I mentioned briefly a few days ago the decision by Australian Judge Michael Higgins condemning a seminar, newsletter, and website article posted by Catch the Fire ministries. You can read more about it here at the Free Republic website. Here is the actual document recording the initial decision. The judge will be releasing a lengthier decision in the future.
Reading this “decision” should send chills down the spine of any freedom loving individual, no matter what your nationality. It is plain beyond all measure that Higgins has grossly violated all semblance of judicial fairness or accuracy here. First, Higgins establishes his own theological decisions concerning truth, the meaning of the Qur’an, etc, as the “objective” view. Since when did judges become experts in Islamic law, history, and theology itself? This is why the state has no business or place intruding into this realm, and the result will always be the same: unregenerate men will act in an unregenerate fashion. Over and over again Higgins cites simple truths as if they are in fact untrue, and on that basis, dismisses the alleged protection the law gives for such “offensive actions” if they are undertaken “for any genuine academic, artistic, religious or scientific purpose.” By establishing his own personal views as the “objective” truth, Higgins dismisses the viewpoint he disagrees with as unreasonable: “I find that Pastor Scot’s conduct was not engaged in reasonably and in good faith for any genuine religious purpose or any purpose that is in the public interest.” Folks, belief in miracles is considered “unreasonable” by a large portion of the judiciary in Western culture today. Once the rule of law is dismissed (as it has been in this instance in Australia), we are the mercy of king-priests in black robes known as “judges.”
One of the most amazing sections of this decision is found when Higgins pretends to be an Islamic scholar of the Qur’an. He faults Pastor Scot for citing Surah 5:38 and 40, but not citing v. 39 which, Higgins so wisely opines, “refers to Allah being merciful, which was a pro-Islamic verse.” Let’s think about this just a second, folks. When Muslims behead Westerners in Iraq on video, they are chanting “Allah is great” over the screams of the dying person. Is screaming “Allah is great” while sawing through someone’s neck a “pro-Islamic” thing to do, or an anti-Islamic thing to do? We should ask the wise Judge Higgins, shouldn’t we? The phrase “Allah is merciful” is found all through the Qur’an. In some translations the English term appears nearly 150 times. So, if a person was talking about what the Qur’an says about the enemies of Islam, and they cited Surah 5:33, which states,
The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Apostle and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution or crucifixion of the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.
Are we seriously to be charged with inciting hatred of Islam and muzzled by Australian law and Australian judges if we don’t quote the next verse, which says,
Except for those who repent before they fall into your power: in that case know that Allah is Oft-Forgiving Most Merciful.
In other words, if they repent and submit to Islam, then they can find mercy. If they do not, well, the text is clear. Yes, the term “crucifixion” appears there. But, that must just represent some minority group over in the “Gulf States” as Higgins so wisely informs us.
For some odd reason, my noting this development has been taken as being offensive by…Australians! Goodness, folks, if you don’t stand up now, when will you? Don’t you see that since there is no longer a clear sense of God as the origin of law, that the law itself has become a malleable entity, one that can be shaped to whatever the king-priest (i.e., judge) wishes it to be or say? We in the States are not far behind you, that is for certain.
One thing is for sure: Muslims in Islamic countries are chuckling at the self-destructive nature of liberalism in the West. Suppress free speech about Islam by penalty of law as “hate speech.” Just how much different is that from what takes place in Muslim countries already, where you can lose your freedom, and your life, for daring to question Islam? Lord have mercy.
