Catch the Fire and Daniel Scot’s (in)credible testimony

One reading of His Honour’s finding is that he is rejecting orthodox Islamic interpretations of the Koran as “illogical, unsustainable” and “astounding”. Many might find this a bold and courageous judgment.

However it is more likely that Judge Higgins’ discussion of this matter merely demonstrates a poor grasp of Islamic jurisprudence. It is hardly surprising that an Australian judge is not qualified to rule on a matter of Islamic law. What is more troubling is that Judge Higgins had been presented with considerable amounts of evidence throughout the trial from both sides concerning the fact that the Koran is to be interpreted in context, and that this context would include the hadiths. Yet he apparently overlooked all this in a crucial consideration of the question of Scot’s credibility, a matter on which the whole outcome of the trial hinged. If Scot’s answers seemed to His Honour to be incomprehensible and “astounding”, this was enough to prove his dishonesty.

Another troubling aspect of this particular matter is Judge Higgins had found Scot was too “literalistic” in his approach to the Koran, and that he did not attend to context. This lay at the heart of his objection to Scot’s manner of interpreting the Koran. Yet in relying on his own ability to interpret the text, His Honour ignores context, and does the very thing for which he has criticised Scot.

His Honour also appears to rely too much on his own legal world view - that it is illogical to apply mercy after punishment. He does not take into account the theological values attached to the concept of mercy in Islam, and specifically the eternal dimension of the relationship with Allah, which means that people are as much in need of Allah’s mercy after punishment as they were before.

All this goes to vindicate Scot, who rightly defends his interpretation of the verses - however counter-intuitive it sounds to an Australian judge’s ears - because he appears to have studied the matter and has taken into account the context in which the verses arose.

Did Scot warn tell his listeners that many Muslims do not accept his views?

This is not the only situation where it is hard to reconcile the transcript with His Honour’s findings. During cross-examination the following interchange occurs between the Queen’s Counsel Brind Woinarski and Daniel Scot:

Woinarski: "You didn't tell this audience what many, many Moslems here in Australia believe, did you?"
Scot: "I said that many, many Moslems don't believe it, yes."

Yet His Honour reports this as: “He agreed that he did not tell them that there were many Muslims in Australia who did not hold the same beliefs…”

Here His Honour appears to treat the word “yes” as if it was an unqualified answer to the “yes/no” question, without putting it in the context of Scot’s whole answer. His report of the exchange thus ends up being the opposite of what Scot had said in cross-examination.

The point is of real importance, because it goes to the heart of the complaint: Did Scot vilify Australian Muslims? Scot had said during the seminar that the “vast majority” of Muslims did not embrace the interpretations he was teaching of the Koran and because of this he warned that “we have not to be fearful of Muslim people”. However this aspect of Scot’s message during the seminar is passed over when His Honour wrongly reports, “He agreed that he did not tell them …”

Muslim demons or demonic Muslims?

Scot’s credibility is also undermined by the way His Honour reports a list of statements he was alleged to have made during the course of the seminar. What is missing is an acknowledgment that several of these “offensive” statements were in fact reports from the Koran and hadiths.

This omission verges on the absurd when His Honour reports Scot as stating that “Muslims are demons” (paragraph 383.6). Such a statement, if true, would indeed give a very negative impression of Scot’s credibility.