imra-usa.org

Just a note to follow up my previous one on stipulations on contract in sale.  The unambiguous Prophetic declaration prohibiting two stipulations in a sale (some say one, but all agree on at least two) is not only ignored by Sanhuri when he comes up with a general theory of contract, it is well nigh devastating to his notion that there could possibly be a general theory of obligation consistent with classical doctrine. 

HAH

Islamic Law In Our Times

YOU WANT TO help educate your fellow non-Muslims about Islam. An admirable goal. But you have a limited number of people that you know well enough to have that kind of conversation with. And if you’ve been at it for awhile, probably everyone you know has either already joined the Resistance or doesn’t want to talk about it any more. But you still have the impulse to spread the word.

I have a possible solution. We’ve created several useful resources and many people in the counterjihad haven’t yet heard of them. We need to get the word out. These are tools for the Resistance.

If you wish to accept this mission, go to blogs, web sites, Facebook pages, Yahoo Answers, etc., and promote the following:

1. The Pledge: This is a pledge people can sign online, pledging to read the Koran to find out for themselves what Islam is about. Read more about the Pledge.

2. WhatYouCanDoAboutIslam.com: This is a list of practical actions an ordinary citizen can take to help stop Islam’s relentless encroachment.

3. Inquiry into Islam: This is a simple site covering basic information about Islam, and the content has been made user-friendly for people who don’t know much about Islam.

4. Answers to objections: This is for people already committed to doing the one thing that needs to be done most, which is talking to their immediate social circle about Islam. It’s a list of objections people will give you when you talk about Islam, and provides possible ways to answer each objection.

5. Principles of influence: This is also for people committed to the Resistance. It’s a growing list of ideas to help us improve our effectiveness at changing the hearts and minds of those who don’t want to believe the truth about the third jihad.

6. Approach training: This is a growing list of ideas for how to approach conversations about Islam with non-Muslims to create the best possible response.

7. Talk about Islam among non-Muslims: This is a forum for non-Muslims who are committed to sharing what they know about Islam with other non-Muslims. It is a place we can help and support and coach each other in this challenging task.

8. Stop Muslim immigration petition: This is the first step all free nations must take. So says Robert Spencer. And Geert Wilders, and many other experts on Islam’s prime directive who have the guts to speak the truth. Achieving the goal of stopping Muslim immigration is probably a long way off, but one first step would be to sign a petition to show politicians that there is a large percentage of the population who would support a change in immigration policy. The effort to get others to sign it is a great opening for explaining some basic facts about Islam (by inviting them to sign it and answering their question when they ask why).

9. Basic Principles of Islam: This is a great resource to share with people who don’t know much about Islam. And it is also a resource for you to use when you’re making a point and don’t want to have to explain it in depth. You can simply link to one of the principles.

10. What educated Muslims don’t like about Islam in a nutshell: This is a very short but very informative and well-linked explanation of what it is exactly that we don’t like about Islamic doctrine.

11. What makes Islam so successful? (or the terrifying brilliance of Islam): The Terrifying Brilliance is the most popular article in Citizen Warrior. It is thorough. It is long. But it gets through to people and is now available as a printable PDF document, making it easier to share in some contexts. What Makes Islam So Successful is a version of the same article that has been made user-friendly for those not yet educated about Islam.

So your mission, if you decide to accept it, is to find places, conversations, articles, and posts where it is appropriate to promote one of these resources — ideally find a place where it provides an answer to a problem.

For example, you may see a thread where a counterjihadist is arguing with a Muslim. Simply interject this comment: “To all non-Muslims reading this, answer your questions by reading the Koran yourself. Everything else is second-hand knowledge, subject to bias and spin. Take the pledge and read the Koran.” And leave a link to the pledge.

Promote these tools to others. Make comments and leave links. The more people who know about them, the more good they can do.

Citizen Warrior

(Photo: Pprotesters demand the release of Asia Bibi at a Karachi rally, November 25, 2010/Akhtar Soomro)

A Pakistani court has barred President Asif Ali Zardari from pardoning a Christian woman sentenced to death on charges of insulting Islam, in a case that has sparked criticism over the country’s blasphemy law. Asia Bibi, a 45-year-old mother of four, requested a pardon from the president after a lower court sentenced her to death on Nov 8 in a case stemming from a village dispute.

The Lahore High Court barred Zardari on Monday from pardoning Bibi in a petition filed by Shahid Iqbal, a Pakistani citizen. Iqbal’s lawyer Allah Bux Laghari told Reuters a pardon was illegal as the court was already hearing an appeal against her sentence.

“We believe it is the court’s duty to evaluate the evidence against her, not individuals, and if she is found innocent, she should be freed,” he said.

Human rights groups have demanded the repeal of the law, which they say discriminates against religious minorities who make up roughly 4 percent of Pakistan’s 170 million population. Last week, a government minister said an initial inquiry into the case of the Christian mother said she had not committed blasphemy but was falsely accused after a quarrel.

Blasphemy convictions are common although the death sentence has never been carried out. Most convictions are thrown out on appeal, but angry mobs have killed many people accused of blasphemy.

(Photo: Muslim religious students demand punishment for Asia Bibi at a rally in Karachi November 26, 2010/Athar Hussain)

Here’s the link to the story by Mubasher Bukhari. See also our recent coverage of the blasphemy law issue:

Pakistan will not repeal blasphemy law – govt minister

Condemned Christian woman seeks mercy in Pakistan

Sentenced to death: On Pakistan’s minorities

A review of Christian-Muslim conflict and a modest proposal to counter it

Pakistan court frees mentally ill blasphemy suspect after 14 years

.

Follow FaithWorld on Twitter at RTRFaithWorld

FaithWorld

IN A COMMENT on Talk About Islam Among Non-Muslims, someone going by the name of “Western Feminista” left the following description of what she does to educate her fellow non-Muslims. This is an intelligent and creative approach:

I have generally had the most success with using articles in the news, and mentioning things casually…one great example was when a Muslim lady was sentenced to six months jail for falsely accusing a policeman of forcibly removing her veil. I agreed that it was terrible that she had been sentenced and explained that “man-made laws” are not recognised by Muslims, so really, she had done nothing wrong in perjuring herself and making a false complaint…the people I was speaking to couldn’t believe what I was saying, and it gave me the ideal opportunity to explain Sharia law to them — something that they had no knowledge of before.

The right to wear a burqua has been another situation — citing the above case again, the woman claimed that it was impossible for the policeman to prove it was her as she had only her eyes showing, and so she should not have been in court. Again, I agreed that in fact, we should all be able to wear a balaclava to enter a bank, shopping center, or government office — the government has no right to make me recognizable in any instance. The people I was speaking to suddenly began arguing against my rights to do that, and I was able to speak about other concessions to Islam that have been recently made — again, things that they had not thought “important” were suddenly placed in a context where they became very important.

Hopefully other instances will come up, and I can keep getting the message out there, slowly and gracefully.

I asked Western Feminista if I could publish her comment here, and she said yes. Then she emailed me more intelligent ways to educate our fellow non-Muslims:

Another example I have used is regarding the illegal asylum seekers arriving here, and rioting in our detention centres (yes, I am from Australia). So many people are of the opinion that we should accept them immediately (to stop the rioting) as we have much to spare, and have prided ourselves on accepting immigrants over the years.

I agree, citing the wonderful way that the Italians, Greeks, Vietnamese, etc. have assimilated into Australia, and how they enriched our country…and isn’t it unfortunate about the Global financial crisis at the moment that is making it so difficult for governments to be able to afford to give as much as in the past? Especially as there are so many Muslims that really seem to want to make Australia their new home, and how they may actually become a majority in the future…it’s not an unreasonable assumption, really. I haven’t had anyone dispute it yet.

Then I ask them how much they would be willing to pay per month so all the Muslim asylum seekers could be released immediately into the community. ? 0? 0? Of course this brings looks of disbelief, or a small token amount is mentioned…I then casually mention that it would be like paying jizya — and am always asked to explain in more detail…no one has ever heard of it, and it scares people to think that it will hit them where it hurts — the wallet.

I suppose you could call it Islamic Education by Stealth (lol).

This is excellent. She has obviously thought about what she was going to say and how she was going to say it ahead of time, and presented her information for maximum impact and surprise. With enough of us doing this kind of thing, we would see a massive change in public opinion about Islam in short order.

If you have an approach you have used successfully, please make it known to others trying to accomplish the same thing. Email it to me, or post it on the Talk About Islam Among Non-Muslims page.

Citizen Warrior

IN THE U.S. almost everyone is preparing for a Thanksgiving feast. Most people will spend the day with their family. For many of us, our families have been the most difficult people to educate about Islam, and it is a painful fact that in many ways some of our own family members are “aiding and abetting” the enemy (without knowing it, of course).

Family get-togethers may seem like a good opportunity to make your case, but I caution you against it. First of all, talking politics in those circumstances can easily ruin the event for everyone. And an argument certainly will. Second, persuading someone in a group situation is much more difficult than one-on-one (unless most of the people there are on your side of the argument). And third, many of your fellow infidels will be drinking alcohol, and that doesn’t help with good listening or clear thinking.

The family gathering can, however, help our cause. You can use the occasion to observe and gain rapport. I suggest you focus this Thanksgiving on one person. Who is the most likely to be persuaded who will be attending the feast? Who is the most undecided? Pick one person. Now, during your family occasion, try to discover which representational system the person favors.

And second, use your body to gain and maintain rapport throughout the day with everyone there, especially the person you picked. I suggest you do this at family gatherings of any kind.

These things will set you up beautifully for future one-on-one conversations with the person — conversations where you’ll have a good chance of bringing them to a new understanding of Islam. In many ways, your task is mostly done as soon as you are in strong rapport. Sometimes taking your focus off convincing and persuading can make you more convincing and persuasive. Sometimes not approaching something directly improves your ability.

I have seen a demonstration that perfectly illustrates this principle. In fact, I’ve done the demonstration myself several times after seeing it in a seminar. Here’s how it goes: I toss something to someone, and they miss it. And they say something like, “I’m terrible at catching.” So I tell them I’m going to test something. “I’m going to toss you this ball,” I say, “but this time don’t try to catch it. Instead, I want you to tell me which way the ball is spinning.” Then I toss the ball, and to their great surprise, they catch it easily.

How does this work? They take their attention off trying to catch the ball, and instead pay close attention to the ball itself, and their body responds naturally and easily and catches it.

In the same way, if you take your attention off making people believe you, and instead pay close attention to their favored representational system and pay close attention to their body posture and match it, you have a good chance of making them believe you — easily and naturally — without even trying.

These two missions I’ve given you for your family gathering are not time-consuming, difficult, upsetting, or conflict-creating. You can do these things and fully enjoy the day too. Have a happy Thanksgiving.

Citizen Warrior

In today’s post I want to explore some of the themes I’ve been advancing in my scholarship respecting both the impossibility of using classical shari’a as the basis for any legal system which could remotely be regarded as modern and, as a consequence, the fact of ideological selectivity in attempting to give life to the classical law.  But I want to do it through a practice that has recently developed out of the particular, interesting, contemporary method of Islamic finance known as the tawarruq. 

To the unitiated, the tawarruq is an Islamic law artifice wherein a bank assumes the initial role of buyer of an item, say tin, from a warehouse, for sale to a borrower.  The bank buys the tin at, say, ,000 and sells it to the buyer for a higher amount, which is paid back by the borrower in monthly installments over time, and the increased amount reflects a prevailing interest rate entirely.  Not being interested in tin, the borrower then immediately, at precisely the same time as the first sale, sells the tin back to the warehouse for ,000, paid in cash immediately.   The tin never changes hands, it stays in the warehouse.  The borrower has ,000 from his sale of the tin, the bank has an obligation to get paid in monthly installments at a prevailing interest rate on a ,000 sale, and we have an interest rate replicated entirely.

That’s not interesting, or new.  Ridiculous, but I’ve discussed it before and not terribly interesting.  What IS interesting is some borrowers are a bit nervous about this, and wonder how it actually conform to God’s law which they expect to ban interest but which seems to be allowing it.  How can this be?  To accommodate such borrowers, and to demonstrate that in fact this is different, it’s the purchase and sale of tin, it’s not a loan, they allow buyers, for an additional fee, to see the tin which they will own, for a fraction of a second if that.  Pay me another 0, in other words, and you can see the tin for yourself, even touch it.

The problem arises when one tries to figure out precisely how to characterize this additional feature of the broader deal.  If a separate contract, one is left confused if taking the classical law seriously because there is no such thing as a contract to view an asset you might purchase contained in the classical law. The jurists have no such contract.  They have contracts for sales, for leases, for partnerships of various sorts, for agencies, for hire (really a subset of lease) but not for viewing things before you might buy them.  There is no general theory of contract, that is, pursuant to which one might be able to argue that the mere fact of consensual agreement is sufficient to justify enforcement within particular boundaries.

Generally speaking, modern Muslims do not care.  Sanhuri’s Civil Code, the dominant code of the Arab world, creates the standard civilian theory of obligation, but does so not so much through reference to strict juristic rules, but instead to broader examinations of the purposes, ideas and theories behind them (what my friend and colleague Clark Lombardi calls neo-taqlid in his book on the Egyptian constitution, and describes far more completely and accurately than I have here).  From that analysis, Sanhuri creates a modern template.  Others indicate it should not matter why we have a general theory,  They might argue that as there is no prohibition against a modern contract mechanism in the classical rules, the sovereign has residual power to enact.

My largest problem with this is that applied more broadly they come pretty close to rendering the shari’a irrelevant in all but certain quite isolated spheres, and those advancing the position very rarely would accept this principle. Starting with the latter theory (if there is no prohibition, then there is permission for the sovereign to act), there is, admittedly, no prohibition against creating a “general theory of contract”.  There is also no prohibition against malaq. What’s malaq?  Well under the classical law a man can divorce his wife under talaq for any reason he wants.  But a woman needs cause for a judicial separation.  So under malaq, if a man asks for a talaq, and doesn’t have the cause that would enable him to the separation he would be entitled to as a woman, then he has to pay a 0 million fine or retract the divorce, up to him.  Where’d you get that stupid idea in the classical books you ask me?  Same place you found the general theory of contract.  As long as we get to make stuff up . . . .

Turning to Sanhuri’s more sophisticated analysis, and borrowing from my mentor Cherif Bassiouni, the fact that men receive twice in inheritance that of similarly situated women is defended routinely in our times on the basis of the fact that men have more spending obligations to care for family members than women. The justification starts with Qutb but is adopted by countless other Islamists after him.  But in modern states, many of those obligations are assumed by the state.  So going back to the classical sources and comparing schools of thought and considering purposes, I might be able to develop a pretty decent case that the state should tax male inheritance more, hey let’s say at the rate necessary to bring the matter back to parity between the genders.  I cannot claim to have done such a justificatory investigation here, certainly not like Sanhuri with obligation.  I’ve more sketched it out as a possibility, but the possibility is very very real.

When you find for me an Islamist group that would accept this taxation plan, or my malaq doctrine, let me know.  Until then, I’m going to claim inconsistent application.

But wait, you might say.  This looking at the asset isn’t a separate contract, it’s part of a sale.  I look, I inspect, I sell.  It’s an additional fee attached to the condition of inspecting as part of the sale and jurists clearly allowed sales.  So I don’t need a separate contract, I just need to add a condition to sale.  Just like the other condition that attaches to the contract, which is the bank buys condition on the condition that the borrower buys it from them.

Ah, but that’s two stipulations to the sale.  Most people who care deeply about Islamic finance when I say this honestly and seriously look straight at me and say, so what?  Which is ironic, because in the discussions on prohibitions contained in commerce, if you go back to the classical sources, among the most undisputed are that the Prophet forbade two stipulations in a contract of sale.  Modern Islamic financiers may not pay much attention, but it’s there, in everyone’s work, including Ibn Taymiyya who says it clearly in the fatawa (Sanhuri does not think he does, but Sanhuri is wrong, it’s absolutely there).  Some say even one stipulation is not permitted but the more permissive allow a single stipulation, not two.  So we’re up against a separate prohibition, ignored in modernity, but no less valid than the two prohibitions over which the Islamic finance folks do obsess, riba and gharar.

So in the end, this modern practice, it seems to me, cannot be justified on the basis of classical systems.  Any justification either runs it straight into other prohibitions, or the justification is so incredibly broad that it would obliterate massive parts of the shari’a.  Neither is broadly acceptable, and hence what shari’a must be law and what may be ignored tends to be product of ideological preference not rigorous extension of a consistent and coherent theory.

HAH
Islamic Law In Our Times

Yeh kya ho gaya bhai!

The resounding victory of Nitish Kumar’s JD(U) led coalition in Bihar has surprised even the most sympathetic psephologists. Most exit polls had indicated that the NDA was poised to win Bihar but this sort of thumping majority was not predicted.

It was clear that a section of Muslims would vote for JD(U). The reasons were simple. Nitish Kumar looked sincere, he kept the state riot-free, his decision to reopen the Bhagalpur riot cases closed by Lalu Yadav, and remaining steadfast on his commitment to let the AMU campus open in Bihar despite the open opposition of BJP’s youth wing BJYM, earned him respect among the community.

Muslims fear nothing more than a communal riot. During Congress regimes in North India, large-scale riots used to occur in cities with substantial Muslim percentage. In each communal riot, tens of thousands would not only be snatched of their means for livelihood but also lost whatever little they had and took them at least twenty years back.

First Congress exploited this fear of riots. In fact, BJP had begun to get a fraction of Muslim vote and its vote share among Muslims would have risen long ago, had the massacre in Gujarat not taken place. Besides, the BJP-led Centre’s inaction and the party’s refusal to regret the events in Gujarat, turned Muslims even more wary.

No wonder almost everywhere Muslims made it a mission to vote for the candidate who appeared in the strongest position and capable of defeating the BJP. In Orissa, Navin Patnaik failed to keep a check on BJP and the latter’s sister organisations.

The anti-Christian violence perpetrated by VHP and Bajrang Dal, later forced him to dump the party. However, in Bihar, the BJP cleverly played second fiddle. The Saffron think-tank was aware that Bihar has one of the highest Muslim concentration (17%) and has regions where Muslim population goes up to 50% or even more so it was prudent to use Nitish’s charisma.

While Nitish Kumar succeeded in keeping his secular image intact, perhaps the Sangh Parivar also kept a measured stance as successive failures to form government in the Centre made them review their strategy. The lumpens were kept in check and Hindu remained on the backburner.

The decision to open Bhagalpur riot cases earned Nitish Kumar goodwill. But it was his tough stand of not allowing Narendra Modi for campaigning in Bihar, that proved crucial. Indian Express’ editor-in-chief Shekhar Gupta mentioned how a Urdu teacher at a rally told him that Nitish is ‘sher ka bachcha’ as no one else could do it elsewhere.

The tag of lion for not letting Modi into the state, is not unusual. Apparently this had caused enough strain in the coalition but Nitish stuck to his stand. Gujarat carnage is etched in collective Muslim consciousness as it was first large-scale riot shown on live television.

Meanwhile, the other Modi, Sushil Kumar Modi, as Deputy Chief Minister has all along maintained the image of a moderate. It is this sort of moderation which is expected from a right-of-centre party that aims to govern a nation of 110 crore.

The lack of development and the poor governance had dented the image of the state. In fact, the word ‘Bihari’ had turned into a derogatory term. This affected all Biharis irrespective of caste and creed as it hurt their pride. But during Nitish Kumar’s regime, crime was controlled and law-and-order restored. Things were looking up and as a result he has received unexpected support from all quarters.

Right now the BJP is buoyed with its success. But the truth is that the NDA coalition has won Bihar over the plank of development. Any responsible government has to be inclusive and must ensure that all segments of population are looked upon as equal partners in shaping the destiny of nation or the state.

Despite having several polished and mature leaders at the national level ranging from Sushma Swaraj to Arun Jaitley, there is no dearth of communal and lumpen elements in the party who have an open communal agenda.

In Bihar, Nitish Kumar could rein them in. The BJP and the Bajrang Dal-VHP cadre also remained subdued as victor was in sight because of the alliance. But the million dollar question is whether the BJP change the course at the national level and emerge as a right-of-centre but moderate political party?

Let’s see.

Similar posts on this blog in the past:
1. BJP and Muslims.
2. ‘Pro-Muslim RSS’ had irked radicals

An Indian Muslim’s Blog: News, Views & Urdu Poetry Website

THE FIRST hearing in Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff’s case took place yesterday (November 23rd, 2010) in the court of Vienna, Austria. Charges were brought against Elisabeth because of a seminar she taught.

An eight-hour recording of her seminar will be the central piece of evidence in the trial. The entire audio recording from the seminar will be played in court, permitting the prosecutor to explain in detail what cannot be permitted to be said in public, and why the “religiousness” of Islamic teachings makes it impermissible.

The defense will seek to prove the accuracy and truthfulness of what Elisabeth said in her seminar, thus focusing on the core question: Is it illegal to speak the truth about Islam?

My interest in Elisabeth’s case is threefold: First, this is the front line in the war on freedom of speech waged against people who are trying to educate the public about Islam’s prime directive, Sharia law, and the third jihad. Her case is similar to Geert Wilders’, who is on trial in the Netherlands for similar reasons.

The second reason this case interests me is that Elisabeth used excerpts from the Citizen Warrior article, Why I Am Worried About Islam But Not Christianity, in her seminar. The content you’ve been reading is on trial. Read more about that here.

The third reason is that Elisabeth is a sweet, soft-spoken, kind-hearted woman, entirely devoid of hatred or bigotry, devoid of rabble-rousing rhetoric, who was simply teaching basic, established, mainstream principles of Islam, calmly, reasonably, in a classroom setting, and she is being charged with a crime for doing so!? The whole idea is an outrage.

The following is an edited version of a blow-by-blow report of the first day of Elisabeth’s trial, brought to us by Henrik Clausen, as posted on the Save Free Speech website:

9:41: Austrian TV shows up with a camera crew.

The room has seats for 15, but 25 spectators are there. Austrian TV asks for comments from Elisabeth, but on advice of her lawyer, she says, ”No comments now; talk to me after the hearings.”

The judge informs Elisabeth about her rights: Anything she says can be used against her.

The public prosecutor makes a short summary of various conclusions from Elisabeth’s seminar, and, taken out of the context from, they sound ominous, like speaking of a “Burqa ghost” (which you’ll find out about in a moment), comparing her statements to those of Susanne Winter, mentioning that Muhammad married a child of six, as well as saying we risk eventually having a civil war.

Elisabeth’s defense lawyer talks of the principles of gender equality, freedom of religion and the lack of reciprocity that exists in Islam (for example, other religions cannot be freely practiced in several Islamic countries). The lawyer mentions that Elisabeth grew up in Islamic countries and has experienced the situation of women there directly.

He continues to explain that the statements mentioned were taken seriously out of context, and that some were not public, thus not relevant to the case. And that we should play the entire eight hours of recordings to understand the context.

He proceeds to invoke three expert witnesses who will testify that Elisabeth has spoken the truth: Wafa Sultan, Hans Jansen, and Robert Spencer.

10:53: The judge asks if we are talking about “Islamic extremism” or about “Islam as such?“

Elisabeth explains that we are talking Islam as such, as defined by its scripture, and quotes Erdogan (Turkey’s Prime Minister) that there is no moderate Islam anyway.

The judge accepts that we can play the tapes, then proceeds to ask about us being lied to 24 hours a day. Elisabeth explains the concept of taqiyya. The judge says: “That is your interpretation,” to which Elisabeth responds: “No, this is the canonical interpretation.”

Next question is: “Is Islam in a never-ending war with the West?”

Elisabeth refers to history and newspapers to document that yes, it is a never-ending war with the West and that jihad has at times been considered the sixth pillar of Islam.

11:15: The “burqa ghost” story is related. Elisabeth took a photo of a woman in a burqa in Vienna, and told about this in her seminars. It is difficult to figure out why the public prosecutor finds this offensive, not to mention illegal. The defense asks about this. Elisabeth explains a few things about freedom for women — all women — to decide for themselves.

A reference is then made to some debates Elisabeth participated in where she discussed child molestation, and says: Christian cardinals molest children in conflict with their religion, Muslims do it in line with theirs. As background, the marriage between Muhammad and Aisha is related, as documented by several Hadith authors.

Pedophilia is discussed, in light of Muhammad being the perfect example for Muslims, as stated in Quran 33:21. That means everything Muhammad ever did or said, which is in the hadith, is to be considered a model for behavior for orthodox Muslims.

Elisabeth explains what the hadith collections are, how they constitute an indispensable part of Islam, due to 33:21 and similar suras. And emphasizes that she is not making up statements, merely quoting canonical Islamic scripture.

11:34: The Judge opens a discussion by asking if we’re talking of “all Muslims” here.

Elisabeth says no because most Muslims do not know what is in the Quran, which is in a language (Arabic) they do not understand, and thus place their confidence in the imams for interpretations.

Judge: “Is every Muslim a jihadist?”

Elisabeth: “No, not at all. But jihad is an obligation for Muslims. This is about the teachings of Islam, not about Muslims.”

Judge: “But you said ‘Muslims’ in the seminars?”

Elisabeth: “Yes, but I said it in a context which is needed to understand the relevance of this.”

Judge: “What percentage of Muslims are jihadis?”

Elisabeth: “I don’t know. Not the majority. One thousandth is enough to be a problem, though.”

Then the quote about “Islam is shit” is debated. Elisabeth points out that she was debating and using visual quotes (with her fingers). And she asks if it is punishable to say “Islam is shit.”

12:06: The defense lawyer goes through some point of the charges, asking Elisabeth:

Lawyer: You said: “Muslims kill due to Islamic teachings. Christians also kill, but not due to their religious teachings.” Are there not verses in the Bible that encourage killing?

Elisabeth: Not in the New Testament, and not actively used today.

Her defense lawyer explains the death threats against Ayaan Hirsi Ali and the security she needs. Elisabeth tells about the killing of Theo van Gogh and the Quran quotes used to justify that.

Lawyer asks: Are there child marriages in Islamic countries?

Elisabeth: Yes, for example Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Afghanistan. Also the late ayatollah Khomeini recommended pedophilia, and the current Iranian President Ahmadjinedad recommends his teachings. According to Islamic law, these marriages are legal and justifiable.

Lawyer: Are corporal punishments, like chopping off limbs, part of Islamic law?

Elisabeth: Yes, this is described, for instance, in Reliance of the Traveller.

(Elisabeth and her defense lawyer have explained about the classical Sunni Islamic book, “Reliance of the Traveller,” unwrapping a fresh copy in court.)

12:40: The lawyer continues to ask Elisabeth to explain various statements:

Lawyer: What is meant by, “We are decadent?”

Elisabeth: That’s the point of view of Islamic fundamentalists.

Lawyer: What is meant by, “We do not want Sharia here, full stop?”

Elisabeth: Free, secular societies is what we want.

Lawyer: What is meant by, “Islamic law is not compatible with free societies, we need to understand this.”

Elisabeth: Islam is a whole, and this whole is not compatible with free societies like the Austrian.

Laywer: Did you see any veiled Muslim men?

Elisabeth (laughing): No, this is an obligation just for women.

Lawyer: You were referring to Paris, Brussels, Rotterdam. What is the meaning of that?

Elisabeth: This is a reference to the no-go zones, where Sharia is effectively the law. There immigrant youth torch cars, throw stones at the police, etc.

Prosecutor: Are each and every one of these persons Muslims?

Elisabeth: The majority are.

Lawyer: What is meant when you say: “How many times have we been told that Islam is a religion of peace?” Is this an incitement to hate or violence?

Elisabeth: I do not mean to incite hatred or violence. We need to be informed, make people aware, inform our politicians and write letters to the newspapers.

Lawyer: What is meant by, “We do not want gender apartheid or polygamy.”

Elisabeth explains polygamy in Islam, and the fact that this is a reality in Europe today. Elisabeth speaks about the First Amendment of the US Constitution, the absolute right to express ones’ opinions, as a fundamental prerequisite for a sound democracy.

At this point, more people have arrived. There are 18 seats for the audience, 30-35 listeners total.

14:00: The news journalist, Dolna, was called as witness. Technicalities of her recording equipment are discussed by the judge, including the fact that of the first seminar, only a half hour was recorded.

The judge asked if some of the statements quoted were from breaks, not from the seminar proper. The reason this is important is that three or four people heard those comments, not the 32 or more, which is the criterion for a statement being considered “public.” This is a crucial question for legal reasons, as only statements made to a large group can be punishable.

The judge dug further into the methods of the journalist. Why did the journalist quote statements made in the breaks that were not part of the lecture? The journalist answers: “For journalistic reasons.”

Further, the judge asked if it was made clear in advance that the journalist would be recording the seminars. She responded that she had not told anyone, as her work constituted “investigative journalism.”

The lawyer probed further into the issue of the quotes being part of the prepared seminar, or offhand comments in the breaks.

Next, the events concerning the opera, “Idomeneo” were discussed. The performance of this classical Mozart piece scheduled to be performed at the famous opera house, Deutsche Oper Berlin, was cancelled due to Islamic pressure. The director had added decapitation of Buddha, Jesus and Muhammad to the original play. Fear of riots or violence caused the play to be cancelled. The well-known German magazine Focus had, in that context, written that we should under no circumstances cave in to pressure like this.

This rounded off the day after roughly three hours of hearings. Since there is a need to play the complete recordings (eight hours) from Elisabeth’s seminar, the next hearing is scheduled for January 18th.

Read more about Elisabeth’s case, and find out what you can do to help her out: The Leading Edge of Freedom: How to Support Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff.

Citizen Warrior

A U.N. General Assembly committee has once again voted to condemn the “vilification of religion” but support narrowed for a measure that Western powers say is a threat to freedom of expression. The non-binding resolution, championed by Islamic states and opposed by Western countries, passed by only 12 votes on Tuesday in the General Assembly’s Third Committee, which focuses on human rights, 76-64 with 42 abstentions.

(Photo: United Nations General Assembly  in New York September 24, 2010/Keith Bedford)

Opponents noted that support had fallen and opposition increased since last year, when the Third Committee vote was 81-55 with 43 abstentions. The 192-nation General Assembly is expected to formally adopt the measure next month.

The resolution was amended from versions passed in previous years in an attempt to secure support from Western nations. Instead of defamation of religion, it speaks of “vilification.” It also condemned acts of violence and intimidation due to “Islamophobia, Judeophobia and Christianophobia.” Last year’s resolution, as in previous years, focused on Islam and did not mention Judaism and Christianity.

Despite the changes, however, the United States, European Union and their allies rejected the resolution’s calls for legislation banning the defamation of religion.

The text, submitted by Morocco on behalf of Muslim states, said the assembly “urges all States to provide … adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from vilification of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general.”

Read the full story here.

Follow FaithWorld on Twitter at RTRFaithWorld

FaithWorld

At the David Horowitz Freedom Center Restoration Weekend (November 18-21) Pamela Geller received  the Annie Taylor Award.

There is a  fabulous introduction by Robert Spencer followed by an inspiring speech by the intrepid, Pamela Geller!

(click player to pay the video)

No Mosques At Ground Zero