Morning Mail has always been in the front lines for diversity and tolerance, or something, and were delighted to see that Sydney University’s Law School has a thing for Muslim law – Sharia – being melded into our own laws.
It is deplorable that the University doesn’t have the same passion for Canon Law – the law governing the Catholic Church, and we sincerely hope that in time they will repair this omission.
Long before they introduced Muslim Law they should have taken Aboriginal Law on board, and used their advocacy to promote Aboriginal law as they are doing with Islam.
In fact, now that I think about it, why do we not have Irish,Spanish, German, French, Italian and Greek law issues being pushed by the Sydney Law School? Why this favoritism to Muslims?
Why, it almost looks as though they have not been aware of all the Micks and Frogs and Krauts who have settled here.
We have asked Professor Hussein Abdullah Mohammed Pilgarlic, of the Nigerian Pilgarlics, to lend Sydney Law School a hand and make some suggestions.
He suggests that it is in Family Law where the University should be going first.
The foundation for family law is an understanding of the position of a woman, he says. It is clear enough than women are inferior because “Allaah has made one of them to excel the other”[al-Nisa’ 4:34]
Not only that but women are full of guile [12.28,33, 34, 50] – and there is a more than a hint of malice in their guile.
Women are the biggest affliction men can endure – “After me I have not left any trial more severe to men than women.” Hadith of Bukhari 5096. (Hadiths are the sayings and doings of Mohammed.)
And women are deficient in intelligence and religion;- “I have not seen anyone more deficient in ability to reason and deen (faith)than you. A cautious sensible man can be led astray by some of you.” [Bukhari 304] This hadith is important because in it Mohammed explains why women are more deficient. It is very simple the way he puts it.
Now, should divorce enter into it, that hadith and the Qur’an itself [2.282] puts a woman’s testimony as worth half of that of the man – something to be borne in mind by the judge hearing a custody case.
In marriage a woman is to be regarded as “tilth” – as if she was a block of land in which a farmer can do whatever he pleases. “Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will.” [2.223]
This is interesting because ISIS and other rapists follow the rest of the verse which instructs the husband to say a prayer or something first before the rape. The fact that ISIS rapists say prayers first whereas NSW Muslim rapists don’t shows that ISIS follows the Qur’an more faithfully than our Muslims.
Now, if a woman does not offer her husband his (hem hem) conjugal rights, angels curse her all night. [Bukhari 5193/4] so we have a fair idea of the status of women now, and how they rank with Allah..
Adultery is a big thing in Sharia, they call it Zina (but it includes sex before or outside marriage) This is not covered in the Qur’an explicitly though it is in the Hadiths and all legal scholars agree that it is to be punished by stoning if the woman is muhsan (adult, free, and Muslim) though a lesser punishment like 80 lashes is sometimes appropriate.
There is much more than this of course relating to marriage, but we offer Professor Pilgarlic’s examples as something for the Law School to get its teeth into.
Enough of that – what goes on in a Muslim bedroom – or any other for that matter – is not for MM to dwell on.
However, when it comes to punishing criminals there are other issues for the Law School to promote if they are sincere in incorporating Sharia into Australian
For example Qur’an 5:38-39 -“As to the thief, male or female, cut off his or her hands: a punishment by way of example, from Allah, for their crime: and Allah is Exalted in power.
But if the thief repents after his crime, and amends his conduct, Allah turneth to him in forgiveness; for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.”
His hand is not restored it would seem but he can still get into heaven.
When it comes to grog and gambling:- “O ye who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, and divination by arrows (that’s how they gambled in those days), are an abomination, – of Satan’s handwork: eschew such abomination, that ye may prosper.”
What this means, as the law school will advise, is that the police prosecutor, when a Muslim is tagged with sly-grogging or SP betting, will be encouraged to ask for the harshest penalties. Not only are these offences under state law but the man knew that they were the work of the devil and the villain still went ahead.
On second thought there may well be Muslims who welcome the Law School’s endeavours when it comes to marriage but not so keen when it comes to crime. Hmmm.
What about illicit nookie? There are a few Quranic verses but 24:2 sets it out – “The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication – flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.”
A hundred lashes and it has to be done in public. And the flogger has to lay it on with a will.
Now what about a woman who has been raped? Well, if she accuses a Muslim of it the court should demand – as Sharia does – that she produces four witnesses. And if she hasn’t got them it’s 80 lashes – for her! [24:4, 24:6, 9:66 and 16:106]
Homosexuality is not a crime in Australia – indeed it is exalted above all other human relationships – so what is the suggestion the Law schools shall give on this issue?
“The Prophet said: If you find anyone doing as Lot’s people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done. [Abu Dawood, 38:4447, Al-Tirmidhi, 15:1456, Ibn Maajah, 20:2561]
Lot’s people were a bad lot in the Old Testament who did the distinguishing act of gays – anal sex. Very keen on that, they were, but they did not demand the right to Gay Marriage for some reason.
The hadiths are no guide how, precisely, to kill the gays but Mohammed’s successor, Abu Bakr, thought that tossing them off high buildings would do the trick.
And there is a real theological problem with the some Qur’anic verses describing Paradise refer to “immortal boys” (56:17, 76:19) or “young men” (52:24) who go round serving wine!
The Law School will argue that a devout Muslim who tosses a gay off the AMP building in defiance of our own laws is following a culture that has endured for 1500 years and has scriptural authority. And courts recognising custom is already a ground with Australian judges for reducing penalty.
MM wishes it could give its many gay readers some comfort but it must be said that things are not looking good for them, if the Sydney Law School has its way.
Perhaps they should have a talk with the Law School and demonstrate in front the way they do to everybody else.
Nobody else in Australia will protest that our law schools are teaching future solicitors, barristers, and judges that a bloody-handed legal philosophy from primitive societies in the 7th century is just what we need in 21st century Australia.