Islamic Council of Victoria v Catch the Fire Ministries Inc [2004] VCAT 2510 | Case summary

Islamic Council of Victoria v Catch the Fire Ministries Inc [2004] VCAT 2510 | Case summary | Zoe

[43]

25

The Respondent does not concede that the ICV has the necessary standing to bring the proceedings.

26

Mr Yasser Soliman was called to give evidence. He said that he was President of the Islamic Council of Victoria, which is a Victorian constituent member of the peak national Muslim organisation in Australia, the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils. He said the ICV is an umbrella organisation made up of approximately 30 major self-governing Islamic organisations in Victoria and is widely representative of the strength and diversity of the Muslim community in this state. It is incorporated under the Association of Incorporation Act 1981. He said that the organisation represents the Victorian Muslim communities on many issues to State, Federal and Local governments and departments, various local and federal authorities, the media, authorities and other organisations. It liaises with federal government ministers, departments and representatives, including ministers for employment, immigration, citizenship and multicultural affairs and the Victorian Multicultural Commission, PACMAC (Pollution & Community Multicultural Advisory Community), and other regional representatives, and with the Victoria Police and Federal Police - the Cultural Diversity Inventory Project - Management Committee with the Department of Justice. He asserts the ICV plays an active role as the Victorian Muslim's peak body for consultation, co-operation and advocacy with the State Government and its agencies. It has a further role in providing the Australian public with information about Islam and its beliefs, as well as the concerns of the Muslim community in promoting understanding and co-operation between all faiths and ethnic groups in combating all manifestations of racial and religious tolerance.

27

He said in making the complaint, the ICV was acting on its own behalf and on behalf of Thomas, Jackson and Eades. After the seminar was conducted, he met with the three individuals and discussed their concerns regarding the seminar. He said the individuals believe that they and Muslims in general had been vilified at the seminar, and sought advice and support in connection with the desire to seek redress of their grievances.

28

After hearing the accounts of the seminar and examining the website material, the ICV decided on 29 March that the seminar and website material could adversely affect the interests of the Islamic community as a whole, and they therefore lodged a complaint on its own behalf and on behalf of the relevant individuals, with the Equal Opportunity Commission. Before deciding to bring this complaint, he consulted the Executive Committee of the ICV and the member organisations of the ICV, including the Victorian Board of Imams and received support. He said the ICV's participation in the complaint is part of its role in representing Muslims in Victoria on social, political and other issues affecting their welfare and interests. In evidence, he produced the Constitution of the Islamic Council of Victoria. When cross-examined, he said that the ICV was a founding member of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils. He conceded that he had not produced the Constitution of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils. He was asked questions with regard to the representative capacity of the Islamic Council of Victoria. He indicated that they had between 24 and 25 member societies in Victoria. One qualifies for membership according to the Constitution and they should have more than 100 members and have a place which they either lease, or own, from which to operate. Societies are required to submit membership lists to ensure that the numbers required are not duplicated and each has the necessary numbers. The ICV also make, on occasions, visits to the various societies to ensure that they are basically operating within the rules, including payment of membership fees. He said that some members are not financial members of the societies. All members and non-members are allowed to attend from the Islamic community, but it is only when it comes to the general meeting, when it is a matter of voting or being voted for, that financial members are allowed to take part in an activity. Mr Soliman said that from time-to-time he makes statements on behalf of the ICV and has authority to speak on behalf of that body and that he has the authority to address religious questions, provided that the comments are things about which he knows. He said that he is not a scholar of the Qur'an, but would regard himself as a student. He said the Board of Imams was not an elected body, but they are appointed by individual societies across the state and they then apply to become members of the ICV, so that it is quite representative of different views and different communities. They, however, have no voting rights and all qualified Imams are automatically honorary members of the Council. He said that although the cost of a membership is $1.00 per person, many societies, in order to maintain registration, have 100 financial members, even though they may have 1,000 or 2,000 members. The critical requirement is that the society have 100 financial members. He conceded that there was no rigid controls or audits of the numbers, but the ICV generally had a good feeling about the number of members in any particular society.

29

Mr Thomas is one of the original complainants. He gave evidence with regard to the institution of these proceedings. He said the Islamic Council of Victoria has a membership list of Islamic societies and he thought there were 25 member societies. He said he was aware of two Islamic groups which were not under the umbrella of the Islamic Council of Victoria, but he was unable to say why they were not so associated. He said that the proceedings currently before the Court were as a result of a decision taken by a Committee of the Islamic Council of Victoria. The Committee is an elected body. Mr Thomas said that the membership of the Islamic Council of Victoria is by way of a society and that individual members do not form part of the Islamic Council of Victoria, but they have individual personal membership of the societies. He said the Islamic Group of Victoria is an umbrella group and he conceded that a number have quite different views, depending on their particular theological bent. He was unable to say what the actual proportion of Wahabists Shi'ites Sunni Muslims or any of the other Sects who are involved in Victoria. He was asked about whether the Islamic Council of Victoria considered the Catch the Fire Newsletter, and he replied that the Committee did so and felt that it, the Newsletter, would cause harm to the community against Muslims in Australia.

30

Having regard to the evidence I have set out, I am of opinion that the complainant has standing. It satisfies the conditions imposed by section 19 of the Act. It is obvious that the structure of the organisation and its relationship to the Societies is an unusual one, in that it would appear that individuals join a Society, which in turn becomes a member of the ICV. In my opinion, the ICV has a sufficient interest in the complaint, having regard to the evidence of Mr Soliman. It is clear that there are other organisations who represent Muslims and who are not members of the ICV, and in particular there is reference to Iska, a Muslim body in Brunswick. Notwithstanding that, it is apparent that the ICV has responsibility for the representation of Muslims in this State. There is some support for that view in Exhibit "M", the Community Accord, which is admissible on the issue of whether the ICV is a representative body. However, I do not give great weight to that document having regard to the fact that it deals with a discrete subject matter, but nonetheless demonstrates that the ICV is a signatory to a document which can be seen as indicating it is representative of Muslims in Victoria.

31

I therefore find that the complainant is a representative body and has standing in respect of these proceedings.

[71]

41

Mr Eades gave evidence by telephone link and indicated that he kept notes of what he heard at the seminar. As indicated, he attended between 11.00 a.m. and 12.30 a.m. Further, he has listened to the tape for the purpose of refreshing his memory, and said he had a clear recollection of Pastor Scot uttering the words which are set out in paragraphs 10. and 11. of the Complaint. In his Affidavit he said that when listening to the statements which were made at the seminar by Pastor Scot he understood him to be saying that Muslims are motivated by the Qur'an to become violent and intolerant when they are powerful. He further said that he believed the behaviour and conduct of his community, and the Islamic faith was misrepresented at the seminar as a result of the statements that were made. He asserts in paragraph 12. of his Witness Statement that it was apparent throughout the presentation that Pastor Scot mocked what Muslims believed and repeatedly invoked laughter from the audience when describing Muslim beliefs. He said that he observed Pastor Scot work on, and with, the emotions of the audience by provoking scorn, fear and hatred of Muslims. He asserts that Pastor Scot selectively chose quotes from Muslim religious texts, adopted questionable interpretations of them and drew unfounded conclusions without anybody challenging him. He conveyed things that were untrue. For example he pointed at conflicts involving Muslims in different parts of the world and said that in Australia Muslims are the same, but just hiding it. He said that he believed that in the context of the seminar with posters stating "Rise Up Australia" displayed, that this provoked scorn, fear and hatred of Muslims amongst the audience. He stated that the audience around him were angry and upset during the course of the seminar, and he can recall hearing very negative comments about Muslims. He said Pastor Scot would incite the audience and they would respond by shaking their heads. He observed expressions of concern among the audience. He said that while there were no actual threats made, there was a feeling that members of the audience were acknowledging what Pastor Scot was saying and that something needed to be done against Muslim communities.

42

Mr Eades said that he confronted Pastor Scot at 12:30pm, during the break taken for lunch, and repeated what he had said in reference to Muslims having the right in their religion to rape the wife of non-Muslims and loot their homes. He said that Pastor Scot did not deny that he said these things, nor did he clarify what he had said. He did say that it would be explained in more detail during the latter part of the seminar.

43

Mr Eades said that he was apprehensive for his personal safety during and after the seminar, had the fact that he was a Muslim been discovered or disclosed. He was extremely upset and disturbed by what he had observed and did not want to experience the hostile atmosphere any longer. He left the seminar feeling hurt, embarrassed, distressed, intimidated and frightened by what had occurred.

44

Mr Eades said that he had read a copy of the "Catch the Fire" newsletter after the seminar. It asserts that it vilifies him on the basis of his Islamic faith. In particular the newsletter:

[90]

46

He states that he has been hurt, embarrassed and distressed by reading the content of the said newsletter and article.

47

When Mr Eades was cross-examined by Mr Perkins, he said that he heard about the seminar whilst he was at the Islamic Council of Victoria. The purpose of attending the seminar was because he was interested in what was being said about his religion. He was aware before the seminar that there may be remarks and talk about Islam being dangerous and violent and there was some concern to have some representation before the seminar. The concern was that there may be some incitement against Muslims. When asked what arrangements did he make with others with regard to their attendance at the seminar, he said he decided to go at the last minute. He left the seminar at the time that he did because he was very upset by what had been said, and he had been there for 1½ hours and said no particular time had been arranged with anybody else to attend, as far as he could remember. When he left the seminar he met Jan Jackson. In a response to a question from Mr Perkins, he said that he did not make the complaint on the basis of what was being said about Muslims in other countries, but he was talking about the Muslim communities in Australia and that was the basis of the complaint. He was not going to defend anyone's actions as to what happens overseas.

48

Mr Eades said his reaction to what was said at the seminar was emotional because the content was putting people in danger. He denied that he lost his objectivity. He agreed that he was very upset and shocked at what he heard and was in tears for a few minutes and this was around the time that he spoke to Jackson. He said he had spent a number of years studying the Qur'an. He asserted Pastor Scot in the seminar was focussing his attention on the Muslim community in Australia. From his point of view, the whole seminar was about Islam in Australia and, indeed, the future of Australia. He conceded that Pastor Scot was entitled to teach on the subject of Holy War, but said he was in fact vilifying Muslims by making statements about their intentions that were untrue and was putting them in danger.

49

He was cross-examined about his knowledge of an Islamic group in Brunswick called ISCA and he conceded that they have a view on Jihad, but it was one which is not representative of Muslims in Australia and that the organisation was not under the umbrella of the Islamic Council of Australia. They were a small separate sect who held beliefs which were not "orthodox Islam", particularly with regard to Jihad as a state of affairs which you bring into existence and put into effect against non-believers. By "orthodox" he said that he referred to the majority of people, that is, the general Muslim population. He conceded that he would not consider himself a Muslim scholar. In his opinion, there are certain things that all Muslims agree about in the Qur'an, and there are other matters upon which there is disagreement. There are certain things that all Muslims agree about, such as the Pillars of Islam and he denied that Jihad is one of the pillars of the faith.

50

Eades conceded that he met with the other two Complainants after the seminar. He attended a meeting at the Islamic Council a few weeks to a month after the seminar. He spoke with Jackson and Thomas and Soliman. He was asked about his knowledge of evangelical Christians and he said that he had been to churches on a number of occasions, and they were charismatic speakers, by which he meant that they were lively and energetic and they would talk to the audience and walk around and there would be singing and dancing and sometimes clapping. He was asked whether Australian Muslims are different to Muslims in the rest of the world, and he said that Australian Muslims fit in and generally share the language and culture with other Australians. Muslims also share similar views on religion on a worldwide basis.

51

Jan Patricia Jackson made a statement dated 12 August 2003. In her statement she had been, as at that date, a follower of the Islamic faith for some 3.5 years. She was informed by a friend from the Islamic Council of Victoria of a seminar that was to be conducted by Catch The Fire Ministries. Accordingly, between 11:00am and 2:00pm on 9 March 2002 she attended the seminar at Surrey Hills. She took notes on what was said at the seminar which are annexed to her statement. She then typed those notes as a record of what she had heard and she listened to the audio tapes of the seminar.

52

She can recall seeing posters displayed at the seminar publicising the presentation and included the following statements:

[98]

54

Pastor Scot suggested that there were millions of people now training in Madrassahs in Pakistan and that they are true Muslims, implying that this fact was a cause for concern or fear in non-Muslims, and the use of mysticism attracting westerners to convert to Islam.

55

She understood Pastor Scot to be saying, through the practice of a "silent Jihad", Muslims plan to impose Islam on Australians against their will.

56

She was present when Pastor Scot ridiculed Allah, the Qur'an, the Prophet and the Hadith.

57

In paragraphs 9 and 10 of her statement, she sets out various statements which were made by Pastor Scot. They include statements such as the best thing that any Muslim can do is to take part in the Holy War in which Muslims will loot people, destroy houses, kill men, take women and children and become very rich, and Muslim people have to fight, unless everybody become Muslim, unless they accept true religion. Muslim men are superior to Muslim women and that the Qur'an confers upon them the right to beat women. There are various other allegations contained in the paragraphs.

58

Ms Jackson said that Pastor Scot conveyed such statements in a unilateral uncontested dialogue and at times in a sarcastic and sneering tone. She was of the belief that the behaviour and conduct of her community and the Islamic faith was misrepresented at the seminar and that the image of Muslims in Australia had been severely damaged as a result. She said that it was apparent to her that throughout the presentation Pastor Scot ridiculed what Muslims believe and repeatedly invoked laughter form the audience when describing apparent Muslim beliefs. The overall atmosphere she describes as being one of denigration and ridicule of Muslims and the Islamic faith.

59

She said that she observed Pastor Scot work on and with the emotions of the audience by provoking scorn, fear and hatred of Muslims. For example, she said that he pointed out conflicts involving Muslims in different parts of the world and said that in Australia Muslims are the same but just hiding it. She said that he implied that Muslim people were violent, intolerant and have ill intent and that Islam will dominate the future of Australia, unless non-Muslims "rise up" to prevent this.

60

She indicated that Pastor Scot invoked negative responses from the audience and that she could recall hearing murmurs, groans, sniggering and laughter from members of the audience. She formed the view that the audience was encouraged to be afraid. She stated that at the lunch break a person, whose identity she did not know, spoke to her and asked her whether she enjoyed the first session and commented that "it was a bit heavy, a bit scary" and that she was scared. Ms Jackson said that she saw this as a direct incitement of fear. She said that she left the seminar at approximately 2:00pm because she was so uncomfortable being there. She indicated that she was shocked, disturbed, insulted and outraged by what she had observed.

61

She also attested to having read a copy of "Catch the Fire" newsletter (purporting to be for the period Summer 2001) which she obtained from the Islamic Council of Victoria following her attendance at the seminar. She believed that much of the content of the newsletter vilifies her on the basis of her Islamic faith. In particular, in paragraph 17, subparagraphs (a) to (h), she interpreted the newsletter stated that the enemy, that is the faith of Islam, had plans to take the land (Australia); that Muslims by their marriage and birthing practices will rapidly increase as a percentage of the Australian population and overtake "Aussies"; that they will infiltrate all aspects of Australian public and religious life for the purpose of stopping the name of Jesus being mentioned and spying on western governments; that the motto of the Muslim is to convert the whole world to Islam either by peace or violence and suggested that Muslims will engage in the same kind of violence in Australia as engaged by those responsible for the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Centre on September 11 2001; that Muslims were gaining entry to Australia ahead of and in preference to Christians from Islamic countries and suggested that Muslims who gain entry to Australia were capable of and would engage in the same kind of violent conduct against Christians in Australia.

62

She also referred to an article entitled "An Insight into Islam" by Richard, dated 24 September 2001, which is located on the Catch The Fire Ministries Inc. website. Insofar as that article is concerned, she asserts that it suggested Islam was an inherently violent religion and that claims by Muslims that Islam was a religion which encompassed the values of love and peace were false; that it was not possible to separate Islam from terrorist groups and that Muslims who claim such groups were "rogue" or separate were lying, implied that Islam and Muslims endorsed the killing and enslavement of whole groups of people based upon their religion, giving an alleged example from the Qur'an about killing of tribes of Jews; characterised the Prophet as a paedophile; described the Qur'an as calling for atrocities on civilisation; characterised terrorism as the very nature of Islam itself; characterised the Qur'an as a text which teaches the killing of innocent in order to further a cause and teaches hate and not love and finally implied that those responsible for the events of September 11 engaged in conduct in pursuance of the teachings of the Qur'an and that terrorism was "intimately tied to Islamic ideals". She concluded by asserting that having read this material that she was hurt, embarrassed and distressed and finally that she held a belief that the seminar, newsletter and article are incitement to ridicule and fear and that their purpose could not possibly have been for genuine academic or religious reasons.

63

When she was cross-examined she said that May Halou had advised her about the seminar and she felt that she had concerns about it and she asked her to go along. This conversation occurred the night before the seminar and the Islamic Council of Victoria was present there as part of a Muslim convert support group. The concern expressed to her was that Christians were going to hold a seminar of Islam without any Muslims being present and there was also concern about the concept of the "rise up Australia". Further, there was concern about the nature and tone and flavour of the advertising in conjunction with the fact that it was not a two-way debate. Ms Jackson said she went home that night not committed to going the next day. Halou then rang her on the following day and asked her whether she would go and Jackson said that because she had no commitments she agreed to do so. The phone call occurred around about 8:30am. She arrived at the seminar at 11:00am and did not know what time the seminar actually commenced. She said that when she arrived at the seminar she picked up a brochure which had on it "Rise up Now or Pay the Price" and she said she wasn't sure what the words "Pay the Price" meant. She said that since the seminar she had checked, not every reference to the Qur'an which was used by Pastor Scot, but she had checked some, and often what was quoted wasn't in accordance with the Qur'an. She said that she could not list suras by number, but she could refer to some of the things that were said which were not a correct reading of the Qur'an. She said that topics which were misquoted were Jihad, martyrdom, the story about the boys in the cave and references to killing and looting and booty. She said that in relation to the word "booty" when she looked up the Qur'an, she found the words "spoils", rather than "booty". Her attention was then directed to the Qur'an Pickthall translation and to verse 19 there is a reference to "booty" and she agreed that the word appeared there. She said that she had been a Muslim for some four years, but that she is not a scholar in the Qur'an. She conceded that if Pastor Scot said that he had read the Qur'an as many times as he had and that was accurate, then he would have a better understanding than she would as to what was in the Qur'an, but she still was of the opinion that some of the quotes from the Qur'an were, in her opinion, incorrect.

64

In response to a question from Mr Perkins, she said that some parts of the Qur'an are inconsistent with other parts. She said that despite the inconsistencies, she believes that it is the word of God and she tries to live the message of the Qur'an in her life. She said that when she reads the Qur'an and the commentary and footnotes that refer to inconsistencies and abrogation she takes them into account and does not ignore them. She was asked whether she had studied the Hadiths and she said that she had one volume, which is basic Hadith, but beyond that she hadn't studied them. She conceded that the Hadiths are a primary source of the obligation for a Muslim when studying the Qur'an.

65

She said that she met Eades at the seminar at the lunch break and they had a discussion about what they had heard. She said Eades was upset at what he had heard and, indeed it had added to her upset. She said he was nearly in tears and shocked. She said that when Eades spoke to Pastor Scot she herself joined in after a while and told him that he was inciting fear. She said people were then gathering around and Pastor Scot said something in his defence, but she cannot recall what was actually said. She said that she was part of a Muslim group called the "Revert Support Group" who are a group of people that have converted to Islam and that the witness Malcolm Thomas was also a member, although Eades is not. She said she left the seminar prior to Thomas arriving because she had had enough. She said she did not know that Thomas was coming. She said that she telephoned Halou and gave her impressions of the seminar.

66

Jackson said that she was aware of Islamic militant action and that the militants adopt interpretations of the Qur'an and she said that she believed that the interpretations by the militants were not in accordance with the Qur'an and what they do in the name of Islam distorts Islam.

67

She agreed that May Halou was employed by the Equal Opportunity Commission and she agreed that Halou encouraged her to go along to the seminar to ascertain whether her pre-existing opinions about the seminar would turn out to be right or wrong.

68

She said that around the time of the seminar, Islam was under the spotlight in the sense that people were saying that terrorists are Muslims and Muslims are terrorists and that they're interchangeable. She agreed that that was a topic of public importance and at the time of her evidence still was. Further, that there was public debate about the subject and material was published by the Islamic Council of Victoria. She agreed that between September 11 and the seminar there was a greater attention paid to Muslims and their beliefs and such issues were in the public domain and that the debate had continued up to the seminar and indeed that the seminar was a response to demand. Passages from the seminar were put to her at a time she wasn't present, when Pastor Scot said that Christians should love Muslims. Her reply was that she heard the speaker calling Muslims liars and that to turn around later and then say, well, we should love them, didn't add up for her.

69

Malcolm Arthur Thomas gave evidence and produced witness statements. He said that he had been of the Islamic faith for a period of 18 years. He attended the seminar between 3:30pm and 5:00pm. He took notes of the seminar and typed them soon after as a record of what he had witnessed and heard. He has also listened to the audio tapes. He said that he could recall Pastor Scot saying that almost 50 percent of the Islamic population were women and they had no choice to accept Jesus as their Lord and Saviour. Pastor Scot said that Muslim children are not free to accept Jesus as their Lord or Saviour. Further, he described an incident where a Muslim male became Christian and he was dragged out of the church and badly beaten because the Muslim culture does not allow young men or women to decide for Jesus. He heard Pastor Scot say that violence in the Islamic culture is very common, in that not only are children beaten, but wives are also beaten. Pastor Scot said that the Qur'an "says that scourge your wife. You know what scourging means? It is like whipping of a slave". He asserted that the statements made by Pastor Scot at the seminar were based on inaccurate interpretations of the Islamic faith and at times entirely inappropriate. He said it was apparent to him throughout the presentation that Pastor Scot mocked and ridiculed what Muslims believed. He also said that he observed Pastor Scot working on the emotions of the audience by provoking scorn, fear and hatred of Muslims. He said he was concerned about what the possible consequences of the misrepresentation at the seminar of the Islamic faith and what effect it would have on the image of the Muslims in Australia. He said that what was said by Pastor Scot invoked fear, that he was hurt and distressed by what he heard and was also intimidated and frightened and apprehensive for his own safety had it been discovered that he was a Muslim. He said that he had read the Catch the Fire Newsletter for Summer 2001, which he obtained from the Islamic Council of Victoria after attending the seminar. He asserts that much of the content of the Newsletter vilifies him on the basis of his faith. He interpreted the Newsletter as describing plans for Muslims to take over Australia; that Muslims by their marriage and birthing practices were increasing their percentage of the population; that they are infiltrating the Australian public and religious life; that Muslims have an intention to convert the world to Islam by peace or violence and will engage in the same type of violence as September 11; accused unidentified Islamic countries of deliberate slaughter and torture of Christians; suggested that Muslims were gaining entry to Australia ahead of and in preference to Christians; and Muslims who gained entry to Australia were capable of the same kind of violent conduct against Christians in Australia. He had also read the article "An Insight into Islam" by Richard and made similar complaints about its content as was made by Jackson. He asserted that the seminar Newsletter and article are an incitement to ridicule and fear and that they could not possibly be considered religious discussion or academic content and that what was said disturbed him and made him frightened.

70

Mr Thomas made a further Witness Statement with regard to Pastor Scot's statement and he asserts that at no stage in the presentation did Pastor Scot make it clear that he was referring to views expressed or published by others. The presentation came across as if Pastor Scot was presenting his views of the Muslim faith. Insofar as Pastor Scot's Witness Statement is concerned, he asserts that paragraphs 34 and 35 stated by Pastor Scot that the vast majority of Muslims did not know the Qur'an and that the manner and presentation by him when referring to Islamic beliefs, reinforce the impression that there was one true interpretation of Islam and he was presenting that view. Furthermore, the manner of presentation was emotive and used sarcasm and adopted a mocking tone. He asserts that when Pastor Scot referred to the need to love Muslims the words were in fact inconsistent with the manner of his presentation and what he was saying about Muslims in general. He said that the presentation portrayed Muslims as dumb, childish, incapable of thinking for themselves, misguided and therefore dangerous.

71

Insofar as the Witness Statement of Mark Durie is concerned, he refers to paragraph 33 and 34 of Durie's Witness Statement and said that slides were presented, but they were not a prominent feature of the presentation and he did not believe that they had the effect of making the presentation more academic, clinical or analytical. His assessment of Pastor Scot's manner was not consistent with an academic presentation. He assessed the reactions of the audience as one of ridicule and of mocking laughter. The audience was not relaxed and was very excited. He said that he felt frightened during the presentation. He said that it was he who asked Pastor Scot the question with regard to the relationship between Muslims and Christians.

72

When cross-examined he said that he did not put the fact that he asked a question of this nature in his witness statement and he denied that the omission was because it did not suit his purpose. He conceded that Pastor Scot's answer was not violent or threatening.

73

A number of questions were directed to him as to how he came to attend the seminar at the relevant time, namely 3:30pm. He confirmed that he was the then Secretary of the Islamic Council of Victoria and that he had had a discussion with one May Halou, who had told him that a seminar was being conducted on Islam and would he be interested in attending. Halou is a member of the Executive of the Islamic Council of Victoria and chair of the Islamic Women's network. He said that he told her he possibly would go along, but did not tell her when. He said he made a decision about 2:00pm that afternoon to go along, when he had finished his responsibilities at home. He said that he had no knowledge of what had been said that day prior to his attendance. He did however later attend a meeting at the Islamic Council of Victoria offices at which Jackson, Eades and Soliman were present. The purpose of the meeting he said was to collect their thoughts on what each person had heard at the seminar and decide if there was any thing that should be done about it. He was unaware as to whether any notes were taken of the meeting. It was put to Thomas that in fact the attendance at the seminar by various people connected with the Islamic Council of Victoria was deliberate in that they had staggered their times so as to fit in with each other and thereby have someone present during the whole of the seminar. He denied that that was so.

74

He was asked questions about how people reacted during the course of the seminar during his attendance. He said it was conducted in a very intimidating, mocking way. He agreed that Pastor Scot's reply to his question was benign and unintrusive, but other words were said within the context of the seminar, which had people laughing, which had people mocking, which had people looking at each other in horror, had people saying hallelujah and amen and that it was quite an intimidating environment. His attention was directed to a passage from the Qur'an which was read by Pastor Scot dealing with three men and a dog and he said that from his point of view Pastor Scot was mocking the Qur'an. He also said that the story which he read from the Qur'an was not accurate.

75

I have set out in detail the nature of the complaint made by each individual. I do so because, although the proceedings are brought by the Islamic Council of Victoria in a representative capacity, it is the individuals who were at the seminar and heard and saw what took place. The original complaint to the Tribunal, together with the Witness Statements, sets out what they observed and heard and the precise way in which they believe that what occurred amounted to vilification. That said, it is for the Tribunal to determine what amounts to vilification, having regard to, and listening to the tape and consideration of the Newsletter and article. However, what was contained in the statements and given in evidence does have a limited probative value. For example, each of the Complainants conceded that they were not "Islamic scholars" but were converts to Islam, but used the Qur'an as a basis for their beliefs and the manner in which they conducted their lives. They were cross-examined about their views of historical events and as to their accuracy and understanding of them by Mr Perkins. Whether their understanding of events or the underlying basis of Islam is correct or not, it is not relevant. Each of them were witnesses, which I found to be straight forward (subject to one exception which I will deal with in due course) and held a belief in their religion which was genuine and, I believe, firmly held.

76

As indicated, I found the evidence of Eades, Jackson and Thomas as genuine. However, there is one aspect of what was said which causes me considerable difficulty. It is quite clear, in my view, that there was, in all probability, a plan to ensure that each of these individuals attended the conference at particular times in order to hear what went on. Their attendance at the seminar on that day conveniently covered almost all of what was said and done. It is asserted by Eades and Thomas that their presence was accidental. Jackson said that she was rung by Hayou at 8.30 on the morning and she agreed to go. I find the evidence of Eades and Thomas difficult to comprehend. I have given their evidence less weight than I would otherwise have done having regard to this doubt as to their reliability. On the other hand, their descriptions of Pastor Scot in working on the emotions of those present is supported when one listens carefully to the tape and to the responses.

77

The use of their evidence is confined to the fact that these individuals attended the seminar and their evidence is probative of method of delivery and conduct of what took place. The real question is the weight which should be given to such evidence, given that these were subjective interpretations of what was said, taking into account that it was a subject matter which went to the basis of their religious belief. The extent to which they were upset at what they saw and heard is a factor to be taken into account. Each said that they were very upset at the proceedings and, indeed, Eades said that he was in tears. That fact must also be taken into account in determining their objectivity.

78

The extent to which such evidence can be used was discussed by Hely J in Jones v Scully. His Honour observed that people affected by what was said and done was subjective, but was admissible to the limited extent that a court or tribunal can use such evidence, but it is not determinative of the actual result. Therefore it may be used in a narrow fashion. Furthermore, even if the three individuals did not attend the seminar, it would not prevent the complaint from being made to the Equal Opportunity Commission and to this Tribunal subject to proof. (See the comment in Jones v Scully at paragraph 99).

79

The newspaper and article were such as to lead to a much wider audience. In fact, I believe that is the reason why the legislature, both in this State and other jurisdictions, have made clear that it is an objective test to be applied. It is the concept of the reasonable person possessing particular attributes by which the test is to be applied, not particular individuals whose sensitivities, be they well held or otherwise, may be subjected to.

[135]

89

Father McInerney's qualifications include, between 1983 and 1986, the completion of a Licentiate in Rome. This dealt with a study of Arabic and Islamic studies at the Pontifical Institute for Arabic and Islamic studies. This ecclesiastical degree is said to be the equivalent of a Masters in a sectorly university in Australia. In addition, he has spent a very substantial period of time in Pakistan which is a largely Muslim country. Further, in 2001 to 2002, he completed a Masters in Theology at Yarra Theological Union, an associated teaching institute of the Melbourne College of Divinity. His major thesis, entitled "Reconciling Differences Between Religions", was one which attracted first class honours. Since 2002, he has been a staff member of the Columbian Centre for Christian/Muslim Relations in the Columbian Mission Institute presently located in New South Wales.

90

He asserts, and I accept his qualifications to comment on the material are his formal post graduate degrees in both Islam and Christianity and most especially the long and wide experience over 20 years in Pakistan. During cross-examination he elaborated on his knowledge of Islam in response to questions from Mr Perkins.

91

He was asked what studies he had made of Islamic religious literature. He said that his initial studies in the seminary included some study in Islam, although it was not exhaustive. In 1983 he went to Rome and did a three year degree in Arabic and Islamics and the course included teaching of the Arabic language, the life of the Prophet, the Qur'an, commentaries on the Qur'an and courses on Shari'a Islamic law. It included courses on the history and expansion of Islam and, as well, the current constitution of some countries and how they apply Islamic law and he has also read various books about the subject. In Pakistan he said he was pastor in a parish so was quite busy in administering to the Christian community, but at times he did teach courses on Islam for which he had to prepare and therefore to read text again, and in the course of his present work at the Centre for Christian Muslim Relations he has been able to read further, including doing research on the internet and looking at various websites. He was asked about he primary sources on the life of Mohammed and he said the first would be the Qur'an, the second the Hadith materials and there were also biographies. He was asked what primary sources he had made use of in relation to the comments of Pastor Scot and he said that he had read the transcript of the seminar which provides quotations from the Holy Qur'an and Hadith material. He said that all Muslims are obliged to follow Mohammed's teachings as recorded in the Hadiths.

92

He was asked about what study he had made of the Qur'an itself and he said that he had read parts of it, he had done a course as part of his studies in Rome on the Qur'an and that the Qur'an is constantly referred to in Islamic sources on the life of the Prophet, on Hadith material, on the expansion of Islam, on the current interpretation of Islam and on the way Muslims today are interpreting the classical text of Islam. He said he had studied the Hadiths as part of his degree studies in Rome. He conceded that he had never read either the Qur'an or the Hadiths "right through".

93

He was asked about the question of whether, in relation to internal Islamic politics, there are people who describe themselves as moderate and whether there are other groups who are described by the moderates as being extremists, to which he replied in the affirmative.

94

The methodology adopted by him in preparing his Witness Statement was to compare various paragraphs set out in the Particulars of Complaint and the Particulars of Defence and to comment on their accuracy. I do not propose to set out in detail the way in which he has dealt with each of these paragraphs. Briefly he states that:

(i)

While it is in the public interest for all citizens to have knowledge and awareness of Islamic texts (from which the laws of Jihad derive, it behoves the one who presents that information publicly to assure that the knowledge and awareness that is presented is accurate and representative, most specially when the leader of one religious group is presenting the faith of another religious group. Whilst he had heard and read derogatory comments about Islam from Christian speakers and authors and websites and equally about Christianity from Muslim speakers and authors and websites, such behaviour ultimately does more harm to the presenter than to the one who is so falsely represented.

(ii)

Whilst it is true that some Muslims have offered monetary advantage as a law to conversion, this is not the general practice of Muslims.

(iii)

It is unfortunate that much polemic about Islam focuses on Jihad and especially on Jihad as a military enterprise. This narrow focus on militancy does not represent the wider dimension of Jihad as struggled to overcome egotism. Nor does the focus on Jihad represent the wider reality of Islam as a religious movement that promotes worship of God, the practice of social justice, morality, ethics and spirituality. Furthermore, contrary to what is claimed in paragraph 12(a), the laws of Jihad do not establish the legal framework in Shari'a for the treatment of non-Muslims. The laws of Jihad concern the self defence of the Islamic community, some of which descriptions do not concern the treatment of non-Muslims. However, the corpus of descriptions of the Shari'a concerning the treatment of non-Muslims, as derived from the Qur'an and Sunnah are much wider than the limited descriptions of Jihad. Therefore, a proper understanding of the treatment of non-Muslim minorities cannot be obtained solely from a study of the Qur'anic text and teachings of Jihad.

(iv)

He concedes that one of the possible outcomes of a careful study of the Qur'an is radicalisation of the student, producing a readiness to commit to Jihad in the form of terrorism; that Islamic terrorists justify their acts on the grounds of teachings concerning Jihad found in the Qur'an and Hadith; that such teachings are presented in certain Islamic training centres; that certain Islamic training centres have been known to produce terrorists; and that certain leaders of Islamic training centres have also been linked to terrorist acts; such radicalisation is only one of the possible outcomes. In fact, he asserts the statement made in paragraph 10(c) of the Complaint is incorrect because most students of the Qur'an do not become radicalised, but rather become committed to fostering peace, justice and community among peoples. Finally, those rare students of the Qur'an who do become radicalised, he asserts it is not the Qur'anic text as such which has led them, but their teachers who use a particular extremist interpretation that is not shared by the bulk of Muslims throughout the world. He finally states that the extremists are a very small minority within Islam who do not represent the whole of Islam and are often publicly repudiated by the majority of Muslims around the world.

(v)

Insofar as paragraph 13 asserts, that if you don't become Muslim your head will be chopped off, if you don't pay the poll tax you have the option to leave the country and that if you don't do that your head shall be chopped off, is a statement designed to attain attention-grabbing sensationalism. He says that contrary to the claim made in that paragraph, the statement is not as claimed and accurate report of the classical laws of Jihad, based upon Qur'an and Hadith, indeed violates the cardinal principle of "no coercion in religion" (see Qur'an 2.256). Finally, with regard to these comments, he does not deny that Muslims sometimes have not abided by this principle, just as it is admitted that sometimes Christians have practised forced conversion under penalty of death.

(vi)

He states that when asserting what the text of another religion says, especially when the issue is controversial and sensitive, it is better to cite the actual text rather than to give a free translation. He then proceeds to give examples of differences in various translations and how they differ. Furthermore, he points out that Qur'anic verse has application to a specific context at a particular time and it is not an incitement to random violence against all neighbours at all times. He points out that some Qur'anic verses refer to a particular time and place when the Nascent Islamic Community was still vulnerable and under attack and needed all able-bodied men to defend itself and he states it is not a general commandment for all times and all places. He states that the popular rhetoric of paragraph 10(h) does not represent mainstream teaching.

(vii)

He states it is a consistent mistake to translate the verb "yuJaHiDun" as "Holy War", that is, a military campaign. The actual word means to strive, to struggle, to make an effort, and he sets out a series of translations to demonstrate that interpretation. He does so to illustrate that the military campaign (in his view) is only a small part of what is required of a Muslim, and only in the dire situation of imminent attack, may one resort to self defence.

(viii)

He states that the Christian tradition also extols those that have been martyred for the faith and proclaims them saints. That is, gives assurance that they have attained heaven and states that it's not surprising that the Islamic tradition would do the same. He asserts however that authentic martyrdom and suicide bombing are vastly different. The authentic teaching of both Christianity and Islam repudiates suicide bombing. He concedes that it is a fact that there are Muslims who have volunteered as suicide bombers, but they do not represent the vast bulk of Muslims around the world. The extremist interpretations that are used to beguile uncritical and disaffected young Muslims to this position are, in his view, repudiated by most Muslims.

(ix)

He rejects the proposed trajectory of Mohammed's career, from peaceful and tolerant when he was in a weak political position, to violent and intolerant when he was in a powerful political position, and states that it is not in accordance with the facts and he then sets out the historical facts by which he justifies such a conclusion.

(x)

Paragraph 38 is set out hereunder as it literally appears in the Statement. I have done so because the Statement commencing with the word "however" and ending with the word "wisdom" are facts which Mr Perkins did not take issue with Father McInerney.

[137]

(xi)

With regard to the complaint in paragraph 11 and the defence reply in paragraph 14 he states that while it is admittedly "in the public interest and in accordance with legitimate religious purposes that these perspectives on Mohammed's life be studied", it is incumbent on the presenter to inform the public that this is one particular perspective only on the life of Mohammed; that it is not the most commonly held perspective; that it is in fact a minority perspective; that it is not the only perspective and that there are others and these have a wider acceptance among the majority of Muslims who have studied the original sources and the tradition as a whole and that a failure to inform the public of the status of one's own perspective does leave one open to the charge of having misinformed the public whom one purports to serve.

(xii)

He also criticises the selectivity of such matters as comments concerning the life of Mohammed, Qur'anic text, Hadith material, scholarly treatises literature and even modern day actual incidents. He concludes that people of reasonable good will, be they Muslim or Christian, would say that such a one-sided selective treatment does not adequately represent Islam, Mohammed or the great bulk of Muslim history down through the ages or the great bulk of Muslims throughout the world today.

(xiii)

He states that certain aspects of Jihad reasonably conclude that Jihad is for defensive purposes, whilst other aspects would allow one to reasonably conclude that it is for aggressive expansionist purposes. Again he criticises the way the Jihad has been dealt with in the seminar, using selectivity and the final presentation is a one-sided distortion of Jihad. That view of Jihad is embraced by a tiny majority of extremists and that the position is that most Muslims throughout history and in today's world would not recognise and accept it as an authentic representation of mainstream Islam. He concludes that when presenting another faith such as Islam to a Christian audience or indeed presenting Christianity to Muslims, clarity and justice demand that it be done adequately and fairly.

(xiv)

Father McInerney in his statement is also critical of the treatment of the Madrassahs in Pakistan. He concedes that they have produced radicals and extremists who became activists in Afghanistan and in Kashmir. He criticises what he calls the populous rhetoric of millions as inaccurate, as is the implication that such extremism is characteristic of true Muslims, let alone most Muslims throughout the world who would be appalled at the indoctrination of gullible students that sometimes takes place in such Madrassahs. He concedes that there has been anti-Christian violence and other bloody incidents in Pakistan, but states that these have been deplored by the majority of people in Pakistan, including many, but not all, Muslim religious leaders. Finally, he asserts that the Madrassahs have not been the only cause of such violent acts and he refers to the wider issues of poor education, corruption in society at all levels of the bureaucracy, administration, police, court and politics, which causes frustration and despair and sows the seeds for extremist solutions.

(xv)

He refers to the sensationalist account of Qur'an 48:18/20 which includes the following:

[147]

95

Father McInerney was cross-examined over a number of days by Mr Perkins. He conceded that he had been active in interfaith dialogue for a number of years and that it was part of the teaching of the Catholic Church. He has addressed Jewish, Christian and Muslim seminars on questions of interfaith relations. When asked whether he spoke in favour of interfaith dialogue, he said that he did and, as indicated, that it was part of the teachings of the Catholic Church. In response to a question from me, Father McInerney said the interfaith dialogue is promoting mutual understanding between adherence of different faith communities. It can be simply a matter of what is called "a dialogue of life", where people live in the same neighbourhood and they get on with one another. It can be a dialogue of understanding, where people share their respective faith and the other person listens and grows in understanding, it is usually reciprocal.

96

He said that when he speaks at such meetings, he speaks as a Catholic priest. He said that his understanding of the seminar was that it was to give teaching about Islam, so that Christians would be able to - those who attended the seminar, the Christians who attended the seminar would be able to evangelise Muslims. He said that evangelisation is a complex topic, it is understood differently in different traditions and it is more usually a clear invitation for people to accept Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Saviour. He was asked whether it was a legitimate religious purpose to teach Christians to evangelise and he said that it was the duty of Christians to witness and to evangelise and that it is contained in the New Testament. His attention was drawn to the Columbian website and it was put to him that it contains all pro-Islam text. He denied that that was a fair statement. He agreed there were similarities between Islam and Christianity and at page 210 of the transcript set out the common beliefs. He conceded that under the Blasphemy Law in Pakistan a person found guilty faced a mandatory death sentence. He agreed that a topic such as "What is Holy Jihad", would produce different views and that as a Catholic priest the only way to decide between the various competing opinions would be to select the most reasonable and the most representative. Father McInerney was asked what did he understand by the expression "rise up Australia". He said that his general impression was that it was the type of language that is used in evangelical church traditions. It was put to Father McInerney that paragraphs 55 to 57 deal with Christian violence in Pakistan and he reaches a conclusion that one of the major problems for Pakistani Christians is not Islam, but the lack of it. He was asked what he meant by that and he relied that if Muslims in Pakistan followed the teachings and values that are in Islam, incidences against Christians and Christian property would not occur. Father McInerney's attention was directed to part of an article he had written entitled "Twenty Years in Pakistan". He conceded that what he wrote was not part of any authorised Catholic doctrine, but basically were his ideas. His attention was directed to a passage which reads as follows:

[149]

97

He conceded that that was highlighting the positive, rather than highlighting the negative. He said that he makes the most of opportunities in dialogue with people by promoting goodness, kindness, justice and service. He was asked how he proceeds to ignore the negative side and he said that there are atrocities committed in Pakistan. There are abuses of human rights committed in Pakistan against Christians and they are reported in the press, but the reality of life lived in the busy city of Lahore, is that most people get on with each other. Christians and Muslims in places live side by side as neighbours and he thought it important to promote to highlight that the majority get on well with each other. He conceded that he was giving evidence about his lived experience. He was asked about the passage in his witness statement where he states that it is in the public interest that people know about Islam and the Qur'an. He conceded there were passages in the Qur'an which spoke about killing captives and he replied by saying that if people want to know what is in the Qur'an they have a right to hear it and if others wish to present publicly what is in the Qur'an they have a right to present it and to be heard, but he would ask that the public presentation be fair, accurate and representative. He said the Qur'an was a sacred text and the significance of it for Muslims is that it is regarded as being the revealed speech of God and that it provides guidance for their living. He conceded there are schools of thought about the Qur'an which have observable differences and there is no formal school of thought which says that something is either right or wrong. He said the scholars who are known by the Arabic word as "Ulamar" have an honorific position of interpreting the Qur'an, but it's not absolutely held, and some scholars have a greater status than others.

98

He was asked what studies he had made of Islamic religious literature. He said that his initial studies in the seminary included some study in Islam, although it was not exhaustive. In 1983 he went to Rome and did a three year degree in Arabic and Islamics and the course included teaching of the Arabic language, the life of the Prophet, the Qur'an, commentaries on the Qur'an and courses on Shari'a Islamic law. It included courses on the history and expansion of Islam and, as well, the current constitution of some countries and how they apply Islamic law and he has also read various books about the subject. In Pakistan he said he was pastor in a parish so was quite busy in administering to the Christian community, but at times he did teach courses on Islam for which he had to prepare and therefore to read text again, and in the course of his present work at the Centre for Christian Muslim Relations he has been able to read further, including doing research on the internet and looking at various websites. He was asked about he primary sources on the life of Mohammed and he said the first would be the Qur'an, the second the Hadith materials and there were also biographies. He was asked what primary sources he had made use of in relation to the comments of Pastor Scot and he said that he had read the transcript of the seminar which provides quotations from the Holy Qur'an and Hadith material. He said that all Muslims are obliged to follow Mohammed's teachings as recorded in the Hadiths.

99

He was asked about what study he had made of the Qur'an itself and he said that he had read parts of it, he had done a course as part of his studies in Rome on the Qur'an and that the Qur'an is constantly referred to in Islamic sources on the life of the Prophet, on Hadith material, on the expansion of Islam, on the current interpretation of Islam and on the way Muslims today are interpreting the classical text of Islam. He said he had studied the Hadiths as part of his degree studies in Rome. He conceded that he had never read either the Qur'an or the Hadiths "right through".

100

He was asked about the question of whether, in relation to internal Islamic politics, there are people who describe themselves as moderate and whether there are other groups who are described by the moderates as being extremists, to which he replied in the affirmative.

101

He said that insofar as the seminar is concerned, what he objects to and does not believe to be accurate is that there is a clear implication that a true Muslim is one who carries out certain acts, e.g. some horrific events in Pakistan, and it's clearly implied that if they read the Qur'an and the Hadith they will come to this interpretation and that the propensity for violence is true Islam. He said he denied strenuously that they are representative of the bulk of Muslims either in Pakistan or in Australia, nor are they representative of a trajectory of 1,400 years of history.

102

Mr Perkins sought to put before Father McInerney a book entitled "The Reliance of the Traveller", which he described as a classic manual of Islamic sacred law. Father McInerney said that he had never heard of the book, nor it's author. His attention was directed to the back of the book where it was certified by Al Azar University, which is the Islamic University located in Cairo, to which he agreed.

103

In the course of this hearing, two approaches were taken by the respondents. The first, was to place in front of the witness a book or an article and to ask that witness whether he agreed with what was contained within certain passages and, if not, why not. Secondly, it was sought to tender various books at the hearing in support of the respondent's case. In the course of argument, I took the view that, firstly, it was quite open to a cross-examiner to put to a witness a statement contained within a book and to ask that witness whether it represented an accurate view of Islamic faith. Secondly, there was an attempt to tender certain books without the author being called, but which set out certain views. Finally, I took the view that ultimately the case should be conducted on the basis that a determination of the admissibility of the questions put to the witness or of the books themselves would be deferred pending my final decision.

104

Following that ruling, I haven taken the view that a party was entitled to place before a witness any statement, subject to relevance, from whatever source could be put to an expert witness, with a view to asking him whether he agrees or disagrees with the proposition about which he is giving expert evidence. I adopted that approach because it seemed to me that, when cross-examining a witness, a person could orally put to such an expert witness a proposition which is contained within the book without naming its source or, indeed, its provenance. I propose to continue to adopt that view on the basis that I believe that it is admissible evidence from a source, although not known to the witness, it is nonetheless, provided that it is relevant, can be asked of an expert witness.

105

A similar difficulty applies with regard to the tender of books. This matter was dealt with in Jones v Scully (2002) FCA 1080. At paragraph 82 of the decision, Hely J under the heading of Historical Evidence and Admissibility, made the following comments:

[156]

109

There seems to be no basis for the tender of a book which falls outside the parameters set in the Australian Communist Party v the Commonwealth, which sets out views which are rejected by the witness being cross-examined. In this case, Father McInerney, who was presented by the applicant as an expert in Islamic studies, was presented with the book in the course of cross examination. The book is entitled "The Reliance of the Traveller".

110

Insofar as the book "The Reliance of the Traveller" was concerned, Father McInerney said he had never heard of the book and Mr Woinarski objected to the contents being put to him. Mr Perkins asserted that as an expert he could comment on the principles that he was about to ask him, about which he could make comment. I accept that in the course of conduct under objection it was conceded that the book was published through Al Azar University, which is an Islamic University in Cairo. Certain passages of the book were then put to him for comment. Most of the propositions that were initially put to him were ones that he had not known about. At page 274 of the transcript, it was put to him by Mr Perkins that the world's Islamic literature includes this book, which was put out by a reputable University and stated to be a classic manual of sacred law. He was asked whether he was suggesting that it was not, to which he replied "Not at all". Furthermore, it was put to him that you don't suggest that they are not part of a classic statement of Shari'a law, to which he replied "No". It was further put to him that in the book, at page 598, it was asserted that, for Islam, politics and religion are one. After objections from Mr Woinarski, the question was withdrawn and Father McInerney was asked the question on the basis that leaving aside the assertion contained in the book, whether it was true to say that for Islam there is no real distinction between politics and religion, to which he replied "Yes".

111

Father McInerney was asked what he understood by the meaning of the work "apologetics", to which he replied "the word is defending one's own faith against criticisms made by another and answering those criticisms". He conceded that it was a subject taught in theological circles and that it was a religious exercise, although he had not played any part in it. He conceded that there was an injunction to Christians on the one hand and Muslims on the other, from their respective articles of faith, that they should go out and witness to those who do not share their faith and that the process is carried on as a public debate by both sides.

112

He said that the activity of evangelising, and that it is carried on by both sides, namely Christians and Muslims, wherein the latter it is described as "Dawa", the intent and activities however have the same purpose. He accepted that for a Christian evangelising Muslims can be a religious activity. Insofar as the concept of proselytism, in his view it was negative and something which he did not support and when asked to describe the difference he said that proselytising involved various inducements which may be material or ideological. He conceded that the seminar run by Pastor Scot and one of its underlying intentions was to allow people to minister to Muslims.

113

The witness was asked about when he was first approached with regard to giving evidence in this matter. He said it was about the 6th of August 2003 and he received a call from Phillip Knight, who asked for his opinion on a dispute between the parties. He said he had listened to the tapes and he often speaks about Islam; sometimes one to two times per month. He said that although he has not read the Qur'an from cover to cover, he is familiar with the main theme and the teachings of the Qur'an. He said that a version of the Qur'an in Arabic text was in fact a standard version and that he understood that the purpose of the seminar was to help Christians evangelise Muslims.

114

Asked why, in paragraph 9, he said it was unfortunate that much polemic about Islam focussed on Jihad and especially Jihad as a military enterprise and why he made that statement. In reply he said because it is one-sided and that it is not representative of the range of matters covered by Jihad. There was a group of militant extremists who teach the practice that terrorism is acceptable in furthering Muslim cause and so we had the "incidents" of 9 September, which was, in turn, condemned by leaders around the world, including politicians, Christians and Muslims.

115

He agreed that here and elsewhere, public debate had focussed on Qur'anic injunctions and that it was a matter proper for the investigation of Pastor Scot, who took no issue with the fact that it was proper for people to consider the link between behaviour and teachings. He said, however, in paragraph 10 of his Statement that the focus on Jihad was not accurate and in particular the concept that Islam had been spread by the sword, which he described was a popular misconception. At page 312 of the transcript, he describes the reasons why.

116

He agreed that he had no great knowledge of the legal framework of Shari'a, but said that he was entitled to offer an opinion on the subject matter because he has knowledge about it. He conceded, however, he had not researched the legal framework of Shari'a. Although he had no great knowledge of Shari'a law, he had sufficient knowledge to form the conclusions which he had.

117

He was closely cross-examined with regard to the paragraphs commencing from number 10 onwards. In particular, he as asked about the doctrine of religious dissimulation. He conceded that he had revised his view, which is expressed in paragraph 11, wherein it is stated that a doctrine is peculiar to Shi'ism and does not apply to all Muslims. He said that that was what he had understood, but some two weeks prior to giving evidence he had looked up the Encyclopedia of Islam and found that that was not a correct statement. He was asked why he did not, as some expert make a practice of checking, what they're saying or what they're going to say before they actually commit it to print. To which he answered that he had neglected to do so and that had he looked it up, it would not have appeared in the form in which it does at paragraph 11. He was asked about the final sentence in that paragraph which states "the generality of Muslims would be no more prone to lying than the generality of Christians". He said that what he meant by that was that each of the groups, Muslims and Christians, would, to use my words by way of interpretation, would have no greater percentage than the other. He accepted that this had absolutely nothing to do with social science, but that it was merely a statement of faith. The same applied to paragraph 12, wherein he said that it was not the general practice of Muslims to offer monetary or other advantages as a law to conversion. Whilst he accepted Pastor Scot's statement that he knows the people that have been offered money, insofar as Muslims that he knows of, he has no personal experience or anecdotal information. In response to a question from me at page 354 of the transcript, he said that the offer of monetary and other advantages as a lure to conversion is not the general practice of Muslims as he knows it.

118

He as asked what he meant about radicalisation of students in paragraph 13 of his Statement. He said that there are some texts in the Qur'an which if interpreted literally out of context could lead a person to extreme behaviour in terms of violence and that can produce an unsatisfactory outcome. He was asked with regard to whether there are any rules for the interpretation of the Qur'an and he said there were none, but that he relied upon the reading that he has done, the study that he has undertaken and his years of lived experience in Pakistan among Muslims.

119

He was asked about Mohammed's rise to ascendency in Medina and the expulsion of Jewish tribes from that City and the killing of some 800 to 900 people. He said he had not read any books and he was not a historian by training. He said the slaughter was not a racial matter, but occurred because of the contravention of a pact. Father McInerney explained by background and described it as a violent and horrible event, but pointed out that people lived in violent and extremely contested times when the event occurred. Asked about his moral judgment on the event, he said it had to be placed in the context of the breaking of a pact in 6th Century Arabia, where there was conspiracy and punishment followed. It was reprehensible and horrible, but it was not done on the basis of religion. He denied the Jewish tribe were killed because they were critical of Mohammed. He reiterated that acts and judgments upon them must be judged at the time of the event and not by 21st Century standards which have altered. He was asked finally about Muslim extremists and he said there were people who do take an interpretation of the text without adverting to the context and without a personal appropriation of the truth and the value that is intended. These people would provoke violence and acts of terrorism and actually kill or condone killing in the name of religion and they were what he would call extremists. He named Osama bin Laden, Zahladi, Ali Ruhn and the bombers in Indonesia and said he would be concerned about Jamah Islamiah.

120

Finally Mr Perkins indicated to the court that he did not intend to challenge at all part of Father McInerney's statement which reads:

[158]

121

Father McInerney, however, admitted that it was the Muslim extremists whose existence he admits have their own brand of practising the Jihad to which he replied "That's correct". When re-examined he said there were two things he would like to make very clear. The first, that we are talking about 6th Century Arabia and what happened then cannot simply be applied directly to the circumstances of today. The second thing he would like to make clear is, in particular terms, the different verses of the Qur'an where addressed to different situations and to interpret those texts without averting to or being aware of the situation which occasioned the words, ultimately is to misrepresent it.

122

Finally, he was asked about having completed a three year Licentiate in Arabic and Islamic studies at the Pontifical Institute for Arabic and Islamic Studies and he said that study which he engaged in, was of the Arab language because it was the original sources of Islam, the Qur'an and Hadith. Beside the formal language studied, he studied the life of the Prophet, the Qur'an and some of the commentaries on the Qur'an, but it was selected passages. He indicated the Qur'an numbers 114 suras, some 6,000 verses, so it's impossible to have studied the entire Qur'an, but the major things of the Qur'an he had studied and the verses which constitute those. He also studied the expansion of Islam through different Islamic empires, the Hadith and how the Hadith was gathered and in some instances created. He studied Islam in Pakistan; he studied the constitution of different countries; and courses on Shari'a Islamic Law, the latter which is a specialisation in its own right, as Canon Law is a field of specialisation in its own right in the Catholic Church.

123

He said that in the time that he spent in Lahore, he found that most people got on with each other, Christians and Muslims living side-by-side as neighbours and that was in the context of a population of 6 to 7 million of which 96 percent were Muslim. Objection was taken to that assessment of the percentage, but I propose to allow it on the basis that it is no more than a guess or approximation and will be accorded the limited and appropriate value that results there from.

[165]

127

He saw nothing in the Catch the Fire Ministries material which demonstrated that the authors or speakers had attempted interaction with Australian Muslims.

128

He said that using the testimony of converts to describe negatively the group from which the convert has come is a common technique among Christian Evangelicals and is usually not harmful. But in this case where such teaching is used to demonise another religious group and to raise fears about it, it crosses the line from personal testimony about a faith journey to a misuse of such testimony to create fear and suspicion.

129

He said that Muslims have risen to 1.5 percent of the Australian population through immigration and a comparatively high birth rate, but further growth is entirely dependant upon these factors and is very likely to flatten out as birth rates continue to decline towards Australian norms and as the group ages. Rising to more than 3 percent is extremely unlikely and rising to an unnaturally significant block is unimaginable. Even if the growth rate of rising 0.4 percentage points per 5 years were continued, in 50 years Muslims would be just over 5.5 percent of the Australian population. He then compared such growth with Buddhists and, in short, said that any prediction of a future in Australia with Muslims as a dominant electoral force is based upon fantasy and not a realistic assessment of demographic projections. He stated that the Catch the Fire Ministries representation of Australian Muslims as a unified homogenous community is not correct and is unlikely ever to be so. He then put Muslims had come to Australia from over 62 different nations, which makes them one of the most ethnically diverse religious groups and are unlikely to be susceptible to block voting or unified opinions on any issue.

130

He states that the Catch the Fire Ministries presents Australian Muslims as being a singular religious homogenous group, characterised by the beliefs and interpretations associated with only one tradition within Islam, namely, Wahhabism. This is a particular form of Islamic fundamentalism which arose if Saudi Arabia and which provides the theological legitimation for Al Qaeda and Jamah Islamiah. Australia has very few Muslims from Saudi Arabia, Yeman or the other Gulf states and while there are 1.1 percent from Egypt, they largely arrived 30 years ago, before the rise of this teaching. This distribution does not provide a basis for the argument that the teachings described by the Catch the Fire Ministries are wildly held by Australian Muslims.

131

He further asserts that while the Catch the Fire Ministries makes much of Sunni and Shia differences, the Sunni Shia distinction is not significant in Australia. He said that many mosques in Australia are attended by both Sunni and Shia Muslims and the leaders have been careful not to import the difference between these groups into Australia, but rather are seeking a way to be Muslims in Australia rather than following overseas models.

132

He said that based upon his research and experience with the Muslim communities in Australia, it is his opinion that Muslims in Australia are not seeking to establish an Islamic state, but are trying to find their way forward as Australian citizens who are also Muslims. His study of Australian Muslims clearly indicated that they migrated to Australia to improve their lives and set about getting jobs and educating their children like every other group of migrants to Australia. Many had expected to return to their homelands, but remained, having established families in Australia. They have received support from the Australian Government for the establishment of mosques in this country.

133

He said that based upon his research and experience with the Muslim community in Australia, it is his opinion that Muslims are no more likely of becoming the monolithic fearsome force described by the Catch the Fire Ministries.

134

He states that the Catch the Fire Ministries is right insofar as it argues that there is some attempt on the part of Islamic leaders in the gulf states to impose their views. However, there is no organisational structure in Islam to enable this and not all of the views espoused are the same as the Wahhabist interpretations of the Qur'an they depict. Each mosque is separately governed and aside from federations and councils there is no capacity of one group to dictate its interpretation to others or to declare orthodoxy or a single moral code. There is much diversity in Islam in general and Australia in particular.

135

He argues that Pastor Scot's view is that if scripture says "x", "x" will be done and that this is altogether simplistic and insulting to religious cultures, including Islam. All scripture requires interpretation and he points out that the literal interpretation in the bible of bodily harm, as expressed in Matthew:7/9 is not literally followed.

136

He states that scripture is interpreted within particular cultural situations. Australia has a norm of low temperature religion. Charismatic Christianity is as offensive to this norm as is Wahhabist Islam. He states that his study of Australian religious and spiritual life in comparison with other countries describes this culture. Religious groups that migrate to Australia over time tend towards this norm. He concedes that every religious group has its radicals and they always constitute a minority, almost by definition, as they define themselves against the majority. However, to raise fears about Islam because it has risen to 1.5 percent of the population on the basis that some Muslims somewhere might become a dominant view in Australia, would be like a group raising fears about the rise of Pentecostals in Australia, because large numbers of Pentecostals hold certain views in the United States.

137

He said he has been having on-going interaction with leaders of Muslim communities in Australia for over 12 years. Those interactions have occurred in Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia. He states that he has been impressed by the patience, willingness, the counsel, calm and forgiveness when under attack from those, usually Christians, who would limit their capacity to worship, block attempts to build mosques and harass those who were identified as Muslims by their dress. He states that Muslims participated in community events to mark the events of September 11 and the Bali bombings. They have been willing to open themselves to visits by curious Australians offering hospitality and information. They have condemned the activities of others of their faith that have raised concerns and fears. They seek to be accepted as full participants in Australia's religious life.

138

Professor Bouma was cross-examined by Mr Perkins. Professor Bouma said that he could not reconstruct the precise way in which he came to be engaged by the complainants. One mode was certainly with the receipt of an email from the complainant's solicitors.

139

At page 484 of the transcript he was asked did he understand the concept of a world religion, to which he replied in the affirmative. When asked what it is, he said it is a western construction of various religious forms, which categorises various people's beliefs and practices and organisations into convenient categories for analysis. He was asked whether Islam is a world religion, and he said it is usually conceived as such and treated in the same way by scholars. He agreed that Christianity is a world religion. Asked what features lead them to being so classified, he said the commonality of belief and practice of a group that extends, is extensive and large within the world. It was put to him that the concept of world religion is generally used to distinguish other religions, which are not treated or conceived as being world religions and he agreed with that proposition and said that there was a very long list of those that are considered not to be world religions. He said that he considered Islam and Christianity being in the category of world religions. He was asked whether there was a diversity within Islam and he said yes, the same way as there is a diversity within Christianity. He said that the ordinary person on the street tends to lump Islam into one single category even though that is not correct and, for example, the media are beginning to understand it.

140

When asked what studies had he done to support what he had said, he indicated that he has just conducted a nationwide study on religious diversity in Australia, involving community studies in each capital city and all communities in which questions were asked of not only religious leaders, but of ordinary members of various congregations and religious bodies and that study provides a solid basis for the information that he gave. The study was funded by the Department of Immigration Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs, but he was not in a position to produce it at this stage.

141

Asked about other research he had done, he said there was an edited volume he had written which dealt with the emergence of religious diversity in Australia and the cultural context of the acceptance of diversity as being normal in a wide diversity of religious groups. He said he had a particular knowledge of the sociology of religion and of things which have in the past been facets of religion, such as the notion of apostasy. He said he was not familiar with the fact that apostasy was part of English law until relatively recently. Asked about blasphemy laws, he was aware of their existence in English law. Asked with regard to Australian law, he said that he was not aware that blasphemy law has been interpreted to protect only Christianity and not Islam. He said that during the course of the seminar, there was reference made to other countries and that he contra distinguished them from what was going on in Australia. His attention was drawn to paragraph 7 of his Witness Statement in which he said that the seminar, in teaching about Islam, appeared to treat all Muslims, including Australian Muslims as being the same as a small radical minority of Muslims. He conceded that he had not conducted any studies or surveys with respect to Jihad. When asked about the small radical group of Muslims, he said that the beliefs outlined at the seminar are those associated with a particular strand of Islam; one which he would rightly describe as being far from the majority of Islam anywhere in the world. It is radical, it is a minority and it is not necessarily located in one place. Asked where it is located, he said Haddism emanates from Saudi Arabia and is one of the streams of Islam which is a very complex and richly diverse religion. He said the fact that it is a minority is relevant substantially to any notion of being fearful of it, particularly in Australia. He said the tenor of the material which he had read could be claimed that the proposition in the Catch the Fire material is that all Muslims are violent. His attention was drawn to page 82 of the seminar and he said that that was an example of the mentality of the material in the seminar, treating Muslims as one group, and one group holding a particular set of very negative beliefs which can really only be attributed to a minority, and if the speaker at the seminar had some caveat in respect of this matter, he did not notice it. However, his attention was directed to a statement made by Pastor Scot, where he said that some Muslims think that violence is not the only way and Professor Bouma said he did not notice a statement to that effect. Asked whether he was an expert witness with some sympathy for the Islamic Council of Victoria's case, he said yes, that he had been concerned for the treatment of religious minorities in any and all societies, including Australia. That concern was for their wellbeing and that they be allowed to function and practice without interference. He said that he did not listen to the tapes of the seminar, but read the material. He was asked about the frequency with which Pastor Scot talked about praying for Muslims in the course of the seminar. He said that he couldn't venture a number, but he agreed that Pastor Scot considers that important.

142

His attention was directed to paragraph 16 of his Witness Statement where he said there was some attempt on the part of Islamic leaders in the Gulf States to impose their views. He was asked what evidence he had with regard to that. He said that it arose from his reading of studies of the activities of some of these groups. When asked to name which groups, he said the Wahabists, which come out of Saudi Arabia in particular and they were influential. When asked to name other groups, he said "I can't name any others". Asked why he couldn't name some other groups, he said that he couldn't say and it was then put to him he was speaking as generally as he can with a view to simply supporting the Islamic Council's of Victoria's case, which he denied. He said that he believed from his readings that Islamic leaders in the Gulf States impose their views in order to support Wahabist views in other parts of the world and that sometimes includes financial support, literature and general support. Asked whether they do that in Australia, he said that he didn't know for sure.

143

His attention was drawn to paragraph 18, where he said that picture is interpreted within particular cultural situations. He said that what he was meaning by that is that the culture within which it is interpreted will affect the way that it is interpreted. He conceded that he had not carried out any studies on the Qur'an, but had read it "cover to cover". He accepted the proposition put to him that Pastor Scot, whether you accept his views or not, had made a systematic and significant study of the Qur'an.

144

He was asked what he meant by the word radical and he said it was a group which presents its views as being the core views and their interpretation of the views that must be held in order to be a true member of that group. He placed the people who hold Wahabist views within that category.

145

He was taken to the objectives of the Islamic Council of Victoria and the fact that one of them was to promote the true teachings of the Qur'an. He conceded that there would be diverse views with regard to the teachings and could be described as opinion. He agreed that in Islam, in the absence of an authoritative figure, such as the Pope in the Catholic Religion, it is impossible to say that something is a true Islamic teaching. He agreed that the existence of controversy over the meaning of the Qur'an is almost inevitable.

146

He was asked about Madrassahs and he said that they were Islamic Schools. He was asked about the article from the Reader's Digest, which was quoted by Pastor Scot, and the reference to the Madrassah, which is described as the Jihad factory and, further, whether he thought that the conclusion was not right. In answer, he said that the article describes Madrassahs in Pakistan and makes statements about what is taught, but it has no bearing on anything that is happening in Australia at all.

147

He was asked about his comment in paragraph 18 that charismatic Christianity was offensive. He said he did not use that word in a derogatory sense. He said that charismatic Christianity goes against the norm of low temperature religion, which is an Australian pattern, and that Australia as a general nation of orientation takes religion easily and not too seriously. So when groups try to raise the temperature of Australian religion, as would Wahabist Islam or charismatic Christianity, they operate against this general norm and find themselves having difficulties achieving their ends. He considered that his personal rhetoric was much in line with the proposition that people who don't conform to the average are offensive. He was asked about his particular interest in a religion and he admitted that he was an Anglican priest and had been so for some 20 years and ministers in the Church St Martins in Hawksburn.

148

He conceded that since September 11 he had spoken to the public forum which included Mr Yasser Soliman and that there were expressions at the meeting of views about how important it was to place emphasis upon community building, understanding and accepting different religions and beliefs and maintaining a harmonious society. He also conceded that the views expressed at the conference were in favour of interfaith dialogue.

149

He was asked about his statement in paragraph 7(d), which stated that the seminar provided motivation to a small number of Australian Christians engaging in inflammatory remarks about local Muslims, as though the attributions engaged by the Catch the Fire Ministry were accurate and perpetuate violent acts against Muslims. He considered that in relation to Catch the Fire Ministry, he had no direct or indirect evidence with regard to them being engaged in such sort of conduct and he said he justifies his statement because as part of his research he has encountered Christian groups, who have been actively involved in the anti Muslim activities, using this sort of rhetoric. He was again referred to statements made by Pastor Scot about loving Muslims. He said he was not suggesting that Pastor Scot was telling lies when he made that comment. He then added that it was an interesting form of love that says "I love you in order to change you from what you are to something you are not". He conceded that the Bible said that Christians should go out and proclaim the word of Jesus. He was asked whether Pastor Scot was doing precisely that and he said "I'm not saying that I didn't think he was doing anything other than that" and that he is in defence of minority religious groups. But the question is under what circumstances, and how one in this society carry out the whole business of religious competition. We have to have a fair and equitable floor for doing that and to be able to respectful presenting our own cases as clearly as we can, but that is not often best done by being terribly negative about other groups. In a multi-faith society with respect, then you start with respect and present your goods in a religious economy in which competition occurs and a fair description of what goes on is there, but not denigrating the goods of others. It was put to him that it can't be denigration of a religion to discuss its holy book in terms of what it means, to which he answered "it can be if it is done in too negative a way". He conceded that statements about loving Muslims was a statement of a religious purpose. However, on re-examination about the activities of other Christian groups I allowed this questioning under objection and having read the material I believe it's not relevant to the Respondents to have Professor Bouma's evidence.

[166]

150

The Complainant called Dr Kazi to give evidence. He is currently retired, but held the position of Professor of Islamic Studies in the International Islamic University of Malaysia and prior to that was the Associate Professor at the University of Melbourne teaching Arabic and Islam. He has made three Witness Statements in this matter which have been tendered in evidence (see exhibit "N"). Dr Kazi was asked to explain what are Hadiths and what place do they have in Islam. He said that Hadith must be read along with the Qur'an. The Qur'an is the word of God as preserved and as it was revealed, word by word, and it is believed to be absolutely authentic text. Hadiths are narratives which speak of what the Prophet Mohammed says or did, or approved, in the presence of his followers and companions. What he said and what he did were later passed on from generation to generation by people who heard them and at a subsequent time were written down. The earliest collection survived in the middle of the 2nd Century and most of them date back to the 3rd and 4th Century of the Islam era. Since a great deal of time had passed, the Hadith scientists worked out a system of verification and the one which proved the highest test, was accepted as absolutely true. Others were of a lesser character. These are the ones which have been witnessed and reported by a great number of companions who heard him say or saw him and these were reported by a sufficient number of the disciples down the ages. He said that the position of Hadith is that it explains the Qur'an and really institutes a law of its own.

151

The methodology used by Dr Kazi in his expert Witness Statement is to identify passages in the defence and to explain the shortcomings and why they breach the Act. The Tribunal finds this an unusual approach to the issues, but in the final analysis it is regarded as acceptable when one has regard to the nature of the complaints which are set out in the initiating document together with a reading of the transcript and having listened to the tape.

152

Before dealing with these issues, it is appropriate to deal with the question of the expertise of Dr Kazi as this was directly challenged by counsel for the Respondents. In the opinion of the Tribunal, there were reasonable grounds to test the expertise of this witness. This is because when he commenced to give evidence, paragraphs 2 and 3 were the only statements of the witness' expertise. Although one can draw certain inferences from those paragraphs, they fall far short from what could be expected of a witness in demonstrating expertise. To a certain extent this defect was remedied by the provision by him of a relevant CV which has been separately tendered and which constitutes Exhibit " ".

153

Nonetheless, Mr Perkins, although conceding Dr Kazi's expertise in Arabic but no further, it is therefore necessary to deal with the evidence given by Dr Kazi with regard to his expertise.

154

Dr Kazi conceded that his engagement came about as a result of a contact from Mr Phillip Knight, who is associated with the Islamic Council of Victoria and who he had met on a number of occasions earlier. It was put to him whether he knew the difference between an independent expert and an expert. He acknowledged that an expert should be independent and was then provided with material by the lawyers acting for the Islamic Council of Victoria. This included transcripts and witness statements and he said in evidence that the material that he was given was not attempting to guide him in any way. He said he was a retired Professor of Islamic studies from the International Islamic University of Malaysia and that he was there from 1992 to the year 2000 and prior to that was an Associate Professor at the University of Melbourne, where he taught Arabic language, literature and Islamic studies. He said he received his Arabic doctorate in 1958. He said he joined the University of Melbourne in 1961 and became head of a Department which taught Hebrew, Arabic, biblical studies and Islamic studies. By reason of becoming head of the Department he was accorded the title of Associate Professorship. He has prepared a thesis which was a comparison of two manuscripts for the same book, one of which was found in the British Museum and the other in the Vatican. It was presented some two years ago, but it has not yet been published.

155

Mr Perkins asserted that whilst Dr Kazi had expertise in Arabic, he had no expertise in Islamic law generally, nor did he have expertise in the law of Sunni Islam. Dr Kazi said that his thesis basically dealt with the Sunni Schools of Law and apart from the Zaydi School, whose manuscript he edited, he has also made reference to the Imami School. He said that Zaydis, while they are a branch of Shi'ites, the theology and law are closer to the Sunni School than they are to the major Shi'ite School. He was asked whether he had published any work on Islamic law, to which he replied in the affirmative, and nominated two publications. He said that all his writing was academic and none political.

156

Taking into the account the answers which Dr Kazi gave in cross-examination and the relevant positions he has held, I am of the view that he is sufficiently qualified to give evidence with regard to Islam.

157

Turning to the Witness Statement, Dr Kazi identifies the following matters which I shall attempt to state as briefly as possible.

(i)

Of item 12, page 3 of the Defence, he asserts that the statements made under (a) and (b) are misrepresentations or misunderstandings of fact. He stated that Islamic law (Shari'a) and Jihad is part of the Islamic international law and as such relates to a war between a Muslim state and a non-Muslim state and that it does not relate to the treatment of non-Muslins within a Muslim state. In paragraph 6 he quotes a Muslim Scholar of the 13th Century who notes that Jihad is a war waged by Muslims whenever their security is threatened by infidels. Further, from his reading, there is not a single piece of evidence in Islamic legal discourse which instructs Muslims to wage perpetual war against those nations which fall outside the sovereignty of the Islamic state, or to kill non-Muslims.

(ii)

He takes issue with item 13 and the second paragraph of the Defence which suggests that in Islam telling lies or deception is permissible under circumstances. He states that such assertion has no basis in Sunni Islam which constitutes 85 percent of the Muslims of the world. The only possible exception is Taqiyyah, which only operates in particular circumstances and he concludes that denying truth is tantamount to denying God as one of his names is truth.

(iii)

In the defence to paragraph 10(b) of the Particulars of Complaint he states that using the money in the form of a bribe to entice someone to accept Islam is not endorsed by the Qur'an.

(iv)

In the defence 10(f) to the Particulars of Complaint it is alleged that the Qur'an and the life of the Prophet to encourage Muslims to kill people, loot people and destroy people and that although this allegation is repeated many times there is no such teaching or encouragement for such acts in the Qur'an.

(v)

Where the Particulars of Defence refer to paragraph 10(g) of the Particulars of the Complaint he states that the law of Jihad has nothing to do with the issue of Jizyah. Jihad is war between a Muslim state and another, whereas Jizyah is a tax levied on non-Muslim subjects as a fee for exemption from military service.

(vi)

The defence to paragraph 10(h) is one in which the Respondents will say that the statements are accurate reports of what the Qur'an teaches and that when war breaks out, Islamic scholars have the role of advising on the rules of engagement. Professor Kazi says that the references in the Qur'an which are quoted, namely Chapter 48, verses 16 and 17, in fact deal with Bedouin Arabs who, according to their ancient custom, were keen on going on raids when there was a chance of greater booty to be one. The Qur'an was attempting to turn their attention away from such a cause. There appears, however, to be a concession made by Dr Kazi on this aspect where he states that some Muslim preachers exaggerate the Qur'anic injunctions to suit the occasion and to exhort Muslims to embark on Jihad. The justification for that is the environment of political conflict and repression in which Muslims in many countries find themselves today and that exaggeration or highlighting of a point for political purposes is not confined to Muslim preachers.

(vii)

In response to paragraph 10(i) the complaint alleges that the Qur'an states that true Muslims are only true if they take part in holy war and that this statement has been taken out of historical context, it being related to the fact that the Muslim state at the relevant time was threatened by the Pagan forces of Mecca and hence the exhortation appropriate to the time.

(viii)

This relates to paragraph 11 of the complaint. It states that Pastor Scot said that whilst there are many verses in the Qur'an which speak non-violence, there are many more which speak nothing but violence. The proposition advanced by him at the seminar was that when Mohammed the Prophet, the founder of Islam, when he was poor and without power, taught gentle things without violence, but when he became powerful his armies then started receiving new revelations. The Respondents say that this was precisely the situation and that the pattern of Mohammed's life can and does influence Muslims to adopt, as a matter of doctrine, more peaceful, tolerant strategies of coexistence when they are in a weaker political position, and more violent and intolerant strategies when the Muslim community achieves greater political dominance. Dr Kazi, in relation to these competing versions, demonstrates that Pastor Scot was looking at the Qur'an text in isolation. As I understand Dr Kazi's explanations, the life of the Muslims at the time went from being a small dispersed community in Mecca to a state in Medina which no doubt had a far reaching effect upon the relations of Muslims with the outside world and, having become a state, a new set of dynamics came into operation mainly, the defence of the state by Muslims. In response to that it is said in the Defence that it as a matter of public interest and in accordance with a legitimate religious purpose that these perspectives on Mohammed's life be studied and that nothing in paragraph 11 constitutes vilification.

(ix)

The next matter which is addressed by Dr Kazi are items 21 and 22 on page 7, which relate to paragraph 16 of the Particulars of Complaint. This is the reference to the "silent Jihad six times approach". Dr Kazi said that such an approach had no basis in the text or in practice in Muslim history as far as he knew, that the use of business connections was no different and evidenced elsewhere and, in his view, no Muslim is known to have busied himself marrying non-Muslims with the sole purpose of converting them to Islam and, indeed, most Muslims prefer their children to marry other Muslims and, if possible, from their own cultural ground. He asserts that the other points mentioned in the "silent Jihad" are likewise mere allegations and are not mentioned in any literature.

(x)

Paragraph 17 of the Particulars of Complaint refers to the Qur'an, Chapter 48, Verse 18, in the context of the booty/spoils of war that a soldier may get from the soldier he has vanquished. Professor Kazi points out however that the verse does not go on to say "you will loot people, you will destroy their houses, you will kill men, you will take women and children, etc.". He asserts that neither this verse nor any other verse of the Qur'an, nor any saying of the Prophet give licence to a Muslim to kill or harm any person, Muslim or non-Muslim, except in a legitimate armed conflict. Furthermore, that insofar as the Prophet is quoted as "I desire that I should be killed in Allah's cause and then make alive and the be killed again ...", it is said to extol the virtue of martyrdom of giving one's own life for the cause and not for the killing of others.

(xi)

This refers to paragraph 26(a) of the defence and deals with paragraph 18 of the complaint. Dr Kazi states that the Hadith quoted is true, but is not understood by Muslims in a literal sense. The word "fighting/combating" has been taken literally, rather than figuratively. Taking it literally would go against the Qur'anic principal of no compulsion is allowed in the matter of belief [Chapter 2. Verse 256]. Further, verse 9 of Chapter 61 makes no mention of fighting at all. Insofar as there was a reference to the Qur'an, 9.56 - 57 has been misinterpreted to suggest that Mohammed became powerful when people started becoming Muslims. He states the context of these verses as when Mohammed migrated from Mecca where he had been prosecuted to Medina the majority of inhabitants welcomed them and accepted Islam and the City of Medina became a Muslim city state. While there were a group of people who did not accept the Muslims and living in a Muslim society and in fact felt sympathy with the Meccan pagans who were reading the onslaught against the Muslim state. Dr Kazi says this was the dilemma and that the verses under discussion in a sense described their psychological and social dilemma.

(xii)

Item 26(b) asserts that in the Qur'an Chapter 4.69 according to the defence allows martyrs to intercede on behalf of their parents and other relatives, this honour and permission supposedly becomes a big incentive for parents to send their children for martyrdom. However, Dr Kazi states that the verse quoted in fact says nothing of the sort and he quotes a verse which makes no mention of parents and relatives. Dr Kazi further states that giving up a life for a good cause and the resulting pride experienced by parents exists in all societies, Muslim and non-Muslim.

(xiii)

Item 26(c) suffers from distortion as Muslims belief human beings as descendents of the same race are equal. Dr Kazi says that contrary to what is alleged the Qur'an asserts that race and gender are not valid basis for a person's superiority. Race and gender are "God given" and are not a valid basis for a person's superiority. That lies in the knowledge of the truth acquired by man and an affirmation of the truth and in living righteously. These virtues can and should be acquired and anyone who acquires them is superior. The defence (26c) refers to the fact that Jews were first regarded as the best people in the world, but when Jewish people didn't give money to Mohammed for the Holy War, then Allah told that the Jews are the worst people and they are your worst enemy. So it depends, that if you give money you are good and if not you are bad. Dr Kazi says in response to this that Jews as such were not declared superior, but were chosen for a period of time in history of mankind in that ultimate sense. Once they ceased to perform that task, they ceased to be chosen. Further, he states that tasks were divinely guided moral and spiritual development of human race received a new insight and impetus for the life and teachings of Christ which was then entrusted to his disciples. The Qur'anic view of Christianity as it involved is twofold - the Qur'an is on the one hand critical of the Trinitarian theology, but on the other hand, is appreciative of Christianity's spiritual dimension, which manifests itself amongst the genuinely religious people in their devotion to God and in compassion towards God's creatures. Furthermore, any suggestion of superiority of men over women is not based upon gender, but on the basis that men are physically stronger and are breadwinners for the family. If men treat women as inferior despite Koranic injunctions, it is old cultural values which have continued in some sections of Muslim society.

(xiv)

This refers to items 34 and 35 in the defence. Item 34 looks at the percentage of women in Islamic society where they have no choice but to accept Jesus. Even in Australia, Muslim children are not free to accept Jesus as their saviour. Culture doesn't allow young men and women to decide for Jesus, so we need to pray that God will somehow make a way for them. Further, it refers to cultural violence in Islamic culture as being very common and that it is in the public interest to discuss these matters. Dr Kazi quotes the relevant Qur'anic verse that states that men are the protectors and the maintainers of women because God has given them one more strength than the other and because they support in what they have. Dr Kazi says that reading all the verses in the preceding paragraph, one can see that the purpose of them is to guide people to manage their family unit as much as possible, keeping it intact and harmonious. In support of that, there is a quote from a commentator on the Qur'an, Muhammas Asad, pages 109 to 110. Furthermore, Dr Kazi says that sociologically speaking domestic violence appears to be a widespread phenomena across religions and cultures.

(xv)

In respect to items 44 and 45, in item 44 the defence states that Islamic doctrine provides a foundation for those Muslims, some of whom proclaim upon a foundation provided by Islamic doctrine that establishing a Sharia states it is the duty of all Muslims who plan or hope to impose Islam on Australia. A liberal democracy is a system of government alien to Islam and should be opposed as a principal of religious obedience. The first two respondents say that the holding of these positions was attributed either to all Muslims or Australian Muslims in general and that a robust discussion of such religious teachings was in the public interest. Dr Kazi states that Muslims of Australia would like Australia to remain by large what it is today, namely, a liberal democracy, multi-faith and multi-cultural. They do not hope or plan to impose Islam on Australia. Dr Kazi further states that the demographic increase of Muslim population in Western countries is due more to migration from Muslim areas and refugees and less to a deliberate higher birth rate and demographic changes in ethnicity and religion have been taking place throughout the world. As to the claim that Muslims play a divinely sanctioned role to exert influence upon Australian political life, lacks any basis and he supports this by reference to the lack of Muslim members of Parliament, both State and Commonwealth, and their participation in other levels of Government.

(xvi)

Insofar as paragraph 35 and the article by Richard is concerned, the Respondents generally say that these are reasonable conclusions to draw from a careful study of the Qur'an, the Hadith and the Suras. They do not admit the claim with regard to lying and say that Islam does endorse killing and enslavement of whole groups of people who refuse to submit to Islamic rule. Further that the reference to genocide of a tribe of Jews by Mohammed is attested to in Hadith collections, Sura traditions and by virtually all scholars of Islam, Muslim and non-Muslim alike. Further, that Mohammed married his wife, Aisha, when she was a girl of 6 or 7, consummating the union when she was 9 and Mohammed was in his 50's and that they say that the desire to marry a girl of that age would in our culture be regarded as paedophilia. They also allege that this aspect of Mohammed is example from the basis in Shari'a law for marriage of pre-pubescent girls and this forms part of Shari'a law in some nations of the world today. The defence, in paragraph 49, states that the Qur'an calls for the destruction of people who oppose Islam and that incitement to commit acts of terror in Jihad is intrinsic to the Qur'an, being an example of Mohammed. It's further stated that the Qur'an teaches Allah loves Muslims and Muslims must do the same and it teaches that Allah hates non-Muslims. Finally they say that the Muslim terrorists act in accordance with their understanding of the teaching of Islam, and further say that the aims and methods of terrorists are intimately tied to Islamic teachings both in self-understanding of the terrorist and in truth.

[170]

159

With regard to the third Witness Statement, he states that of 237 supposedly Jihad (fighting on the path of Allah) verses mentioned by Pastor Scot, very few qualify for inclusion in that category. At least 50 of the verses mentioned by Pastor Scot have no connection with war, fighting, aggression, struggle, killing, booty, et cetera. Pastor Scot even included some Meccan verses (numbers 25, 29, 37, 39, 40 and 42) in the Jihad category, although there was no armed conflict between Muslims and the pagans of Mecca in that period. He notes, for example, that punishment for murder (chapter 2.179) has been counted by him as a Jihad verse when it has nothing to do with that subject matter. Dr Kazi listed Jihad verses used by Pastor Scot. At page 3 of his statement he lists the key Jihad verses in Pastor Scot's list. Dr Kazi gives a general outline of the history of the prophet Mohammed's life in the Meccan period and later in the Medina period. In the first period there was no arms struggle on the part of Muslims, but on the contrary they were living in a hostile period. In the second period, that is the Medina period, Mohammed and his disciples fled from persecution in Mecca to Medina and it was only after that period that Jihad, whilst retaining the Meccan sense of effort and struggle, increasingly took on the added meaning of arms struggle in defence of their belief and the community/city state. At page 3 of his statement he sets out particular verses and places them in their historical context. This is elaborated by him in his evidence and as part of the cross-examination. Dr Kazi asserts that the interpretation and presentation of Pastor Scot's interpretations of the Jihad verses are both incorrect and misleading.

160

Dr Kazi was cross-examined about his chairmanship of the Islamic Co-ordinating Council of Victoria between 1991 and 2001. He said that this was a body which was parallel to the Islamic Council of Victoria and that it includes some 11 societies, which he was able to name. He said the Islamic Co-ordinating Council had a constitution. He said that he was chairman of the multi-faced resource centre, which comprises 7 faith communities and he did this from 1988 to 1990. It had ceased to function and was an organisation which included Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists. It was an attempt to establish a resource centre which members of other faiths could come and meet each other and literature could also be accommodated. In general it was to encourage good will amongst all religions. He has also been a member of the Royal Muslim League since 1991, which is an organisation to gather representatives from different countries, to discuss the issues and express whatever support it can give to their struggle and to their needs.

161

Dr Kazi said that he was also a member of the Islamic Society of Victoria Preston. The objectives of that organisation were read to him and it was put to him that they were political, to which he replied that they are not political and neither explicitly or implicitly and that the objectives were drawn from other non-Islamic charity or organisational constitutions. He agreed that part of the aims of the organisation was to vigorously combat and correct misrepresentation of Islam and false propaganda through the proper legal channels. He stated that any organisation or any media which misrepresents Islam and particularly accuses it of something wrong or puts Muslims in a bad light, that the organisation should be able to combat that by correcting the impression and do it within legal means. Dr Kazi conceded that a person has a right to their own faith and their own belief and their own terms, however, that in respect of the Qur'an he concedes that there is no central authority in Islam as far as Qur'anic interpretation is concerned and that has been so for all time. He said that there are rules as to how to interpret the Qur'an and, indeed, a number of scholars, including one Taymiyah, has mentioned in documents this subject and as well as there has been a book written on how to interpret the Qur'an. He conceded, however, that there were a number of approaches.

162

He was asked about the dichotomy between Church and State in Islam and it was put to him that there was a consistent body of Islamic thought that there's no dichotomy to be found between Church and State. When asked about the comment by one scholar that Islam is not a religion, but a comprehensive system of life, and whether he agreed with that, he said yes and no - in that Islam there is no organised structure which could be called "people of the Church". He said that Shari'a has not been the law of the State in most of the Muslim countries and that the law that is in most Muslim countries is a law that is important. It is not indigenous and it is a kind of foreign body which people find difficult to understand and difficult to implement and live by. He was asked what is an Islamic State and he said it is one which identifies itself as an Islamic State. As to its exact nature, it depends from state to state, what content it has. One cannot give a blanket answer to what an Islamic State is and he contrasted the position in Iran and Pakistan. It was put to Dr Kazi that no matter where in the spectrum of views that one holds, each person is entitled to say that their views are the views of the true Muslim. His answer at page 1243 of the transcript was that there are no Councils which in the sense pontificates in Islam and there is freedom for anyone to express a view. He regards himself as a person who has views which reflect and are close to the view of the majority of Muslims, that is, he is in the mainstream and that his views are a reflection of the average. He conceded that if somebody had a view which was different, one could not say that this is wrong.

163

He was asked about whether he knew an organisation known as ISCA, which he replied "Yes". He said that they are a small minority group which exist and have a belief along the lines of "them or us", and in terms of continuous struggle, and he described them as a combatant group.

164

He was referred to the book "The Reliance of the Traveller". He said he had not read that book and was directed to 9.8 and 9.9 of the text which talks about making war against Jews, Christians, conversion to Islam, the penalties if they don't do so, and also to a passage regarding the rules of warfare. He was asked whether the book could be said to be a classic manual of sacred law. He answered that it was written by an author in the 13th Century who belongs to the Shafi'i School of Law. Firstly, he said it was not a medieval classic text. Secondly, that it was written in Egypt, at a time when Mongols invaded Iran, Iraq and most of Syria and Egypt were surrounded. In reference to Imam in the book, he said that his reading of a text which was shown to him indicates the limit of the author's contextuality and of his understanding of Syria (1295). Insofar as the book was concerned, his attention was directed to the Certificate of Alazar University, confirming that the translations correspond to the original Arabic and certifies the translation corresponds with the Arabic original and conforms to the practices of the faith of orthodox Sunni community. Dr Kazi conceded that the University of Alazar, an old established University with a good reputation as a place of learning. Although he had some reservations about certification by the University, he agreed that the book was part of Islamic legal discourse. Criticisms he made of the book, was that the author was summarising some of the views of the Shafi'i School and is not reflecting his time. He said that what the author thought in terms of earlier scholars within his School, within his line of thinking, is accurate and is appropriate, but as a text it was not appropriate in terms of advice and of the 13th Century. It is inappropriate in terms of advice in the 20th Century. Despite by being pressed by Mr Perkins, Dr Kazi remained critical of the book and said that the author's treatment of the subject was out of time and place. It was put by Mr Perkins that he had set out to take a particular attitude to the book "The Reliance of the Traveller" without having read it, without having read the certificates and without knowing about it, to which he replied that "it can be translated by anybody".

165

He referred to paragraph 6 of his Witness Statement and confirmed that he hadn't read the seminar transcript or the notes of the seminar at the time it was made and that he had relied upon the detail which was contained in the complaints and that which was also contained in the defence. Later he obtained a copy of the transcript of the seminar. Dr Kazi said that he had not been previously called in any court or tribunal to give expert evidence. He said he prepared his Witness Statement without reference to any precedent as to how it was to be done. He said it was a natural thing an intelligent person should be able to do and he did not know of any right answers as to how an expert would prepare his statement. He said that he "checked out the Qur'anic versus and the Hadiths", and looked at translations such as Pickthall, Yousef Ali and Lal Hilari.

166

He said that when preparing is statement, he noted that the word Jihad was used as meaning to fight and that many of the verses in the Qur'an do not always mean fighting, but struggle. For example, all of the versus revealed in Mecca definitely do not mean fighting.

167

He conceded, that his Witness Statement did not have a bibliography. He said he did not think it was necessary because it was not a document for publication, but for the purposes of giving evidence. He also conceded that he had reference to books and had given a summary without reference to actual pages. He was asked why in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of his Statement he did not deal with what was said at the seminar with regard to the topics of those paragraphs and his answer was that he presented the basic argument that Qur'anic verses cannot be understood without the knowledge of the context and many of the verses which were quoted in the seminar were given without context and in fact they were quoted to support an argument taken out of context.

168

He was asked about this Witness Statement of 14 October 2002 and in particular paragraph 2 where he states that he read Durie's statement which said "no single view of Jihad is correct" and he said that he agreed with that view.

169

He was asked about his comments whereby he said that when he first made his statement of 18 August 2003, he had only read the particulars of the complaint, but that when he listened to the transcript he was more alarmed. It in fact strengthened the view that he held about the seminar when he first read the complaint and defence. It was put to him by Mr Perkins that he had, as early as mid 2002, been made the spokesman for the ICV on this particular issue. He denied that. It was further put that he was emotional about July 2002 over what was said in the media about Muslims, the Qur'an and Mohammed and in particular he was asked about a response he made to an article by Andrew Bolt in July 2002. It was put by Mr Perkins that before October he was upset, emotional and not independent and dispassionate as an expert should be. He denied that he was emotional and stated that he was a very rational person. He did, however, concede that in relation to the Andrew Bolt article that he said that it was infuriating him. Essentially, what was put to him by Mr Perkins was that he had adopted views before he had read the transcript and before he had considered systematically and methodically what the actual facts were. He said that he made his statement in the way that he did because he had no idea that the seminar had been recorded and that a transcript was available.

170

He was asked about Chapter 9, Verse 5 of the Qur'an and he said it referred to events in the 8th Century and had no application after that date and he said that he formed this conclusion from the literature.

171

Dr Kazi was questioned about the killing of Jews of Keraza which Mr Perkins described as genocide. Dr Kazi questioned the use of the word "genocide" and in his witness statement he said it was an unsubstantiated story and there were not sufficient witnesses to give it any degree of certainty. His attention was directed to literature which dealt with a report from one of the survivors, which was a young boy. Dr Kazi conceded that the literature does contain such reports, but the basis of the statement is unsubstantiated, and that if an event of such a magnitude occurred, then there would be more witnesses, particularly townspeople. He said the reason for its veracity is being questioned on the basis of that criticism, although he conceded that it is mentioned in all six Hadith collections.

172

He was asked about chapter 4 verse 89 in the Qur'an which it was put to him requires that Muslims should kill those who turn away from Islam. He agreed with that, but he says it does not suggest that you go on a continuous war against non-Muslims. He said in fact the verse relates to and addresses a group of people in Medina and not outside. As I understand, Dr Kazi is saying that this verse in the Qur'an deals with a particular situation and not with a general direction to Muslims to engage in fighting and killing.

173

His attention was directed to a book entitled "The Decline of Eastern Christianity" and he conceded it is a well known and reputed book. He said that you do not accept everything that is in it. Indeed, he referred to one particular paragraph where he said the author was trying to point out with a definite aim in mind, being eastern Christianity's decline because of Islam and that he (Dr Kazi) proposes that that is not right because eastern Christianity survived because of Islam and because of Mohammed's openness and tolerance, whereas Muslims in Spain did not survive. He was taken to other pieces of literature such as that relating to Apostasy, which he states, contrary to some views, that the death penalty does not apply unless the Apostate joins the enemy and fights.

174

He was asked about the politics in Indonesia and was shown an article in a newspaper entitled "Jihad Bombings Man" and he was asked "What are the circumstances which would make it necessary for such a ban if it's already banned in the Qur'an?". The answer was as follows: "That the recent spate of bombings are being carried out by some individuals led, perhaps, by some religious leaders. The leadership is emerging because the true leadership doesn't exist and the models before them, that is the models of confronting the forces of capitalism, that is a leftist movement of communism or socialism which has emerged in the Muslim world". As I understand it, he is saying that that was the reason for the ban and that it has nothing to do with Jihad theology or Jihad law.

175

He was also asked about Sura 8 verse 30 and Mr Perkins put to him that it states that God is the best of liars. Dr Kazi denied that the words say that, and he pointed out the words in fact say that Allah is the best of plotters. He said that particular translation by a person called Bical was misleading and totally wrong. In that regard, the Tribunal has looked at Exhibit "7", which is the translation of the Qur'an by Pickthall, which uses the words stated by Dr Kazi and not what was put to him.

176

Dr Kazi was asked about his witness statement at paragraph 9 where he said the Qur'an does not encourage Muslims to kill people, loot people and destroy people just because of their religion. He described in evidence any allegation to the contrary as being absolutely untrue, unless, as I understand it, you are involved in armed conflict. He also said it was totally unfounded to suggest that the slaughter of non-believers in Islam is encouraged. Again he reiterated that in all the literature and the history books, including that which was referred to by Pastor Scot, the reference is to actual battle that took place on both sides where people are killed. He was referred by Mr Perkins to a book which states that Islam is perpetually at war. It was my understanding his answer to that is that that is a literal statement, and the references to morality and immorality and that good and bad are perpetually at war from the beginning of life to the end, and that Islam stands for truth, justice, light and morality, and there will always be people who are not happy with that, and that there will be perpetual scuffles between the two, and that is how he understands a passage of that nature.

177

He was referred to paragraph 10 of his statement that the laws of Jihad have nothing to do with the issue of Jizyah. That Jihad is a war between a Muslin state and another. Jizyah is a tax levied on non-Muslim subjects as a fee for exemption from military service. It was put to him that these two ideas are novel. In answer to that he said that when he was referring to Jihad as a war between a Muslim state and another, he said that the latter could be Muslim or non-Muslim, and that it is well documented and beyond doubt, and that when fighting took place, either both sides or one would claim that this was a Jihad against the other. Insofar as paying a fee to avoid military service, there was an exemption which relates back to a Christian tribe in Syria, that it continued and in fact it is now used in a number of Muslim countries where military service is compulsory, particularly Turkey and Syria where a person who does not wish to join the military service may seek exemption by paying. He denied the proposition put by Mr Perkins that it was universally agreed that Jizyah is a tax paid by Christians and Jews and others so that while they can never be full citizens equal with Muslims, they can have the status of tolerated persons and the protection of the Muslim authorities. In answer to that, Dr Kazi said: "Generally speaking, yes. This was the case in medieval times when the suppression of communities and non-involvement in military defence was the operative principle, but it is not the current position and it has not been for hundreds of years". It was put that it applies wherever Sharia law applies and he said that he has seen no evidence for that and he is not aware in any Muslim country, whether old or a republic, that non-Muslims are paying this tax.

178

With regard to the organisation ISCA he said that he was aware of it but had little association with the organisation, but he knows something about them. He said that he believes they represent a point of view which is extreme and unrealistic, and in his view harmful to the Muslim cause, and they do not represent any views of mainstream Islam. It was put to him that he has no expertise as a sociologist or demographer, in respect of which he said that it was unnecessary to do so, insofar as forming a judgment is concerned.

179

He was taken to paragraph 26 regarding his views on domestic violence and again it was put to him that he had a lack of sociological qualifications in that regard. He said in order to make a statement with regard to domestic violence, it is the duty of the researcher to establish a factual basis for the domestic violence and at present there is no study of comparative violence and to say that it is greater amongst Muslims is a statement purely based upon prejudice. Without a proper statement, it is all conjecture that is often prejudicial.

180

He was taken to paragraph 32 of his statement with regard to Mohammed's marriage and he was questioned about his statement that laws and values of the 20th Century cannot be applied to customs of the 7th Century. He said the law of Sharia has evolved, it being part divine, part human, and it enshrines the eternal values as well as the values and concerns which are part of the 20th Century. Asked whether he found the circumstances of marriage once someone has reached the age of puberty moderately repugnant, he said no. Later he said that the circumstances in which the marriage took place and was consummated is, in our terms today, morally repugnant. He said that, as I understand it, one cannot use a set of cultural values and people living them at one time make a value and moral judgment on a totally different people in a different cultural context. Asked whether they are bound to treat the life of Mohammed as an example of the morality which they apply in their own lives, he said: "That is so in a general sense, but you do not follow it in every way". He said he did not think that Muslims want to live in an archaeological age, whatever that may be.

181

Dr Kazi was re-examined by Ms Mortimer. She put to him Exhibit "O", which was produced during cross-examination. It was his curriculum vitae, which contains material which should have formed part of the content and form of his expert report in accordance with VCAT Practice Note 2. Mr Perkins cross-examined on that document, but no attempt was made to tender it until re-examination. Despite the failure to produce such a document at the appropriate stage, I propose to allow its tender. The Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence, although essentially they have been followed in the course of this hearing. The document is one which had been provided to Mr Perkins. It was used early in the cross-examination. This document should have been before the Tribunal well before this date. The criticism is well founded, but -

[176]

184

Mr Soliman was asked about meetings which were arranged prior to the seminar. He said there were no formal meetings, but discussions on a casual basis which suggested that the seminar may be of interest, and a number of us became interested to go. There was no specific arrangement. After the seminar, people started giving each other feedback and for the first time people met at the ICV. He said the purpose of going to the seminar was to work out and engage with all sorts of different communities at a time when it was felt that we were become too isolated and we thought that this was a particular event that was important for us to engage in on behalf of the Muslim community. During the course of the hearing, I asked Mr Soliman, given that he knew that the seminar was coming up and thought it important to attend, was there any attempt to make contact with those running the seminar to indicate that their attendance was going to take place. He said there was no indication, we just turned up as in the poster and that it seemed to be an open invitation. He agreed that he does make contact with church groups and they turn up without prior contact, but they may not where there is a public meeting. He said that when interfaith groups' churches had specifically had functions related to Muslims to interface dialogues, we just turn up. It's an open invitation. There would certainly be prior conduct if they had been requested to attend with an RSVP. He agreed that, not only did he have no contact with the respondents prior to the seminar, he took no steps to engage in dialogue with them after the seminar and, following a discussion, took the complaint directly to the Equal Opportunity Commission. His explanation for that was that they formed the view that the respondents had already set in their mind what Islam teaches an they weren't really open to a discussion about that and he referred in particular to the feedback that he received from Eades, following his encounter with Pastor Scot. Mr Soliman was asked by Mr Perkins as to why the three complainants were recent converts. Mr Soliman said at that particular time at which the seminar was held, a lot of volunteers were afraid to come out of their houses and go on public transport and be involved in many activities. He said that they didn't have many people available to do many things and the fact that they were converts meant they could feel safer in moving around in the community and for other people who weren't converts it was a matter of convenience and nothing was planned.

185

He agreed with Mr Perkins that following September 11 there was a considerable amount of material in the media about what had happened and opinions about who had committed the act and why. The debate was being carried on by both Muslims and non-Muslims. He agreed that he was putting his view personally and through the ICV and he agreed that it was a matter of public interest post-September 11 and through to 9 November 2002. He said following September 11, the Islamic Council of Victoria, which he described as a voluntary organisation, were overwhelmed in terms of being faced with people being attacked in the Muslim community, demands all the time by the media, by the police, by the Government, by interfaith dialogue and that it was more than a full-time job for anybody. He agreed that, up to the date of the seminar, Muslims were in the forefront of the press and that it was fair to say that the degree to which Muslims were in the forefront of the press was far more intense than he had ever found previously.

186

He agreed with Mr Perkins that following September 11, the ICV had not in any sense said anything in support of what happened in the United States, but there were a number of people in the community who had a lot of different perceptions and that they were all proper matters for public consideration and discussion, particularly in a democracy. Whilst agreeing with that proposition, he said the act of vilification is not a proper matter for discussion. He agreed that Jihad was. He also agreed that any person with no religious belief at all, is entitled to read the Qur'an and make of it what he or she considers appropriate. He agreed that Pastor Scot was what he purported to be, namely a Pastor, and that the topic that he was discussing was a topic which involved considering what the Qur'an said. He said, however, that despite the fact that Pastor Scot said he had particular intentions, when he spoke to the audience he did not believe that what was said was accurate. He said that he went beyond what the Qur'an's teachings on the subject of Holy War, and he went ahead and taught other things as well. Not only did he say things about Jihad which were not accurate, he spoke about other matters such as what Muslims were planning, what sort of a mindset they had and what they were going to do. Mr Soliman said that the use of the word Holy War is non-existent in the Qur'an or in the Hadiths and that the Holy War was never a term used by Muslims, but was a term initiated by Christians during the time of the Crusades and that he, Pastor Scot, was using that over and over again to try and create a certain perception that there's something holy about war. When pressed, he said that when people talk about Holy War, it means an aggressive war. People are in the process of carrying out a Holy War and they're searching for people to kill and that it's okay because it's something holy that's taught by their religion. He said that, as a Muslim, the majority of the Muslim world do not find that a war of aggression is taught by the Qur'an. In fact, the opposite.

187

It was put that steps were taken to isolate Pastor Scot after the seminar, because he had expressed a different view to his. His answer was that the issue was that we do not want this to become a Muslim versus Christian issue. We wanted to isolate the actual complaint about vilification; not make it into a Christianity against Islam or Muslim against Christian thing. He said following the lodgement of the complaint, he went to other Christian groups to advise them about that fact and to explain that it wasn't a Christian against Muslim thing. "We went to visit a number of Christian leaderships to explain to them what we were doing". He agreed that the minutes of the ICV indicate that Phillip Knight outlined a vilification case. It was perpetrated by a Christian group towards Muslims at a recent church seminar and advice had been sought from the Equal Opportunity Commission as to the steps to be taken, and it was decided that the ICV would represent the three witnesses at the Equal Opportunity Commission meetings. All agreed that the best course of action is to work closely with other Christian groups to make a joint statement to isolate the person (presumably Pastor Scot). He said that that was why steps were taken to contact other Christian groups and to explain what was taking place.

188

Mr Soliman was asked by Mr Perkins a question on the extent to which Islam is a political body and the extent to which it is a religious system and that if he was aware of that discussion. He was asked whether he was aware of any published work which suggest that religion and state or politics or religion are quite distinct and different things in Islam to which he said "No". But when asked whether insofar as Islam is concerned, there is not any real distinction between politics and religion, he agreed that from the point of view of the majority, there was no real distinction. He said, however, that whilst people have that view, Muslims, while in Australia, understand there is a separation of Church and State. He said that whilst the belief of there being no difference existed, Muslim practice respects that separation of Church and State. Mr Soliman said that he consulted the Board of Imams with regard to the institution of this legislation and they were in agreement, provided that it was understood that it was not a Christian against Muslim issue.

189

Mr Soliman's attention was directed to the "question" which was asked by Mr Thomas of Pastor Scot and the response which was given. He was asked how conceivably could any of the statements amount to vilification or hatred of Muslims. His response to that was, as I interpret it, in essence to accept the answer was not suggesting that, but because of the fact that there were other things that he had said, and that he was putting a view of Muslims in every possible negative way, with nothing positive to say. In re-examination Mr Soliman was shown a document entitled "Community Accord". He described the document in this way. It is a document where representative organisations from across Victoria were invited to come and sign the accord having regard to how they will treat each other. He said I understand that the Islamic Council of Victoria, along with other organisations from the Jewish community and other committees, were also involved and that basically the recognition that the Victorian Government sees the Islamic Council as representing Muslim communities. The document is signed by the Islamic Council of Victoria and signed personally by him, he thought it was dated around 2002 (see Exhibit "M").

[178]

190

The respondents filed a Witness Statement of Daniel Scot, dated 2 October 2003. In that Statement he attests to the fact that he was born to a Christian family in Pakistan in 1951 and was brought up in a country, the population of which is predominantly Muslim and whose culture is Islamic. He lived there before coming to Australia in 1987.

191

Between 1956 and 1966 he spent time at a Mission School and thereafter 3 years at a Mission Secondary School. Between 1968 and 1970 he attended a Senior High School at Islamia College, a large private Muslim run College. Between 1970 and 1976 he attended Karachi University and also did part-time study in the Punjab at an inter-denominational training institution where Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians and others received theological education. His formal qualifications are a Batchelor of Science, with Honours in Applied Mathematics from the University of Karachi in 1975, a Master of Science in Applied Mathematics from the University of Karachi in 1976 and a Batchelor of Theology from Gujranwala Seminary in 1987. He states that he studied in theology courses, including apologetics, which is the branch of theology which defends the Holy Scriptures and sends forth the evidence of the Divine Authority and comparative religion, church history, theology, books of the Old Testament and books of the New Testament.

192

He stated that his Christian beliefs extend back to 1973 and that he was actively involved in religious discussion with Muslim people about salvation and the different approaches taken in the bible and in the Qur'an; the differences being the moral teaching of Jesus and the moral teaching of Mohammed. He said from the time that he was in Senior High School he systematically studied the Qur'an and Islamic religious history. He stated that he had systematically read and re-read the Qur'an in its entirety at least 100 times and that he had extensively read and studied commentaries on it. He had also carried out studies of the Hadith and carried out extensive study on the life of Mohammed, using both in a general way to interpret the Qur'an.

193

In September 1986 he became the first individual to be accused under Pakistani's Blasphemy Law, which took place when, as a mathematics teacher of 12 years standing, he found himself summoned to attend a College Investigative Council, the topic of which was his religious beliefs, which was designed to establish the extent to which he adhered to Islam. He expressed his religious views on that subject, as a result of which he was charged with blasphemy. He thought that his life was in danger and accordingly he went into hiding; he was pursued by thousands of students, but that the prosecution became stalled for a few months, during which time he was able to exile himself overseas.

194

After leaving Pakistan, he taught mathematics at two universities in Australia from 1988 to 1994 and then he felt and responded to God's call to full-time Christian Ministry. At paragraph 20 of his Statement he said that between 1965 and 1994 he had been researching and teaching in various Christian groups, with an emphasis on reaching the Muslim community. He said that he had taught in many bible colleges and churches and Muslin groups. Throughout this period he said he was involved in practical outreach to Muslims by sharing the world with thousands of them.

195

He said that present he was the Director of the Ibraham Ministries International (IMI) of which he had been a Director since 1997. He is also an accredited Pastor of the Assemblies of God Church, since approximately 1995. He said that his involvement with the IMI was such that the group met regularly in Brisbane to discuss and seek God's guidance on how to encourage Christian awareness about Islam and Christian ministry among Muslims.

196

He said that his involvement with IMI was seeking to bring Christ to the Muslim communities and Muslims to Christ; to educate and train Muslim Missionaries to understand the Qur'an and Islamic religion and Islamic mindset; to educate Christians how to preach and witness to Muslims and to help prepare and educate Christians when living within a Muslim community or country.

197

He said that he had been involved in travelling both within Australia and around the globe to various bible colleges and seminaries. He delivered literally hundreds of training courses in that time, some by hour long or day long seminars and others by weekend courses. He had addressed about 10,000 Christian and Christian leaders on sharing their faith with Muslims and that as a result, either directly or indirectly due to his teaching and preachings, thousands of Muslims have come to know Jesus.

198

At paragraph 27 he said that he had written 3 books on Islam-related topics and approximately 20,000 of those books had been distributed through the seminars which he had presented.

199

At paragraph 29 he lists the seminars and training sessions he had either visited or conducted.

200

At paragraph 29 he expressed the reasons which caused him to believe that this Ministry to Muslims is important and, without reciting each and every one of those reasons, essentially, they relate to:

[185]

201

He said that when he conducted the seminar on 9 March 2002 he had several source documents available to him in that he used the Pickthall translation, the Rodwell translation of the Qur'an and also AL Hilali's Qur'an, which he described as a scholarly translation with annotations published by AL Madinah I Munawarrah Islamic University in Saudi Arabia. He said that he had an English Arabic version of the Hadith named Bukhari; a Revised Dictionary of Islam by Thomas Hughes, the reprint of which was unknown as to date but asserted the book was originally published in 1885. He pointed out that the versions of the Qur'an had different verse numbers and different chapter numbers. I interpolate there to indicate that this was a common expression of opinion by people representing both Muslim and Christian people.

202

He asserted that all of the written materials that he referred to in the seminar were authentic Muslim religious texts from well-known traditional authorities. He thought that insofar as the translations were concerned that Pickthall's translation was more literal than the other to which he had made reference.

203

He said at paragraph 32 that, as a person who teaches about Islam, he was always prepared to discuss his views and to listen to and consider other people's views. Further, that it often happens in the course of a seminar that people ask questions and that he found, generally, that if they related to the content of religious text or views about their interpretation, which are by published commentators that he had a ready ability to answer. Furthermore, he stated that in presenting the seminar in question he was not expressing views of his own, but rather was referring to views which had been expressed and published by others. He said that when he answered questions about the Qur'an at seminars he did not merely use the text, but also the Hadiths and his knowledge of the way in which Mohammed lived according to classic Islamic books on his life.

204

At paragraph 34 he said that, in his opinion, his teaching at the seminar was the next position of the views of traditionalist school of Muslim thought. Furthermore, that the traditionalist school was a fair and appropriate one and that he repeatedly stressed that not all Muslims held those views and there were various other views as well.

205

He confirmed the finding which I have already made. Namely, that the transcript constitutes a fair and accurate account of what was actually said at the seminar. He said, however, that at this seminar, based upon his observation, that the attendees were attentive and focussed and that they felt that what he was teaching them was quite overwhelming. He said this was a common occurrence and that he tends to deal with it in a way which allows him to move to the next topic which he wishes to discuss.

206

Insofar as the Complainants had accused him of mocking and ridiculing Islamic belief, a claim which he totally rejects, he makes the following comments. He asserts that the situations complained about, which included attempts on his part to be humorous and attempts to contrast Islam and Christianity, frequently create palpable tension. He said that audible surprise or horror is not unusual. He said that neither the Complainants nor any other audience member suggested that he had been mocking or ridiculing what he was doing. He said that whilst the reading of and reference to some of the Qur'anic versus that he cited may be a cause of surprise or horror, that it was contained within the context of the text which he was reading which caused the reaction.

207

He denied that he delivered any part of the seminar in a sarcastic, sneering tone, calculated to provoke laughter and derision from the audience. He concluded that if there was anything other than the subjective and incorrect opinion of the Complaints to support the proposition that he did, then he was unaware of that fact. He denied that he ridiculed or reviled Allah and stated in paragraph 41 that it was completely untrue that he vilified Muslims during the seminar. He said to do so would be completely contrary to his own personal views and his own teachings on Islam. He asserted, however, that it must be expected that as a moral and religious text, the Qur'an can reasonably be objected to direct and pointed criticism. In his Witness Statement he then gave particular examples.

208

At paragraph 44 of his statement, he drew attention to the fact that many organisations copy this information, material and commentary on the internet and that these are all freely available within Victoria, which are similar to the views which he has expressed.

209

He attacked those people who he referred as "Westerners" who turned to Islam as people who often accept it without any real intellectual explanation of its tenets or literature. He said that he had a belief that contemporary Christian/Muslim dynamics, which involve Christians being encouraged to convert to Islam, was a process in which they did not fully know about it - "I assume Islam".

210

At paragraph 47 he said that consistent with his conscientious belief, he wanted to inform people that they should know what the Qur'an says - the bigger picture - so that they can make more informed judgments about Islam. I consider that it is appropriate for people to know about the various Islamic schools of thought, particularly the traditionalist.

211

Finally, he asserted that the racial and religious vilification legislation a fetter of the delivery of his teaching about these ideas and he asserted that it was both unconstitutional, unlawful and, by reason of the constitution, immune from effect.

212

Attached to his Affidavit is a statement which extends to 137 pages. In his general remarks he categorically condemns and opposes violence or hatred against any people or people who profess the Muslim faith. He states that he finds the oppression of Muslim people appalling and that they have the same fundamental human rights as any people on this earth. He asserts that the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act treats religion and race on an identical basis. There is a failure to draw a distinction between the two. Religions are belief systems and race is quite different. He asserts that examining a religious belief is an entirely legitimate religious activity. Indeed, it is a fundamental right and it is in the public interest that it occur freely. Insofar as the Muslim faith is concerned, he asserts that neither the Qur'an, nor the Hadiths are organised in chronological order so that the interpretation of those authorities require the ability to locate a particular version or tradition within the story of Mohammed. He acknowledges that the investigations of the Qur'an and the Hadiths are complex and highly developed areas of Islamic studies and that Muslims do not all believe the same things about what is Islam, but nonetheless asserts that there has been a scholarly census on very many matters described as a stable core which could be called the orthodox mainstreaming teaching of Islam.

213

He draws a distinction between Christians when they read the Gospels, which are essentially the only primary source material on the life of Jesus, but that Muslims in general have not read the complete Hadith collections, or the authentic Sura's for themselves. Consequently, it is asserted that most Muslims do not have direct personal familiarity with the primary source documents of their faith or even a close similarity with the text of the Qur'an, except in the form of recitation. He also asserts that the information about the life and person of Mohammed is filtered by the agenda of Islamic educators. He draws a distinction between Islam as practiced in the West can be very different from traditional mainstream Islam as practised under Shari'a conditions.

214

Insofar as Jihad is concerned, he portrays it as Holy War and an integral part of Islam. Indeed, he calls it the 6th Pillar of Islam (a fact which is denied by others). In defining Jihad, he refers to the Encyclopaedia of Islam, which describes it as principally an offensive character. In particular, he asserts that the idea that Jihad is a spiritual struggle or last resort in self defence is not borne out in mainstream Muslim scholarship. In support of that proposition he quotes Mohammed's biography, as written by holy Muslim observers and supports it with quotes from Bernard Lewis, a well-known author on Islam. Quotes are reproduced in the attachment as to Lewis' version of Mohammed and Jihad, the concept of biblical Christianity and Islamic Jihad and quotes many authors with regard to the distinction.

215

He asserts that it is entirely reasonable to study Jihad directly from the Qur'an, and at page 9 quotes a theological essay devoted to that subject and quotes passages. He also quotes British sources with regard to the subject of Jihad and the Qur'an. See page 10 of his Appendix.

216

He asserts that the seminar organised by the Catch the Fire Ministry was in response to a need felt among the Churches for information on Islam, particularly in light of September 11 and there are many questions asking how Islam differs from Christianity and how they can share their faith with Muslim people. He states that the seminar was organised for a general religious purpose reasonably and in good faith. He therefore asserts that the seminar was divided into three sessions. Firstly, Jihad on the Qur'an, secondly, the Bible and the Qur'an - a comparison of Islam and Christianity, and, thirdly, witnessing to Muslims. He asserts that virtually all the complaints made by the Complainants relate to the first session on Jihad in the Qur'an. He asserts that both Eades and Jackson missed crucial statements on the purpose of the seminar and, in particular, the concept that this is what Muslims believe, as opposed to what the Qur'an teaches. He particularly emphasises the third session was intended to encourage sensitivity and respect for Muslim people and the need to love Muslims and to reach out to them.

217

He asserts that in session 1 he pointed out that the nature of the Qur'an in itself and, in particular, the absence of chronological order, made it a difficult book to study and that he did not claim that all Muslims accept his interpretation of the Qur'an. Furthermore, in sessions 2 and 3, he stated that he believed that many Muslims do not understand what is in the Qur'an and they are not familiar with the things that he is teaching about and he gives examples. He said he made it clear that what he was teaching is not what about most Muslims believe, but since it can be demonstrated in the Qur'an it is part of Islam, which is based upon the Qur'an. He also emphasised to the Christian audience that they should be considerate in approaching Muslims and gave specific examples. Those included the Christian's interaction with Muslims.

218

He asserts the seminar was not intended for a Muslim audience and that it was offered to Christians on Islam for the purpose of training them for evangelism.

219

He asserts that one of the objects of the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act is to promote conciliation and resolve tensions which can arise because of ignorance and, so, for that reason, he took care to provide explanation in most cases where he believed that specific complaints about Muslim behaviour can be supported from the Qur'an, Hadith and Sura's and, where relevant, the opinion of Islamic scholars. He asserts that the statements are supportable in this way and were made reasonably and in good faith for the religious purpose of the seminar.

220

At page 16 of the annexure, he states that the seminar discusses the Islamic faith, based upon its canonical sources. This was done in good faith for a genuine religious purpose of equipping Christians with knowledge and understanding of Islam based upon the Qur'an, Hadith and Sura's. The seminar, newsletter and article did not incite hatred against, serious contempt for or revulsion or severe ridicule of any person or class of person and he insists on his love for Muslim people and a clear distinction is made between Muslim people and what Islam teaches in the Qur'an, Hadith and Sura's.

221

Pastor Scot said it cannot be regarded as controversial that there are passages in the Qur'an, Hadith and Sura's, which could and do incite believers in Islam to violence and hatred of non-Muslims. He said the passages are well-known and wildly cited by terrorist groups and that he had also referred to writings by devout, well-informed and authoritative Muslim scholars who urged believers to Jihad based upon such passages. In his opinion, exposing the roots of this problem within Islam is not the same thing as inciting hatred. Since Christians are one of the named targets of Jihad fighting in the Qur'an, they have a right and a duty to be well informed about this aspect of Islam, in the same way as the Qur'an has a great deal to say about Christians. He asserts that it's a fundamental principle of religious freedom that people should be free to examine and critique religious belief systems and he regards this as foundational to democracy. He said that he opposes anti-discrimination or anti-vilification legislation which suppress (sic) critical analysis, dialogue and evaluation of Islam. He further asserts that apart from the genuine religious purpose of the materials which are being complained about, it is in the public interest for free and unafraid discussion of religious faith to take place in our society.

222

In his attachment at page 17, he deals with his response to each specific complaint. First of all, there is the concept of "silent Jihad" which is said to be Muslim plans to impose Islam on Australians. He argues in his Appendix 2 that historically, although he was not saying that all Muslims take the same view, however some do, and some of these are well trained in Islam and have considerable influence. He then cites material indicating that Muslims have a religious obligation to enforce the divine will of Allah as revealed to Mohammed in the Qur'an, so that ultimately Muslims will have the dream of establishing the power of Islam in the world. In support of that proposition, he cites a book purchased by Mark Durie from the Islamic Council of Victoria, which is a children's textbook entitled "What Islam is all About" and it refers to this concept. He further cites the establishment of the Islamic state from the Meccan and Medinian phase in theories of how to achieve this. Furthermore, he supports his argument by reference to statements made by Bilal Cleland and his concept of the creation of an Islamic system of government in Australia. These arguments are set out at page 102 to 105 to Appendix 2 of his Statement. At page 105 he records the following conclusions with regards to the views of Cleland:

[187]

223

Insofar as his statement at the seminar where he said that Muslim people when they come to some teaching which they do not like that they will not tell the truth. They will not tell the truth, they will hold the truth, they will tell lies.

224

He states that in the context of Islamic teaching, concerning unpalatable topics, particularly in the context of interface dialogue, which itself is a religious activity, that process is only a part of a broader question as to how truth and deceit are handled in Islam. He refers to Appendix 3. He asserts that a careful study of Islam reveals that many of its ethical teachings are situational. The end justifies the means. In order to attract a person to Islam, a Muslim can show versus of the Qur'an which give non violent teachings and he then gives examples. At page 106 of his Appendix, he states that Muslims are permitted to tell lies under certain contexts. These include for reconciliation, in Jihad, for husbands when dealing with their wives and when Muslims' safety is a risk. He asserts that Allah teaches in the Qur'an that if it is helpful for a Muslim, he can lie and even so that he is not a Muslim under duress, and again he refers to various Sura's (see page 106 of the attachment).

225

When he was cross-examined, Pastor Scot accepted that there were a number of different views with regard to the Muslim faith. He agreed that he referred to an article in the seminar concerning Muslims being terrorists producing factories. He said that he was not asserting that every Muslim is a terrorist and that the vast majority of Muslims don't know the Qur'an. He said that in preparing for the seminar his starting point is the Qur'an, which had been studied over more than one thousand years by scholars who have immersed themselves in Islamic theology. He was asked whether he saw a distinction between what is in the Qur'an and what people are taught, based upon the Qur'an, and he agreed that they are different.

226

He was asked questions with regard to his relationship with Dr Durie. He said he first met him on 5 March 2002 at a seminar and thereafter he corresponded with him by email. He said that when the complaint was received with regard to the conduct of the seminar on 9 March, he had prepared a written response to the complaint and that he had discussed it with Dr Durie. He would send him emails and he asserted that the main reason was because his English was not very good. He conceded that his contact with Dr Durie was not simply with regard to his English, but also to receive advice with regard to the preparation of the response. Dr Durie had, on one occasion, represented him at the Equal Opportunity Commission.

227

He was asked questions with regard to the description of most Muslims by Father McInerney in his statement. He said that he had no doubt that Muslims were peaceful, decent God-fearing, honest citizens, who tried to feed their children in sometimes trying circumstances and that most try and educate their children in similar circumstances. When asked whether they lead moral and ethical lives, he said that that was something that only they can know. He said that they sometimes exemplify the attainment of great spiritual wisdom. He said that he had difficulty with the concept that they lead moral and ethical lives because those values are contrary to the moral ethical values of Christ and that that was what he was speaking about at the seminar. He was asked whether he had read the whole of the Qur'an in Arabic, to which he replied that he had read the relevant parts in Arabic. Asked how he could be certain that he had read all the relevant parts in Arabic, he said that he had read the Qur'an many times and read different translations and editions of the same translation and he had no doubt to believe that they were not trustworthy, but that if he had any doubt that the best method is to study translation by looking at the Qur'an in Arabic. He pointed out that 70 percent of Muslims are non-Arabic speaking, so one cannot assume that they can read and understand the Qur'an. He said that personally he had attended a course at the University in Queensland in 1996 and took part in an elementary course of Arabic reading and writing, which he completed. He said that in addition to that course, he had obtained books on Arabic and that he had kept reading these books. He agreed the word for Madrassa in Arabic means school and he was shown a photograph of a Catholic school in Melbourne which had this name displayed. He said that when he was referring to Madrassas in the seminar, he was referring to a Reader's Digest article, which indicated that there are millions of people under training in Pakistan. He agreed that he did not ask any Islamic people to come to the seminar, but that he was asked by a group of Christians who wanted to learn about the teachings of the Qur'an and Jihad and some other issues. He agreed that he did not ask any Muslim people in Australia about what he was going to teach at the seminar and he said that he did not believe that he was required to. Furthermore, he said that he was not teaching what Muslims say in Australia about the Qur'an, but what the Qur'an itself says.

228

He was further asked with regard to the comment of Father McInerney and he said he did not know whether Father McInerney was a Christian because he had not asked him, so he cannot say. He was asked about the use of the name Daniel Scot and he said that he had used this name since 1971. His original name was Daniel Son of Ahmed Siddiqui. He was cross-examined about his statement of writing three books on the Qur'an and that 20,000 of them had been distributed through seminars. He agreed, however, that none of the books had been completed or published. He said that parts of the books had been photocopied, stapled together and then distributed at various seminars and he agreed that, in fact, he sells them.

229

He further agreed that the material from the books in an uncompleted form were distributed under the name of Sarfaz Ahmed Siddique. It was put to him that dealing with the material in this way had the advantage of allowing many people to believe that in fact they have come from a person who is a Muslim, which is not correct and, in fact, is written by a Pastor of the Assembly of God. At page 1905 of the transcript he conceded there was nothing there to indicate that fact, but he said that when you read the preface it gives an indication that somebody Christian was writing the material.

230

He conceded at the seminar he used the Pickthall translation of the Qur'an, as well as other translations. He agreed that he preferred the traditionalist view of the Qur'an, but conceded that there were other views. He was asked whether he believed the God of Islam as being the same as the God of Christianity and he said he did not accept that that is so.

231

There was much discussion about whether Pastor Scot was stating what was in the Qur'an and whether they were his own personal views. He spelt out his methodology in this way, that he would read the Qur'an, the Hadiths and any particular sources that he felt it was necessary to assist in his interpretation. Thereafter he would state to those present what the Qur'an says about a particular subject matter. This represented his views with regard to what the Qur'an said.

232

He was asked about the issue of what value the Qur'an places upon women and in particular Mr Woinarski said to him, did he tell the seminar that Islamic teaching according to the Holy Qur'an "there is not much value of women". His answer to that was "No" and what was said must be read in context. He was then taken to page 6 of the transcript of the seminar where he said the following:

[192]

236

Pastor Scot admitted that he was not in fact reading from the Qur'an at all, but was paraphrasing a story in the Qur'an.

237

Pastor Scot was also cross-examined about his reference to David Hicks, who he described as a true Muslim. He was asked about whether he had met Hicks, to which he answered in the negative. His attention was then drawn to the fact that he said that he did not know whether Father McInerney was a Christian because he had not met him and how could he then say that David Hicks was a true Muslim, when the same applied, namely, that he had never met. He said that he was not saying that in a general sense, but that putting it in context he was saying that the law in the Qur'an says that a Muslim is not to befriend other people if they are not Muslim and that person must be fought with. He said that following from that David Hicks is fighting the Australian Army and therefore is a true Muslim.

238

He was referred to page 8 of the transcript of the seminar where he said that Mohammed wrote lots of verses in the Qur'an about Christianity. Pastor Scot conceded that Mohammed could neither read nor write and what he had done was recite the revelations by Allah, but he said that he was talking in a Christian setting and they would understand what he was meaning in the same way as the Bible would say that Matthew wrote something, when clearly he did not. He conceded that he also attributed Chapter 57, Verse 27 and Chapter 5, Verse 82 where Mohammed talks about the Christians to the Meccan time of his life where, indeed, it was the Medina period and he accepted that he was wrong in what he said.

239

It is said that he was expressing his view when he said that Islamic teaching according to the Holy Qur'an there is not much value in women. That opinion which he holds is based upon the teachings of the Qur'an and the Hadith. He was asked whether he was familiar with the commentary of Yusuf Ali and he said that he was and that he did not agree with Sura 2, Verse 223, as interpreted. It was put to him that if he looks at the Qur'an and the references to the treatment of women and the analogy drawn by looking after your land and good crops, that what the Qur'an is doing is using that as an analogy, a proposition with which he agreed. As I understand it, what Mr Woinarski was putting to him, was that what may appear to be a derogatory comment with regard to the Qur'an's treatment of women, could be interpreted, not in that way, but how it was expressed by use of Ali. Assuming then that that proposition is correct, then why did he not tell the seminar of that fact.

240

After much prevaricating, at page 2008 of the transcript, he said that the analogy to which he had agreed was that being drawn in the 20th Century and the circumstances in which the actual revelation was given was such that there was no question of an analogy.

241

His attention was drawn to page 23 of the transcript of the seminar and the reference to the magazine called Maccabees, which emanates from the Jewish community and where it states in the edition in the first week of September 2001 that one Rabi had met the Chief Mufti of the Islamic community and that when he was interviewed the Rabi asked him what is your plan for Australia, to which the Mufti replied that our plan for Australia is that we will declare an Islamic Nation. He was asked whether there was an article in the magazine interviewing the Chief Mufti, to which he replied it was a reference to the interview and it was not an article as such. He said that in fact it was a letter to the editor of the magazine. He said he could not find any source for the interview. He was asked why was he prepared to tell this seminar what he told them without having seen the interview and he said that he was because he had read other material of a similar nature. He was then asked whether he told the seminar that the alleged interview had been given some years before the letter appeared. Mr Woinarski put to him that he wanted the people at the seminar to believe that the letter had appeared in September 2001. It was put that he told the audience in the seminar that the magazine was respected among the Jewish circle and can be found in universities and he conceded that, in fact, one of the members of the audience had asked him where the comments by the Chief Mufti had been documented and he used the words "when or did he say it", to which he had answered that it was contained in a magazine called Maccabees in Universities. He conceded that he did not tell the man who asked the question that it was only a letter and that the letter referred to something that had occurred years prior to September 2001. Mr Woinarski put to him that he gave the part that suited his purpose, to which he replied, "That was the information which was relevant, but it was not the only information". He said he had other information, which can be found in the Parliamentary Library, which emanates from Iman Hillali and that such comments had also been made openly in Universities and other places. He was asked why didn't he tell those at the seminar that there existed other circumstances in which such a thing was said. His answer was that he could not tell everything because there was not much time and the seminar was "not one week intensive course".

242

He was asked as to why at the seminar he told somebody to turn off a recorder because they were not allowed to record his speech. His answer was that he didn't mention it in the witness statement, but that there was an intention to prepare a handbook so that it would be easier for Australian people to follow and understand. He conceded, however, there was no prohibition on people coming into the seminar, to which he agreed. He said, however, that it was a Christian seminar - "a religious service". It was conducted in a church, that it was started with a prayer and there was 20 minutes of singing. He described it as a proper religious service, conducted in a church so that the church people can come and they can learn.

243

He agreed that one of the purposes of the seminar was specially focussed on how to share the gospel with Muslims. He was then asked to explain his comment on the seminar which went along the following lines:

[194]

244

He said that that was correct and when asked where he got the figures of growth from 201,000 to 350,000, he said it was mentioned by an Islamic leader in Sydney. He said there some mention of half a million, and others 350,000, so that he took the conservative figure. When pressed, he admitted that the source of the figures was not the Bureau of Statistics, despite having attributed at the seminar the Bureau as the source. Furthermore, he was wrong that the figure was 350,000 and, finally, that it was incorrect to say that it was an average of 15 percent, whereas the correct figure was 8 percent. It was put to him that he wanted the people at the seminar to be concerned about the number of Muslims that were in Australia at the time of that event and that that was something that concerned him. His reply to that was that he had a responsibility to share gospel, so that it was appropriate to know that people with whom he wanted to share gospel. It was put to him that it didn't matter how many Muslims there were in Australia because the need to witness to Muslims would be the same regardless of the number, to which he agreed.

245

He was asked about the reference to control by Muslims over the Immigration Department and he said that the word he used should have been "influence" rather than "control" and he agreed that one way of looking at what he had said to the seminar was that the relationship between the Muslims and the Immigration Department was that the population of Australia had been able to grow. He then qualified that by saying that that was only one factor and the other one was the number of wives that Muslims were entitled to have, which would increase the growth of the Islamic population. He was asked about what sources he had available to him prior to the seminar. He said the main source was the Qur'an and the Hadith and the Life of Mohammed. It was put to him that he promoted basically a fundamentalist view of Islam.

246

He agreed that was of one school, but that he spoke to other scholars in Australia and the UK. He was asked whether he held a belief that there are many Muslim people who do not believe much of what he taught. He agreed with that but said, however, that when you look at Islamic scholars and the Hadith, those scholars understand Islam much better than those who don't agreed. He said, however, that Muslims will have a different view to his about Jihad and still be regarded as true Muslims. They don't know what is in the Qur'an, to which he replied, "on these issues, yes". It was put that he decided to promulgate, based upon his reading, a view of Islam, to which he agreed. It was put to him that he chose to teach only the traditional fundamentalist view about holy Jihad, to which he replied, "yes, but I didn't go into detail about it. I mentioned their propensity and the different facts which they have". He agreed that he did not tell them that there were many Muslims in Australia who did not hold the same beliefs, and that they really did not know what the Qur'an really says. He was asked whether he dismissed their beliefs and he said only in the context where he mentioned that he had a specialist view which was gained from conversation and observation, whereas these people do not have such knowledge of the Hadith and Islamic law and life of Mohammed.

247

His attention was directed to page 18 of the transcript, which was the Reader's Digest article referring to the Madrassahs. The source was an American journalist, who stated there were 10,000 Madrassahs. He further stated that Pastor Scot was recently in America and he heard a debate between some scholars and one pointing out there were 39,000 training schools in Pakistan and he ended the statement by saying:

[196]

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.

[200]

277

Daniel Nalliah provided a Witness Statement in which he indicated that he was a registered Pastor of the Assembly of God of Australia and also a Director of Catch the Fire Ministries, which was founded in 1998. He said that Catch the Fire Ministries is an incorporated association of which he is both Director and President. The Ministry functions on donations. He does not receive a regular salary.

278

One of the activities of Catch the Fire Ministries is the "Rise Up Australia Prayer Movement" which is a nationwide prayer movement which sponsors in thirty towns and cities across Australia. The catch cry "Rise Up Australia" is an expression of an exhortation to rise up in prayer and repentance. The exhortation has no overtones whatsoever of civil unrest or violence. Further, reference to the enemy is simply references to Satan. Catch the Fire also runs organisations such as Options Plus Care, which is a pregnancy counselling organisation, and they assist in the resettlement of refugees in some parts of Australia on their release from detention centres.

279

He asserts that Catch the Fire Ministries has launched a campaign to bring reconciliation between Aboriginal people and others within Australia and he recites reconciliation marches which were conducted on 30 and 31 of May and 1 June 2003, following which letters were written to the Prime Minister of Australia, the Honourable John Howard.

280

He said that the Catch the Fire Ministries had undertaken a number of political activities in that he had met with Mr Ruddock to discuss religious freedom for Christians and discuss a range of matters, including Muslim converts seeking to leave Egypt to come to Australia.

281

He said the constitution of Catch the Fire Ministries Inc. sets out in a formal way some of the aims and objectives. It employs some biblical religious terminology in a manner which many people will be unfamiliar. One example is the reference to "the bride" which means, in short, "the Church". Another example is the relation between the fire and the holy ghost. The fire is what came upon disciples [tongues of fire] as described by Christ. He then sets out the constitution of Catch the Fire Ministries and then goes on to describe its objectives, which are to propagate the message of the word of God and help people catch the fire of the holy ghost so that people would live a life of victory and not defeat. He then sets out specific objectives which broadly involve the upholding of the family as the basic social unit of society; to establish self-governing, self-propagating local churches; to encourage an attitude of Christian fellowship towards all believers in Jesus Christ irrespective of doctrinal or other differences.

282

He then describes the basis upon which one may apply for membership, followed by the fact that the Catch the Fire Ministries is a non-profit organisation which functions as a para-church with a prayer focus. It is affiliated with an organisation Australian Christian Churches (ACC). The key focus is the creation of an awareness of current issues which may affect Christians in politics, legislation and religion. The work of the Catch the Fire Ministries is carried out in conjunction with around 140 churches which are affiliated to the ACC throughout Australia. Furthermore, he states that he is licensed as an itinerant pastor in the area of "specialist ministries" by the Assemblies of God of Victoria. Worldwide, the Assemblies of God is one of the largest Christian denominations, with hundreds of millions of members throughout many nations. It is the largest Pentecostal denomination in Australia. It is the largest network of Christian churches in Australia after the Catholic Church and it is larger than denominations such as the Anglicans and the Uniting Churches. His work as a pastor involves among other things the promotion and application of Christian values, both in private and public life. The public aspect necessarily involves contact with politicians and insofar as he is concerned politics involves an appropriate personal expression of religious beliefs, values and conscience. He was born to a Christian Tamil family in Sri Lanka and describes his interaction between Christian pastors and violence inflicted upon them by Buddhists.

283

During his time that he lived in Saudi Arabia between 1995 and 1997, he lived near sacred Muslim sites at which Christian worship was a criminal offence and could be punished by the death penalty. In 1997 he published a book entitled "Worship Under the Sword" which documents the experience of living as a Christian under Shari'a Law in Saudi Arabia. He stated that 7,000 copies of the book had been sold.

284

He states that while he was in Saudi Arabia he watched public executions and chopping of hands said to be in the name of God and carried out pursuant to Shari'a law. Furthermore, he had friends who were of the Christian religion who were captured and tortured and he took the view as to whether Islam really reaches violence or whether the people concerned were acting contrary to the Qur'an.

285

He said that whilst in Saudi Arabia he interacted with Muslims and to his amazement the more he learnt about Islam the more concerned he became, particularly with regard to the teaches which were set up in the Qur'an and confirmed what he was witnessing in Saudi Arabia.

286

At paragraph 23 of his statement he said that his conversations with Muslim missionaries who had travelled overseas to teach Islam brought him deep concern and that a typical statement was that it was very easy in the west to spread Islam and, although we/he did not represent democracy, we could us it to further our cause. Further, than when we have the numbers, we will then impose our law and systems and that Jihad was one of our methods to intimate and bring fear to the west.

287

He stated that whilst Christians in Saudi Arabia were not permitted to worship openly, he became aware of a small and scattered fellowship of believers in Christ throughout Saudi Arabia and on the fact that those fellowships were linked with each other. The consequence of this was that they experienced religious persecution and that sometimes Christians were tortured and even executed for their religious observance.

288

The above circumstances led him to establish and lead an association of underground churches entitled the United Churches of Saudi Arabia (UCOSA).

289

During 1997 he began a process of informing about the matters which I have just mentioned and it gave him opportunities to travel to Europe and the United States and to tell other people what was happening. Those organisations to which he made contact with included "Open Doors" (in Holland), "Christian Solidarity International" (England) and the "International Christian Concern" (United States of America). In November 1997 I visited the United States of America and in Washington DC I had meetings with members of Congress and with officials of the United States Department of State in which I informed them about the situation for Christians as it was in Saudi Arabia. I also had contact with and provided information to the Helsinki Commission, a committee of the US Congress, and leaders and members of an organisation known as "Christian Coalition". I provided advice and information to those congressman concerning the needs of the Christian minority in Saudi Arabia.

290

The United States Freedom from Religious Persecution Bill was passed by Congress on 18 November 1998. This law provided that any minority religious groups in any country should be given religious freedom and it empowers the United States to intervene and to impose sanctions on a country which does not have to prevent religious persecution. The Bill also established an ambassador at large for international religious freedom.

291

At paragraphs 31 to 35, he described moves which he made to allow Christians to worship publicly, receive visits from Christian ministers and own and import bibles and other Christian literature, as well as ensuring that they have freedom to worship in the privacy of their homes and the need to free Christians from imprisonment in Saudi Arabia. He states that Christians in Saudi Arabia were being arrested because of their religious observances and speaks constantly about his relationship with the United States Department of State and Congress members of the Senate.

292

He said that he will contend in these proceedings that the Racial and Religious Vilification Act constitutes an infringement of fundamental constitutional rights of free speech, including the right to speak about religion, morality, conscience and the right to practice religion freely.

293

At paragraph 37 he states that he personally has a profound view that when Islam states that we are peaceful, another side states that violence is the way. He asserts that his experience of Islam gave him actual knowledge of the way the systems work in practice and that as an Australian citizen he has the right to express his concerns based upon his experiences before coming to Australia.

294

At paragraph 38 he states that his faith enjoins his members to love all people, including Muslims, but they also have the right to examine and study another religion, its holy text, its beliefs and practices. He states that he wishes to be part of a people who are well informed and not naïve and who are able to consider and reflect upon and discuss the text and teachings without interference.

295

He said that after September 11 2001, he was asked by many people to share what he knew and that that is what he did through his newsletter, website and the seminar. He said that the message conveyed was one of love. Further that the newsletter constantly encourages Christians to love Muslims and he cites three statements which were made at the seminar in support of that view.

296

Insofar as the website article of Richard Braidich was concerned that following the events of September 11, Braidich, who was a friend of Saudi Arabia, had sent him something which he had written on terrorism and the connection with the Saudis and that he put this on the Catch the Fire website with Braidich's permission.

297

He states that both the article by Braidich, which was on the Catch the Fire website, and the Catch the Fire Newsletter were published before the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act came into force in 2002. He stated that he only removed both the article and the newsletter soon after the complaint was brought against the Catch the Fire Ministry, and its removal was intended as a gesture of good will in the context of the mediation process occurring in mid-2002. However, he asserts that the removal was not predicated on any view and that the material in any case was erroneous.

298

He states that the Catch the Fire Ministries Newsletter is published quarterly and read by more than 10,000 people around the world and that he has never in those newsletters raised concerns about Buddhism or Hinduism because of the fact that they do not promote violence.

299

He refers to the Witness Statement of Mark Durie concerning what he describes as a particular genre of worship, namely the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement, and that he agrees with the statements made by Mark Durie.

300

Finally, in relation to the seminar, the fact that the perpetrators were Saudis and that because many people knew of his experience in Saudi Arabia, he received many requests for an insight into Islam through "Rise Up Australia". He said that he became aware of Daniel Scot's Ministry as a Christian teaching about Islam via hearing a tape speaking to a conference. He realised that he had a good knowledge of Islam and Islamic text and, accordingly, he asked him to speak on the three topics which have been outlined. The seminar was designed for Christians, in his view, to answer their questions and to equip them to witness to Muslim people. Witnessing is an essential part of Christianity.

301

Finally, he indicated that the seminar was taped as they expected that people would want copies. He said they did not make the copies available after the meeting because our plan was to transcript the tapes and then re-record the material using a native English speaker; a plan which was made at Daniel Scot's request because he had received death threats from Muslims and he wanted to keep a low profile. Furthermore, they wanted a fluent speaker and that at the time the complaint was lodged through the Equal Opportunity Commission they had taken no action to transcribe or re-record the tapes.

302

He stated that the material which was published and the complaints which were made again him attracted immunity having regard to the Australian Constitution. He states that once religion becomes the subject of an intention to legislate or of actual legislative provisions, religion has become the legitimate subject of political debate. He denies any religious vilification.

303

Mr Nalliah was cross-examined by Ms Mortimer. Ms Mortimer took him to the Catch the Fire Ministries' Newsletter, the first of which was published in July 1999. He said that he wrote pieces for it. He agreed this devoting to describing his travels, in his teaching work or sharing the gospel, meaning trying to persuade people to become Christians. He conceded that at the bottom of the back page words "Catch the Fire Ministries Inc, PS Danny, was a reference to him. He conceded it was sent to people who were members of Catch the Fire. This was not necessarily members of Catch the Fire, but affiliated with the organisation which has 140 churches across Australia. He said the Newsletter is distributed by co-ordinators across Australia, but it was also located on the website. The website link commenced in either 2001 or 2002. His attention was drawn to page 3 of that document, which is headed "Evangelism Banned in Australia". He said that is an article about the anti vilification legislation and what occurred is that he had a supernatural encounter with Jesus which took place on 9 April at 5:00am in a dream, which in fact turned out to be true, with the enactment of the anti-vilification legislation. He said that after that dream he heard the Lord say very clearly:

[202]

304

The newsletter of Winter 2000 was admitted, under objection from Mr Perkins, although he did not wish to speak to it. It is admissible for reasons which I shall shortly refer.

305

Mr Nalliah was then taken to the Newsletter for Summer 2001 which he thought was published in November. He agreed that in that Newsletter he wrote the article "Rise Up or Pay the Price" and a further article "How Can We Save Our Nation" on page 3, which notes that in the Newsletter of Summer 2001 he refers to being in Ethiopia and being woken by the Lord on April 9 2000. In my view, the Summer Edition of the newsletter is a continuation of that which is contained in the Winter 2000 edition where he first talks about speaking with God and being pro-active and the words "rise up" are used. In my view, the two documents are linked and form part of the development of a campaign to oppose the legislation which is before the Tribunal. Although the document dated Winter 2000 has only marginal probative value.

306

At page 8 of the Summer 2001 edition, he concedes that he wrote the document entitled "A Message from the Lord to the Prime Minister of Australia, The Honourable John Howard". He was asked about his reference to "the enemy" in the Newsletter and he said that it encompasses everybody that has an accepted Christ. He said it includes Muslims and all those who do not know the Lord Jesus as their Lord and Saviour, they're blinded to the truth and that's true of anyone who does not know the Lord. He said that that's not his words, that's exactly what is in the word of God in the Bible. It was put directly to him that he, when using the word "enemy" was referring to Muslims, but he denied that that was the case and indicated it encompassed a much larger group, as explained by his earlier definition.

307

His attention was then drawn to the Newsletter of September 2002. He agreed he wrote the article in that document entitled "The Evangelism Banned Legislation Passed" referred to the legislation before the Tribunal. He also agreed that he wrote page 1 of that Newsletter where he said the Church needs to write up and take a stand against the enemy's attack upon the Church, as it comes through the most unexpected sources. The word of God very clearly states that the enemy would come amongst us like wolves in sheep's clothing. When asked what that was a reference to, he said that it was what the Bible preaches. His attention was directed to the word "the last few weeks have been very interesting and challenging for our Ministry and us as a family". It was put to him that was a reference to the complaint by ICV, to which he replied "Not necessarily". But he then said that quite possibly it was, although that during that time they had other challenges. His attention was drawn in that document to the "stop press" which records that the Equal Opportunity Commission stated that they had found that the complaints of religious vilification against Catch the Fire Ministries Inc. had not been proven. He said that that was a mistake, as the Equal Opportunity Commission could not make a decision o this and that he corrected it in a later newsletter.

308

His attention was drawn to the article entitled "Evangelism Banned Legislation Passed Recap of the Word from the Lord/Come True". In that article it states that the legislation had been passed and what the Lord had told him from Ethiopia in the Year 2000 had come true and that was the start of Rise Up Australia a call to prayer and repentance. He was asked whether he was referring to the anti vilification legislation in that article, to which he said "yes". He also said, however, there was another piece of legislation which was passed which was banning door-to-door salesmen from selling goods and that one of the practices of the Christian Church had been to go door-to-door, sharing the gospel, as commanded by the Lord Jesus. His attention was directed to a reference of the Victorian Government receiving 5,000 letters of protest against the Bill and that the article referred to the fact that "all religious discussions are exempt from this Bill". He was asked where in the Bill does it state that all religious discussions are exempt from this Bill and he said that he didn't know, that his English was not good, but that he had spoken to the Minister for Cultural Affairs who told him that there was freedom to talk about religious issues and he said that when he wrote the article and mentioned the exemption he may have been referring to Clause 11.

309

He was asked about the concept that only Christians were invited to the seminar and any Muslims who attended came uninvited and that he had come to that conclusion because the flyers were distributed only to Christians or Christian groups. However, he conceded that there was a possibility that there was a brochure on the website and he was shown a document, Exhibit "BBBB" which is headed "Hot News" and which advertises the seminar.

310

He was asked by Ms Mortimer about whether he believes in multi-faith prayer meetings and things like that, to which he answered "definitely not". He said that for a Christian to visit a mosque and make a statement that anybody worships the same God is not correct. He would not criticise the Christian leader for visiting the mosque, but he would certainly criticise him for making in a statement that he did. From his point of view, the Christian God and Allah are quite separate. He said that Catch the Fire Ministries do not engage in any interfaith dialogue and they have never been invited.

311

Pastor Nalliah was shown the Community Accord which is Exhibit "N" and which is signed by the Islamic Council and by other bodies. Mr Perkins objected to the admission of this document as evidence. It is a document which has obviously been produced by the Victorian Offices of Multicultural Affairs. It states in its opening words that it is reaffirming faith in fundamental human rights in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women of all Victorians. It then expresses a desire to promote realisation of the principals contained in the universal declaration of human rights, the international convention of the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination and the declaration on the elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief. It then contains a statement which is in the following terms:

[206]

312

The document is then signed by a wide variety of groups. These include the Jewish Community Council of Victoria, the Hindu Society of Victoria, the Greek Orthodox Community of Melbourne and Victoria, Hebrew Congregation, the Board of Imams Islamic Society of Victoria, the Vietnamese Community in Victoria and many such other organisations and Churches. The document is signed by Mr Soliman on behalf of the Islamic Council of Victoria. He was asked by Ms Mortimer whether he agreed with the sentiments which are contained within the document. It should be noted that the Catch the Fire Ministries or the Assembly of God is not a party to the accord. He said that he did not know whether he agreed with the sentiments which are contained within the document. He said that he would have to study it before being in a position to do so.

313

His attention was directed to a document which refers to Rise up Australia, Catch the Fire Ministries and what is referred to as prayer strategy. Paragraph 5 of the document refers to asking the Lord to give you insight with regard to strongholds in the area in which you are living and it then mentions brothels, gambling places, bottle shops, mosques, temples, Freemasons, Buddhist, Hindu, etc. Asked whether he was asserting that a mosque is a stronghold of Satan, he answered it by reference to the Bible. When asked whether a mosque, which is a place where Muslims worship, as being equated with a brothel, he said that it was not necessarily so. He conceded that he had described as Satan's strongholds brothels, bottle shops, gambling places, etc. However, he finally conceded that he regarded mosques as Satan's strongholds and he said that is because of the reference in the Bible concerning people who do not know Jesus and therefore will not know the light. He said that as a result of what is contained in the Bible that he loves Muslims. He said that he might look at the religion of Islam and say they need to be free, but "when its Muslims, we love them".

314

He was asked about the document entitled "Ministry News" which advertised the seminar and why he described it as an Islamic conference. He said that this was probably a mistake as a result of his English. Asked whether he would say it was or was not an Islamic conference, he said it was Islamic. Asked whether it was an Islamic conference, he requested an opportunity to look up the dictionary to determine what the real meaning of "conference" is. He finally conceded that it should have been referred to as an Islamic seminar or a seminar on Islam.

315

Pastor Nalliah was taken back to the document entitled "An Insight Into Islam by Richard". He agreed that Catch the Fire published on its website material which was written by other people and that this was an example. He said he worked with Richard in Saudi Arabia and that they spent a lot of time working, particularly amongst Saudi Arabian Muslims. A point of publishing this article on the website was to give people an understanding of September 11. He said his aim was to deal with misconceptions of categorising all Muslims and putting them into the one box and he thought that this article gave an insight into matters and exactly what is in the Qur'an and they (Muslims) are very nice people.

316

His attention was directed to page 3 in the Statement at the bottom of the page:

[219]

326

He said that he was referring to events that had happened in England and that if a church closes down it is a dangerous development. He agreed that when he refers to the infiltration of Parliament and the use of the word "they", he is referring to Muslims. He said that in that paragraph he is not necessarily referring to Muslims when he talks about the infiltration of Parliament, as he constantly directs his attention to the demonic powers of darkness and Satan and evil and that he is referring to all groups of people in that paragraphs. He denied that the answer that he gave was a reconstruction which was designed to suit his purposes in this case. He was referred to the use of the word "they" in relation to the infiltration of Parliament and other influential places. It is a suggestion that Muslims are moving into places, like Parliament, where they should not be and he said that that was not necessarily so, but that the message that I'm conveying that there are Muslims with ideologies which I know of, if they are in Parliament then it is not good for us and that includes many churches. Asked where he makes the distinction between categories of Muslims I that paragraph, he said he does so by indicating that he does not use the word "all" when referring to Muslims. Asked about his statement about Muslims spying on Western governments, he again makes the point that he is talking about some groups of Muslims and justifies that view by the absence of any word such as "all" before the word "Muslims".

327

He was then asked about the use of the word following the last paragraph, where he next commences with the words "will you let it happen in Australia?" He said when he used those words, he was not talking about all the matters that he had set out in the previous paragraph, but only about churches, and that he was talking to the Christian community in the Newsletter and asking whether they are going to let the churches become mosques and whether they are going to do that or not, or whether they're going to protect the church? When pressed, he said that he intended to include the other matters as well that are contained in the previous paragraph.

328

His attention was directed to another paragraph where the following words appear:

[221]

329

It was put to him he did not qualify that statement by reference to categories of Muslims, which he denied, and said there are categories of people there and he particularly referred to what was contained in the article about an Imam stating in the course of a meeting, when asked about what Holy War is, answered that "Holy War is we will make everyone in Australia worship Allah. Through peace or through violence." When asked about the motto of the Muslim which I have referred to he said that when he was working in Saudi Arabia, amongst very large Muslim communities, they quoted to me the Qur'an and what they would establish across the world, and if they failed with priests then they would use violence and in his opinion that's what he said again (in the article?). Asked whether that was the message he wanted to spread in Australia, he said that is the real message which is out there.

330

He was asked about some other words, namely, "they all believe in the same book, the Qur'an, and he was asked whether "they" refer to Muslims and it was suggested that he said that because Muslims believe in the Qur'an and are capable of repeating September 11 attacks and that's the message". To which he answered, "that's correct, not all Muslims, some Muslims".

331

His attention was directed in the article at page 3, under the heading "How Can We Save Our Nations", where he wrote "we need to love the Muslims, but not sell our birthright or heritage to them". Asked whether that meant "don't allow Muslims to take over Australia", he said it meant "don't let Islam take over Australia". He agreed that Muslims are people who believe in Islam.

332

He was asked about Muslims coming to Australia as boat people, and he quoted figures which he had obtained from the Reverend Fred Nile and a newspaper which he now agreed were incorrect. The article further refers to Muslims who are coming to Australia in boats and the fact that visas are given to Muslims who come to Australia that way, where Christians cannot get visas because they are given to Muslims who come in boats, "whilst from the very countries where the Christians are being raped, tortured and killed". In one of the articles there is reference to John Howard, and asking him to "stop those boats from coming". He agreed that the article could be interpreted in that way.

333

He was asked whether he had reported any condemnations by Muslims of the September 11 attacks and he stated that "to be honest he really could not recall in Australia whether he saw any public condemnation of terrorist groups". Asked whether he chose not to report those condemnations, because they showed Muslims in a positive light, he said "because I really could not put truth into those statements according to what I knew at that point of time. Possibly there are those who are positions at high levels and what they say is not true. The general Muslim population would be very sorry about what had happened and I fully appreciate their statements", but he agreed that he did not report any of them.

334

He was asked about the removal from the website of the statements and article by Richard and he said that that was intended as a gesture of good will, but as far as he's concerned there's nothing wrong in the article by Richard or the statements in the Newsletter and he agreed that he would publish them again.

335

Asked about the style of worship in the Pentecostal movement, he agreed that it encourages people to express their emotions and it goes beyond emotions, it's a supernatural encounter, which involves lots of noise and shouting. He had described it as people expressing themselves freely, not felling confined to a particular formality.

336

He agreed that the purpose of the seminar was to warn Christians about the dangers of Islam as he saw them. The second was said to be designed to persuade Christians about why Islam needs to be stamped out in Australia and he denied that that was the case. He said their desire was for Christians to have an understanding of Islam, so that they could share the gospel effectively with those who believe in Islam. The third proposition put to him was that the purpose of the seminar was to alarm Christians about the content of Islam so that they would try and convert people to Christianity. He said that he did not know whether the use of the word "alarm" was correct. Pastor Nalliah denied that the more the Catch the Fire Ministry highlights the danger of Islam, the easier it is to obtain donations to the church, and the more that they emphasise the dangers of Islam, the more likely it is that they will encourage people to become active within the church. A proposition which he again also denied.

337

Pastor Nalliah was re-examined by Mr Perkins. He said that in relation to the Newsletter and Christians, some 4000 copies were printed and he said that each Newsletter was addressed to "Dear Family in Christ", so it's constantly addressed to the Christian community.

338

He said that the article by Richard was on the website for possibly four months.

339

He was asked the source of his views with regard to the birth rate of various groups in Victoria and he then referred to a number of sources, such as an article by Mr Costello, a book entitled "Islam in Australia" and an article in the Sydney Morning Herald. Pastor Nalliah was asked about the expression "Catch the Fire" and why was it used, and he referred to a passage in the Bible and also a reference in the Newsletter of 2001 with regard to news of victory. He said this had nothing to do with war talk, but he was simply trying to communicate with the Christian community and often that language is different to another person's ears. Insofar as the concept of "Rise up or Pay the Price", he said in no way does that represent something about bringing civil insurrection into the land. It basically means telling the Church to rise and take their stand in the nation, with the emphasis on prayer. He said the use of the word "enemy" had nothing to do with Muslims, but was based upon the Bible. He said that in the middle column of the article, where he said that "the God we serve as Christians is not the Allah the Muslims serve" and he confirmed that that is his opinion, and it is based upon facts according to the Qur'an and the Bible.

340

He was asked about the cross-examination with regard to standing up, otherwise you will lose your homeland to a foreign legion. He said that what he believed and it was based upon the fact that the church had taken a lukewarm stand in standing up for Jesus. Asked about the expression "Rise Up Now and Stand for What We Believe", he said he wrote that because he travels across the land and he's seen how the Church has compromised the word of God and how Satan has entered the Church in so many subtle ways, and the land, and I've written there stating and telling the Church to wake up. Asked about the expression "whether Australia, by the year 2020, would be a Christian country", he said that he is a Christian and it would hurt him if that does not and he's determined to see that it does not happen and he did not want to see the loss of Christian values in our nation.

341

He was asked about the sentence about people very cleverly infiltrating Parliament, in order to stop the name of Jesus being mentioned. He said that that was an opinion which was held by him at the time of writing the article and still is. Asked to explain the words "Stand Up Now", he said that what he was saying was, are people going to let the Churches also shut down in Australia, which he would regard as a bad thing.

342

He said the statement by the Imam, "Australia will worship Allah through peace or violence", he said that it was an appropriate thing to refer to in a religious newsletter and it does not come as a surprise, having lived in Saudi Arabia, and he believed that the motto of a Muslim is to convert the whole world to Islam by peace or violence, where he had heard the same thing being expressed in that country. He said he was seeking to challenge the Christian community to rise up and take a stand and see the name of Jesus to be put up so we could maintain our Christian heritage as a nation. He said that those who believe and practice the scriptures which are in the Qur'an have used in the past, as in September 11, those scriptures to do those acts in those countries or in any other nation and he asked what stops them from doing the same in the nation of Australia.

343

He was asked about the Newsletter of the Summer 2001 and the statement that "We need to love Muslims with all our heart, however difficult it may be" and that is what he preaches.

344

His attention was drawn to the number of statements which he was shown by Muslim clerics and scholars around the world which condemned September 11 (Exhibit "FF") and he was asked about his view of those documents. He said that the documents were prepared to offer Islam in the positive light by condemning terrorist attacks. However, he referred to the fact that one of the documents was by Hammas, which is known for suicide bombing and so he invites the question as to whether the validity of the document is credible or not, particularly because of the reference to Hammas.

345

He was asked about the relationship between the aim of the seminar to warn Christians about the dangers of Islam and the necessity to love Muslims, and how the two fit together. He said the concept of love in the Christian faith is very different to the concept of love in the Islamic faith. Through Christianity, Jesus says that they are to love enemies no matter what the situation is and he says that those who do wrong to us, we would pray and love them very much. So what is happening, is that it is alerting the Christian community about what is happening and that they need to pray and love Muslims. There was cross-examination with regard to a statement by Sheikh Hillali, which appears at 2866 and following, but I do not propose to allow that to be admitted on the basis that it does not arise out of cross-examination.

346

When re-examined, he was asked what did he consider was the purpose of offering the seminar, and he gave the following answer: "I basically organise as many seminars and conferences, and this particular seminar was organised in particular after September the 11th because of the number of Christians across the nation who wanted to know more about Islam and were very naïve, not understanding what the teachings of Islam was. That was the focus in deciding to organise this seminar".

347

Dr Durie was called to give evidence by the respondents. He prepared the transcript of the seminar and it was tendered through him. As previously indicated, I believe that it is a very accurate transcript of what was said on the day.

[250]

352

Dr Durie's CV is set out at p.59 of his witness statement and indicates that he is presently Senior Associate with the title of Associate Professor, Department of Linguistics and Applied Linguistics at the University of Melbourne. His qualifications and experience are impressive and demonstrate that he is eminent in the field of linguistics. He has lived in Aceh, Indonesia and has carried out what are obviously detailed studies amongst the indigenous population, who he states are substantially Muslim. Appendix 2 constitutes a summary of his qualifications and experience concerning the concept of Jihad in the Acehnese province and he has written several articles and has reviewed books on Islam-related issues. At pp.3 and 4 of his statement he sets out the questions which he was asked to consider by the solicitors who briefed him on behalf of the respondents.

353

The complainants took an unusual course with regard to Dr Durie's evidence. On 1 March 2004, just before the luncheon adjournment, I indicated I would stand the matter down and I would deal with the issue of expertise at 2.15. Upon resuming, I was informed by counsel for the complainants that they did not wish that the question of the expertise be determined at any preliminary hearing, but be determined at the conclusion of the case. This course was also adopted by counsel for the respondents. I agreed to that request on the assumption that Dr Durie would be cross-examined about the substance of the material which is contained within his allegedly expert witness statement. However, counsel for the plaintiff took the forensic decision to rely solely upon the argument that Dr Durie was not an expert and that he was partial, and that his statement should be rejected. In so doing, they declined to cross-examine him on any matters other than the grounds upon which it was argued I should reject the statement. The result is that should I find Dr Durie is an expert who can give impartial evidence, then his statement stands unchallenged.

354

When cross-examined, Dr Durie said he was a Minister at St Mary's Church in Caulfield. He has not completed any independent formal study of the Arabic language. He cannot read Arabic. He could not read or understand classical Arabic. He has no formal qualifications in Islamic theology, but has studied it privately for three years.

355

He has a familiarity with Acehnese Jihad literature, but in the context of his linguistic research. His PhD was in "The Grammar of Acehnese on the basis of the dialect of North Aceh". He conceded that his thesis was essentially a linguistic one and not a theological one.

356

He said he first read the Hadith collections after 9 November and he thought it was about January 2002. He has read translations of the Koran and has looked at Pickfull's translations but has not read in its entirety any translations of the Koran. He agreed that after 11 September he asked himself what is Islam and decided to find out. He agreed, however, that as 2001 he was not an expert on Islam. He agreed that he wrote an article entitled "Understanding Islam, what does the Qur'an say?" at around 2001 and that although he had read some sections of the Koran, he was not an expert.

357

He agreed that he had limited contact with Muslims in Australia. He agreed that in 2002 he wrote to the Archbishop Peter Carnley promoting the Anglican Church of Australia following a press release from the Church referred to the principal cause of terror as being injustice. In that letter he said that he had a long involvement with Islamic communities and that he told the Archbishop the events of September 11 is an example of the application of classical Jihad theology. He asserts that although he is not an expert in Islamic theology, he was competent to make that judgment. He had focused on particular subjects in Islamic theology but would not, at that time, label himself an expert who he regards as somebody who has a broad understanding on a full range of topics within the theological systems of Islam. He agreed that in the letter to the Archbishop he said that the media statement with regard to Australian bishops reveals a sad ignorance about Islam and recalls for him President Bush's statements about true Islam being "non-violent". It is apparent that Dr Durie was critical of that statement.

358

The letter from Dr Durie of 27 November 2001 was tendered under objection. I propose to allow the tender of the document. There was an order for discovery made in these proceedings, but the document was not in existence at the time. Indeed, it was not obtained from the internet until some days before the use of it in cross-examination. It has probative value and is admissible as being relevant to what Dr Durie was saying with regard to his expertise at the time of writing. That expertise is referred to in the second paragraph of the letter.

359

He agreed in the past that he had responded to an invitation from the Equal Opportunity Commission about including Muslims in the "Race Discrimination Act" legislation and that at that time he expressed the view that to do so would be adopting Sharia law through the back door.

360

Insofar as this litigation is concerned, he conceded most of the assertions which are made, with the exception of paragraph (n) and (q). He said that after the complaint was lodged with the Equal Opportunity Commission, he met Pastor Scot and agreed to give advice and assistance to him. He advised him how to respond to the complaint and his attention was directed to a response which Pastor Scot had written, and he agreed that his handwriting was on the document making comments, but he said those comments were not directed to Pastor Scot, but notes to himself about some thoughts. Indeed, he agreed that he drafted a response to the complaint and this was then amended by Pastor Scot. At transcript 2408 he said the work of drafting it and putting it together was his and he conceded the response was largely consistent with his views. He agreed that he represented Pastor Scot at two conciliation meetings at VCAT and at one of the mediations he met Solomon alone and his recollection was that Solomon had requested that.

361

He agreed that he played a role in drafting the defence. He said he made notes of a meeting with Pastor Scot and passed them on to counsel, Mr Perkins, who later met with Pastor Scot and a witness statement was drafted. He said that Pastor Scot was concerned about his command of the English language.

362

He said he had been present at the hearing of this matter, that is, at VCAT, to assist Pastor Scot, but that he was aware of his overriding duty to the Tribunal when in the witness box. He agreed that during the course of the hearing he passed notes to Mr Perkins not only when expert witnesses were giving evidence, but when witnesses such as Eades, Thomas, Jackson and Solomon, that is, non-expert witnesses, were giving evidence. He conceded at one stage he was kneeling at the Bar table, a fact which I observed myself.

363

He conceded that he had been in regular communication with Pastor Scot as to how the case should be conducted. He also advised Scot on his legal representation being changed. He said this was an important case and he hoped that both sides were well represented. He denied that he thought that his interests and Pastor Scot's interests were the same.

364

He was taken to numerous emails sent to Pastor Scot and admitted that he told him that one of the existing responses to the complaint which had been drafted, "is not in our interest". He explained this by saying that he was speaking on behalf of the case and that he was not and did not have any personal interest at all. He conceded he was reflecting a desire for a successful outcome. Further, he also agreed that he had made contact with people overseas with a view to sounding them out with regard to issues in the litigation.

365

Included in the series of emails there is a reference to a meeting between the Premier and Pastor Nalliah, and Dr Durie advises Pastor Scot to omit reference to the meeting, making a comment "Do not alert the enemy of what God is doing through you in this way". He said the reference to the enemy was simply referring to the opposition, and he denied at any time he was demonstrating bias towards the respondents.

366

In re-examination he admitted that he had a website at the Church and that there were items on it about Islam. He said part of that material was after September 11 and he dealt with some of the key doctrines of Jihad and the history of Islam. Included on the website was advice to Christians on the way they should deal with Muslims. He said that was advice to love Muslim people and not to respond out of fear. He described his PhD and said as part of that he read many references to the Koran and said that the "whole analysis and understanding of this (Acehnese) cultural tradition requires an engagement with the theological framework of Jihad, even though he was analysing these materials for linguistic purposes. He said that he knew Eades and in fact had taught him as an undergraduate student, and they had many conversations with regard to Islam.

367

Mr Perkins sought to re-examine Dr Durie on a number of matters which I do not propose to form part of my decision-making process. The reason for this is that the cross-examination went to the issue of Dr Durie's expertise and what was sought to be done in cross-examination by Mr Perkins was to deal with the actual subject matter which was discussed from its source. In other words, to allow him to give evidence expanding upon the subject matter and not directed specifically to the issue of expertise or attempts by him to claim expertise which he may not possess. Insofar as the letter to Archbishop Carnley was concerned, it was conceded by Ms Mortimer that he does claim an expertise in inter-faith apologetics, and this founds the basis for him being able to state that he was competent to make the judgment which he did, which was to object to the statement made by the Church that there is a connection between terror and injustice. The same applies to his statement about the comment made by President Bush, which is one which he rejects.

368

He was asked about what steps he took to obtain advice on the proper ambit of his role as an expert witness. He said that he met with Mr Nash QC and he was given advice with regard to his responsibilities as an expert witness. He said he spoke with Mr Nash concerning responsibilities to the Court in the nature of the process of giving advice and that he had endeavoured to follow the advice which he was given and attempted to safeguard his independence as an expert.

369

He was asked about his objection to the fact sheets of the Equal Opportunity Commission Victoria and the basis upon which he objected. He said the fact sheets are a description of human rights under Islamic conditions. They presuppose the existence of Sharia law as the law of the land and it seemed incongruous to him that the Equal Opportunity Commission, which has as its function to uphold principles of liberal democracy, would be presenting a statement on Islam and human rights that presupposes a Sharia law system. Objection was taken to the development of this form of evidence and I believe this was correctly made. Nonetheless, the fact that he made this objection is open to the inference that he was anti-Muslim in respect of his conduct. He has provided an explanation, namely, there are a set of values which deal with human rights about which he had read in a book by Maudoodi. That explanation was perfectly admissible on the basis that it rebutted or was capable of rebutting any anti-Muslim sentiment.

370

With regard to his participation in the preparation of the defence, he was asked to explain the role that he played. He said that he attended a meeting with Mr Perkins and other consultants which were listed there "(and ?) instructing solicitor, and we discussed a wide range of issues to do with the defence, the nature of the complaints, and I gave advice about some of the issues that I felt seemed relevant to the defence. That was the nature of the contribution which I made at the time". He could not recall the date, but the defence was drafted after the meeting and he saw the particulars after it had been completed. Coming back to the letter to Archbishop Carnley, he was asked about whether he regarded what he said as requiring amendment of alteration, and he said: "I would say instead of the fact terrorism has been a perennial feature of Islamic Jihad, I would say the use of terror has been a perennial feature of Islamic Jihad since the 7th Century" and that he would stand by those views. At p.257 of the transcript he was asked whether the expertise that he claims in respect of inter-faith apologetics, what does it say about his expertise in Islamic theology, he said in answer: "I claim expertise in some specific topics of Islamic theology. They are the doctrine of Jihad, the areas of VIMIS and VIMA, Islamic teachings about Christianity and Jesus, and I also have expertise in some specific issues that have cropped up over centuries in Christian/Muslim apologetic dialogue, such as Mohammed's treatment of captives or his marriage to Aieshia and upon which he now claims expertise. He states that although he said that as at November 2001 he was not an expert on Islam, he now claimed expertise on Islam in specific subjects and that such expertise existed at the time he made his submission of the witness statement.

371

He was asked by Mr Perkins as to the role he took in relation to the preparation of the case. He then said in summary that he wrote a submission to the NRC on behalf of Daniel Nalliah and shared that document with Pastor Scot. "I gave comments to him on his submissions to the NRC at that time. I was not party to legal discussions at that time. When mediation failed and the matter went to the Tribunal, I met with yourself (Mr Perkins) and other parties involved such as instructing solicitors to discuss the case and gave advice at that time." He said that the Daniel Scot witness statement was prepared over a period of time and that he would from to time make a suggestion about this or that which might be looked at. "Further, at the point where witness statements were being drafted, I attended a meeting with Mr Perkins and Daniel Nalliah where aspects of his witness (statement?) were discussed and I met with him and spoke about his story. He asked me for help with English in drafting a sort of narrative of his story. I had no further role in the development of his witness statement. I have not read it. At the time of its submission, I had no role in the preparation of Daniel Scot's witness statement. In that I made contributions to him in his works on the appendix, but his actual statement itself is one which I had no role or involvement in the writing of that and have not read it." He asserted that he, to this date, had not read either Daniel Nalliah's or Daniel Scott's witness statement. This was as at 3 March 2004.

372

Mr Perkins then asked him the following question:

[382]

380

As I have indicated, I have carefully listened to the tapes. I have done so on a number of occasions. I have also carefully analysed the transcript, which I find to be substantially accurate. However, what the audio does is to produce a fairly significant alteration in the import of what was said by Pastor Scot. It is obvious, in my opinion, that the method of personal presentation can be a significant factor in the interpretation of what is meant to be conveyed by the speaker. Applying the objective test to which I have referred, I have found the oral presentation is a significant step or, more accurately, it is an important feature which demonstrates that Pastor Scot has, on the ground of the religious belief or activity of another person or class of person, engaged in conduct that incites hatred against, serious contempt for or revulsion or severe ridicule of that other class or class of persons. That class of persons are Muslims in general, but in respect to these proceedings Victorian Muslims.

381

I have been assisted in making findings by the expert evidence which has been called in this case, namely Father McInerney, Professor Bouma and Dr Kazi. Furthermore, I've had regard to the evidence of Mr Thomas, Mr Jackson and Dr Eades. I have taken into account such evidence subject to limitations. Having said that, the issue of vilification could have been determined upon the basis of an objective assessment of the tapes of the seminar, and without regard to either the evidence of the lay witnesses or with very little reliance upon the expert evidence. However, the fact is that the three lay persons were present, heard what was said, and were able to describe the effect which it had on those present, and therefore the issue of incitement.

382

I find that the conduct of the seminar by Pastor Scot, when looked at objectively and having regard to the context of the public act, and applying the test set out in Kazak at first instance, and that referred to in John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v. Kazak (2002) N.S.W.A.D.T.A.P. 35 at paragraph 16 constitutes a breach of section 8.

[399]

384

The seminar was not a balanced discussion. It was a process of taking literal translations from the Qur'an and making no allowance for their applicability to modern day society. The ordinary, reasonable reader would understand from the public act that he or she was being incited to hatred towards or serious contempt for or serious ridicule of a person on the ground of race. As was indicated in Kazak, many readers will disagree with the sentiments expressed by Pastor Scot, but that is not the test. The test is whether the ordinary reasonable reader who is not malevolently inclined or free from susceptibility to prejudice would be inclined to hatred, ridicule, contempt or revulsion by reason of the presentation of the seminar. I find that the evidence of the three lay witnesses is probative of the fact that what was said amounted to incitement. The two lay witnesses called by the respondent had a different view, but I prefer the complainant's witnesses whose evidence I find to be more consistent with my listening to the tape.

385

Furthermore, there are issues with regard to the credibility of Pastor Scot, and I have indicated circumstances in which I believe he is not a credible witness. I accept the complainant's argument that, objectively viewed, Pastor Scot's evidence was evasive, inconsistent and exaggerated. I find that it constitutes a breach of section 8 of the legislation.

386

In that regard I have taken into account the evidence of Father McInerney and Dr Kazi which was to the effect that the conduct of the seminar was not a fair representation of Islamic religious beliefs. I have also had regard to the views of Professor Bouma.

387

Interpretation of the Qur'an by Pastor Scot represented the views of a small group of fundamentalists, namely, Wahabbists, who are located in the Gulf states and who are a minority group, and their views bear no relationship to mainstream Muslim beliefs and, in particular, Australian Muslims.

388

The respondents rely upon section 11 of the legislation which states that a person does not contravene section 8 if the person establishes that that person's conduct was engaged in reasonably and in good faith in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held or other conduct engaged in for any religious purpose or any purpose that is in the public interest.

[412]

391

Insofar as the newsletter is concerned, this was written by the secondnamed respondent. The article is entitled "2002 - Will Australia be a Christian Country?". On the previous page he describes Muslims as "the enemy" due to some incident which took place in Saudi Arabia. Coming back to the article, he refers to Muslims coming to Australia by boats and he gives numbers who come in this way, and questioned as to why they are getting visas when our brothers and sisters in Christ are being slaughtered in mainly Islamic countries. Further, those Christians who tried to obtain a refugee visa cannot get one. He states, however, that Muslims obtain visas from the very countries where Christians are being raped, tortured and killed. He then asked his readers the following question: "What stops the Muslims from doing the same in Australia?".

392

Further, he refers to the expansion of mosques in England. He said many mayors are Muslims. In referring to the expansion of mosques, he states that some churches have been closed down. They (Muslims) also very cleverly infiltrated Parliament and other influential places (even in Australia). This is in order to stop the name of Jesus being mentioned, because Islam knows the name of Jesus is trouble for him and also to spy on what the western governments are doing. He also relates a story of a pastor being told by an Imam that "Holy war is, we will make everyone in Australia worship Allah. Through peace or through violence". Finally he talks about birthing practices as being such that Muslims are increasing in numbers while "Aussies are on the decline". Viewed objectively and in their totality, these statements are likely to incite a feeling of hatred towards Muslims. They seek first of all to create fear in those who read the article of being harmed by Muslims. Further, that they are increasing in numbers while Aussies are on the decline, suggesting that they are seeking to take over Australia, which is consistent by the quote said to be made by an Imam. I find that this breaches section 8 of the Act.

393

Furthermore, there is no protection to be obtained by reliance upon section 11 because I find that such statements were not engaged in reasonably and in good faith. As I have indicated, I find Pastor Nalliah not to be a credible witness. I do so because of the way in which he wrote this newsletter and the way in which he answered questions about the matter in cross-examination. In my view, he was not subjectively honest and the newsletter, when viewed objectively, does not satisfy me that it was engaged in "good faith".

Islamic Council of Victoria v Catch the Fire Ministries Inc

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (416 paragraphs)

Islamic Council of Victoria v Catch the Fire Ministries Inc (Final) [2004] VCAT 2510 (22 December 2004)

Parties

Legislation Cited (2)

Cases Cited (3)