Sharia Law has no place in a free democracy
-
Peter Costello
Time is GMT + 8 hours
Posted: 24 August 2005 0915 hrs
Muslims who want Islamic law told to leave Australia
SYDNEY : Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law should get out of Australia, a senior government minister has said, hinting that some radical clerics might be asked to leave.
Australia was a secular state and its laws were made by parliament, Treasurer Peter Costello told national television late Tuesday.
"If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you," said Costello, who is seen as heir-apparent to Prime Minister John Howard.
"I'd be saying to clerics who are teaching that there are two laws governing people in Australia, one the Australian law and another the Islamic law, that that is false.
"There's only one law in Australia -- it's the law that's made by the parliament of Australia and enforced by our courts. There is no second law.
"If you can't agree with parliamentary law, independent courts, democracy, and would prefer Sharia law and have the opportunity to go to another country which practices it, perhaps, then, that's a better option," Costello said.
Asked whether he meant radical clerics would be forced to leave, he replied: "Where a person has dual citizenship, it might be possible to ask them to exercise that other citizenship. That might be a live possibility."
In the wake of last month's London bombings by British-born Muslims, Britain is debating new powers which could include closing mosques where clerics are suspected of supporting extremists and deporting those who glorify suicide bombers.
Australia, which like Britain has troops in Iraq, fears that it could be the target of a similar attack by disaffected members of its small Muslim community and is also contemplating tougher anti-terror legislation.
The measures will be debated next month at a meeting between Howard and leaders of Australia's state governments.
Howard also called a meeting of 14 mainstream Muslim leaders Tuesday, where they pledged to defend the country against Islamic terrorism, disowned Osama bin Laden and accepted differences with the government over the Iraq war.
- AFP -
Let the Muslims have their own Laws! As long as they don't contradict or interfere with the state laws it should be all rite.
They need more rules to live their lives. -
Is it not amazing that the Muslims will emigrate to the West, plant themselves into the newly adopted Countries, Societies and communities, but will NOT abide by the Laws and Communal Systems of the adopted Countries ?
Should the Muslim emigrants be allowed the Rights to change the Laws of their adopted country, so as to accomodate their own cultural-social-religious requirements ?
Is this not an insidious and subtle way of taking over of a country, by settling into the adopted country, and after a few generations - will then demand the EQUAL Political Rights to practise their kind of antiquated Laws ?
What is the Shariah Laws that are claimed by the Muslims to be essential to their being good Muslims ?
Is the Shariah Laws truly God's Laws, or is the Shariah Laws forumulated by Man to preserve the dominant superiority of the Man over Women, and stronger Men over the Weak ?
Is the Shariah Laws suited for LIFE in the TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY ?
Islamic Laws
http://www.al-islam.org/laws/ -
As a Sunni Muslim, I don't think this is a fair question. Just like all other religions, we have rules (or shall I say guidance) to live by. In Singapore, we are fortunate to be able to practise Shariah law. Even so, we are still abiding by the Constitutional laws. I think most people misinterpret Shariah law as something which is to be the true way of ruling. Like Islam, it is greatly misunderstood. As the saying goes, what people don't understand, they generally fear. Even within the Muslim circle, I've problems understanding the obsession with Shariah law.
-
Actually the real trump card they use for taking over countries is by breeding at a much faster rate than the local born population, hence turning demographics upside down and becoming the majority in a few generation's time.Originally posted by Atobe:Is this not an insidious and subtle way of taking over of a country, by settling into the adopted country, and after a few generations - will then demand the EQUAL Political Rights to practise their kind of antiquated Laws ? -
Originally posted by modgurl:
Truly, all religions provide 'rules' or 'guidance' to conduct their Lives.
As a Sunni Muslim, I don't think this is a fair question. Just like all other religions, we have rules (or shall I say guidance) to live by. In Singapore, we are fortunate to be able to practise Shariah law. Even so, we are still abiding by the Constitutional laws. I think most people misinterpret Shariah law as something which is to be the true way of ruling. Like Islam, it is greatly misunderstood. As the saying goes, what people don't understand, they generally fear. Even within the Muslim circle, I've problems understanding the obsession with Shariah law.
Unfortunately, in most social and cultural - or religious - practices, the 'Rules' or 'Guidance' are 'UPDATED' to suit LIFE as in the TWENTY FIRST CENTURY.
'Rules' or 'Guidance' are made by MAN.
What are 'Rules' or 'Guidance' ?
Is it not to subject all to follow the 'Rules' or 'Guidance' that are developed and imposed by the THOUGHT PROCESSES of MAN - (ONE or Many Men) ?
The point is that when one decide to migrate to another host country, one should not IMPOSE one's culture, religious faith and practises on others.
The Muslims in UK is slowly but surely pushing the boundaries of goodwill extended by the UK Citizens - (the English, Welsh, Scots, and Irish) - by demanding their rights to practise Islam, follow their own set of "Religious" Shariah Laws; and soon after a few generations, will demand that the Shariah Law be the National Law.
This is happening already in Indonesia, when the development of religions in the country had ranged from Animism, to Hinduism, and Islam - all are foreign to the Indonesian natives.
It is best that Religious Practises be kept private, and should not be imposed on the Nation - especially when it is an adopted country.
The Muslims that have migrated, have done so for economic reason; and having been given the opportunity to settle in a foreign country, should be more modest in their demands that can impose on the hosts.
This is the cause of the problems of misunderstanding towards Islam.
The Catholics practise near similar strict 'Rules and Guidance' that are supposed to extend into all spheres of a Catholic Life, yet it does not demand to impose itself on a National scale that affect the freedom of non-believers. -
You're going to have to take the originally-posted article in context, modgurl. In the past few weeks, there's been a lot of coverage in the Australian press about radical Muslim leaders telling their followers to reject all aspects of Australian life, including the law, in favour of Sharia law. They preached separatism and just stopped short of advocating terrorism on Australian soil. These are the people that Costello was referring to, and rightly so - nobody's going to impinge upon their way of life, but if they're not going to return the courtesy, they've got no business coming here.Originally posted by modgurl:As a Sunni Muslim, I don't think this is a fair question. Just like all other religions, we have rules (or shall I say guidance) to live by. In Singapore, we are fortunate to be able to practise Shariah law. Even so, we are still abiding by the Constitutional laws. I think most people misinterpret Shariah law as something which is to be the true way of ruling. Like Islam, it is greatly misunderstood. As the saying goes, what people don't understand, they generally fear. Even within the Muslim circle, I've problems understanding the obsession with Shariah law. -
I think you misunderstood the article. The Syariah Law they are advocating only applies to Muslims so it does not affect the freedom of non-believers, just as how it is in Singapore. I don't see any sentences that imply that they want the law to affect every Australian. They are only proposing that Muslims in Australia be subjected to Syariah Law. So if they don't want to be subjected to Syariah Law, don't be a Muslim. Convert.Originally posted by Atobe:Truly, all religions provide 'rules' or 'guidance' to conduct their Lives.
Unfortunately, in most social and cultural - or religious - practices, the 'Rules' or 'Guidance' are 'UPDATED' to suit LIFE as in the TWENTY FIRST CENTURY.
'Rules' or 'Guidance' are made by MAN.
What are 'Rules' or 'Guidance' ?
Is it not to subject all to follow the 'Rules' or 'Guidance' that are developed and imposed by the THOUGHT PROCESSES of MAN - (ONE or Many Men) ?
The point is that when one decide to migrate to another host country, one should not IMPOSE one's culture, religious faith and practises on others.
The Muslims in UK is slowly but surely pushing the boundaries of goodwill extended by the UK Citizens - (the English, Welsh, Scots, and Irish) - by demanding their rights to practise Islam, follow their own set of "Religious" Shariah Laws; and soon after a few generations, will demand that the Shariah Law be the National Law.
This is happening already in Indonesia, when the development of religions in the country had ranged from Animism, to Hinduism, and Islam - all are foreign to the Indonesian natives.
It is best that Religious Practises be kept private, and should not be imposed on the Nation - especially when it is an adopted country.
The Muslims that have migrated, have done so for economic reason; and having been given the opportunity to settle in a foreign country, should be more modest in their demands that can impose on the hosts.
This is the cause of the problems of misunderstanding towards Islam.
The Catholics practise near similar strict 'Rules and Guidance' that are supposed to extend into all spheres of a Catholic Life, yet it does not demand to impose itself on a National scale that affect the freedom of non-believers.
Another point is that, people should change their lives to suit religion not the other way round. So it doesn't matter if it's the 20th century or the 50th century. It should not be 'updated' as that would only mean human interference in God's will. And out of the 3 semitic religions, Judaism and Islam has remained constant.. That is the mark of a true religion. -
They do their own , we do our own.
They are they , we are we. -
Well said... Like other religions, these are just rules not laws!!! I can't imagine a day when I have to hide to eat meat on the 1st and 15th of the lunar month, for fear of prosecution!Originally posted by modgurl:As a Sunni Muslim, I don't think this is a fair question. Just like all other religions, we have rules (or shall I say guidance) to live by. In Singapore, we are fortunate to be able to practise Shariah law. Even so, we are still abiding by the Constitutional laws. I think most people misinterpret Shariah law as something which is to be the true way of ruling. Like Islam, it is greatly misunderstood. As the saying goes, what people don't understand, they generally fear. Even within the Muslim circle, I've problems understanding the obsession with Shariah law.
When in Rome do what the Romans do... -
Yes.Originally posted by ndsef:Well said... Like other religions, these are just rules not laws!!! I can't imagine a day when I have to hide to eat meat on the 1st and 15th of the lunar month, for fear of prosecution!
When in Rome do what the Romans do...
If you can't take the heat, get the hell out.It's a free world. -
You can have your shariah law as long as it doesn't conflict with national laws. If you don't like that, i think it is only fair you are booted out. I think this should also apply to asylum seekers.
-
The problem is that some people treat these rules as absolutes, and clearly want to subject the rest of the world to these rules, whether the world likes it or not. You must understand that not everyone is as moderate as you are. Just read the interview i posted a while ago in another thread.Originally posted by ndsef:Well said... Like other religions, these are just rules not laws!!! I can't imagine a day when I have to hide to eat meat on the 1st and 15th of the lunar month, for fear of prosecution!
When in Rome do what the Romans do... -
They are trying to build a muslim world slowly
-
But I find that this law seem to be very harsh... Whipping and sorts...
-
yeah, this law allow women to be whipped, stoned and hanged. There was this case where a single mother have to support her children and resort to smuggling drugs, when she was caught they hang her.
-
Smuggle drugs, death sentence in SG alsoOriginally posted by fai:yeah, this law allow women to be whipped, stoned and hanged. There was this case where a single mother have to support her children and resort to smuggling drugs, when she was caught they hang her.
But whipping of woman have to see what sort of crime -
While we're on that topic, Sheik Khalid Yasin, a radical cleric from America, recently visited Australia where he presented a series of lectures. In the course of instructing young Muslims, he advocated the right of a Muslim man to beat his wife. He also stated that it is impossible for Muslims to have non-Muslim friends and described universities as "a gateway for deviation".Originally posted by fai:yeah, this law allow women to be whipped, stoned and hanged. There was this case where a single mother have to support her children and resort to smuggling drugs, when she was caught they hang her.
Don't know about the rest of you guys, but I sure wouldn't want to live next door to a guy like this, especially if he's trying to get the local Muslims to impose such views on me. -
i'd say execute all radicals...sadaam did it and it worked...no nonsense from these scumbags.those who want sharya law can go to iran or whatever, it has no place in a democracy or even a farce one like ours. you come to a place to live you live according to existing customs and abide by local law..you have no right to demand any rights.
-
I may be wrong here but the thread seems to be directing towards Islam-bashing.
-
hmm ... last Christmas in Australia ... there was this heated debate in Sydney because the govt. didn't allow some childcare centres and schools to put up Christmas decorations.Originally posted by modgurl:I may be wrong here but the thread seems to be directing towards Islam-bashing.
the reason they gave was the need to respect and tolerate each other's religion. which to be was really weird...
anyway .. dats how it is
weird .. but wadever -
There's always the lynch mob mentality to account for here, so I'll speak for myself.Originally posted by modgurl:I may be wrong here but the thread seems to be directing towards Islam-bashing.
Despite what Khalid Yasin says, I have a number of good friends who are Muslim - the degree of mutual respect as share qualifies it as nothing less than true friendship.
I do have a real problem with someone who moves into a new country and then demands that the country follows the rules that he's brought along. That the person or persons in question happen to be Muslims is a matter of happenstance. -
Am I right to say that for MOST Muslims (not all), the religion comes first, then the state? Meaning to say that Muslims will identify themselves as Muslim first before Australian or British or Singaporean?
-
Soon the oil rich muslim nations will say NO SALE OF OIL TO NON-MUSLIM NATIONS
No oil = buses,cars,bikes,trains,ships,planes and another vehicles that depends on oil for movement will be not moving
Luckily I bought a bicycle liao -
Who has the bigger power in the scheme of things ?Originally posted by loudmonkey:Am I right to say that for MOST Muslims (not all), the religion comes first, then the state? Meaning to say that Muslims will identify themselves as Muslim first before Australian or British or Singaporean?
GOD or Government ?
Most religions will expect you to follow the teachings of the Religion First, to be first responsible to GOD, then to the Country.
However, most religions have also morphed with the times when social, cultural, economic, and political changes have moved on from the days when men will still enslave other humans, when it is no longer 'an eye for an eye' kind of justice, when the "sword and stones" are tools for execution.