According to CAIR, Islamophobes are constantly and wrongfully associating Islam with the gruesome terrorist acts of radical organizations like ISIS and al-Qaeda. However, a new complaint from a prominent and respected group of Muslim clerics prove that Quranic teaching is far more extreme than “moderate” Muslims will admit.
Grand Mufti of Australia Ibrahim Abu Mohammad and the Australian National Imams Council, which represents 250 imams, have called for the offense of “advocating terrorism” to be abrogated from the Foreign Fighters Bill, an anti-terrorism bill currently before Parliament.
According to WAtoday, the Islamic group Hizb ut-Tahrir is hosting a lecture in Lakemba on Friday to denounce “the politics and plots of the American-led intervention in Iraq and Syria.” The imams are worried that a cleric could break this new law if they merely “advocated the duty of a Muslim to defend his land.”
In short, Muslims in Australia are upset that laws that crack down on terrorist activity and hate speech will stifle their right to preach from the Quran and Sunnah, the books which define Islam.
“We are therefore concerned that the proposal has serious implications on free speech and will have a chilling effect on legitimate religious and political debate,” the council expressed.
The Muslim Legal Network claimed that laws should target extremists, not mainstream, moderate Muslims.
The group explained that the entire religious community would be in danger of being charged with terror-related offenses by simply referring “back to stories in the Quran.”
This is most telling, considering the majority of Islamist sympathizers and moderate Muslims claim that the Quran teaches peace and tolerance, and denounces violence.
In its submission, the Islamic Council of Victoria said the new law would incriminate Muslims who support “legitimate forms of armed struggle”, including resistance to the Assad regime in Syria and the Palestinian conflict with Israel.
“The broad definition of ‘terrorism’ and the way in which it is sometimes selectively applied to such groups is problematic … [and] the power of the Attorney-General to list terrorist organisations without oversight and consistency exacerbates this problem,” it said.
“Broadening this definition to include ‘foreign incursions’ and ‘treason’ when Australia already has laws which deal with these further muddies the water on the issue of what can be considered terrorism and what should be considered legitimate resistance to oppression.
“Criminalising the act of ‘advocating terrorism’ adds another layer of complexity to this issue. The scope of what constitutes ‘advocating terrorism’ is unclear.”
The council complained that Muslims traveling to Syria and Iraq fight for ISIS should be granted the same freedoms as those joining the Israeli Defense Forces in Israel.
The council also cited that the Bible and Torah contain just as much scripture of violence as the Quran, which isn’t a concern of practicing Christians or Jews, as they are not widely committing acts of terror.
Islamists are quick to demand limitations on speech that is considered critical of Islam; however, when similar laws are introduced to reign in their own hate speech, they are not as welcoming.