Pastors reject apology order over Koran comments

[Deborah]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/20 ... 397914.htm

Code: Select all

Last Update: Wednesday, June 22, 2005. 7:30pm (AEST)
[i][b]Pastors reject apology order over Koran comments[/b][/i]
A Christian pastor found guilty of vilifying muslims says he is prepared to go to jail in protest over Victoria's racial tolerance laws. 

Two pastors involved with the Catch the Fire Ministries were last year found to have vilified Muslims at a Christian conference, and on a website, by suggesting the Koran promotes violence and terrorism. 

The tribunal says an apology is appropriate. 

It has ordered the pastors to publish a statement acknowledging their legal breach and has requested an undertaking the comments would not be repeated. 

Outside the tribunal Pastor Daniel Nalliah said the legislation is flawed. 

"I will do everything I can, even if I have to go to prison, to make sure the vilification laws, the religious part of the vilification laws, be removed from the state of Victoria," Pastor Nalliah said.

"Right from the beginning we have stated we will not apologise, we will go to prison for standing for the truth."

However the Islamic Council of Victoria has welcomed the ruling.

Waleed Aly from the council says the three-year legal battle was justified. 

"You've got to imagine that it's post September 11 Australia," Mr Aly said.

"There's a lot of angst towards the Muslim community in the wider Australian community. 

"These sort of things are said, which if you speak to the Muslims who are concerned themselves, they were fearful. I mean this was a serious thing."

But the Victorian Government has defended its religious tolerance laws. 

The Victorian Opposition believes the laws are dividing the community, but acting Premier John Thwaites says the legislation is appropriate. 

"We don't want to see people incited to hatred and so for that purpose I think it is sending the right message," he said.

The case is now being reviewed by the Victorian Supreme Court.

Free speech 'in danger'

The Anglican Bishop of South Sydney says any attempt to introduce a religious vilification law in New South Wales could endanger free speech.

The Independent MP Peter Breen says he will try to convince the Premier to support his private member's bill to outlaw religious vilification, claiming existing laws do not provide protection to Muslims.

But the Premier Bob Carr yesterday branded the laws unnecessary and said they could be abused.

Bishop Robert Forsyth says people should be allowed to conduct rigorous religious discourse.

"But I don't want the law to enforce it because what will happen is what you are seeing in Victoria, is a person's deeply held conviction - sincerely held - will find themselves up before the courts for what is no more than just strong speech," he said.

"And the effect will be to cower and prevent people from criticising us Christians, for example, or others.

"And I don't think the law should do that.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/pas ... 78813.html

Pastor refuses to say sorry to Muslims
June 22, 2005 - 2:46PM


A Christian pastor ordered to apologise for vilifying Muslims says he is prepared to go to jail before saying sorry for his comments.

Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) deputy president Michael Higgins ordered two pastors of the evangelical order, Catch the Fire Ministry, to apologise over statements made in a speech, comments on a website and in a newsletter.

In a landmark ruling by the tribunal, it found comments including that Muslims were training to take over Australia, encourage domestic violence and that Islam was an inherently violent religion, had vilified Muslims.

The case was the first to be heard by the VCAT since the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act took effect in Victoria at the start of 2002.

Outside the tribunal, one of the pastors described himself as a martyr and said he would go to jail before apologising.

"Right from the inception, we have said that this law (Racial and Religious Tolerance Act) is a foul law, this law is not a law which brings unity," Pastor Nalliah said.


"It causes disunity and as far as we are concerned right from the beginning we have stated we will not apologise. We will go to prison for standing for the truth and not sacrifice our freedom and freedom to speak."

He said the Evangelical group had nothing against Muslims and its comments were taken out of context.

Judge Higgins said an apology was "appropriate" as the intention of the Victorian legislation was to protect freedom of speech, but to place limits upon such freedom by prohibiting the vilification of persons or classes of persons.

He said he took into account the pastors were of good character, but their passionate religious beliefs caused them to transgress the law.

Catch the Fire are appealing the VCAT decision at the Victorian Supreme Court

[Deborah]

the Koran promotes violence and terrorism.

Not true, a majority of muslims are not terrorists.
Terrorists are extremists.

I hope these two "Christians are not talking for the majority"

[LittleShepherd]

the Koran promotes violence and terrorism.

Not true, a majority of muslims are not terrorists.

That's not what's being said, though, Deborah. The comment "there are many peace-loving Muslims" is true, but is not the same thing as "Islam is a religion of peace." Everyone I know of with a Muslim background who has converted to Christianity mentions this at some point, and it's worth keeping in mind.

I have read books written by three different Muslim-to-Christian converts, two of which I know have doctorates, and the third whom I know to have an advanced degree(but I'm not sure if it's a Masters or Doctorate, though I do know it was obtained from the University of Cairo, the most prestigious university in the Muslim world). I've also had a man speak at my church whose father is a Muslim-to-Christian convert.

One needs to only look at the life of Muhammed and Islam's history of conversion by the sword to see that it was not founded in peace, and does not advocate peace. Reading of the Quran makes this apparent, but actually putting it in the context of the life and times of Muhammed and his successors make the statement that Islam promotes violence and terrorism quite solid.

Of course, you are right that many Muslims are peace-loving, and wish for the wellbeing of their fellow man and all of that good stuff. However, they are following a religion which does not espouse these values. Luckily, there is hope! And there are the numbers to back it up. Did you know that approximately 70% of the Arabs in the US are actually Christians, many of whom have fled religious persecution in the Middle East and India?

In light of the information I have gleaned from people who have actually experienced Islam and the transforming power of Christ, often going through much persecution in the process, I can say with confidence that Islam is a religion of deceit and violence. My prayers are with all Muslims(peace-loving or otherwise -- Christ's transforming power knows no limits), that they will somehow be reached with the gospel of Christ and will loose the chains of Islam.

[Strix]

I second what Little Shepherd has said...

excerpts from the Quran:

Surah 9:5 - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."

Surah 9:29 - "Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection."

Surah 4:34 - "Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great."

[Kurieuo]

Deb,

I've visited a seminar by Daniel Scot, another in Australia accused of vilification (http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/10311.htm). I can tell you that far from any sort of hate, there was much love for Muslims at the seminar. I find it amusing that Scot (former Muslim) was accused of vilification by basically reading passages from the Quran. Perhaps it should be the Quran, or certain passsages within it, that are banned for vilification?

Now one can choose to ignore such passages, and it seems to me one would be swallowing a liberal lie when they try to disassociate "extremists" from any teachings within the Quran. Can anyone really believe that these "extremists," who passionately believe in their Islamic beliefs, would ignore the Quran? Do you know where the teaching that Muslims will inherit heaven and wives for their suicidal martyrdom come from? There is certainly much taught in the Quran that a liberal western society steeped in extreme political correctness and religious pluralism simply cannot or won't see.

Kurieuo.

[LittleShepherd]

Do you know where the teaching that Muslims will inherit heaven and wives for their suicidal martyrdom come from?

I actually think this isn't directly from the Quran. It's worth noting, however, that the Quran isn't the Muslims only holy book -- just the most well-known and most revered, being dictated by Muhammed himself.

Their most well-known extra-Quran holy book is the Haddith, which has most of the ceremonial stuff you won't find in the Quran. Ceremonial cleansing rituals. Not putting holy books on the floor. Not being allowed to eat pork and other "unclean" meats. It also contains stories of miracles performed by Muhammed -- the Quran itself doesn't ascribe any miracles to him

There are actually quite a few other books that are accepted as Islamic holy books, but they're not very well-known, especially in non-Islamic countries. None of them are nearly as widespread as the Quran and Haddith, and not all sects of Muslims accept all of them. In fact, some are outlawed, and are only available via black market purchase.

The basic stuff about killing all infidels is in the Quran, and is enough to support terrorism and violence. I'm not sure which specific book, however, the whole "die and go to heaven and have many wives there" thing comes from; it's been a while since I read that indepth into Islam, and I've forgotten a good bit. It's not really a "go straight to heaven" thing, though -- it's more of a "have a better chance of going to heaven" thing. In Islam, there is never 100% assurance of paradise. There's also stuff about respecting certain infidels(Christians and Jews in particular) which contradicts the other passages, but you'll find they were written during a different period in Muhammed's life.

The passages dictated by Muhammed early in his "ministry" are often full of pleas for peace and respect for the "people of the book" and all that other stuff that would have been more beneficial for Muhammed to preach since he had no military power, and since there were many Christians and Jews in the area. As his military power grew, however, the passages he dictated got more extreme, more violent, and stopped advocating peace and began speaking strongly against the "people of the book."

A cursory glance at the Quran won't tell you all of this, though it will leave you wondering why the Quran is such a self-contradicting book on many issues. When you view it in light of Muhammed's life, and the times in which certain passages were written, however, it makes much more sense.

[Kurieuo]

You are correct to point out the recieving of wives isn't necessarily found in the Quran, while the killing of blasphemers can be found. The general point I was driving at though is that violence and forced conversion is something that can be found in the Quran. So I see it as wrong for someone to be accused of vilification of Islam people because they point out such things. It would be better for the Islamic protesters to defend such attacks as Christian apologists do with Scripture, if indeed such suras are being misused.

The passages dictated by Muhammed early in his "ministry" are often full of pleas for peace and respect for the "people of the book" and all that other stuff that would have been more beneficial for Muhammed to preach since he had no military power, and since there were many Christians and Jews in the area. As his military power grew, however, the passages he dictated got more extreme, more violent, and stopped advocating peace and began speaking strongly against the "people of the book."

A cursory glance at the Quran won't tell you all of this, though it will leave you wondering why the Quran is such a self-contradicting book on many issues. When you view it in light of Muhammed's life, and the times in which certain passages were written, however, it makes much more sense.

This is where I believe the doctrine of abrogation comes in, which basically says latter writings supercede former ones. It is therefore important when reading the Quran to know the order passages were written. To people reading the Quran it could therefore add confusion when they read in one passage that peace and respect is encouraged, while forced conversion and violence are evident in a latter passages.

Anyway, for interests sake I dug up some of my handouts from the seminar I attended by Daniel Scot of Ibraham Ministries International. Here is his short story:

Daniel Scot was born and educated in Pakistan. He was a brilliant student and in time became a Mathematics Professor at University Colleges in Pakistan. He has been involved in sharing his faith with Muslims since 1965 when he was in High School. Daniel's life and ministry are motivated by his passion to be a witness for Jesus.

It was the active sharing of his faith that resulted in him being the first individual to be charged under Pakistan's infamous Blasphemy Law in 1986. Some Muslims used this law in an attempt to silence Daniel. He was hunted by a large number of people who were intent on killing him. However, God used the situation to bring Daniel face to face with General Zia who was not only the initiator of the Blasphemy Law, but also the President of Pakistan. During this time, Daniel rejected all invitations to accept the doctrines of Islam. (An action, which would have spared him from persecution and the risk of death).

Daniel was delivered from the life-threatening situation that he found himself in and eventually he had to flee Pakistan, followed by his family two and a half years later.

Kurieuo.

[bizzt]

Deb,

I've visited a seminar by Daniel Scot, another in Australia accused of vilification (http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/10311.htm). I can tell you that far from any sort of hate, there was much love for Muslims at the seminar. I find it amusing that Scot (former Muslim) was accused of vilification by basically reading passages from the Quran. Perhaps it should be the Quran, or certain passsages within it, that are banned for vilification?

Can you Imagine if the Bolded were to be done. THE BIBLE would be held under the same Scrutiny... On Homosexuality, Prostitution...etc

[Kurieuo]

Did you miss my sarcasm? Obviously if the Quran is apart of Islam, it is silly to discard certain portion of it for vilification of Muslims. To take up your example it would be like saying certain portions of Scripture Christians abide by should be removed because it vilifies Christianity.

Kurieuo.

[bizzt]

Did you miss my sarcasm? Obviously if the Quran is apart of Islam, it is silly to discard certain portion of it for vilification of Muslims. To take up your example it would be like saying certain portions of Scripture Christians abide by should be removed because it vilifies Christianity.

Kurieuo.

Maybe I should have added a to mine

[Kurieuo]