Below are the contents of the document file that will be used by the defense in the trial of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff:
The book that enjoys the central place of honor in the photo is ’Umdat al-salik wa ’uddat al-nasik, or The reliance of the traveller and tools of the worshipper. It is commonly referred to as Reliance of the Traveller when cited in English.
This particular version is the Revised Edition (published 1991, revised 1994) and is “The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law ’Umdat al-Salik by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (d. 769/1368) in Arabic with Facing English Text, Commentary, and Appendices”, edited and translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller. The publisher is listed as amana publications in Beltsville, Maryland.
It is considered an authoritative source on Sunni Islamic law, because it is certified as such by Al-Azhar University in Cairo. There is no higher authority on Sunni Islamic doctrine than Al-Azhar; it is the closest equivalent to the Vatican that can be found in Islam.
So whatever you find in Reliance of the Traveller is definitive Islamic law. No Sunni Muslim jurist would argue against anything cited there.
And, as we will soon discover, everything that “denigrates religious teachings” in Elisabeth’s seminar can be supported by one or more passages in al-Misri’s treatise. From beating your wife to excising your daughter’s genitalia: it’s all in there.
However, this still may not be an adequate defense for quoting and referring to it. It has been well-established in a number of jurisdictions — including several in the West — that a non-Muslim who quotes the Koran accurately can still be convicted of “hate speech”. This aligns with the definition of Islamic slander (also to be found in Reliance) which considers anything that insults Islam, whether true or false, to be defamation.
So Elisabeth may still be convicted. Under the Sharia rules used in the brave new world of the Islamic Caliphate of Eurabia, she actually is guilty.
We’ll find out soon enough whether the Austrian judge is willing to buy into all this nonsense.
Previous posts about the hate speech case against Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff:
“So Elisabeth may still be convicted. Under the Sharia rules used in the brave new world of the Islamic Caliphate of Eurabia, she actually is guilty.”
It wont swing the judge of course because as far as the judge is concerned they’re operating under the aegis of liberalism.
‘Reliance’ is a great book, and the English translation is well done. This gives a compact (well, 1200+ pages) overview of Sharia law and is an excellent guide to just how the Quran is actually interpreted.
It can be bought from Amazon. Simple 🙂
There is no higher authority on Sunni Islamic doctrine than Al-Azhar; it is the closest equivalent to the Vatican that can be found in Islam.
Reason enough that this particular Islamic institution should experience a sudden, unexpected and catastrophic structural failure.
This aligns with the definition of Islamic slander (also to be found in Reliance) which considers anything that insults Islam, whether true or false, to be defamation.
Far be it from Western jurisprudence to adequately appreciate what it implies when the truth is an “insult”.
def·a·ma·tion [def-uh-mey-shuhn]
–noun
the act of defaming; false or unjustified injury of the good reputation of another, as by slander or libel; calumny: She sued the magazine for defamation of character.
Legal Dictionary
Main Entry: de·fa·ma·tion
Pronunciation: “de-f&-‘mA-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : communication to third parties of false statements about a person that injure the reputation of or deter others from associating with that person [emphasis added]
By the accepted legal meaning of defamation, such communication must contain “false statements”. Unless the Austrian court wishes to openly admit that it adheres to shari’a law, it had best keep to the straight and narrow definition of this term.
We’ll find out soon enough whether the Austrian judge is willing to buy into all this nonsense.
As it has from the very beginning, this case and every other one like it centers upon the very foundation of evidentiary procedure. Namely, that the truth must always be the last and best defense.
Judges who refuse to recognize this essential juridical fact must be bound over for charges of judicial misconduct. As in:
1.Exceeding jurisdiction
2.Due process violation
3.Abuse of discretion
4.Bias
5.Criminal conspiracy
6.Incompetence
7.Dereliction of duty
8.Conduct unbecoming
Most of the above variants would seem to apply should there be a finding of defamation. One can only hope that the foregoing is read into the record before this trial begins.
All Hell will eventually break loose if these corrupt judges are allowed to reread Western law in order to suit their own Politically Correct agendas. Should it ever come to mob rule, such judicial corruption will likely meet with particularly swift and harsh street justice.
I’m no jurist, but where I come from (France) you can say something true and still be convicted for defamation.
Truth may be an excuse in some circumstances, but it’s not a given.
If you read the law to the letter, just saying anything that makes someone look bad is actionable.
So there’s no freedom of speech really.
Everything depends on whether the person or institution you spoke or wrote about is really angry, whether they have serious money and influence to drag you to court, and whatever the judge may think.
You people are missing the big picture, the assault is on truth itself. That there is no universal objective truth. Everthing, including morality and truth is relative and subjective.
Nothing left to believe in. Nothing left to die for. Imagine all the people, living for today (secularist hedonism).
To be perfectly clear, even a MUSLIM who quotes the Koran accurately can still be convicted of “hate speech” IF that Muslim is failing to further the cause of Islam.
I recently heard that any legally prosecuted person in the United States may be found innocent by a jury on the basis of the prosecution case being BAD LAW. However, any lawyer who informs a jury of this fact may be disbarred.
Now, I have also heard that ALL Western law is based on Maritime Law. So, I wonder that Elisabeth might make the argument that her case should be thrown out based on the idea that the law itself is BAD LAW.
Just a thought….
If you read the law to the letter, just saying anything that makes someone look bad is actionable.
Reading the Danish law may lead you to the same conclusion – it’s overly broad for sure. But the precedence in Denmark appears to be that truth is indeed a valid defence.
Regarding a judge declaring a law BAD, I believe this to be a specific US mechanism, part of the intricate division of power – I read Toqueville on that.
How do you gain freedom of speech if you do not have it?
You will have to fight. Hard.
In America, we will also have to fight.
The right to speak freely is won by the pen and the sword. I know of no place that ever acquired it without struggle against reactionary or “revolutionary” elements.
EscapeVelocity: You people are missing the big picture, the assault is on truth itself.
Feel free to disinclude me from your category of “You people”. I have been harping on criminalization of Free Speech and prosecution of those who tell the truth for well over a year now. To wit:
Is it illegal to speak the truth?
or:
The legal bedrock of this case reaches down to whether truth is the best defense.
Europe has long been on the path of criminalizing Free Speech.
Egghead: … I have also heard that ALL Western law is based on Maritime Law.
My business partner mentions this rather routinely as well. I’ll get some information out of him over our after-concert (Trans-Siberian Orchestra) dinner tonight.
So, I wonder that Elisabeth might make the argument that her case should be thrown out based on the idea that the law itself is BAD LAW.
As Henrik mentions, precedence casework will probably show that there is no legal foundation for the prosecution of Elisabeth Sabidtsch-Wolff. Only the earlier conviction of FPÖ member Susanne Winter stands as remotely related prior law whereas there must be hundreds of previous cases where the truthfulness of information exonerated a defendant from libel or defamation charges.
Any judge who sides with shari’a law definitions of defamation needs to be chased from the bench with pitchforks and blazing torches.
In hoc signo vinces
In hoc signo vinces
In the ultra-liberal court the truth is no defence, the only defence is to attack the competence of the charge and the court, rebuke and revoke its legitimate status due to its conduct as a de facto sharia court, administering alien and seditious laws and acting beyond its powers.