It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Offensive Remarks Taken Straight From The Koran

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 07:10 PM
link   
Abu Hamza, former imam of Finsbury Park Mosque, is on trial for "preaching murder" and attempting to stir up racial hatred against the Jewish people. However, his defence claims that the "offensive" statements were drawn directly from the Koran...


The Sunday Times: 'Offensive' remarks taken straight from Koran, defence says

January 20, 2006



COPIES of the Koran were handed to the jurors in the Abu Hamza trial yesterday as his defence argued that some of the cleric’s “offensive” statements were drawn directly from Islam’s holy book.

“It is said he was preaching murder, but he was actually preaching from the Koran itself.” Mr Fitzgerald cited two verses of the book that Abu Hamza would rely on, among many others, as theological justification for the words that had led to him being charged. They were Chapter 2, verse 216 and Chapter 9, verse 111.

The Hadith says that the trees will call out to the Muslims “there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him”.

“Mr Hamza has said things that most people will find deeply offensive and hateful. But he is not on trial for describing England as a toilet. There is no crime of simply being offensive.”

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

I don´t know anything about this case except what is written in this article, and I have no idea how this case will end. But I just wonder, is he excused because what he said is written in Islam’s holy book? And if he is excused, does any religion count? I mean, I could start a religion and write "kill the muslims" (which I won´t, but you get the idea) in my "holy book" and some "priest" started to preach "kill the muslims", would it be an ok thing to do?. Would it be less illegal because it is written in a "holy book"? I just wonder...




posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 07:53 PM
link   
Just because a certain passage of the bible or the koran says to do this or kill that does not make it right, especially when directed on one faith as is the case here


How on earth anyone can even consider that as a way to defend their actions is beyond me :shk:



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 08:11 AM
link   
> The Hadith says that the trees will call out to the Muslims “there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him”.

If the Koran is to blame, why then do they use the Hadith? The Hadith is not the Koran. The Hadith is extremley rasistic and that is why extremists use the Hadith (Maybe they think it is a translation of Koran? It is not).



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 08:26 AM
link   
Here are the passages that the link refers to for those who want to lean more Chapter 2 passage 216

002.216
YUSUFALI: Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.
PICKTHAL: Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not.
SHAKIR: Fighting is enjoined on you, and it is an object of dislike to you; and it may be that you dislike a thing while it is good for you, and it may be that you love a thing while it is evil for you, and Allah knows, while you do not know.

Chapter 9 passage 111

"Allah has purchased from the faithful their lives and worldly goods, and in return has promised them the Garden. They will fight for the cause of Allah, they will slay, and be slain."

Yes it is promoting war / fighting but I do not see where the "kill the Jew behind the tree" is.



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Religion does not grant you immunity from civilized behavior in a secular society. The law trumps religion.



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghaele
> The Hadith says that the trees will call out to the Muslims “there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him”.

If the Koran is to blame, why then do they use the Hadith? The Hadith is not the Koran. The Hadith is extremley rasistic and that is why extremists use the Hadith (Maybe they think it is a translation of Koran? It is not).


This is facinating ... ( good excuse to brush up on the Qur'an
)

Well anyway, upon looking it up in Wikipedia:

en.wikipedia.org...

I found this breakdown for the definition of Hadith or Ahadith ...





Value of hadith compared to the value of the Qur'an

Muslims who accept hadith believe that trusted hadith are in most cases the words of Muhammad and not the word of God, like the Qur'an. Hadith Qudsi form a partial exception; this small minority of hadith purports to express words spoken by God to Muhammad but not included in the Qur'an, or the sense of them.

While both hadith and Qur'an have been translated, most Muslims believe that translations of the Qur'an are inherently deficient, amounting to little more than a commentary upon the text. There is no such belief regarding hadith. Practicing Muslims cleanse themselves (wudu) and pray before reading or reciting the Qur'an; there is no such requirement for reading or reciting hadith. Even for Muslims who accept the hadith, they are clearly of inferior rank.



Which I have tentatively broken down to what I consider salient assessment points...

1. The Qur'an is considered to be the word of god (unsure about literal but intent points to God source).

2. Mohammad (by passage is not divine) as compared to Christian view of Jesus

3. General belief supports that the Hadith is inspired by the words of Mohammad and not God.

If this is the case, and the Hadith is not cosidered the word of god ... then how does the court define such documents? Would it, for example be by definition comparable to a philosophical/ethical or ideological treatise like The Republic/Plato" ... Communist Manifesto/Marx ... or the works of Machiavelli?

I am guessing that the issue will center on the use of the specifier "Jew"

“there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him”



Thus I am thinking that the issue boils down to whether a person has the right to explicitly state (as in make a speach or sermon like exposition) a statement like the case in point ... for example ...

“there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him”

“there is a Buddhist behind me, come and kill him”

“there is a Christian behind me, come and kill him”

“there is a Athiest behind me, come and kill him”



In which case I would conclude the following legal paradigm?

IMO The remarks are patently offensive and inflammatory towards a target group ... where freedom from religious/ideological persecution overides the right to freedom of speech in addition to laws pertaining to incitement to potential riot or civil unrest.

... as opposed to a non directed statement like the following ...

“there is < an enemy >behind me, come and kill him”

LCKob


[edit on 21-1-2006 by LCKob]



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 01:09 PM
link   
I just simply cannot bring myself to believe this. There must be something very wrong because I thought that the Muslim's Holy Book was one that was steeped in Peace Speaking for myself, I do not trust a dA=n one of 'em.



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Just because a certain passage of the bible or the koran says to do this or kill that does not make it right, especially when directed on one faith as is the case here

How on earth anyone can even consider that as a way to defend their actions is beyond me


Hasn't the President of the United States used such statements from the Bible and God's will to justify his current mission of killing in Iraq? I agree how anyonoe can use this method to defend his actions is beyond comprehension.



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hellmutt
But I just wonder, is he excused because what he said is written in Islam’s holy book?

I don't see why he should be. There's no reason to make exceptions for religion. Calling for the murder of jews is wrong, plain and simple.

Also, if he's going to rely on this, should not the Hadiths themselves be put on trial in their standing as Holy Books? Surely a book can't legally protect someone calling for another person's murder merely because they say it is holy. He'd have to demonstrate that it is Holy, and there are a heck of a lot more people that think the hadiths aren't holy than are holy. The hadiths are just a collection of comments.

Also, trees don't talk, silly rabbit, tricks are for kids!


Hasn't the President of the United States used such statements from the Bible and God's will to justify his current mission of killing in Iraq?

?
Like when?


good excuse to brush up on the Qur'an

The hadiths are not the koran.

The koran, bible, and torah are, as claimed in them, holy books. The koran is claimed to have been more or less dictated to this guy named Mo by an angel otherwise known as Gabriel. Later on, Mo changed his mind about some of the stuff in the book and figured that it was really from the devil and so he removed those portions.

The hadiths were written much later, and they are supposed to be collections of sayings from Mo and his companions. They are equivalent to the jewish Talmud, in this respect, the sayings and considerations of holy men. Some muslims hold the Hadiths as authority, just like some jews hold the talmud as a high authority, and not dissimilar to how some christians will take what people like Fallwell or Robertson or the Church Fathers have said with great authority. Others don't.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by FLYIN HIGH
I just simply cannot bring myself to believe this. There must be something very wrong because I thought that the Muslim's Holy Book was one that was steeped in Peace Speaking for myself, I do not trust a dA=n one of 'em.


Flying high;

Why would you think that? Have you ever read the Qur'an? If you had, you would know that it is not "steeped in peace". In fact, it is repleat with intolerant language against anything that isn't a part of Islam. It is anti semetic, anti-Christian, anti-non-believers, and anti-women. This topic has been covered ad-nauseum.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Why would you think that? Have you ever read the Qur'an? If you had, you would know that it is not "steeped in peace". In fact, it is repleat with intolerant language against anything that isn't a part of Islam. It is anti semetic, anti-Christian, anti-non-believers, and anti-women. This topic has been covered ad-nauseum.


It does seem ironic that the anti-everything-but-jew old testament gave rise to the anti-everything-but-christian new testament that gave rise to the anti-everything-but-muslim-quran. Numerous other anti-everything-but-us spin offs abound as well.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Why would you think that? Have you ever read the Qur'an? If you had, you would know that it is not "steeped in peace". In fact, it is repleat with intolerant language against anything that isn't a part of Islam. It is anti semetic, anti-Christian, anti-non-believers, and anti-women. This topic has been covered ad-nauseum.


It does seem ironic that the anti-everything-but-jew old testament gave rise to the anti-everything-but-christian new testament that gave rise to the anti-everything-but-muslim-quran. Numerous other anti-everything-but-us spin offs abound as well.


And yet, online, it is only the atheists preaching hate and raking up smears...

All the best,

Roger Pearse



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 06:37 AM
link   
I suspect that whether the Hadith, or any other book, is "holy" is a moot point in court, and just the only defence his lawyer could come up with. I could hardly use the Old Testament as an excuse as to why I went and smited my neighbour's wife for looking at my ox in a funny way.

The guy has either broken a law or he hasn't, whatever it says in an ancient book is irrelevant. Jews are covered by race hate laws in the UK, so if he has tried to stir up hatred of them he will be guilty of "incitement to racial hatred". If he has tried to influence others to commit violence (against anyone) then he could be guilty of a number of offences including "conspiricy to commit violence" or "conspiricy to murder" or a number of public order offences.

This defence, taken to it's extreme, would mean I could convert to Islam, attack some Jewish guy with an axe, and then when the police arrived wave the Qur'an at them going "It's OK mate, nothing to worry about, it's all in here". It will be interesting to see what the Judge and the prosecution have to say about it.

Having said this, Abu Hamza is a moron with spittle in his beard, it's only the tabloids over here who have built him up to be some kind of dangerous religious warrior.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
I suspect that whether the Hadith, or any other book, is "holy" is a moot point in court, and just the only defence his lawyer could come up with. I could hardly use the Old Testament as an excuse as to why I went and smited my neighbour's wife for looking at my ox in a funny way.

The guy has either broken a law or he hasn't, whatever it says in an ancient book is irrelevant. Jews are covered by race hate laws in the UK, so if he has tried to stir up hatred of them he will be guilty of "incitement to racial hatred". If he has tried to influence others to commit violence (against anyone) then he could be guilty of a number of offences including "conspiricy to commit violence" or "conspiricy to murder" or a number of public order offences.

This defence, taken to it's extreme, would mean I could convert to Islam, attack some Jewish guy with an axe, and then when the police arrived wave the Qur'an at them going "It's OK mate, nothing to worry about, it's all in here". It will be interesting to see what the Judge and the prosecution have to say about it.

Having said this, Abu Hamza is a moron with spittle in his beard, it's only the tabloids over here who have built him up to be some kind of dangerous religious warrior.


Informative and pertinent post
... especially in regards to the legal context which would be the frame of judgemental reference in this case?

I just hope that the court decision is one that takes into account the full implications of freedom of religious expression ... and as you pointed out, UK law does seem cognizant of such "permutations".

btw ... loved your opening joke


LCKob

[edit on 24-1-2006 by LCKob]



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Anybody who believes that trees can talk, should be taken out of the gene pool.

I hope they free him, then he can be extradited to the US where he is wanted for terrorist charges too. There is more justice dished out State side I believe for scum bast*rds like this. To give you an example, traffic was stopped in the streets of north London so this tw*t and his followers could sit in the road and preach hate! UNBE-F***ING-LIEVEABLE. Imagine if a Jew done that in Islamabad.

KAHHHHBBBOOOOOOOOMMMM. Sort them out!



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 11:39 PM
link   
Yes, as people have pointed out, one cannot use the Old Testament to kill. That is true. Anyone who understands the Bible would rip such a defense to shreds.
The Qur'an, however, is very different, and without the Hadiths, it is unintelligibale. Put the two together, and you will understand that what he suggests is congruent with the Islamic faith.

Don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting at ALL that it is right, moral or good to kill Jews. I am only saying that if one is going to use his religion to hang or hug him, you will have to hug him.

That is my position for the courtroom. I have a different way of looking at the situation outside the courtroom if the objective is still pursued.

I believe in being objective. Even if I totally disagree with a position or belief, I respect those who stick by their convictions.



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 02:04 PM
link   
As a woman I am HIGHLY offended by the statements about
women made by the Koran (Quran) and/or Hadith. They are
offensive to 50% of the population of this planet.

The insinuation, and sometimes out and out statements,
are that women can only be sex toys in the afterlife with
endless virginity rejuvination and no 'back talk' ... for the
complete pleasure of the Muslim man. Also, that those
women who make it to heaven to be sex servants are
the lucky ones because HELL is populated with mostly
women.

www.flex.com...
www.pantheon.org...
www.muslimhope.com...

How would this read in the press????

So .. now that I'm highly offended and that half the population
of the planet is offended, I feel it is time for all of us females,
and our sympathizers, to riot, destroy private property, loot,
pillage, burn, and call for mass murder in order to have our
demands met ... namely that all Qurans everywhere be
destroyed immediately.

No, I'm not really calling for all that ... just being sarcastic

Hey .. it's good enough excuse for those wahooooos we've
been hearing about for the past few weeks ... so why not?
Toss it right back at 'em.

[edit on 2/13/2006 by FlyersFan]



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
So .. now that I'm highly offended and that half the population
of the planet is offended, I feel it is time for all of us females,
and our sympathizers, to riot, destroy private property, loot,
pillage, burn, and call for mass murder in order to have our
demands met ... namely that all Qurans everywhere be
destroyed immediately.


Hey! I'm with ya' sista'--though I'm a dude
I'll fight the good fight with you because you are absolutely correct!! Women are viewed as a sub-class of beings. And beaucause they're sub-class, their husbands can BEAT them down!!
(Qur'an 4:34)



posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 12:59 PM
link   
And with that being said, do any of you honestly believe that OUR 'creator' or the 'God' Spirit of this Earth provided this world with the 'instructions' found in the Quran?
Isn't is very possible that the translators or even Muhammad himself shared a message with the world that would benefit MAN only?

If 'Allah' does not show respect to women, then He is NOT a God.

It would seem that most 'rational' Muslim men would have figured this out by now.

I found offense in much of what I read in the Old Testament, a LORD that loved the smell of burnt flesh that also wanted to be 'adorned' in precious metals and the finest of all treasures....?
no wonder the Jews believe that being surrounded by money and power is the best way to be close to 'God'.

"The LORD said to Moses, "Tell the Israelites to bring me an offering. You are to receive the offering for me from each man whose heart prompts him to give. These are the offerings you are to receive from them: gold, silver and bronze; blue, purple and scarlet yarn and fine linen; goat hair; ram skins dyed red and hides of sea cows; acacia wood; olive oil for the light; spices for the anointing oil and for the fragrant incense; and onyx stones and other gems to be mounted on the ephod and breastpiece. Then have them make a sanctuary for me, and I will dwell among them. Make this tabernacle and all its furnishings exactly like the pattern I will show you" (Exodus 25.1-9, NIV with my emphasis throughout, except where noted).

Nothing about the 'Spirit' of religion that has been used to manipulate us, resembles a Spirit that desires to save us all.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 01:35 AM
link   




top topics



 
0

log in

join