Prosecution and Defense share the same argument in Abu Hamza case

Here’s the prosecution, as reported by Cal Thomas (HT’s: Wretchard, Shrinkwrapped):

In lectures, recordings and writings, the imam said Adolf Hitler had been sent into the world to punish the Jews. Repeatedly, said the prosecutor, Abu Hamza told his followers they must fight for Allah and such fighting involves a religious mandate to murder Jews, kuffars (nonbelievers in Islam) and “apostates,” such as leaders of Arab nations like Egypt. Abu Hamza has pleaded innocent to all 15 charges, including nine counts of solicitation of murder, four counts of using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior intended to incite racial hatred and two counts related to the possession of offensive sound recordings and possession of a copy of the Encyclopedia of the Afghani Jihad.

The talks and written materials are not only about war. Abu Hamza also delivers diatribes about Britain’s licensing laws, the use of additives in food, adultery, the role of women and the “evils” of democracy. Abu Hamza repeatedly defines “jihad” as an avenue for establishing a caliphate, or Islamic state, which would be governed by the most radical interpretation of Sharian religious law.

Here’s the defense, via the Times of London:

Edward Fitzgerald, QC, for the defence, said that Abu Hamza’s interpretation of the Koran was that it imposed an obligation on Muslims to do jihad and fight in the defence of their religion. He said that the Crown case against the former imam of Finsbury Park Mosque was “simplistic in the extreme”. He added: “It is said he was preaching murder, but he was actually preaching from the Koran itself.”

It is depressing that still so few people seem willing to face the logic of this situation. But the logic will force itself upon the West eventually. Ever so slowly, we get closer to naming the enemy.

3 Responses to “Prosecution and Defense share the same argument in Abu Hamza case”

  1. epaminondas Says:

    When will someone in the govt, in congress, in the senate


    IT !!

    “It’s the Quran, stupid”

  2. larwyn Says:

    I am looking forward to the discussions and articles that this “defense” will generate.

    Could it be that either verdict for Abu Hamza will not
    negate this offering of “proof” that the Koran is not
    the “religion of peace” instructional?

    Any bio on “Edward Fitzgerald, QC, for the defence”?

  3. Mike H. Says:

    There should be no discussion, except where said discussion will lead to intelligence. It would be nice, though, to offer them the same quarter that Daniel Pearl received.

Leave a Reply