Friday, September 17, 2010
Thanks for the asylum status, though we still need to decide whether to attack you in the name of Islam, or not: Aussie terrorist plotters
Terror attacks debated at Melbourne mosque, court told
Worshippers at a Melbourne mosque last year were discussing whether it would be allowed under the rules of Islam to attack government institutions in Australia, the Supreme Court heard today.
Defence counsel John O'Sullivan, for Abdirahman Ahmed, one of five men on trial over alleged plans to attack Holsworthy Army Barracks in Sydney, said his client was intending to put an end to any debate about whether violence in Australia was allowed under Islam.
Mr O'Sullivan said there was no dispute there was a number of people connected with the mosque which Amhed attended were debating the possibility of acting violently against government institutions in Australia, but he said Mr Ahmed opposed the attack.
Earlier this week, the court was told that Ahmed said it would be catastrophic for Australian Muslims if the attack went ahead.
"In Ahmed's trial the defence does not dispute that there were a number of people associated with the mosque he attended who were debating the question of whether it was permissible according to the teaching of Islam to engage in armed conflict with government institutions in Australia," Mr O'Sullivan said.
But Mr O'Sullivan said the one dispute in Ahmed's trial was his reason for trying to get a religious authority to answer that question.
"The defence says he was in fact intending to put an end to any further debate about the question."
The five defendants - Wissam Mahmoud "Omar" Fattal, Nayef El Sayed, Yacqub Khayre, Saney Edow Aweys and Abdirahman Mohamud Ahmed - are not being tried as a group.
The jury has been told each man is being tried separately within the court.
Posted by Cole at 2:43 PM