This case from Denmark could have some very interesting ramifications. If the imam’s lawyer decides to use the “religious freedom” defense, he will emphasize the fact that his client was simply quoting his religion’s scripture.
“Your Honor, I was not the one who said that — it was our god, speaking through his prophet, who said that all Jews must be killed.”
Hmm… I wonder how that will work out? It might be useful to have it down in black and white in the record of the legal proceedings for the case.
Many thanks to Tania Groth for translating this article from TV2:
For the first time ever an imam has been charged with encouraging the killing of Jews
The controversial words were spoken during Friday prayers at a mosque on Nørrebro in Copenhagen.
An imam from a mosque in Nørrebro in Copenhagen has been charged for encouraging the killing of Jews.
This was stated by the prosecutorial authority in a press release.
This is the first time a prosecution has been initiated under the so-called Imam Act of January 2017. The Imam Act was passed in an effort to curb radicalization and religious [hate] preachers.
“These are heinous statements, and I think it is quite right that the court now has an opportunity to assess the case,” says Advocate General Eva Rønne from the State Prosecutor’s office.
She has the sermon on video, as the mosque from Nørrebro in Copenhagen itself posted it on Facebook and YouTube.
“Come and kill him”
According to the Prosecution Authority, the sermon consists of both the imam’s own words and a quote from the Quran. The imam says, among other things:
“Judgment Day will not arrive until Muslims fight the Jews in order that the Muslims may kill them — and the Jew will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will say,” O Muslim, O God’s worshiper, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.”
Assistant State’s Attorney Eva Rønne explains that it is legal to quote religious scriptures from the Quran and the Bible, but it is punishable if, for example, killing a certain segment of the population is applauded and that the person preaching the words at the same time makes the words his own.
“It has always been illegal to accept the killing certain segments of the population, but what is new is that we now have a method to target hate preachers that can sentence them to up to three years in prison,” she says.
Danish Jews happy about the pending trial
The Jewish Society in Denmark is pleased that the word of the imam are now going to appear in court.
“For us, there was no doubt as to what the statements mean. It has been deeply worrying,” says chairman Dan Rosenberg Asmussen to TV 2.
“There are examples for weak souls who listen to preachers,” he explains.
The imam is also charged under the racism section of the law.
The criminal case will be prosecuted at Copenhagen City Court, but a date has not yet been scheduled.
This could open a massive can of worms. When an imam prays for “victory over the kuffar” or quotes the bit about “Jews being turned into apes and pigs” or the injunction to “slay the infidels wherever you find them” it could lead to some fascinating theological discussions in the courts. Best place for them to happen too.
Hopefully, after the physical acting out of Islamic teachings becomes too obvious and too bloody to ignore any more, our lawmakers will have to decide which parts of Islam are harmless and which parts are unavoidably seditious or in some other way a threat to our civilisation. But that’s discrimination!!! Too right. At some point I think we are going to have to discriminate against a religion which discriminates against us or just accept our fate politely.
I have never understood why, in Britain, religions get a free pass for saying things that would get my collar felt if I said them. There is nothing in the Racial and Religious Hatred Act of 2006 giving such exemption. Is there some old law allowing religious figures an overriding right to say what they like? I don’t know. I asked a lawyer about this once and got the kind of answer that bears out the old saying that free legal advice is worth what you pay for it.
We really need lawyers in the counterjihad movement. Aren’t the courts where the next phase of the struggle has to be played out…if we want to avoid skipping straight to the armed militias phase anyway.
‘can of worms’
Indeed, just imagine ‘kafir’ becoming ‘hate-speech.
A hate-filled word and concept behind over an estimated 200 million deaths, of which I know you and most GoV readers will be aware.
For those who are not, Dr. Bill Warner explains:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mc3M4uLC8Dw
However to have ‘kafir’ decreed hate-speech would be entirely the wrong direction, not only is it highly unlikely ever to happen, not in the current EU anyway, and I’d much rather have free speech, (or no Islam at all but hey-ho) that allows one’s enemies to define themselves, and expose Islam to sunlight and the marketplace of ideas…..but that too, currently anyway, is fanciful.
Meanwhile the counterjihad could use lawyers, as the legal profession is (another one) riven with liberals, establishment stooges and jihadists in suits waging lawfare – so far Islam has been protected by liberal laws, while the ever expanding number of ‘human rights’ (there are now 42 categories, each of which has several sub-sections), of which Yves Mamou observes: “originally conceived of as an anti-discrimination tool, became a Trojan horse, a tool manipulated by Islamists and others to dismantle secularism, freedom of speech and freedom of religion in European countries.”
He concludes:
“So the fight against Islamism might first consist of a fight against the caste that governs us.”
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/8941/france-human-rights
We might just have to skip the courts phase 🙂
200 Million ?
“If Muslims indeed slaughtered over 400 million people in India, the Muslim genocide around the world would exceed 890 million victims.”
https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2015/06/15/muslims-have-killed-over-590-million-non-muslims-since-the-birth-of-mohammed/
Please allow me to take this to its logical conclusion. If the courts decide that certain verses in the Qur’an are contrary to settled law as in racial genocide (the slaughter of all Jews), extortion (the dhimmi poll tax), perjury (taqiyya et al) and fomenting sedition through the replacement of judicial law with Sharia, then what is to prevent the State from regulating the content of all the other “Faith” books, beginning of course with the Bible? Be careful of what you wish for. That State could very well allow the enforcement of the Imam Law so as to establish the precedent that would allow the State to regulate religion, and thereby thought.
I don’t think we are talking about content. You can quote a passage from a religious book. You can’t use it as your own words or as call to action.
A Christian minister might say “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.” It is in Leviticus Chapter 20 verse 13. He will not be prosecuted for that.
If afterwards he says to the congregation “You know what? Let’s get the pitchforks and show those gays who’s in charge.” Then it will be the same as this imam.
That’s the same chapter that excuses slavery.
Why do the Countries allow these animals inside their borders?