Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's unfortunate that men like this and Sheikh Hilali are able to garner the media attention they do and I cannot help but wonder what purpose it serves other than to create disharmony.
Frankly with views such as the ones expressed in this article I would say that Abu Ham-za should return to his country of origin if he's not prepared to follow the laws of the land he calls home. I'd love to see him speak out against the laws in his country of birth and see how far he got. I'm quite sure there are heinous penalties for doing so. Here he'll get a nice slap on the wrist, embarass all the upstanding Muslim Australians that have been here peacefully and law abiding for decades and stir up a hornets nest amongst those who are easily swayed by such blatant **** stirring. It's like the Muslim version of Paris Hilton for media coveting. All talk, no substance. Famous for being controversial.
It's offensive to those of us that live here both Muslim and non-Muslim alike. Follow the law of the land or get out. No need to bring your crappy baggage with you.
Just some thoughts from a sick and tired athiest.
Absolutely agree with you Moonshadow. We see these stories on extreme Muslim behaviour crop up time and again in the media. The only reason that these people get away with saying such things is because they have chosen to live in a free country and there is no real consequence for them speaking their mind.
What I would really like to know though is this. Is it a common belief in the Muslim community and just not talked about that much or is it as extreme as I would really like to believe? Perhaps a Muslim could enlighten me.
What I would really like to know though is this. Is it a common belief in the Muslim community and just not talked about that much or is it as extreme as I would really like to believe? Perhaps a Muslim could enlighten me.
And if not, do muslims have the right to ignore parts of the koran and believe their own thing?
"Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all)," (4:34)."
I might be wrong, but I don't think the koran has different "testaments", where things were allowed or tolerated at one point for certain people, then disallowed. That's why we see muslim countries as largely third-world countries living under sharia law.
I think if they want to live in their own country under these laws then so be it. That's another issue. I'm not sure about America but here in Australia we have often got these stories of clerics teaching these types of things which are against Australian law, but are virtually impossible to police because they happen in the home.
Which brings to mind another question. If the teachings of a religion go against the laws of the country of residence which takes precedence?
...
Which brings to mind another question. If the teachings of a religion go against the laws of the country of residence which takes precedence?
I think in most democratic countries, the law of the land prevails - and thank goodness for that! Most democracies tend to be secular. Don't know about which law prevails in countries like Saudi.
I think in most democratic countries, the law of the land prevails - and thank goodness for that! Most democracies tend to be secular. Don't know about which law prevails in countries like Saudi.
My thought was along the lines of what is being taught by religions, as in this instance. Where is the fine line between teaching an interpretation of religious doctrine and willfully inciting people to break the law?
Which brings to mind another question. If the teachings of a religion go against the laws of the country of residence which takes precedence?
I know that in America there have been incidents in which religious parents refused medical treatment for their children who were ill and desparately needed it and died when they didn't get it. The parents were charged with crimes which they should be. Whenever someone who is an innocent vicitim of a misguided religious belief suffers as a result of it that the laws of the nation they're in will prevail. This has happened a number of times in America and I'm certain it must be happening in other nations as well. We have very clear laws regarding domestic violence as I'm sure Australia does as well and no one is except from them due to their religious affiliations.
My guess would be if there is teaching (without intent to incite people to go against the law), that should be fine. It was reported that some mullahs in UK hid behind this and claimed they were not inciting but only teaching.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
