of them consistent with their new societies. Although only a very tiny number of migrants actually act on these verses, the question of how many do support them quietly arises. Otherwise, what do we expect to happen as Muslim's as a percentage of our population increase. Why are Western Muslim leaders not prepared to deal with these verses? Why are they not asked plainly their position on these verses?

Here we have a respected Judge of a superior Australian Court who has made admittedly obiter (in passing) comments based on the disturbing evidence before his Court. Yet it has received little exposure and less debate. A sad indictment on our mainstream media.

[Uncle Fester]

DB, I would be very careful seeking generalisations here.

Lets just look at Christian religion and the Bible, isn't it supposed to be a life guide too?
Big written: "Thou shalt not kill", yet we just rush off to Iraq and invade it "In the name of God" and as a consequence the ISIS is created and as a flow on effect more than 1 Million people would have died. How is that not terrorism on a huge scale? For me terrorism is acting out violence for religious or political aim.

I have drunken beer with Muslims, my wife had worked a few years for an ambassador of Saudi in Europe and she never saw him or anybody of his family pray and the ambassador's wife loved her pink Moet and always gave the rest of the bottle to my wife.

Some take it strictly others not, just like Christians and most are just hypocrites.

These scriptures are all written so rubbery that you could probably interpret anything you want from them, I think the totally contradicting bible is like that so I don't expect the Quran to be much different. Nutters will see a call for the Holy War others a call for peace.

I agree it would be great to find clarification from experts in the Muslim community but is that really possible?
They could simply say it is all peaceful and we would just have to take their word for it and what would that really change?

[DB44]

@nomeat. i agree with you to an extent. Though if you read the judgement these particular verses and hadith are problematic. This is not to say that there are no problems with the Bible, particularly the Old Testament and Revelations. I could quite understand if another country faced with a Christian wanting to immigrate sought a disavowal of the "eye for an eye" verses in the Old Testament, or of other problematic verses. Religion has been responsible for a great deal of unjustified violence throughout history, and Christianity and Islam have both done their fair share. I have also had quite a lot of dealings with Muslims and have a number of Muslim friends. And, as you say, some do not take their religion particularly seriously. But many do. My experience is that Muslims are mostly great people who just want to get on with their lives. However, I have also come across Muslims who are simply ignorant rather than evil who hold views inconsistent with Australian Society, and we must face up to the fact that there are many such people. Perhaps individual Muslims could be asked their attitudes to these verses as part of the migration process. It is very disturbing to me that a judge of the Supreme Court finds after hearing evidence that these verses and the failure to repudiate them is problematic and gives some legitimacy to terrorists within the wider Muslim community. It seems to me to be something easily dealt with if the majority of Muslim's don't interpret those verses as a religious mission to attack and subjugate their fellow citizens.

[irritant]

No, Christianity is not based on the Old Testament, e.g. "eye for an eye," etc. That was the whole point of Christianity (i.e. New Testament) in the first place.

Hence why Christians do not sacrifice animals/make offerings, etc. The Supreme Sacrifice has already been made, so that none of this is necessary anymore.

[DB44]

No, Christianity is not based on the Old Testament, e.g. "eye for an eye," etc. That was the whole point of Christianity (i.e. New Testament) in the first place.

Hence why Christians do not sacrifice animals/make offerings, etc. The Supreme Sacrifice has already been made, so that none of this is necessary anymore.

Yet the Old Testament remains part of the Bible, is still taught and still lends some legitimacy to fundamentalists. Fortunately few resort to action. For example, homosexuality is an abomination punishable by death. The Spanish Inquisition and the burning of witches, amongst many other terrible acts, were not carried out by followers of Judaism. The God of the New Testament is unrecognisable from the God of the old Testament. In fairness to Christianity it has for the most part long ago abandoned such a literal interpretation. This is something that I think Islam needs to do. I agree with his honour that this can come only from Muslims.

[lsemmens]

The Old Testament is there to explain the New Testament. Same as we have scientists to explain why we have a Sun. Without the Old Testament, we would not have known why we needed Jesus to dies on the Cross for our freedom.

[Al Bundy]

... It is very disturbing to me that a judge of the Supreme Court finds after hearing evidence that these verses and the failure to repudiate them is problematic and gives some legitimacy to terrorists within the wider Muslim community. It seems to me to be something easily dealt with if the majority of Muslim's don't interpret those verses as a religious mission to attack and subjugate their fellow citizens.

DB44 with all due respect to Justice Fagan, who is obviously a learned man, he shows some misunderstanding/ignorance of what he is saying, for those of the Islamic faith to repudiate the verses mentioned will in fact paint a target fair square on their backs, they will be labelled as apostates and depending on where they are in the world punished accordingly, Catch 22...

[DB44]

The Old Testament is there to explain the New Testament. Same as we have scientists to explain why we have a Sun. Without the Old Testament, we would not have known why we needed Jesus to dies on the Cross for our freedom.

I'm pleased that you have faith and are prepared to proclaim it publicly. I would like to share it but I simply don't, for reasons which are not relevant to this thread. I respect your faith. But I don't agree that the Old Testament is there simply for historical reference and context, nor do many Christian Scholars. The Ten Commandments are not the only Old Testament scriptures that are still operative.

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Mattew 5:17–19)

However, more relevant in the context of this thread is that Christian fundamentalists often rely for support for some of their own more extreme views on the Old Testament and not just the New. Nevertheless Christianity seems to have come much further than Islam in reading down the more abhorrent aspects of its scriptures.

[DB44]

DB44 with all due respect to Justice Fagan, who is obviously a learned man, he shows some misunderstanding/ignorance of what he is saying, for those of the Islamic faith to repudiate the verses mentioned will in fact paint a target fair square on their backs, they will be labelled as apostates and depending on where they are in the world punished accordingly, Catch 22...

Great post Al. This is truly a problem. I suspect Justice Fagan was aware of it, but of course I really can't be sure. I also suspect that he was aiming his remarks largely at Australian Muslim leaders and scholars. Certainly it is likely that Islamic extremists would regard even reading down one of these verses let alone repudiating it would make one an apostate. Yet they regard many fellow Muslim's as apostates in any event, which is why there are more terrorist attacks against fellow Muslims than against the West. Would more moderate Islamic scholars take this view? I don't know. But is it truly too much to ask that even one major authority of a major world religion clarify that its scriptures do not impose a religious duty on Muslims to kill or subjugate their fellow citizens? If they cannot should we accept any Muslim immigrants who do not themselves disclaim this religious obligation?

[george65]

I agree it would be great to find clarification from experts in the Muslim community but is that really possible?
They could simply say it is all peaceful and we would just have to take their word for it and what would that really change?

Not that you or others will see this but for the person whom may still be bored enough to read my posts....

I have done a basic study of the quran in order to learn what is fact and what is media and Muslim fiction.
having Muslims Disavowing the violent passages such as the verse of the Sword would in fact be useless. Part of the teaching to Muslims is that it is not only allowed but their DUTY to lie if need be as well as do anything else to protect the religion. They are not permitted to lie to one another but to the infidels, they are to be praised for lying, cheating, stealing killing and doing everything they can to make like unpleasant for the infadels. There is a word for this misdirection/ lying which is " Taqiyya" and it IS fully sanctioned by the Musilm faith and part of the teachings.

When a cult teaches people to lie to protect the faith, that's it, game over. You cannot reason or believe a thing they tell you. Pressure could be brought to bear to denounce these verses but it would be taken and known to be what it was, Taqiyya, a lie to protect the faith. In any case, next friday at mosque it only takes the imam to say, Oh, BTW, that bit about denouncing the verse of the sword et al, justtaqiyya for the infidels, believe in the word of Allah at all times" and thats it, back to the start.

They will probably make the denouncement on thursday so they can repeal it the day after when they have the audience in front of them again at the call to prayers the next day.
That's what I'd do anyway and I doubt they are not cluey enough to do the same thing or have a better trick up their sleeve.

There are also 2 basic parts to the Quran. There is the part when Mohammad is the follower of Allah in mecca and and the later part where he becomes the prophet and basically a warlord when he flees to medina. It is in medina he wrote the last 26 Surahs ( verses) of the the Quran. Having now amassed a great army of followers and become a warlord pillaging and invading all around, the last Surahs contain many conflicting passages with the first much more peaceful surahs. This is mentioned in the last surahs and the followers are told where there is conflicting passages/ instructions, always follow the LAST directions given. These are all the much more Violet verses.
He basicaly goes from a lost peasant following Allah around like a puppy to turning into a murderour, ruthless dictactor like he is high and out of his mind on crack cocaine only with him it's the power trip to beat all.


As far as Christianity and the old testament, i'm not much on any religion but the fact is this, The bible has it's Violent parts but Christianity has, unlike the islamic faith, Moved with the times and is not still trying to be like it was 1000 years ago. They have turned around on gays, there are female priests, you clap hands in Church and they have rock bands to sing with.
The church does not teach or endorse the old thinking of an eye for an eye nor does it incite it's followers into holy wars or anything else I am aware of from 1000 Years ago.
The muslims want to teach the old ways and beliefs which are simple not compatible and are at complete odds to the progressive Christian faith and western values. To me that's a HUGE difference right there.
It's the medical equlivent of performing full frontal Labotomys and electro shock therapy today on the part of the Muslims and the Christians seeing although they may have taught it once, they have learned what a hell of a mistake it was and admit they were wrong rather than blindly refusing to learn and change.

I would be happy for all religion to be abolished. I think it's a giant crock and has caused more harm than its' ever done 1000 fold.
You don't need a daiety in the sky to be a good person or do the right thing by your fellow man, it's either in you or it's not. I know faithful people that lambast their own and say they are bastards of people that go to church and think that absolves all their wrong doings the other 6.5 days of the week. I have known faithful people that I have told, I am not at all religious or believe in it and they have told me I am a far better Christian as to holding up what they believe in than a lot of people who promote themselves as being shining examples of the faith.

To me it's what you do, what you say how you act and whats in your heart.
I may not be a very good example of that but at least i'm not a hypocrite pretending to be anything i'm not. I also believe I am entirely responsible for my own path in life and shit, terrible shit, does happen and it's not controlled by the invisible man in the sky.

[garrycol]

Now for once that post of yours was good reading and informative.

While there are some sections I might not agree with your interpretation that is just differing thoughts.

However Islam is not a cult - it is a religion just as Christianity is a religion just as Judaism is a religion. Now there may be sub sections that do not follow the strict teachings of the religion that could be called a cult along with other sub groups of anything, but Islam is not a Cult.

[george65]

[QUOTE=garrycol;797852 but Islam is not a Cult.[/QUOTE]

Well once again we disagree but feel free to report me to the security agencies for that hate crime as well.

[irritant]

...You don't need a daiety in the sky to be a good person or do the right thing by your fellow man, it's either in you or it's not. I know faithful people that lambast their own and say they are bastards of people that go to church and think that absolves all their wrong doings the other 6.5 days of the week. I have known faithful people that I have told, I am not at all religious or believe in it and they have told me I am a far better Christian as to holding up what they believe in than a lot of people who promote themselves as being shining examples of the faith.

To me it's what you do, what you say how you act and whats in your heart...

Yes, exactly, and what you mention here is actually what true Christianity is all about.

I will upset the apple cart for many so-called "churches" by saying this, but Christianity is NOT a religion. It's a way of life, being a certain type of person.

Most atheists are Christians without even knowing it. It's true.

There are many churches (especially a very famous and very large global one from long ago) that try to make Christianity a religion. They are totally missing the point.

It's like this -- religion is where people "try to be something" by their own doing, Christianity is when you accept "I already am" in the way it is supposed to be, which the individual does not even understand in the beginning but eventually does -- that comes with wisdom, age, etc.

The "something" that religions try to be is of their own creation/definition, and is invariably not worth pursuing as it is simply from a human perspective according to human standards. A good example is how they pursue earthly power over others, at least what they perceive as being powerful -- e.g. being able to take others' lives, tell them what to do, take their money -- self-enrichment, being dominant, etc.

Christianity is believing in something greater than all of that, what is above that (all the things that make you powerful w.r.t. being on earth). You trust in God to guide you because you, as a human with limited knowledge, cannot "see" or understand what this greater something is. But that's OK, because it is simply enough to know that it is there, however.

This greater something is what leads people to compassion, wisdom, empathy for others, etc. These qualities are more powerful than being able to wage wars for example, as they create a whole other human society, rather than just destroy societies.

Destruction is easy, construction is the more difficult one, but is worth it.

When you are a Christian, you no longer need to pursue, fight, prove yourself, submit, and all those things. The sacrifices you do make (e.g. time or money) is well within your capacity and is something you WANT to do, and is for a greater cause that ultimately takes your society forward.

In real Christian households, nobody is forced into anything. You have free will. So, if you ever find yourself behind a church pew, a young boy, kneeling in front of a naked priest who is telling you to "go ahead", that is definitely not Christianity.

[ol' boy]

I think we can agree, ALL Religions are a crock of shit

All designed to control the masses, to brain wash the flock, to rap you of your money and ass if you're unlucky.
To condition you and make you feel a lesser person if you don't follow and obey
The guilt trip is massive....

In this day and age of hate speech, people being offended, bullying, etc.... No one does it better than Religion.
All and any of them.

The whole lot is absurd through to totally destructive and should be outlawed.
Made illegal and sold up.

[hinekadon]

I think we can agree, ALL Religions are a crock of shit

All designed to control the masses, to brain wash the flock, to rap you of your money and ass if you're unlucky.
To condition you and make you feel a lesser person if you don't follow and obey
The guilt trip is massive....

In this day and age of hate speech, people being offended, bullying, etc.... No one does it better than Religion.
All and any of them.

The whole lot is absurd through to totally destructive and should be outlawed.
Made illegal and sold up.

the retail market would go mad with the extra money in the economy , just imagine all $ that gets ripped of parishoners going into the world coffers and the pedos not getting paid for their dirty deeds, imagine as priest digging a drain for a pensioner to clear his blocked toilet then we will see miracles and flying pigs no more hala bullshit about food pointing to the wrong direction humans driving on roads not cows controlling traffic no more hate no more wars no birkkas no nuns but who going to administer it ???? I know we will invent our own god but call it something else any body got any good ideas what to call it no as we dont want to offend any body now do we ???????

[Al Bundy]

Dog

[alpha0ne]

However Islam is not a cult - it is a religion just as Christianity is a religion just as Judaism is a religion. Now there may be sub sections that do not follow the strict teachings of the religion that could be called a cult along with other sub groups of anything, but Islam is not a Cult.

You are wrong garry...............IMHO, along with everyone I have ever spoken to re the cult of islam

Maybe in another 1000 years, when/if the cult is reformed to become acceptable to modern values, it 'might' become an acceptable cult, but I can't see that EVER happening, simply because anyone who even mentions reform is liable to be killed by their own kind

[hinekadon]

Dog

hmmmmm dog who would that offend ????? all those with a bit of pussy i suppose but a bloody good suggestion just reversal of roles dogs best friend sounds ok tho
maybe those that eat dog meat in asian countries , would make the spelling easy swapping ds and gs easy to correct history tho

[Tiny]

Dog

Or Good,
our thoughts become our words & our words become our actions, our actions become our character, well for some of us anyway, lol.

[hinekadon]

Or Good,

now theres benefit in that too just add a oh so all religions would be banned and in the courts we would swear to good to tell the truth the whole truth and nothin g but the truth so help me good . Could it be mis -spoken " i only took it for good sorry" your honour good made me do it hmm dont know about that one ,GOOD try ???