Thursday, 9 December 2010

Islamic 'steet preacher' on attempted murder charge in Canberra...

So this ABC News story is particularly close to home - very literally for me:

"A street preacher involved in a stabbing at a Canberra shop last year has told the ACT Supreme Court he could have killed the victim if he had wanted to.

Isa Islam, 37, is on trial for attempted murder, intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm and using an offensive weapon.

The former RAAF employee told the court he had been preaching about the Islamic faith outside the Ainslie shops that morning.

Later that day, he saw his former neighbour in a nearby take away shop.

Islam told the court he believed the man knew who had been breaking into his Ainslie Village room and vandalising his belongings.

He said after his neighbour refused to talk to him he just snapped and started stabbing him.

But he said he certainly did not mean to kill him, saying if he had wanted to he could have cut his throat.

A verdict is expected next year."


The Gray Monk said...

So a man who claims to preach 'The Religion of Peace' aka Islam (Which actually means 'Submission') failed to follow what he preaches? There's a big surprise - considering that Islam is renowned for being spread by the sword ...

Cardinal Pole said...

Terra, I don't understand why you've posted this post with an "Islam" tag; in fact, I don't understand why you've posted it at all. One cannot infer from the article that there is any connection between the accused's beliefs and his alleged crimes, so the article is no more representative of Islam than, say, an article on child abuse allegations against a Catholic priest would be representative of Catholicism. One wonders how many other Muslim street preachers have committed, or have been alleged to have committed, similar crimes in Australia? Perhaps none at all. This is going back about five years, but the Muslim evangelists who had a stall near Fisher Library at Sydney Uni during my time studying there seemed nice enough, and I neither saw nor heard of any stabbings.

And the article itself is sensationalistic and takes the accused out of context. It's sensationalistic because it reports the fact that Mr. Islam had been 'street preaching' despite the fact that that has no relevance to the events of later that day, and it takes him saying that "he could have killed the victim if he had wanted to" out of context thus: If one had read no more than the first paragraph (and your headline), then one might have thought that the accused was saying, perhaps boastfully, that he thought that he could have killed the victim with some kind of impunity, but he didn't do so simply because he didn't feel like it. It only becomes clear in the seventh paragraph that he was just trying to say that the fact that he was in a position to kill the accused had he wished, but didn't, shows that it was not a murder attempt.

Terra said...


It may just be that I'm a bit spooked by the fact that this all took place so near to me.

But I do think that the difference between Christianity and Islam is that Christianity espouses a doctrine of love one's neighbour that extents even to non-Christians, as well as adherence to the laws of the State. Islam on the other hand allows and even encourages both violence and vigilante responses towares believrs and non-believers alike.

So no, I don't think it is the same thing as abuser priests. But I'll change the title, you are right it is a little provocative.

shady_miles said...

I disagree with you Terra. He had stabbed because his house was broken into and his belongings were vandalized. I'm sure no one would want to face humility like that and not do anything. However i think he shouldnt have stabbed him for that, and like he said he didnt want to kill him. He shouldve told the police (but i doubt they would do anything)

Kate said...

Shady - While Islam believes in an eye for an eye, Christians and Australian law does not!

The fact that he believed the guy he killed had done some wrong to him is completely irrelevant, and can never justify any kind of violent assault, let alone murder!

As indeed the courts have judged....