248
He indicated that it was his opinion that we call true Muslims terrorists as they are described within the language of the Reader's Digest article and he had used the language that the article had used. He said that there are Muslims who read the Qur'an and Hadith and they study for 6 or 7 years and they are true Muslims. The people we was calling terrorists, were those who were trained in the type of schools referred to in the Reader's Digest article 2042.
249
His attention was directed to the statement made at the seminar, where there was a reference to Chapter 5 of the Qur'an, Verse 5, where he is quoted as saying that a Muslin man can marry a Christian woman or a Jewish woman, but a Muslim woman cannot marry a Christian man or a Jewish man and he cites as an example a case of a young Muslim woman who became interested in a Catholic boy and her father killed her because it's not allowed in the Qur'an. The passage ends with the statements "so that's a strict thing". Furthermore, he then states that when Mohammed became powerful he gave another revelation, Chapter 24, Verse 3, that believers should only marry believer, so that this previous one was cancelled. It was put to him that he was telling the audience that Chapter 24, Verse 3, abrogated Chapter 5, Verse 5. It was put by Mr Woinarski that that was not a proper reading of the two suras. He agreed that he had said that Chapter 24, Verse 3 meant that believers should only marry believers and he agreed that sura 24:3, when looked at in isolation, does not say that a believer cannot only marry a believer, but he said that he was thinking about other verses, like Chapter 2, Verse 221. He agreed he did not refer to the other verses and he said that her was merely speaking in the light of studying the Qur'an quite a few times, so that he had in his mind at the time he was speaking those references. On this subject, his attention was directed to Exhibit 249, which is a summary of the Qur'an by him using the name Sidiki. He was taken through the chronology of the suras and in particular column "M" which indicates that Sura 5 came chronology after Sura 24, to which he answered that some authorities place it after and others place it before that date. It was put by Mr Woinarski that 9 out of 11 chronological studies say that Chapter 5 is after Chapter 24 and at page 2054 he agreed that he did not say that and it was put that the verses had been reversed by him in order to establish the proposition which he was putting to the seminar with regard to violence and the allegation in particular that thousands of Christian women are kidnapped and raped. He said the latter was a fact of history.
250
Pastor Scot was taken to the degree of laughter which was heard on the tape and it was put by Mr Woinarski that he wanted to get the audience of the seminar to laugh at some of the things that were said about Islamic beliefs. In answer to that, he said that it was a religious meeting in a church in the context of lively charismatic churches. He said that in relation to his church, they are very cheerful. I interpret that to say that it is quite different from other religions, and he agreed that some of the things he said were intended to be humorous. He said from time to time he paraphrased passages from the Qur'an and intended to inject humour and there was the reference, for example, to the exchange of a wife. In response to a question from me he said that in fact that illustration was not intended to be humour, but people did laugh at it. At page 2106 of the transcript he was referred to the concept of abrogation or cancellation. He said there are 33 types of abrogations. He said that people say there are less than 33 and he accepts that he did not make any qualification at the seminar.
251
His attention was drawn to what he said in reference to Chapter 5, Verse 38 of the Qur'an, namely that the right hand of a thief should be cut off. He said he probably used the Pickthall translation. It was put to him that when witnessing to a Muslim, it is important that you must not say a number of things about their faith which was wrong, because you would not then build up the trust. In that context, he was cross-examined about his treatment of Chapter 5, Verse 38, 39 and 40 of the Qur'an. At the seminar he told the audience that if Allah was merciful, why would a thief's hand be chopped off. It is recorded at page 10 of the transcript that according to the history of Islam, Mohammed did not spare anybody. If anybody is found stealing, even stealing an egg, his right hand is chopped. It was put to him that he had used this part of the Qur'an out of context. His attention was drawn to Verse 39 of Chapter 5, where Pickthall interprets that whoever repents after his wrong-doing Allah will relent towards him and be merciful. He agreed that that was the content of Verse 39. Verse 40 then spells out punishment of a severe kind, e.g. losing a leg, for a further offence. What was put to Pastor Scot was that at no time did he refer to Verse 39 in the seminar, the logic of which the Tribunal finds difficult to understand. When questioned, Pastor Scot said the reference to being repentant and merciful occurs, not after the first offence has been committed, but before the hand has been chopped off. But it refers to a second and subsequent offence. As I understand his evidence, the first verse is therefore mandatory, but the second is an example of what we would call, in the present age, a discretion with regard to mercy. Hence the hand is cut off for theft without mercy and only after a second offence occurs and the offender repents, then the merciful approach applies. Pastor Scot said that these verses are consistent with Islamic law. He said that he did not have time to explain to the seminar the basis for such a view. He was asked about references in the bible to the concept of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth and he said that he would accept such a concept because of his beliefs. He said, however, that Jesus did not break people's eyes and he could not do that. Furthermore, Jesus forgives his enemies and he would also forgive his enemies, whereas Mohammed didn't do that.
252
He generally conceded that the Qur'an was a 7th Century document and when he forms his views about the Qur'an it puts it in context and, to use his words, "the fighting that was going on between people".
253
Mr Woinarski put to him a number of passages in both the Qur'an and the Bible, which are similar, for example, Allah says that Muslims should not befriend their parents or their brethren or any close relative if they are not Muslim and he agreed that the Bible contains a statement that one cannot be a disciple of Jesus unless he hates his mother, father, wife, children, brothers and sisters and even his own life. He agreed that it was in the Bible and the New Testament.
254
Pastor Scot was asked about the Ibraham Ministries International Organisation. He agreed that at paragraph 25 of his Witness Statement that each one of the aims of the organisation relates to Muslims. He was handed the constitution of the Ibraham Ministries International and he agreed that in its objects it makes no mention of Islam. He also agreed that nowhere is the word Muslim mentioned. He was also asked about a conversation he had with a person named Dalton and he agreed that he told him that Islamic terrorism was likely to appear in Australia and he said that he might have used such words as "there was a need to warn Australians of the true nature of Islam". Also, that he had pointed out what had happened in some other countries and said that this could also happen here. He was asked whether the purpose of the seminars was predominantly to warn Australians, to which he said that he could not recall, but that most likely his wording would have been to inform what Islam was and what he knew.
255
Pastor Scot was asked whether he was in favour if inter-faith dialogue, to which he replied that he was, but he was not in favour of discrediting the teaching of Jesus or compromising the Gospel. He said later in his evidence that in some respects he is not in favour and in other respects he is in favour, but what is important is you do not compromise and you do not water down the teachings of Jesus and in that respect he was not in favour of inter-faith dialogue.
256
He was asked what was the artistic purpose of the seminar, to which he replied, it was religious purpose to explain to the church people on certain aspects of the summit? teaching and to teach them how to share Gospel of Muslim, how to answer the questions that some people ask and how to be sensitive towards their customs. That was the purpose of the seminar in that church.
257
He conceded that in general of the 1.2 billion Muslims, most are not fanatics and that the majority of them are like us, simply looking for a friend that they can trust, to which he agreed. He said the purpose of the seminar was to enhance, love Jesus Christ and without being less understood by Muslim people when you are talking with them so the religious duty and that meeting in church was basically this purpose to equip other believers to share Gospel with them.
258
In re-examination, he was asked whether Mohammed could read or write. He had answered "no", and he said that the vast majority of Muslim scholars are of that opinion. There are, however, some that say that there was some doubt about that. Insofar as Sura 57 is concerned, he said that with Meccan and Medina suras, there is a difference between some scholars and it is a very rough type of approximation and there is also no chronological order.
259
He was asked questions about David Hicks and the fact he was mentioned in the seminar and that he expressed the view that he was a true Muslim. He said he was explaining the context of another verse of the Qur'an, which says that true Muslims fight for Allah and that in that context he said that David Hicks is fighting for Allah, or believes he is, and he is like any other true Muslim. He said that when he referred to David Hicks as a true Muslim, he was appreciating that he stands for his beliefs, because he believes that that is what the Qur'an says and he stands by that and he is prepared to die for that and that he was in fact complementing him as a man acting out his beliefs.
260
He was asked about the reference to the volume of women as expressed in the Qur'an and that in his answer he referred to the value as expressed in the Hadiths. He said that there are many passages with regard to the value of women which are contained within the Hadiths and that they made comments about their value, similar to which he had expressed in his evidence in chief. For example, Bukhai, Volume 1, Hadith Number 301, it is said that women are deficient in their intelligence.
261
He was asked questions about the analogy of a woman being like a field to plough and to use her as you wish. He said that you cannot draw the analogy by simply looking at the Qur'an, but you must also look at the circumstances under which the verse was given and if you leave out the context, there is nothing wrong with the analogy, but the context can give a different meaning.
262
He was directed to questions which were put to him that there is a consistency in the Arabic Qur'an and there is a common belief with many Muslims that the real Qur'an is in Arabic. He said that he believes that there was no special incapacity with Arabic language, that it cannot be translated or understood in other languages.
263
He was asked about his reference in the seminar to temporary marriages, that is, not with a wife, but as a form of prostitution, and he said the practice was not confined to one or two countries, but existed particularly where Shia people, such as in Pakistan, Iran and Iraq. He said the reference to temporary marriages arrived from a scholar, Altavadi and there was also a commentary at Chapter 4, Verse 24.
264
His attention was drawn to an answer he gave in cross-examination about conceding that the world today is quite different to the world in which Muslims lived, to which he agreed. He was further asked whether he conceded many Muslims took into account changed circumstances, and he answered, some did and some did not. Asked to explain this, he said that though people are living in the 20th Century, they were required to follow the way Mohammed lived and that has to be followed. There is, however, a process of reasoning employed by Islamic scholars, who say that because circumstances are different, thought has to be given to change, but such scholars are not often very well received.
265
He was asked to clarify whether the seminars which he gave are for the public. He said they are held in public halls because it was a general Christian religious meeting, so everyone was supposed to be Christian.
266
With regard to the number of Muslims in Australia, he said that he believed there were between 350,000 and 400,000 and that he based that on a book written by a Professor who is an expert witness on Islam and he wrote a book entitled "Many Religions are Australian". He says the Muslims were encouraged not to mention their religion and another source was information from the Department of Foreign Affairs, which is commonly available on a website. It is an Islamic website called "Islam in the World" and it nominates 382,000 Muslims in Australia. He said there are much higher figures which some people claim, but he took 350,000. He then referred to Document 198 in the material, which is dated 12 July 2002, where it is stated that the Muslim population is between 281,000 and 450,000 in Australia. This document was put out by the Islamic Council of Victoria. He said that at no time did he exaggerate the number of Muslims in Australia for some purpose of his own. He was asked about a document, Exhibit "M47", which is a book which is freely distributed in Victoria and has a number of pages on Jihad. He said that he had read that book and that the teachings in that book were traditional insofar as Jihad is concerned.
267
Mr Perkins asked him to elaborate on an answer that he gave when he said at the seminar that he taught traditional, fundamental views, but was not limited to that, but he had looked at modern Islamic scholars, such as those living in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Sudan and Iran. He said that he had looked at a range of views.
268
He was asked about the role of Pakistan from an Islamic point of view and he said that Pakistan claims to be the fortress of Islam.
269
He was asked about the explanation with regard to the first 20 minutes missing on the tape and he said that when we entered the church we started with the singing, and everyone was singing and then we had a time of prayer.
270
He was asked whether it was appropriate for him to refer to the Reader's Digest at the seminar. He said that from his point of view that he was of the opinion that there was nothing wrong with that because what was there was a good summary and from the time that he was in Pakistan he had many discussions about Madrassah. He said the Reader's Digest article corresponded with his experience to a limited degree, but he had a much broader knowledge than the Reader's Digest article writer. Nonetheless, he thought it was a very brief relevant summary.
271
He said that with regard to congregations of Christians, they are charismatic gatherings. He said some people come to Church to worship and they have a very sober long face, whereas we believe the Bible tells us that God loves us as his children and there is joy and happiness and we are in the presence of the heavenly Father and we talk to him. He said this type of worship doesn't apply to all Christians, but more of the evangelical Christians. He said that evangelical Christians clap, and sometimes scream even, and he referred to praying in tongues and he said that it is common practice.
272
He said that insofar as he was concerned, there was nothing wrong with using humour in the way in which he did. His attention was directed to the fact that he was being critical of the Qur'an and he was asked whether he thought he was entitled to be critical. He said there was certain passages in the Qur'an which he didn't accept and did not like and that he was entitled to be critical. He was asked questions with regard to Chapter 5, Verse 39 and to explain why Verse 39 was not mentioned and that in cross-examination it was put that he should have referred to it. He said would have been time consuming and he said the detail is that the first time the hand would be chopped off people, the second time the punishment allowed was to cut a leg off, but if you repented, that is, you didn't repeat stealing, then you are spared that punishment.
273
He was asked to elaborate on the answer that he gave to interpreting the Qur'an in the context of the 7th Century when people were fighting each other and he was asked what he understood of the fighting that was occurring in the 7th Century and as to whether it was Jihad or not. His answer was that Jihad doesn't tell you that people have to fight with you. Jihad tells you that you go to extend the boundaries of other's territory and conquer religions.
274
He was asked to elaborate on the references to the Qur'an in the Ibraham Ministries' constitution and he said that generally sometimes he sees Islam interpreted so this is one aspect which comes under training and includes the teaching of Qur'an and Islam and teaching aspects of that nature, but that is not the only thing which they do. We have programs monitoring, caring for people, doing all sorts of things.
275
Furthering re-examination, Mr Perkins asked for an explanation from Pastor Scot as to why he believed that the God of Christianity and the God of Islam are totally opposite to each other in character. His explanation is contained at pages 2,301 and following.
276
I found Pastor Scot to be passionate with regard to his religious beliefs. He sought to quote to the Tribunal the Bible, rather than answer questions directly. Ultimately, however, he would produce a responsive answer. However, his evidence was very unsatisfactory in many ways.