Israellycool

Islam Online has established an online Holocaust Museum - a palestinian one, that is.

Replete with black and white photos of palestinian children “martyrs” , it is an enormous insult to the real Holocaust victims.

The front page currently shows particularly gruesome photos of the palestinian children killed a few days ago, likely by explosives carried by their terrorist brethren.

Here’s the joke:

General Policies:

Balanced approach: adopting the middle ground of Islam, avoiding extremism or negligence, rejecting deviant or eccentric opinions.

Objective treatment: striving for accuracy, adopting neutrality and avoiding pre-judgments and preconceptions.

Moral approach: avoiding slander or praise of individuals, groups or states, avoiding propaganda and sensationalism, or provocation and incitement.

Bring out the flying pig who, incidentally, has unexpected support.

A new Muslim organization is coming out with a highly untraditional campaign, demanding better care for Danish hogs, which according to the organization suffer unnecessarily from grueling transports and castration without anesthesia.

Imam Abdul Wahid Pedersen [ed. one of Denmark's more radical imams], who heads the organization “Muslims for rights of Danish pigs”, together with four other Muslims says that it’s a disgrace for our whole nation that something like this takes place.

Muslims are forbidden to eat pork due to a specific ban in the Koran, but that does not mean that Muslims can’t fight for the rights of impure animals, thinks Pedersen. He says that even hogs who are going to the slaughter are part of God’s creation and require a humanistic - not hoggish - treatment and therefore they will now express their great indignation about such outrage in reader letters in newspapers.

Pedersen doesn’t fear the anger of Muslims worldwide who can’t see the reason for championing an impure animal. He says that there might be several who react, but he declares that even if Muslims don’t eat pork, they want to show that Muslim can discuss things other than veils and Islamization, and that they are also concerned about completely normal problems on Earth such as global warming and animal welfare.

Source: Nyhedsavisen (Danish)

While it is nice to see a Muslim group concerned for the welfare of pigs, I would prefer to see the emergence of Muslim groups concerned for the welfare of Jews.

After all, we are treated far worse than pigs, especially at the hands of Muslims. And we are apparently related.

The BBC reports on a recent Muslim initiative.

Muslim scientists and clerics have called for the adoption of Jerusalem time to replace GMT, arguing that the city is the true centre of the Earth.

—-

The call was issued at a conference held in the Gulf state of Qatar under the title: Jerusalem, the Centre of the Earth, Theory and Practice.

One geologist argued that unlike other longitudes, Jerusalem’s was in perfect alignment to magnetic north.

He said the English had imposed GMT on the rest of the world by force when Britain was a big colonial power, and it was about time that changed.

A prominent cleric, Sheikh Youssef al-Qaradawy, said modern science had at last provided evidence that Jerusalem was the true centre of the Earth;

—-

The meeting also reviewed what has been described as a Jerusalem watch, the brainchild of a French Muslim.

The watch is said to rotate anti-clockwise and is supposed to help Muslims determine the direction of Jerusalem from any point on Earth.

Update: If you went to the BBC article, you would see I (purposely) distorted the report - for effect. Just replace every instance of “Jerusalem” with “Mecca,” and you’ll now have the truth.

Meanwhile, I’ll leave you with this Jewish midrash:

The Land of Israel sits at the center of the world; Jerusalem is in the center of the Land of Israel; the Temple is in the center of Jerusalem; the Sanctuary is in the center of the Temple; the ark is in the center of the Sanctuary; and the foundation stone, out of which the world was founded, is in front of the Sanctuary.

Tanhuma Buber, Leviticus, Kedoshim

Keep all of this in mind next time you read of plans to divide Jerusalem.

The authors of “Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think” continue to produce articles with bits and pieces of their worldwide poll of Muslims with furious spinning to make Muslims look as much like Westerners as possible. This is not surprising - co-author John Esposito has written a number of apologetic books for Islam, including “Islam: The Straight Path“, and the other author Dalia Mogahed is Muslim herself. The idea that this book would be objective is laughable, and I’ve already shown some dishonesty in how the authors present their findings.

A new op-ed by the authors in the Los Angeles Times illustrates their dishonesty as well:

For instance, Gallup found that 72% of Americans disagreed with this statement: “The majority of those living in Muslim countries thought men and women should have equal rights.” In fact, majorities in even some of the most conservative Muslim societies directly refute this assessment: 73% of Saudis, 89% of Iranians and 94% of Indonesians say that men and women should have equal legal rights.

Notice the sleight-of-hand - changing the question from one of “equal rights” to one of “equal legal rights” when asking people in Muslim countries. When Muslims are referring to legal rights, they are not thinking about religious rights. Which means that if you would ask Muslims whether women should be able to have up to four spouses as men are allowed to, the answers would not be the same as to the question they asked. Yet if they really supported equal rights as Esposito and Mogahed claim, then they would by definition support polyandry as much as polygamy.

What about Muslim sympathy for terrorism? Many charge that Islam encourages violence more than other faiths, but studies show that Muslims around the world are at least as likely as Americans to condemn attacks on civilians. Polls show that 6% of the American public thinks attacks in which civilians are targets are “completely justified.” In Saudi Arabia, this figure is 4%. In Lebanon and Iran, it’s 2%.

Again, in this case it appears that how the question is asked is far more important than the supposed answers. Since the authors show that 7% of Muslims condoned 9/11, and other polls show that a far higher number condone attacks on Israeli civilians, the cherry-picking of the answers from Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Iran proves only that the people answering the poll are more likely to support individual, real world attacks against civilians than some abstract concept of attacking civilians. The fact that there are no Americans publicly celebrating Muslim deaths is proof enough that the methodology for this question was flawed.

Looking across majority-Muslim countries, Gallup found no statistical difference in self-reported religiosity between those who sympathized with the attackers and those who did not…. On the other hand, not a single respondent who condoned the attacks used the Koran as justification. Instead, they relied on political rationalizations, calling the U.S. an imperialist power or accusing it of wanting to control the world.

The authors create a division between politics and religion that is nonsensical in much of the Islamic world. Islam is more than just a religion; it is also a political movement, and the absence of Koranic justification for 9/11 does not necessarily indicate one way or the other that terror-supporters are less religious.

In other words, all that the poll indicates is that the level of religiosity does not indicate a propensity to terror. The implication from the authors that the more religious tend to be more against terror attacks is not borne out, based on the limited information given here.

If most Muslims truly reject terrorism, why does it continue to flourish in Muslim lands? What these results indicate is that terrorism is much like other violent crime. Violent crimes occur throughout U.S. cities, but that is no indication of Americans’ general acceptance of murder or assault. Likewise, continued terrorist violence is not proof that Muslims tolerate it. Indeed, they are its primary victims.

This is astonishingly dishonest. Terrorism, by definition, is political, and can only thrive when the political environment - in this case, the Muslim and Arab cultures that permeate these lands - allow it. Comparing it to violent crime is an incredible distortion, and one that has absolutely no basis in any of the polling numbers given here - it quite literally made up.

(cross-posted at EoZ)

The Sun reports on a Muslim bus driver who told his passengers to get off.

Literally.

A Muslim bus driver told stunned passengers to get off so he could pray.

The white Islamic convert rolled out his prayer mat in the aisle and knelt on the floor facing Mecca.

Passengers watched in amazement as he held out his palms towards the sky, bowed his head and began to chant.

One, who filmed the man on his mobile phone, said: “He was clearly praying and chanting in Arabic.

“We thought it was a wind-up at first, like Jeremy Beadle.”

The 21-year-old plumber added: “He looked English and had a London accent. He looked like a Muslim convert, with a big, bushy beard.

“Eventually everyone started complaining. One woman said, ‘What the hell are you doing? I’m going to be late for work’.”

After a few minutes the driver calmly got up, opened the doors and asked everyone back on board.

But they saw a rucksack lying on the floor of the red single-decker and feared he might be a fanatic. So they all refused.

The passenger added: “One chap said, ‘I’m not getting on there now’.

“An elderly couple also looked really confused and worried.

“After seeing that no-one wanted to get on he drove off and we all waited until the next bus came about 20 minutes later. I was left totally stunned. It made me not want to get on a bus again.”

The bizarre event unfolded on the number 81 in Langley, Berkshire, at around 1.30pm on Thursday.

The passenger said he rang the bus firm to complain but claimed it did not believe him.

He said: “They asked me, ‘Are you sure?’. Then they said they would get back to me, but they weren’t taking me seriously at all.”

Yesterday the driver, who said his name was Hrun, told The Sun: “I asked everyone to get off because I needed to pray. I was running late and had not had time.

“I pray five times a day as a Muslim — but I don’t normally ask people to get off the bus to do it.”

Where does he get off doing this?

I guess he mistook himself for a taxi driver.

Update: In case you are wondering, this report is from March 29th, so it is not an April Fool’s joke as far as I can tell.

Gallup polled some 50,000 Muslims over a six year period to see how Muslims think, and they will be releasing their results in a book. Ahead of publication they are putting out weekly press releases with some statistics. But based on the press releases, we can already see that they will be spinning the numbers to minimize Islamic radicalism.

Look how deceptive this release is:

Understanding extremists and the nature of extremism requires a global perspective that extends beyond conflicting opinions of experts or anecdotes from the “Arab street.” What do Muslims polled across the world have to say? How many Muslims hold extremist views? What are their hopes and fears? What are their priorities? What do they admire, and what do they resent?According to the Gallup Poll, 7% of respondents think that the 9/11 attacks were “completely” justified and view the United States unfavorably. Among those who believe that the 9/11 attacks were not justified, whom we’ll call “moderates,” 40% are pro-United States, but 60% view the United States unfavorably.

Analyzing and comparing the answers of the 7% with the moderate majority produced some surprising results. By focusing on the 7%, whom we’ll call “the politically radicalized” because of their radical political orientation, we are not saying that all in this group commit acts of violence. However, those with extremist views are a potential source for recruitment or support for terrorist groups. This group is also so committed to changing political conditions that they are more likely to view other civilian attacks as justifiable: 13% of the politically radicalized versus 1% of moderates say that attacks on civilians are “completely justified.”

Firstly, notice that they only give numbers for those who call 9/11 “completely justified” and they do not let us know the numbers who consider it “partially justified”. They say that the “moderates” are a majority but is this a significant majority, a tiny majority or a plurality? By only giving the 7% number they are trying hard to imply a large difference which may not exist.Notice also their choice of nomenclature: those who are pro-terror are merely “politically radicalized” while those who were against it - but perhaps support blowing up Jews - are “moderates.” The word choice indicates that moderation is normal and expected, but extremism doesn’t exist - it is just a learned behavior. This is a huge bias.

The press release also doesn’t bother to explain the glaring contradiction that only 13% of those who already declared support for 9/11 claim that all civilian attacks are justifiable. Perhaps the question was stated in a way where Muslim civilians were implied?

Finally, as they try hard to make it appear that “only” 7% of Muslims worldwide support terror and hiding numbers that may indicate otherwise, they don’t bother to run the calculation: assuming a conservative number of 1.2 billion Muslims, this means that “only” 84 million are extremist terror supporters that want to see, say, all Americans dead.

One can only imagine how the book will try to bury the real numbers that are so inconvenient to mention in the press release.

An unbelievably sick story out of Saudi Arabia, reported impassively by Arab News:

RIYADH, 18 March 2008 — Muhammad Al-Zahrani, a convicted murderer, was executed at the end of February in Taif. Al-Zahrani’s execution, which was postponed for four years, took place after the victims’ family refused to pardon him.However, what makes Al-Zahrani’s case interesting is that the convicted murderer had married his daughter to another convicted murderer on death row in the same prison, Awad Al-Harbi.

The newly married groom now lives in the hope that he may be saved by the generosity of his victim’s family.

Reaction in society to the prison marriage was mixed. Some saw the father’s decision as a good thing, a way to give a friend and fellow prisoner a second chance in life. Others condemned the step and described it as being unfair to one’s daughter.

The marriage fulfills all legal conditions under Saudi law, according to Sheikh Abdul Mohsen Al-Obaikan, a member of the Council of Senior Scholars.

Al-Obaikan said should a woman accept a man on death row after knowing about his situation there is no reason why the marriage should be stopped from happening. When Arab News questioned Al-Obaikan on the girl’s sound judgment considering she is only 15, he said she is considered an adult and therefore eligible to marry.

Al-Obaikan said that a woman could get married and see her husband die soon after, which would be God’s will, and in Al-Awad’s case it would also be God’s will to keep him alive should the victim’s family pardons him.

As for the idea of marriage in Islam being a form of asylum and haven, and whether this condition applies while one of the spouses is in captivity, Al-Obaikan said that if it is a woman’s choice then no one should object.

Ahmad Al-Hariri, a Ph.D. in forensic psychology, said, “In other countries, a 15-year-old is considered a child and cannot be considered an adult until she turns 18.”

He added that even if such a marriage is legal then it is still considered an assault on her humanity and wellbeing.

Al-Hariri said this could not be accepted both socially and psychologically. “After choosing a suitable spouse, starting a family and having children are the natural outcome of marriage and in this case there is no guarantee for such a family to exist and thrive,” said Al-Hariri.

“The overwhelming possibility of the success of this marriage is bleak, and what we see for the future is a widow with orphans,” he added.

“Even if this marriage is legal, it is totally unacceptable on a humanitarian level as it will harm the girl’s interests. Should the Reconciliation Committee’s efforts fail she will loose a husband after having lost her father,” Al-Hariri said.

Even the liberal Saudi expert who is against the marriage doesn’t state the obvious - that it is the worst form of child abuse to force your daughter to marry a convicted murderer! He’s more worried that the marriage will end up with the girl becoming a widow - which is perhaps the best outcome to be hoped. Perhaps more disturbing is that it is assumed that she will end up “with orphans” - does this mean that she will be forced to go to the prison to be with this murderer?

All because, to the executed murderer, the potential freedom of his killer friend was more important than his daughter’s life.

And yet, according to Sharia, this is all perfectly acceptable.

The New York Times Magazine last Sunday had a lengthy article by Noah Feldman that talks about sharia and how it really isn’t so bad, how the West isn’t looking at it with enough nuance and how much better it was than English common law - in the 18th century. Perhaps he can defend this action better than the Arab News managed to.

Via The Jawa Report comes this sickening video of former Jew (Joe Cohen) turned Jew-hating Muslim Yousef al-Khattab celebrating the murder of the 8 Jewish boys in last week’s yeshiva attack.

Here’s hoping the next time I see his name, it is in the same sentence as the words “work accident.”

Arab News reports:

Early morning shoppers at a supermarket in Jeddah were left reeling yesterday, with some falling unconscious, after a well-built Syrian man clinched a knife and decapitated his 15-month-old nephew in front of his mother in the store’s fruit and vegetable section.

In a brutal murder that has shocked the city, the 25-year-old man beheaded the boy, who was out shopping with his mother — in full glare of shoppers and staff at Al-Marhaba supermarket on Sari Street around 9.30 a.m. The man, who is the boy’s maternal uncle, apparently killed the boy following a dispute with his sister and brother-in-law.

Eyewitnesses said that the man picked up a knife from inside the store and severed the boy’s head. The mother and a shopper standing close by fainted, while several other stood in shock and disbelief over what had happened.

A police officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told Arab News, “The murderer was in a dispute with the boy’s mother and her husband. He chopped off the boy’s head in front of the mother to get back at her.” He added that the mother has been left traumatized and is in hospital. The boy’s father was at work at the time of the incident.

Following the murder, police sealed off the supermarket while forensic experts gathered evidence. Ambulances were also called to the scene. The supermarket reopened for business at around 1.15 p.m. “It happened so quickly. Before people could intervene, the man had cut more than half way through the child’s neck,” said Abu Muhammad, a grandfather in his mid-60s.

A Saudi till attendant at a nearby cafe said, “One of my colleagues went to see what was going on and returned shivering. He saw the kid’s body and so we gave him the day off. He was in a bad state.”

An eyewitness, who lives in the neighborhood, said that the victim’s family lived close by and frequented the supermarket. “I’ve seen the murderer carrying the same child and playing with him on a number of occasions,” he added.

“No one could bear the gruesome sight of the boy’s decapitated body lying on the floor,” said Muneer, a Turkish car mechanic, who works at a garage close by. “How could someone do such a thing? I just can’t understand it… I still can’t believe it,” he said, shaking his head.

When the store reopened, employees were still in a state of shock. A guard, standing at the entrance, stood frozen and oblivious to the rush of shoppers. Pain and anguish were writ large on his face.

A Malaysian woman has been jailed for two years for belonging to a cult that worships a giant tea pot.

From the Telegraph (UK):

Kamariah Ali, a 57 year old former teacher, was arrested in 2005 when the government of the Muslim majority country demolished the two storey high sacred tea pot and other infrastructure of the “heretical” Sky Kingdom cult.

For the eccentric sect, which emphasised ecumenical dialogue between religions, the tea pot symbolized the purity of water and “love pouring from heaven”.

But in Malaysia, despite constitutional guarantees of freedom of worship, born Muslims such as Mrs Ali are forbidden from converting to other religions.

Passing sentence, the Sharia judge Mohammed Abdullah said: “The court is not convinced that the accused has repented and is willing to abandon any teachings contrary to Islam. I pray God will open the doors of your heart, Kamariah.”

Mrs Ali has already been jailed once for apostasy, for 20 months in 1992.

“This has to stop. They can’t be sending her again and again to prison for this,” her lawyer, Sa’adiah Din, told reporters.

“She informed the court that she is not a Muslim. She doesn’t come under Sharia court anymore.”

AsiaNews adds more details on the teapot cult:

Born in the mid ‘80’s, the community grew outside state control until 1998, when its followers set up a Disneyland style games park – with buildings in the form of umbrellas, colourful boats, Greek and roman columns – at the centre of which they placed a gigantic teapot and equally massive blue vase. By this means they began proselytising among villagers and foreigners.

In August of 2005, Islamic fundamentalists destroyed their deity and the structures where they gathered.

Can’t we all discuss this civilly over a cup of…oh, sorry, didn’t mean to offend.

Islam Online reports on a letter from Muslim scholars to the world’s Jewish community.

A galaxy of prominent Muslim scholars and interfaith experts issue on Monday, February 25, an open letter for the world’s Jewish community calling for a dialogue to improve relations between Jews and Muslims who have common ground of shared beliefs.

“This letter is intended as a gesture of goodwill towards rabbinic leaders and the wider Jewish communities of the world,” reads the document.

“Its aim is to build upon existing relations to improve mutual understanding and to further the positive work in building bridges between Muslims and Jews.”

The letter is signed by Muslim scholars at the London-based Center for the Study of Muslim–Jewish Relations (CMJR) with the support of Muslims scholars throughout the world.

Signatories include Professor Akbar Ahmed, chair of the Islamic Studies at the American University in Washington and former High Commissioner of Pakistan to Britain, and renowned Swiss Muslim scholar Tariq Ramadan.

The letter recognizes that tensions in today’s world have worsened the relations between followers of the two faiths.

“Many Jews and Muslims today stand apart from each other due to feelings of anger, which in some parts of the world, translate into violence,” it notes.

“Deep-seated stereotypes and prejudices have resulted in a distancing of the communities and even a dehumanizing of the ‘Other’.

“We urgently need to address this situation.”

It is not the first time Muslim scholars have taken the initiative to initiate dialogue with other religions.

In October of least year, 138 Muslim scholars and dignitaries addressed an open letter to the world’s Christian clergy, including Pope Benedict XVI, for dialogue

Commonalities

The new Muslim letter highlights the commonalities between Islam and Judaism, two Abrahamic faiths.

“There is more in common between our religions and peoples than is known to each of us,” it says.

“Judaism and Islam are both monotheistic religions whose followers believe in the absolute unity of the One and Only God.”

The letter cites a wide range of other similarities that extend from core beliefs to dietary restrictions.

“Jews and Muslims both have elaborate and comparable codes of conduct, laws and jurisprudence, covering all aspects of life.

“The importance of charity (sadaka, tsedaka) is pertinent to the value system of each tradition. Even the dietary procedures (halal and kosher) are comparable.”

The Muslim letter calls for highlighting the “positive encounters” between Jews and Muslims through out history.

“For many centuries our communities co-existed and worked together fruitfully and peacefully.

“There needs to be an awareness of positive encounters at different stages of our history.”

You can read the entire letter here.

While this seems like a positive development, I would not get too carried away by it.

• Why is the letter signed in generic fashion “by Muslim scholars at the London-based Center for the Study of Muslim–Jewish Relations (CMJR) with the support of Muslims scholars throughout the world”? Even though Islam Online lists a number of specific signatories, they do not appear on the letter. Why is that? Could it be that they are afraid to openly espouse warm feelings towards the sons of monkeys and pigs?
• Notice the lack of admission of culpability for terrorism in the world. The letter mentions “tensions in today’s world” which “have worsened…relations,” and “feelings of anger, which in some parts of the world, translate into violence,” as if these are phenomena equally prevalent amongst Muslims and Jews alike. Nowhere is there an acknowledgment that terrorists are using Islam to justify their actions, nor is there a condemnation of this terrorism.
• The letter itself seems to point a finger at Israel when it states: “Most Muslims would hope that the suffering Jews have experienced would make them more sensitive to the sufferings of others, especially the Palestinians.”

I know I may sound overly cynical to some, but until high profile Muslim scholars openly acknowledge Islamic terrorism, condemn it in no uncertain terms, and do not attempt to rationalize it as a manifestation of justifiable anger, I will remain unimpressed.

Yet more evidence that the global Jihad is gathering steam, with a huge terrorist plot in the spotlight Down Under as a terror trial gets underway.

The leader of an alleged home-grown Muslim terrorist group talked of an attack that would kill 1000 people, a Melbourne terror trial heard today.
Abdul Nacer Benbrika, 47, said that in order to make the Government withdraw Australian troops from Iraq a large-scale operation was needed.

Prosecutor Richard Maidment SC said that Mr Benbrika, in conversation with another member of the terror group, said an attack was needed that “would make the Government sit up and take notice”.

“They were intending something big,” Mr Maidment told the jury in his opening statement.

“To cause maximum damage. To cause the death of a thousand…. by use of a bomb.”

The group of Melbourne men bent on violent Jihad planned terrorist attacks on football games or train stations to maximise deaths, the jury was told.

And the director and leader of the alleged terrorist group in Melbourne gave them permission to kill women, children and the elderly, the court heard.

The prosecutor said that according to Mr Benbrika Australia was a country at war and used the term ‘Kuffur’ to describe infidels who did not believe in violent Jihad.

Mr Maidment said that Mr Benbrika believed that it was permissable in pursuit of violent Jihad to kill and steal from the Kuffur.
“Their blood and money is fair game,” Mr Maidment said.

In his opening of the Crown case against 12 men accused of a number of terrorist offences, Mr Maidment said the group was prepared to launch an attack overseas but Australia was the preferred target.

He told the jury much of the evidence they would hear was contained in recordings of intercepted telephone conversations and from hidden listening devices.

From these conversations it was clear, he said, that the accused became concerned that their conduct was being monitored by authorities.

They used a number of conversational, security and anti-surveillance tactics to try and conceal their activities.

Mr Benbrika used at least 10 different mobile phones and eight of those were registered in false names and addresses.

Another accused, Aimen Joud, 23, had 13 different mobile phones , 12 of them in false names and registered at false addresses.

Mr Maidment said Mr Benbrika’s concerns that their activities were being monitored by ASIO and police played “a not insignificant role” in slowing the group’s activities and may have stopped them carrying out a terrorist attack.

The prosecutor said that although Mr Benbrika was the leader others in the group were not “shrinking violets”.

They would argue and make their points of view quite clear to Mr Benbrika.

“They should feel comfortable about the killing of innocent citizens,” prosecutor Richard Maidment SC, told the Supreme Court.

He said that the group’s leader, Abdul Nacer Benbrika, who was also known as Sheik Abu Bakr, used the term Kuffar to describe infidels who did not believe in Allah or subscribe to violent Jihad.

According to Mr Benbrika the term ‘Jihad’ had only one meaning in the Koran and that was fighting the Kuffar.

So much for “inner spiritual struggle.”

Mr Maidment said that in a secretly taped conversation another accused, Abdullah Merhi, asked Mr Benbrika if killing their intended victims would be pleasing to Allah.

Mr Benbrika replied:”You are pleasing the Almighty”.

On trial are 12 Muslim men, accused of a number of terrorist offences including fostering or preparing an attack involving the use of explosives or weapons.

According to its self-styled ‘Sheik’ and leader, Abdul Nacer Benbrika, Australia was a land at war and it was the duty of all Muslims to participate in violent Jihad, prosecutor Richard Maidment SC said.

Opening the Crown case against 12 men accused of a number of terrorist offences, Mr Maidment said the group was prepared to launch an attack overseas but Australia was the preferred target.

“The case is about a homegrown terrorist organisation which grew and operated between July 2004 and November 2005 in the suburbs of Melbourne,” Mr Maidment said.

The members were all male and all Muslim and their purpose, according to Mr Benbrika, was “Jihad in Allah’s cause”.

“By that he meant a violent form of Jihad,” Mr Maidment said.

The prosecutor said in one secretly recorded conversation between Mr Benbrika and another accused, Abdullah Merhi, Mr Benbrika said they were planning something big.

In the conversation, Mr Benbrika says they are not talking about “one or two or three” deaths.

Mr Merhi says “like Spain?”.

Mr Maidment said it was the the Crown case that Mr Merhi was referring to the terrorist attacks in Spain in 2004 where 191 people were killed and 2000 were injured.

Mr Maidment said Mr Benbrika was also heard in a conversation saying Osama bin Laden was a “great man” and praising al-Qaida.

The prosecutor warned the jury that Islam was not on trial and Mr Benbrika’s views did not reflect the true views of Muslims or of any other religious group.

An undercover operative attempted to infiltrate the group, Mr Maidment said in his opening of the Crown case, and had a meeting with Mr Benbrika where ammonium nitrate was discussed.

The operative suggested that 250kg of ammonium nitrate could blow up a large building and Mr Benbrika asked the operative if he could get hold of 500kg for him.

The prosecutor said Mr Benbrika was suspicious the operative might be a police officer and told him the authorities knew someone in Melbourne was planning a terrorist attack.

Mr Benbrika said they should wait but couldn’t say how long.

He also told the operative the group needed money to buy weapons and chemicals.

Mr Maidment told the jury videos, CD’s and other material found in the homes of some of the accused gave a strong clue about the “glue” that held the group together.

It was pro-violent Jihad and murder, praised the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and provided “a revealing window into the kind of matters that interested the accused”, he said.

Videos found in the possession of Mr Benbrika, Mr Kent, Mr Joud and Mr Merhi showed scenes of beheadings of victims in orange overalls like the ones worn by detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

In the videos armed and hooded men would sever the head of a victim with a large knife and then hold it aloft.

There were also videos of snipers shooting American soldiers in Iraq.

Literature was found in Mr Joud’s possession including ‘The terrorist’s handbook’, ‘The white resistance manual’ and ‘The car bomb recognition guide’.

Mr Maidment said the material showed the groups interests and its collective intention of fostering and preparing for terrorist attacks.

That was “Jihad and martyrdom” which would lead to “entry into paradise”, he said.

The prosecutor told the jury the Crown case was mainly encapsulated in the secretly conversations between members of the group. He told them there were 482 that would be played during the trial.

He said there would be little dispute about what was said, although some of them were in Arabic.

On trial before Justice Bernard Bongiorno are: Abdul Nacer Benbrika, 47, of Dallas, Shane Kent, 31, Meadow Heights, Majed Raad, 23, Coburg, Abdullah Merhi, 22, Fawkner, Aimen Joud, 23, Hoppers Crossing, Ahmed Raad, 24, Fawkner, Fadl Sayadi, 28, Coburg, Ezzit Raad, 26, Preston, Hany Taha, 33, Hadfield, Shoue Hammoud, 28, Hadfield, Bassam Raad, 26, Brunswick and Amer Haddara, 28, Yarraville.

The charges include intentionally being members of a terrorist organisation involved in the fostering or preparation of a terrorist act.

Justice Bongiorno has already advised jurors they will be required to devote a large slice of their lives to a case which is bound to be as complex as it is lengthy.

Justice Bongiorno has empanelled the 15 jurors - calling for three more than normal in case of attrition.

He warned all of the 1200 potential jurors that came before him last week that they must put prejudice aside and to excuse themselves if they thought they could not.

“There are people in our community who hold, and sometimes express, attitudes which might be regarded as hostile to, or discriminatory towards, Muslims simply because they are Muslims,” Justice Bongiorno said.

I would venture to say that most Australians “hostile to, or discriminatory towards, Muslims” are not “simply because they are Muslims” but because of terrorist attacks like the one planned, and the relative lack of unqualified condemnation of terror emanating from the Muslim community. Add Sheik Hilaly to the mix, and I’m guessing the gang rapes also do not help.

As a general comment, notice how although the terrorists wanted to make the Government withdraw Australian troops from Iraq, this could not be construed as the root cause of their terrorism, but rather a goal derived from the real root cause: a belief in the restoration of the Islamic Caliphate (Al Qaeda’s primary goal). Unless you understand this, you stand no chance of defeating this malignant enemy.