Should Muhammad Ibn-Abdullah as a religious leader be put on trial posthumously for crimes against all humanity; as he claims to establish a Caliphate over the whole World and subjugate the whole human population under his laws. In fact, he is now charged under our laws with criminal activity for which he has not faced trial. Charged with war crimes against innocent civilians, of murder, rape, assassinations, paedophilia.

Muhammad claimed eschatological succession to another world religious leader, Jesus Christ, who was tried and put to death for the crimes of humanity. In fact, He is still on trial in many areas of society and by some condemned as guilty

Hi Josephus

Secularist allow Mohammed's followers to get away with murder so I doubt if they would be interested in Mohammmed no matter how much of a criminal he was. The abc is to busy distorting facts about dv in churches than to investigate with truth as a barometer.

Nobody should be tried posthumously, as this would constitute double jeopardy!

Dear Josephus,

I thought this was a joke at first and then I questioned
your motives behind this discussion and what you'd hope
to achieve by stirring up this hornet's nest against
a religious leader whose followers in this country are
already feeling particularly vulnerable and telling us that
they are sick and tired of being regarded through the prism
of terrorism.

Anyway, according to Wikipedia and other webs -
posthumous trials are rare
(and are not allowed in certain countries).

Due to the
heavy cost - they are usually held under extraordinary
circumstances. Then there's so many legal issues.
I'm not a lawyer, but there is the right to a fair hearing
as we should all be aware because of the court case
that is currently in the news dealing with another
religious leader. There's also the question of sentencing
issues and finally can the dead be regarded as natural
(or legal) persons?

Someone pointed out that Martin Bormann was convicted of war
crimes in absentia in Nuremberg in 1946 but (unbeknownst to
the court) had already committed suicide.

If you want to say that you think Islam is rubbish, that its a death cult and subjagates woman, and it is 'in your opinion' like a disease infecting western countries and is supported by a complicit liberal left who would turn a blind eye to anything that suited them politically, then why dont you just say that instead?

Saying you want to put Muhummad on trial, a person dead for 1400 years is like advertising a 'brain fart' or mental illness to everyone, no offense.

Your straying into 'dangerous irrational religious ideology territory', and that makes you one step closer to the type of irrational 'ends justify the means' terrorism thinking ideology the other side is so well known for.

I'm not saying you're a terrorist but try to keep your feet on the ground.

Anyone who claims to be a Nazi and murders Jews is acting in the same immoral framework as Hitler and should be tried as Hitler. Anyone who believes in a super race and ethnically cleanses those of difference is criminally guilty of crimes against humanity. Similarly anyone who claims to follow Muhammed's behaviour in establishing his Caliphate is guilty of crimes against humanity. Currently in some countries Christians are being found guilty for following the teaching of Jesus Christ who taught exclusively, "a young man shall leave his mother and father and be joined to his wife and the two become one flesh."

We could hold a trial in absentia on the impact that Muhammed's behaviour is currently causing on humanity.

Dear Josephus,

There are so many questionable leaders both past and
present that could be brought to account but we've
neither the time nor the money nor the resources to
do that. Every nation has atrocities that have been
committed by various leaders. All we have to do is
read the histories of those nations.

Foxy,
The influence of the person's life and teachings [ideas] upon society is what could be tried. Currently in our society to murder is a criminal offence, under Hitler to officially gas a Jew is removing social scum; under the Caliphate set up by Muhammed to kill an infidel or a deserter of the faith is accepted as prescribed under Koranic law.

Under our law to engage in sex with a 9 year old is paedophilia, under the example and principle established by Muhammed one can marry a six year old, or take any non Muslim girl as a sex slave. They are getting of lightly in Western countries for child grooming and rape, claiming cultural sensitives before our Judges.

We now have Sharia law taught at University Law so lawyers understand Islamic Culture.

The life and example of Muhammed and his rantings do not advance society, only damage social cohesion and safety. The West needs to put him as a Master example and law maker on Public trial; because it conflicts with our values. He needs to be exposed as psychopath and paedophile and admiration of him breeds a weak and sick society. Similarly anyone who admires Hitler or Pol Pot are equally psychopathic.

Dear Josephus,

Are you a theologian?

Have you studied Islam?

Your statements are very vague and sweeping in their
generalisations. You can't speak for how Muslims
practice their religion in all the various countries
around the world. They do not practice it in exactly
the same way coming from different cultures, countries,
speaking different languages and so on.

Fundamentalists or extremists of any religion make their
own interpretations of their religions. We can't blame
the religions for the way some people may interpret the
teachings.

I would hesitate greatly before making the judgements and
assumptions that you are making. I doubt very much whether
any court of law would take your suggestions seriously.
You have to provide some evidence for a start. Not something
based on what's in the media.

cont'd ...

What disturbs me is that I found an article
on the web written be Louis Palme with the
title, "Muhammad and His Crimes Against
Humanity." It was an article published by
"Annaqed."

"Annaqed" was founded in 2000 by Bassam Darwich.
Who's had to face court for sexual assault of
children and running a child prostitution ring.

"Annaqed" publishes anti - Islam articles and
it plays off - of ignorance to further hate.

I hope that this is not where your influence is
coming from.

Foxy,
My influences are coming from listing to people who have lived under Islam. I am currently reading a research paper done into the psychological analysis of Muhammed, and the influence he holds over Islamic society.

https://www.jksheindlin.com/

Dear Josephus,

You're reading a book on Muhammad by Judge Judy?

Or is it her husband?

I shall then leave you to your "research". (smiley face).

Foxy,
Yes the research has been done by Judge Judy.

See also: https://youtu.be/Uj8J62BqRM

Dear Josephus,

Well, in that case it's got to be true -
as she wouldn't "pee on your leg and
tell you it's raining" now would she?

Dear Josephus,

As a Christian, don't you believe that the dead are being judged and receive their reward/punishment in heaven/hell?

That being the case, wouldn't judging them again on earth constitute double-jeopardy as well as contempt for the Supreme Judge of the living and the dead?

Yuyutsu,
A rather naïve understanding of how one's actions and ideas influence society. His actions and ideas are still alive in society. We either approve or disapprove which is a judgment we must make on how justice and safety of a society brings real peace and unity. His spirit still lives on in his devout adherents.

Similarly the spirit of Christ Jesus lives on in his devout followers. Muhammed claimed to be the promised comforter of Christ to his followers; which if you read the Koran you will see Muhammed's followers are not to make friends with Jews or Christians, in another passage it mentions to slay Jews and Christians and they will not be able to hide because Allah will reveal their whereabouts.

Some Comforter for Christ's followers! He is a deceiver and a liar and certainly not a fulfilment of Christ Jesus prophecy. We cannot get away from his reality it is a large part of the spirit of humanity. Because Israel has been established for Jews, to them is in defiance of the word of Allah and Israel must be destroyed.

Christopher Hitchens, a sad loss to all who value freedom,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIUyMwOJ3aw

"Islam doesn't particularly like having its claims questioned or scrutinised.."

Moslems are followers of Muhammad and he is God's last and fulfilling Prophet.

Nuff said.

The comment has been made that some religions are more equal than others as far as the politically correct are concerned. Criticism of Islam could likely be 'Islamophobic', apparently. As far as the SJW 'White Knights' for Islam are concerned that is.

"(CNN)A public radio station in Berkeley, California, canceled a fundraiser and discussion with Richard Dawkins, the scientist, author and outspoken atheist, calling his comments on Islam "abusive speech."

Dawkins was scheduled to discuss his new book, "Science in the Soul: Selected Writings of a Passionate Rationalist," at the August 9 event, to which tickets were sold as part of a fundraiser for the station, KPFA.

But the public station said it decided to cancel the event after members of the Berkeley community brought Dawkins' remarks on Islam to their attention.
"The speech we reviewed included assertions during his current book tour that Islam is the 'most evil' of world religions, Twitter posts denigrating Muslim scholars as non-scholars and other tweets," the station said.
...
"If you had consulted me, or if you had done even rudimentary fact-checking, you would have concluded that I have never used abusive speech against Islam," Dawkins said.
Instead, he has criticized Islamism, the scientist said, a term used to describe political movements that seek to implement Islamic law and theology.
"Far from attacking Muslims, I understand -- as perhaps you do not -- that Muslims themselves are the prime victims of the oppressive cruelties of Islamism, especially Muslim women," Dawkins continued.

Dawkins, whose best-seller, "The God Delusion," attacks all forms of organized religion, also questioned why KPFA had not seemed to mind his anti-Christian remarks.

"I am known as a frequent critic of Christianity and have never been de-platformed for that. Why do you give Islam a free pass? Why is it fine to criticize Christianity but not Islam?"

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/25/living/radio-station-dawkins/index.html

This discussion is about whether a religious
leader who's no longer alive (died how long ago?),
should be put on trial for "crimes against humanity?"

A legal precedent for this has not yet been proven.

It would be interesting to discuss the legalities of
the case - and how (and if) it could legally be
achieved.

Regarding the KPFA Radio station incident with Dawkins
in Berkeley, California - the station made it clear that
it does not support "hurtful" of "abusive speech."
It also apologised for "not having had broader knowledge
of Dawkins views much earlier." Apparently all they wanted
was to discuss Dawkins' latest scientific book.

Dawkins tried to explain that he never used abusive speech
against Islam. What he'd done in the past he stated was
critiques of "IslamISM" - which referred to those who
use the religion for political objectives and not adherents of
the faith."

Dawkins also pointed out that he has been a frequent critic of
Christianity but has never been de-platformed for that.

What a shame that Berkeley seems to have changed so much
from being the home of the Free Speech Movement in the
1960s. Today conservative authors like Ann Coulter has
clashed with the University of California Administration after
events were cancelled by the College Administration due to
fear for public safety. The KPFA Radio Station in Berkeley is
not affiliated with the University of California.

I believe we deserve a Public trial of his ideas and actions, because many explicitly believe his words and actions as the divine example for humanity. They are held by fear of Allah, because they are brain washed in Koranic beliefs.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40710165
Richard Dawkins' Berkeley event cancelled for 'Islamophobia'

the embedded video is surprising

Dear Josephus,

Muhammad and what he did or didn't do or say, is an irrelevant evasion of this discussion - he is now dead!

The topic which you introduced regards your own wish to trial a dead man!

Having already been trialled by the Master of the universe, the Lord of heaven and earth, what gives you a right or even the desire to trial him again?

Yuyutsu,
`Muhammed is a demi-god in the eyes of his followers, they see his example of life and ideas as divine revelation. For them to follow his example in their life according to them is pleasing to Allah. Such must be examined in the light of justice and righteousness.

Muhammed in body is dead and buried, but in ideas and behaviour is still very much alive in our reality. He needs to be buried in influence on social values.

Dear Josephus,

Once again you're talking in generalities.

In a court of law you have to provide evidence,
and specifics to build a case. Basing things on
any Holy Works that were written for different
times, in different contexts, with various and
different interpretations and trying to apply them
to a fifth of the entire human population - from
Indonesia, India, China, Russia, Europe, black
African countries, the Middle East - is simply not
rational. Trying to tell a court that all these
countries practice their religion in exactly the
same way and all are evil I somehow doubt whether
you will be able to prove any of that in a court of law.
Even Judge Judy would not accept evidence on "hearsay."

Foxy,

Muslims in all of those countries and the ones that you didn't mention
believe that the Koran is the divine word of Allah as written down by the guided hand of Muhammad.

Some texts cannot be interpreted other than one way; what do you think 'kill' means?

Give us an alternative meaning or two.

Dear Is Mise,

Do all followers of Jesus interpret his teachings
in exactly the same way?

If you feel that you're knowledgeable enough in
theology of the Muslim religion and can speak on
behalf of all the people living in the various
Muslim countries - then you're quite a wise
sage - because as I understand it even teachers
of Islam do not all agree on everything that
Muhammad preached. There are so many different
interpretations. Therefore -
I would not presume to speak on behalf of
other people and assume what they do or do not
believe in. And courts of law have their own
standards that must be met - when presenting cases
before them. Evidence and proof - comes to mind.
As does "Beyond a reasonable doubt."

Foxy,

What does 'kill' mean?

Dear Josephus,

«Muhammed in body is dead and buried»

Without a body, Saint Muhammad is unable to defend himself in court.

Whatever the rotten culture of those people who claim to be his followers, the evidence, including the extensive forensic work of Robert Spencer, indicates that all that is nowadays attributed to Muhammad is based on a forgery which was carried out in the 790's, about 160 years after Muhammad's death - that was the biggest ever identity-theft in history.

We have the body of his teachings and behaviours upheld by his adherents that must be put before a Court; Rather than a few radical individuals claiming to be following Muhammed's interpretation.

Dear Josephus,

Courts require evidence and
proof as to how things are really being practiced
by most Muslims globally - (not fundamentalists
or extremists). Can you provide us with any just
to get things started. Judge Judy's book is full
of errors. You should Google the reviews of it
for yourself.

Dear Josephus,

«We have the body of his teachings and behaviours»

No, those alleged teachings and behaviours are not his!

Robert Spencer, a distinguished researcher of Islam as well as a formidable opponent of Islam as we know it, provides plenty of forensic evidence to that effect.

What you are asking, is to try a man on the basis of libel, who cannot even be present to defend himself. That too, when if indeed guilty then he has already been trialled by a higher court.

Foxy,
I have read all the supposed errors in Judge Judy's book and the counter comments by other researchers.

Yuyutsu, Obviously a large part of Sunni Islam accept the life and teachings ascribed all to Muhammed and his Sharia laws. If someone has falsified his teachings and behaviours then equally they must be debated in a court because it influences a large part of human ideas and behaviours that is detrimental to society.

Dear Josephus,

«If someone has falsified his teachings and behaviours then equally they must be debated in a court»

Now this would be a reversal of the onus of proof.

Can you prove that Muhammad ever did any of the atrocities attributed to him? or incited his followers to be wrongdoing?

You cannot. The evidence is so scant that (though I beg to differ) Robert Spencer believes that Muhammad did not even exist. Yet you want him to appear in court to clear his name...

You require a 6-7th century person to produce an alibi for accusations made in the late 8th century.

Not only the long-dead accused is unable to appear in court to defend himself - but also his historical accusers: they cannot be brought to testify under oath and if found scheming and libelling Muhammad (which I'm sure they were), the court would be unable to punish them for libel and perjury.

Yuyutsu,

"Robert Spencer, a distinguished researcher of Islam as well as a formidable opponent of Islam as we know it, provides plenty of forensic evidence to that effect."

Spencer may provide evidence but it sure ain't forensic.

Spencer is currently barred from entering the UK because of his views, evidential or not.

Yuyutsu,
Who is attributed to writing the Koran in Arabic? Who's ideas are attributed to the Hadith's?

Theres 2 billion Muslims, far more than citizens of western democracies.
My question is this, how do non-Muslims fare in situations where they are the minority wherever they may be?
Will our liberty be guaranteed in we become a minority if not why should we care about 'their' liberty now?

Give me facts and statistics.

Islam is an insult to our national anthem.
Advance Australia Fair.

There is nothing fair about increasing the population of a minority who have proven time and time again in foreign countries and cities they will subjagate and victimise non muslims if they get a chance.
Muslim immigration puts Australian lives at risk
Islam should be banned in Australia, and it's adherents deported.

In Australia we lock up our criminals.
In Islam, they kill their enemies.
Not exactly an even playing field.
Sounds like a tax on the Australian people to me, with an added increased risk of death by terrorism.

Does the UN dictate our refugee intake and which refugees come?
If so we should leave the UN.
Being part of a global organisation does not mean that they should dictate our laws and way of life.

Dear Josephus,

According to current "Muslim" belief, both the Koran and Hadith are about the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.

So-called "Muslims" defend this view by drawing, through the Hadith, a "reliable" lineage of people who knew Muhammad and transferred his teachings reliably - so they believe.

But according to Spencer, all three were forged around the 790's: the Koran, the Hadith and the lineage.

Spencer's theory is that Muhammad simply did not exist.

My theory is different:

There actually was a saint named Muhammad, who lived in a cave and was inspired by God. He actually had some valuable spiritual teachings (now lost).

As Muhammad was admired as the "perfect man", stories about his existence went around. But memories failed and at nights, around camp-fires, anyone would start telling stories about this "perfect man", according to how they personally conceived a perfect man would have been and mixing them up with other folk-tales.

Fictional literature about "Muhammad The Perfect Man" dispersed around the Arab peninsula and (according to Spencer) comprised around 100,000 pages. Most of it probably described Muhammad more or less as we would currently describe a saint, but there were also others who believed that a perfect man would necessarily be a warlike hero, subjugate infidels and women, etc. Around the 790's, a group of thugs selected, connected up and systematically propagated about 3,000 pages (3%) that were to their liking and political interests - and this is what we today call "Islam".

Islam means the peace which comes as a result of surrendering to God.
The propagators of what is currently considered "Islam" were not at al surrendered to God - they pursued their vicious interests.

Saint Muhammad must be rolling in his grave.

Yuyutsu,

That deep meditation does produce some wonderful thoughts, do you use an accelerant?

Perhaps the following link may help clarify things:

http://thoughtcatalog.com/daniel-hayes/2015/11/does-islam-really-say-its-okay-to-kill-people-or-is-that-just-one-interpretation/

This is just some thoughts on the subject.

Foxy,

From your link,

"The quran is OK with killing people who deserve death, but it explicitly states that killing the “innocent” is completely forbidden. This is where people get misinformed, and how deception gets spread: The “innocent” is not what you think it is. The innocent by the definition given in the Quran are strict Muslims. It explicitly goes into detail about what makes you not innocent. If you believe in other religions or are atheist, you are not innocent. If you are unclean, eat banned foods, you are not innocent. If you do not abide by the sexual rules laid out in the Quran, you are not innocent. If you do not do your duty of prayer, fasting, and mosque attending, you are no innocent. So on and so forth. If you are not innocent, you are not protected by the book. In some regards you have a chance to become “innocent” and convert but if you do not you should not live– according the Quran. Many of the innocence breaking acts are immediately punishable by death.. "

You agree with that?

How are you going with the homosexual paedophilia in Afghanistan?
The Taliban virtually wiped it out but we helped to reintroduce the practice of "boys for pleasure and women for breeding".

A man makes a football....is he responsible for the way society uses it?
Both responsibility and irresponsibility rests with the society of the day

Dear Is Mise,

We've covered this topic earlier.

Besides, there's more in the link that I gave
which you did not cite:

"If you delve into the ancient books of any
Abrahamic faith tradition or even just
study their documented history of the last
milennia - you're going to find a lot of blood."

"That is not specifically relevant to those
living in modern times. The vast majority of Muslims,
Jews, or Christians, are not violent people and
have no interest in revisiting the barbarity of
ancient times."

"There's a great deal of focus lately on specific
passages in the Qur'an, but what's actually
relevant is what any given person makes of these
passages. You can find literalists and extremists
in any faith tradition, and will if you look hard
enough."

Foxy,

Define 'kill'.

Perhaps our current alleged jihadists in Sydney could help you;
maybe they only intended to kill the airline passengers a little bit.

Dear Is Mise,

The Australian Federal Police and ASIO
told reporters - the information that they
currently have will be passed onto the
courts because at present it's merely
speculation of "alleged terror plot"
"alleged Jihadists", "alleged bomb threat,"
and so on. They feel that it's best to wait
and see what the courts make of all this.

Why are you referring me to these "alleged
Jihadists?" I have made it quite clear many
times on this forum that I do not support
violence or criminals so why do you insinuate
otherwise? I have also stated that you can find
extremists and fanatics in every walk of life.
This does not mean that I support them. On
the contrary. I have stated that those who
break our laws should bear the full brunt.

You seem determined to want me to "define kill,"
for you. I think that you're quite capable of
finding your own definition without my help.
After all you are pro guns and should be more
than familiar with the term.

However, as far as our conversation is concerned
(in this context) -
I would define "kill" as putting an end to, or
causing the failure or defeat of our communication.
This happens often when some people are more
interested in condemnation and punishment than in
explanation. Explanations seem tantamount to
sympathizing and excusing. When someone is reluctant
to modify their judgements the result is usually a
complete breakdown in communication