-
Join the Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum The Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum is dedicated to no nonsense muscle and strength building. If you need advice that works, you have come to the right place. This forum focuses on building strength and muscle using the basics. You will also find that the Ausbb- Australian Bodybuilding Forum stresses encouragement and respect. Trolls and name calling are not allowed here. No matter what your personal goals are, you will be given effective advice that produces results.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Please consider registering. It takes 30 seconds, and will allow you to get the most out of the forum.
Shrek
Fucked up Kunce
Man given bail after 'Sharia law' whipping
Four men allegedly broke into a western Sydney home to whip a man as punishment under religious law for drinking alcohol, a court has been told.
Two men have been charged by police over the incident. One faced court on Tuesday before being granted bail under strict conditions.
The assault has raised community concerns about the application of sharia, or Islamic law, by some people of Islamic faith in NSW, with the state's Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione saying there is no place for it in Australia.
In Burwood Local Court, police prosector George Lolis opposed bail for Tolga Cifci, 20, saying he had justified his role in the attack with a "particularised usage of religious law".
The alleged victim, 31, was asleep in his home in Silverwater in the early hours of Sunday morning when he woke to see four men in his bedroom.
Mr Lolis said police would allege Cifci and three others broke into the victim's unit and restrained him before he was lashed 40 times with a cable.
Mr Lolis also told the court while Cifci was not accused of taking part in the lashing attack, he had shown "a complete and utter disregard for the laws of this state".
He said the victim was targeted for "doing what many in the community do all the time" - a reference to drinking alcohol.
But Cifci viewed it as "something against Islam".
The court heard the alleged crimes were "extremely serious and violent" and carried a maximum jail sentence of 20 years.
Magistrate Tim Keddy said the police allegations against Cifci, of Auburn, were of "significant seriousness".
"The prosecution case at this stage would appear to be a strong one," he said.
"The conduct (of Cifci) was particular to this victim and for religious reasons."
Cifci was granted strict bail on charges of aggravated break and enter and committing a serious indictable offence, inflicting actual bodily harm.
His solicitor, Tunc Ozen, told the court his client was willing to agree to the strict terms and that his prior good record and strong family ties meant it was unlikely he would re-offend or flee the country.
"These conditions are, in one sense, over the top," Mr Ozen said.
He said there was absolutely no prior link between Cifci and the victim "other than one of religious belief".
Mr Keddy ordered Cifci to remain at home between 8pm and 7am and not to leave the residence without his mother or father.
Cifci is not to approach the alleged victim, must surrender his passport and cannot visit airports or other points of departure from Australia.
On Tuesday afternoon, police charged a second man, 43, with a number of offences, including aggravated break and enter with intent to commit an indictable offence.
He will face Burwood Local Court on Wednesday.
Cifci's matter has been adjourned for mention on September 14 at the same court.
Man given bail after 'Sharia law' whipping
Four men allegedly broke into a western Sydney home to whip a man as punishment under religious law for drinking alcohol, a court has been told.
Two men have been charged by police over the incident. One faced court on Tuesday before being granted bail under strict conditions.
The assault has raised community concerns about the application of sharia, or Islamic law, by some people of Islamic faith in NSW, with the state's Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione saying there is no place for it in Australia.
In Burwood Local Court, police prosector George Lolis opposed bail for Tolga Cifci, 20, saying he had justified his role in the attack with a "particularised usage of religious law".
The alleged victim, 31, was asleep in his home in Silverwater in the early hours of Sunday morning when he woke to see four men in his bedroom.
Mr Lolis said police would allege Cifci and three others broke into the victim's unit and restrained him before he was lashed 40 times with a cable.
Mr Lolis also told the court while Cifci was not accused of taking part in the lashing attack, he had shown "a complete and utter disregard for the laws of this state".
He said the victim was targeted for "doing what many in the community do all the time" - a reference to drinking alcohol.
But Cifci viewed it as "something against Islam".
The court heard the alleged crimes were "extremely serious and violent" and carried a maximum jail sentence of 20 years.
Magistrate Tim Keddy said the police allegations against Cifci, of Auburn, were of "significant seriousness".
"The prosecution case at this stage would appear to be a strong one," he said.
"The conduct (of Cifci) was particular to this victim and for religious reasons."
Cifci was granted strict bail on charges of aggravated break and enter and committing a serious indictable offence, inflicting actual bodily harm.
His solicitor, Tunc Ozen, told the court his client was willing to agree to the strict terms and that his prior good record and strong family ties meant it was unlikely he would re-offend or flee the country.
"These conditions are, in one sense, over the top," Mr Ozen said.
He said there was absolutely no prior link between Cifci and the victim "other than one of religious belief".
Mr Keddy ordered Cifci to remain at home between 8pm and 7am and not to leave the residence without his mother or father.
Cifci is not to approach the alleged victim, must surrender his passport and cannot visit airports or other points of departure from Australia.
On Tuesday afternoon, police charged a second man, 43, with a number of offences, including aggravated break and enter with intent to commit an indictable offence.
He will face Burwood Local Court on Wednesday.
Cifci's matter has been adjourned for mention on September 14 at the same court.
Man given bail after 'Sharia law' whipping
Fadi
...
15 years ago, an Australian terrorist by the name of Martin Bryant killed 35 people and wounded 21 in Port Arthur, Tasmania. What did he get for his evil deeds? Life without the possibility of parole. How do I feel about it? Great! Not really, not at all. I still call our Australian law pathetic. That terrorist is getting more food and pleasure time than some free people outside of prison!
Now let’s get to the case at hand. As a Muslim, a just Muslim that is, there won’t be a single one of you here on this forum who would want what I want done to these three ignorant Muslim fools. Muslims like these serve nothing but to expose their ignorance of what Islam is all about and how a Muslim aught to conduct himself towards other fellow human beings be they Muslims or non Muslims.
These three should be so happy that the Sharia law is not in charge of their affairs in court, or else 20 years may seem bit of a joke. You can not insult the law and get away with it, plain and simple. I’ve said it in my first post and I’ll say it again: I hope these three are met with the full force of the law.
All sensible Australian Muslims realise that what these three did was wrong and unacceptable, be it under the sharia law or the Australian law. Oh by the way, let no one here (non Muslim) that is, fear these types of Muslims. Why? Because they would sooner attack me than you for being, mmmm, well… according to them, a "bad Muslim"!
Fadi.
Now let’s get to the case at hand. As a Muslim, a just Muslim that is, there won’t be a single one of you here on this forum who would want what I want done to these three ignorant Muslim fools. Muslims like these serve nothing but to expose their ignorance of what Islam is all about and how a Muslim aught to conduct himself towards other fellow human beings be they Muslims or non Muslims.
These three should be so happy that the Sharia law is not in charge of their affairs in court, or else 20 years may seem bit of a joke. You can not insult the law and get away with it, plain and simple. I’ve said it in my first post and I’ll say it again: I hope these three are met with the full force of the law.
All sensible Australian Muslims realise that what these three did was wrong and unacceptable, be it under the sharia law or the Australian law. Oh by the way, let no one here (non Muslim) that is, fear these types of Muslims. Why? Because they would sooner attack me than you for being, mmmm, well… according to them, a "bad Muslim"!
Fadi.
Last edited:
vegas
New member
terrorist - a radical who employs terror as a political weapon
I disagree that Bryant was a terrorist Fadi, I believe that terrorists believe they have a cause to fight for and Bryant did not, he was/is simply deranged or mentally ill- or both.
I do agree that he shouldn't be in jail for his crimes, he should be put to death in my opinion but that's a whole different debate.
Out of curiosity, would you be willing to share what you as a Muslim would like to see as punishment for those involved in the whipping?
I disagree that Bryant was a terrorist Fadi, I believe that terrorists believe they have a cause to fight for and Bryant did not, he was/is simply deranged or mentally ill- or both.
I do agree that he shouldn't be in jail for his crimes, he should be put to death in my opinion but that's a whole different debate.
Out of curiosity, would you be willing to share what you as a Muslim would like to see as punishment for those involved in the whipping?
Fadi
...
We'll just have to agree to disagree vegas.
Islam makes it obligatory for all Muslims to mind each other’s business. There's no such thing as my business and your business in Islam. Meaning that if one sees a wrong, then one is to do something about it, not because of some monetary gain but rather due to one's obligation to uphold what is good and shun what is evil according to the Qur'an.
Sahih Muslim Chapter 2: PROHIBITION OF INTRERCESSION REGARDING PRESCRIBED PUNISHMENT FOR THEFT AND OTHER (CRIMES) IN CASE OF IMPORTANT PERSONS Book 017, Number 4187: 'A'isha reported that the Quraish had been anxious about the Makhzumi woman who had committed theft, and said: Who will speak to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) about her? They said: Who dare it, but Usama, the loved one of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him)? So Usama spoke to him. Thereupon Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Do you intercede regarding one of the punishments prescribed by Allah? He then stood up and addressed (people) saying: O people, those who have gone before you were destroyed, because if any one of high rank committed theft amongst them, they spared him; and if anyone of low rank committed theft, they inflicted the prescribed punishment upon him. By Allah, if Fatima, daughter of Muhammad, were to steal, I would have her hand cut off.
In simple English, what the above is saying is that Islam does not differentiate between the rich and the poor when it comes to a wrong doing. It should follow from this premise that when a Muslim commits an evil act, that Muslim should first and foremost fear his fellow Muslim brothers and sisters. Why? Because they would be first in line to hand him over to the authority, period...without asking for money or anything else in return.
I've said it already vegas; whatever the full force of the law would allow us to hand down to them as punishment, then so be it. You see, Islam is dynamic when it comes to cases of criminality. Meaning that you prescribe a punishment that would fit with the time and the place if a previous prescription has not been set before. Why not make an example of these culprits is what I am saying and I'm sure you (as well as others) can use your imagination of what would be suitable. Just because I'm a Muslim does not mean I have to be merciful towards other Muslims who have committed a crime, to do so would be going against what I believe in and would render me nothing short of a hypocrite.
Fadi.
Last edited:
tat maytals
New member
Derp.
Last edited:
TheGiftToLift
New member
So what happens when the crime is ambiguous? Like killing in self defence, but only some Muslims think it was self defence and others disagree? This is where judges and juries (sometimes) step in under the western legal tradition. What about in muslim law?
What I'm getting at is criminal law, with all its vigour (I'm not saying it's perfect) is meant not only to protect victims, but also to protect the wrongly accused.