A Melbourne Islamic cleric has told his male followers they can force their wives to have sex and hit them if they are disobedient.
Coburg’s self-styled cleric Samir Abu Hamza said despite Australian rape laws it was impossible for a man to rape his wife even if she refused to have sex with him.
In a recorded lecture entitled “The Keys to a Successful Marriage”, delivered to his male worshippers but now broadcast on the internet and viewed by several thousand people, Mr Hamza said Islamic law allowed men to hit their wives as a last resort, but they were not to make them bleed or become bruised.
He said under Islamic law, as described in a koranic verse, it was a man’s right to demand sex from his wife whenever he felt like it.
“If the husband was to ask her for a sexual relationship and she is preparing the bread on the stove she must leave it and come and respond to her husband, she must respond,” Mr Hamza told his male followers on the video sermon.
He then mocked Australia’s criminal laws, which required consent for sex to be lawful.
“In this country if the husband wants to sleep with his wife and she does not want to and she hasn’t got a sickness or whatever, there is nothing wrong with her she just does not feel like it, and he ends up sleeping with her by force . . . it is known to be as rape,” Mr Hamza said. “Amazing, how can a person rape his wife?”
In the contradictory sermon, delivered in Melbourne or Sydney about 2003 but posted late last year, Mr Hamza initially instructs his listeners “don’t hit your wife”.
But he goes on to say exactly how men should hit their wives, according to his interpretation of Islamic teachings.
He said Islam cursed “those people who hit the animal on the face, (but) what about hitting your wife?”
“First of all advise them,” he said. “You beat them . . . but this is the last resort.
“After you have advised them (not to be disobedient) for a long, long time then you smack them, you beat them and, please, brothers, calm down, the beating the Mohammed showed is like the toothbrush that you use to brush your teeth.
“You are not allowed to bruise them, you are not allowed to make them bleed.”
Mr Hamza told his followers not to get carried away and become too physical with the beatings.
“This is just to shape them up, shape up woman – that is about it,” he said.
“You don’t go and grab a broomstick and say that is what Allah has said,” Mr Hamza said to sporadic laughter from his flock.
Mr Hamza runs the Islamic Information and Services Network of Australasia on Sydney Rd, Coburg, which offers spiritual advice, prayer facilities and boxing, karate and gym classes for Muslims.
Despite concerns about his preaching being raised by female members of the Islamic community, Mr Hamza yesterday stood by his comments and blamed controversy over them on a hidden Zionist agenda run by the media.
Questioned about his teachings, Mr Hamza said a wife was allowed to be hit on the hand or leg, but “of course, not on the head”.
He said if a Muslim wife disobeyed her husband, such as continuing to go out when requested not to, she was able to be subjected to moderate physical punishment.
Mr Hamza also reiterated his belief that women should submit to sex when husbands required it.
Asked whether it was impossible for a man to rape his wife under Islamic law, Mr Hamza said either male or female partners should be able to demand and receive sex.
Although he said he could not recall exactly when he gave the lecture, Mr Hamza said it was to followers in Sydney several years ago and had only been posted on the internet in recent months.
He said he would not make further comment on it.
“Don’t call me, don’t bother me and please don’t call me ever again,” he said.
Islamic Women’s Welfare Council of Victoria executive director Joumanah El Matrah said Hamza’s interpretation was bigoted.
“Even orthodox practitioners and imams do not consider any form of family violence acceptable,” she said.
Islamic Council of Victoria vice-president Sherene Hassan said Islam did not condone domestic violence.
“The Prophet Mohammed stated ‘The best of you is he who is kindest to his wife’,” Ms Hassan said.
“The ICV has made a commitment to address this issue by organising a series of workshops early this year where imams and Muslim women will be invited to discuss topics such as these.”
Source: The Herald Sun
By: old shape - 31st January 2009 at 00:01
Drug for converting Lesbians
Tricoxagin.
I got it on a text today, shouldn’t have read it during a meeting. LoL.
By: AE90 - 29th January 2009 at 16:23
So true. But I think we all know who is right here.
What I suggest is only a modern version of the Electric Chair.
one with nice blue flashing LEDs and a magazine rack i think would be modern enough?
just a joke, Nitrogen asphyxiation should be method behind the the death penalty by now
By: Grey Area - 29th January 2009 at 06:50
Indeed! cU in the other threads.
There’s a pint in the pump if we ever meet.
I feel duty-bound to warn you that he only drinks Glenfiddich….. 😎
By: PMN - 28th January 2009 at 23:55
There’s a pint in the pump if we ever meet.
I’ll hold you to that! Then buy you one in return. 🙂
Paul
By: old shape - 28th January 2009 at 23:52
I’m also done. Nothing more to say really. Time to agree to disagree I think!
Paul
Indeed! cU in the other threads.
There’s a pint in the pump if we ever meet.
By: PMN - 28th January 2009 at 23:26
I’m also done. Nothing more to say really. Time to agree to disagree I think!
Paul
By: old shape - 28th January 2009 at 23:24
Well, I’m done.
My views are still in support of the death penalty(1), my entertainment factor is guilding it a bit though.
(1) For child killers and child rapists…for which there is absolutely no excuse.
And terrorists.
By: Grey Area - 27th January 2009 at 21:50
Moderator Message
This is getting far too personal now.
I’m closing this thread until 19:00 tomorrow, in the hope that wiser counsel will prevail in the meantime.
Any complaints directly to the Webmaster, please.
GA
====================================================
Edit: OK, it’s open again.
Now be nice.
By: PMN - 27th January 2009 at 20:52
Old Shape
Hmm… You’re entitled to your views I guess, despite the hypocrasy and contradiction.
Paul
By: swerve - 27th January 2009 at 20:35
Religion is fine so long as they do not try to impose their way of life on to those who do not share their beliefs.
I am yet to find a single religion or religious person which falls into this category.
My partner’s a Buddhist, & however slack her practice, a believer. Apart from insisting that I greet her father (dead 11 years) whenever visiting her mothers house (not very often – it’s in Tokyo), & saying goodbye when we leave, both at the house shrine, she’s never made the slightest attempt to impose anything on me. I have no problem with that small act of politeness, BTW.
By: heslop01 - 27th January 2009 at 20:24
Religion is fine so long as they do not try to impose their way of life on to those who do not share their beliefs.
I am yet to find a single religion or religious person which falls into this category.
Well you just have, i’m catholic but NEVER forcify my opinions onto others.
By: old shape - 27th January 2009 at 20:20
I didn’t imply anything, I quoted your own words. There’s a vast and distinct difference between the two, but in this thread you’ve already made it clear you don’t seem to understand the concept of quotation. Incidentally, when I asked you to quote something I didn’t actually say, I meant just that. I didn’t ask you to give your interpretation of my words. Or have I just hit another flaw in an already flawed argument? You can’t actually quote something I didn’t say. Is this making sense yet?
No, my quotes were amalgamated and read as if they were about the same thing. Clearly they are not. If I am extremist, it is based on decency. The child killers must be eradicated. Not extreme, just common sense. My words were misinterpreted, and it seems I did the same to you. ergo, if you were agin me then you must be supporting the opposite. I couldn’t believe you supported the opposite and took issue.
If you honestly believe killing everyone who commits certain offences and having live TV feeds from the executions will bring about a better world then you’re no different from any other extremist, religious or otherwise.
I admitted the live feed may have been a bit OTT. But it will be done.I gave backup to GA’s post because frankly, he’s infinitely more rational and sensible than you and he picked up on a very obvious contradiction. One of several very obvious contradictions you’ve made because your posting appears to be driven by emotion rather than you expressing rational, defined thoughts; something you’ll see in a lot of extremists, I’m sure.
I’ve had far too many years of rationality about such matters. Emotion is a good thing IMO, and just because this particular thread is a bit touchy-feely because it deals with killing scum, decent emotions should not be witheld.
We go to war, aiming at enemies. Primary target is to remove their assets, and if men are in them, tough. Then we aim at the armed men, the enemy. IMO child killers, terrorists are enemies of all decent good living people and their removal is of no consequence.
Also, I have to say I find the fact you’d gain some sick pleasure in watching other people die, regardless of the circumstances, quite disturbing. I’m very happy people who share your thoughts are in the minority.
If you regard such scum as people, then I understand your concern. I certainly do not, and killing them is no more a sin than hunting Rabbits or Rats. The minority surely believes in Jail. Majority wants the death penalty back, I just elaborated the proceedings a little.
Paul
Old Shape
By: PMN - 27th January 2009 at 11:52
No PMN, those are not your words, I must have implied them onto you. As you have done to me.
I didn’t imply anything, I quoted your own words. There’s a vast and distinct difference between the two, but in this thread you’ve already made it clear you don’t seem to understand the concept of quotation. Incidentally, when I asked you to quote something I didn’t actually say, I meant just that. I didn’t ask you to give your interpretation of my words. Or have I just hit another flaw in an already flawed argument? You can’t actually quote something I didn’t say. Is this making sense yet?
Not too much to ask for a better nation/world, is it?
If you honestly believe killing everyone who commits certain offences and having live TV feeds from the executions will bring about a better world then you’re no different from any other extremist, religious or otherwise. I gave backup to GA’s post because frankly, he’s infinitely more rational and sensible than you and he picked up on a very obvious contradiction. One of several very obvious contradictions you’ve made because your posting appears to be driven by emotion rather than you expressing rational, defined thoughts; something you’ll see in a lot of extremists, I’m sure.
Also, I have to say I find the fact you’d gain some sick pleasure in watching other people die, regardless of the circumstances, quite disturbing. I’m very happy people who share your thoughts are in the minority.
Paul
By: DJ. - 26th January 2009 at 22:32
Religion is fine so long as they do not try to impose their way of life on to those who do not share their beliefs.
I am yet to find a single religion or religious person which falls into this category.
By: old shape - 26th January 2009 at 20:24
No PMN, those are not your words, I must have implied them onto you. As you have done to me.
Quote 23, you call me ironic, because I appear to be extreme at wanting scum killed off in an entertaining way. But in other posts I want extremists killed off. Yep, because they are scum.
There is a general direction. Common good. OK, the entertainment factor is just a little off-centre, but somebody will beat me to it. It will be on TV quite soon I’m sure.
In quote 28, you are giving backup to GA, which is allowing “Them” to be right. They are not right, ergo neither are their supporters. In this case, “Them” is those that believe the murdering scum child killers/rapists can be allowed to live, or a “Belief System” which can allow the elders to declare a woman should be stoned to death after being raped.
Again common decency is the aim, scum has no part in it. And my determination of scum is no different to any other person I know. Sure, I’ve met a few people that claim to be forgiving, sympathy needed for the murderer “He had a terrible upbringing etc.” It wasn’t their kith-n-kin getting bludgeoned though.
People, you, will argue with my preferred method of offing such rubbish off the planet, but surely not with the sentiment?
The 1st question is, should such murderers I have described be allowed to live?
The 2nd question is, if 1 is yes, who should pay for the secure prison term at £2,500 PER WEEK. (My figures are a few years old, it’s probably a lot more).
The 3rd question is, if you are going to put them away instead of Death, then removal all possible parole/early release needs to be done.
……But some pinko idiot will claim it’s an infringement of rights or somesuch trivia.
Not too much to ask for a better nation/world, is it?
By: PMN - 26th January 2009 at 18:45
Absolutely. Your opinion was that it is OK for public stoning for trivial, and often dreamt up crimes, hosted by tin pot Religions.
That is quite possibly the biggest load of irrational, made up nonsense I’ve ever seen written in these forums. Where the hell did I say that?! Please quote it and show me!
You really are living in a different world to the rest of us and that’s being proved more and more with each and every post you make. You’re actually making things up, and you’ve done it several times now. Rule No.1 of discussions… Never, ever say or imply people made claims they simply didn’t. Your argument will fall down around you and you’ll end up making yourself look silly, just as you are doing now. :rolleyes:
If you really do insist on continuing in this discussion, at least read what other people write and get your own thoughts together first. I’ve never seen so much contradiction or made up nonsense in one thread.
Paul
By: old shape - 26th January 2009 at 18:38
Thankyou for making the exact point I was going to.
So my ‘opinion‘ is wrong? You haven’t really thought this one through, have you? :rolleyes:
Paul
Absolutely. Your opinion was that it is OK for public stoning for trivial, and often dreamt up crimes, hosted by tin pot Religions. At least I would put the scum on a proper trial, and for such crimes as I describe, death is the only answer. And if it can make money, well that’s well and good.
By: old shape - 26th January 2009 at 18:34
Is this a straw man I see before me?
As I’m quite sure you’re perfectly aware, I was drawing your attention to the apparent contradiction between your expressed enthusiasm for public executions on live TV on the one hand and, on the other hand, your expressed desire to launch nuclear strikes on countries that hold public executions.
Those were your own words that I quoted, were they not?
You are adding an interpretation here, the execution in the video is of woman, stoned to death with a breeze block just because SHE was raped and then determined as unfaithful. That is scumbag territory, no other word for it.
The killing in public of a piece of crap like a child killer/rapist can only possibly improve matters for all common decent folk.While it clearly suits you to pretend that I have stated or implied equivalence between adultery and the rape of a child, I have said nothing of the sort and to claim otherwise does, I am afraid to say, smack of desperation at best.
No desperation is ever needed by me, you are twisting my answers.Funnily enough, for any given definition of “they”, that’s what they always say about theirs.
So true. But I think we all know who is right here.
What I suggest is only a modern version of the Electric Chair.
By: PMN - 26th January 2009 at 18:05
Funnily enough, for any given definition of “they”, that’s what they always say about theirs.
Thankyou for making the exact point I was going to.
What?
But my extremes are based on decency. If you claim theirs are, then that’s your opinion. It’s wrong, but yours.
So my ‘opinion‘ is wrong? You haven’t really thought this one through, have you? :rolleyes:
Paul
By: Grey Area - 26th January 2009 at 13:20
What?
You think that a child rapist is the same sin as being allegedly unfaithful?
You cannot possibly suggest that I am mixing my own opinions based on those two gems of wisdom.
Is this a straw man I see before me?
As I’m quite sure you’re perfectly aware, I was drawing your attention to the apparent contradiction between your expressed enthusiasm for public executions on live TV on the one hand and, on the other hand, your expressed desire to launch nuclear strikes on countries that hold public executions.
Those were your own words that I quoted, were they not?
While it clearly suits you to pretend that I have stated or implied equivalence between adultery and the rape of a child, I have said nothing of the sort and to claim otherwise does, I am afraid to say, smack of desperation at best.
But my extremes are based on decency.
Funnily enough, for any given definition of “they”, that’s what they always say about theirs.
Sign In
January 22, 2009 at 12:28 am