Maurice F. Mizzi, Bidnija
What's wrong with chopping off hands
I would like to thank Imam El Sadi, the Muslim leader in Malta, for his frank and honest comments during the television programme Bondiplus.
However, his comments about Sharia Law were most disturbing and confirm my fears that once the number of illegal immigrants increases they will be a force to be taken into consideration and will start demanding more and more rights.
This is already happening in the UK, where the Muslims are demanding that Sharia Laws be entrenched in the British legal system.
Parts of this law have been explained by the Imam; thieves will have their hand chopped off. What was not sufficiently explained was the part of Sharia Law where women wearing trousers will receive 40 lashes and wearing of bras will not be permitted since the Muslim religion prohibits artificiality.
Furthermore, adulterous women will be stoned to death. I can foresee quite a few executions.
Our forefathers have gone through this scenario 500 years ago when the Inquisition played an important part in Maltese religious discipline. Maltese history is jam-packed with instances where vindictive people would accuse an innocent person who would then be executed or tortured.
That was long ago and I do not believe that any Maltese citizen would like to see a repetition of those times.
The politicians are banking on the EU countries to take the thousands of immigrants to their countries. May this happen, but personally I doubt that this will ever take place. The EU countries have enough trouble with the thousands of immigrants in their territories.
Furthermore, starting from next March we can expect more boatloads of immigrants to arrive in Malta, while the immigrant women who are already in Malta can be seen with prams and two or three children marching by their side.
We are not an unkind nation and we must treat these people with great kindness as long as they are in Malta. However, we must also think of the thousands of Maltese families who are living below the poverty line. They should be our priority.
The above are some of the reasons I have been clamouring for these immigrants to be returned to their countries.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
44 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Dr Francis Saliba
Dec 7th 2009, 21:15
@DPhillips
I do not accept that my stance is ‘the work of a hypocrite”. I am an honest and a firm believer in the freedom of religion. That does not mean that I should extend my religious tolerance to the acceptance of horrible practices that are illegal in Malta and throughout the Western world. I do not pay any attention to anyone who expects unreasonably that I should endorse religious practices that are cruel, abhorrent and illegal otherwise he would call me a hypocrite. Moreover, I will not be intimidated from expressing my disapproval of any Imam who attempts a defense for cruel Sharia punishments and who tries to make its barbarous punishments look attractive or acceptable in the eyes of our Christian community.
D Phillips
Dec 7th 2009, 18:17
@Dr Francis Saliba, My humble apologies, I missed a point. This is where I believe you are being hypocritical. Your constant attack on Islamist countries for not allowing religious worship/ practice by other religions, whilst also re-iterating your opposition to allowing the practice of Islam in ‘your’ country. Please tell me that is not the work of a hypocrite.
D Phillips
Dec 7th 2009, 18:01
@Dr Francis Saliba, Thank you for your definitions. I think possibly you may find that someone who ‘tolerates’ or ‘allows’ does so from a higher position or one of superiority, whether said position is real or imagined. One who accepts does so from an inferior or equal position. Therefore you do indeed suffer from some sort of grandeur delusion and an over inflated idea of the importance of your own beliefs. Allow? You no more have the right to 'allow' or 'permit ' another human being to practice their religion, than I have the right to decide which magazines or newspapers you read. Neither am I sure that to accept something requires unconditional endorsement or full agreement, as you put it. Much in the way that I accept I have to pay registration tax when I buy a car, doesn’t mean I agree with it. And far from arguing in favour of Sharia Law what I did was point out the flaws and inaccuracies in your so called facts, it would appear that checking of the accuracy of your facts comes a poor second to their, hoped, sensationalist qualities.
Dr Francis Saliba
Dec 6th 2009, 15:16
@DPhillips
When Islamists living in Christian countires insist that they be allowed a religious freedom that they deny to all other faiths when in Islamic states, that is “hypocrisy” and “double standard” whichever way you look at it. That is just plain common sense and "stating the obvious", and no “vehement denunciation”,
Because of your stout defense of the practice of Sharia law among European Christian communities I assumed (wrongly) that at least you had a working knowledge of the Koranic concept of the various forms of Jihad, Mujahidin and the Shiite and Sunni versions. Since you are asking me for clarification I must have been grossly mistaken Please seek instruction elsewhere.
I use “tolerate” when I mean tolerate and I use “accept” when I mean accept - there is a difference. Put simply, “tolerate” means to allow the practice of something with which one does not agree completely. To “accept” something means endorsing unconditionally that with which one is in full agreement. Therefore I accept the catechism of the Catholic religion to which I belong and I tolerate that others practice their own different religions as permitted by law and local custom.. No “complex” (superior or inferior) is involved.
D Phillips
Dec 5th 2009, 18:07
@Dr Saliba,
As expected you offer an outright, if unconvincing, defence of your religious faith, whilst declaring anothers as which as mentioned many times before, is indeed your right as you live within a free and democratic society.
In your vehement denounciation of the ”outrageous double standard and the effrontery” of Islamists you now bring to the table the hypocrisy so often attributed to the (amongst others) Catholic Church and its ardent supporters. I defer to your greater knowledge that somewhere within the Qur'an all healthy adults are obliged to wage Jihad, personally I find it hard to believe that there is a sentence, quotation, paragraph or chapter that specifically and definitively states this. There may be an area which could be interpreted this way if someone wanted to, I guess the same could be said of sections of the bible, or indeed the bible in its entirety. After all were these books not written by men, men who may have had a vested interest in its content.
Your statement “ I tolerate…..” suggests you do suffer from a complex exhibiting superiority, a person without such a complex may have found the word “accept” to be more appropriate.
Dr Francis Saliba
Dec 4th 2009, 22:31
@DPhillips
I am a convinced Catholic and, as expected of me, I tolerate that all others be allowed to practice their different religion. I do not accept the Islamist outrageous double standard and the effrontery, that the practitioners of all other religions should tolerate Islam in all its manifestations (including the horrendous practices of the Sharia Law). At the same time, in compliance with the official doctrine of the Koran, all healthy adult Moslem males are under an obligation actually to wage holy war (Jihad) and slaughter those who belong to other faiths.
I do not suffer from any superiority complex. I am only stating the obvious. What is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander
D Phillips
Dec 4th 2009, 14:41
@Dr Francis Saliba
I’ll think possibly you’ll find that a number of people (myself included) are not offering a blanket defence of the Islamic religion. In the same way, that many people may not offer a blanket defence of the teachings of the Catholic Church. You seem to take every opportunity to knock any suggestion or comment about the virtues of other religions and indeed of those who quite openly declare to be atheists or agnostics. It is this presumption that your beliefs are right and others are wrong that brings me to the conclusion that there is a certain superiority complex attached to your whole perspective on the discussions. Part of this complex manifests itself in statements such as “without acknowledging the undeniable fact that Moslem countries world wide do not reciprocate that freedom of religion to the practitioners of other religions”. If the Moslem faith is so wrong surely you’re thought process on “If we don’t get it there, why should we give it here” is acknowledging that your ideas are as irrational as theirs.
And the subject of “hypocritical blinkered defenders”, could be aimed at both sides, I’m sure you’ll agree.
Dr Francis Saliba
Dec 4th 2009, 11:58
@D Phillips
You are not justified in accusing me that I use the term "freedom of religion" with any irony or sarcasm. My comments prove abundantly that I am a firm believer in the genuine application of that freedom by all states irrespective of the religious conviction of their citizens. I object to the invocation of a "freedom of religion" by hypocritical blinkered defenders of anything Islamic, who relish that freedom when resident in a Christian country, without acknowledging the undeniable fact that Moslem countries world wide do not reciprocate that freedom of religion to the practitioners of other religions.
D Phillips
Dec 3rd 2009, 17:45
@Dr Francis Saliba
Your use of apostrophes whenever your write the phrase “freedom of religion”(without being linked to a direct quotation) would suggest that you are using the phrase with a sense of sarcasm or irony. Lacking belief in the words would suggest a lack of belief in the concept, whether intentionally or sub-consciously.
Any conflicts between the two sides, whether yesterday or 1000 years ago are, in my view, highly relevant, as the argument over which side is right and which side is wrong has changed little over the centuries.
Dr Francis Saliba
Dec 3rd 2009, 10:32
@DPhillips
Contrary to your allegation I have never denied or opposed the right of anybody else to voice a different message. Whenever I use my own equal right to argue a divergent opinion, you (and others before you) unjustly accuse me that I feel morally superior or that I have assumed the role of Difensor Fidei. I deny these aspersions and I consider them only an angry frustrated reaction to the inability to present logical counter-argument.
The timing of the Ottoman/Crusader conflict is irrelevant to the subject matter of this controversy – that is why I refuse to be sidetracked into it.
Kenneth Cassar
Dec 3rd 2009, 09:02
"If, as you say, 'All it takes to prevent Sharia is legislation through our parliament' will you, and the others, promise that you will not scream your head off protesting about 'freedom of religion'?"
I would put it to you in writing if you wish. Religious freedom is not an absolute right, otherwise, under the guise of religious freedom, everything would be permissible - even human sacrifice.
D Phillips
Dec 2nd 2009, 20:00
@Dr Francis Saliba
As I’m sure you are well aware, freedom of religion, is more about the individuals right to belief, practice or worship rather than state recognition.
And regarding your differentiation between crusades and Muslim jihad, the time period is irrelevant, what matters is the morality of it.
D Phillips
Dec 2nd 2009, 18:47
@Dr Francis Saliba
Which is one of the many freedoms you utilise to voice your message and yet would deny to others who voice a different message. Morally superior? Who is?
Dr Francis Saliba
Dec 2nd 2009, 16:51
@KennethCassar
If, as you say, "All it takes to prevent Sharia is legislation through our parliament" will you, and the others, promise that you will not scream your head off protesting about "freedom of religion"?
Dr Francis Saliba
Dec 2nd 2009, 11:41
@William P Flynn
Jihad differs from the Crusades because the Ottoman - Crusades conflict disappeared centuries ago whereas Muslim Jihad is here and now!
The atrocities in the Balkans have been consistently present at least from the time of the Byzantines, the Ottomans, Orthodox Greeks, Nazi and Communist administrations including the recent break up of Yugoslavia. They are political and tribal in nature and cannot be ascribed to any one religion or to any atheism.
Kenneth Cassar
Dec 2nd 2009, 11:12
@ lgalea:
Can you be so naive that you don't understand a simple question? My question basically was: Can you substantiate your claim that sending away all "illegal immigrants" is the ONLY way to prevent Sharia?
All it takes to prevent Sharia is legislation through our parliament. No need to send anyone away, which is not to say that people may not be sent away for other reasons...but that's another question.
Kenneth Cassar
Dec 2nd 2009, 11:08
@ Gerry Cowie:
"Beware the spread of secularism in Malta! A fair balance between Church and State is better than a total domination by one side or the other".
A fair balance would be giving to Ceasar what belongs to Ceasar and to God what belongs to God. Secularism is not what you depict it to be. Through Christ's saying which I have just mentioned, one could even deduce that Christ himself was a secularist. Of course, I can expect that some people will see this as blasphemy. Oh well.
D Phillips
Dec 2nd 2009, 10:56
@Dr Francis Saliba,
My humble apologies to you sir, however having closely read your comments thus far, I beg to differ with your phrase “all along I have been discussing grievous criminal acts”. You started the discussion by describing sharia courts as “illegal religious courts” and used the UK & Italy as examples. And don’t seem to want to accept the fact that that is an incorrect statement, certainly as far as the UK is involved. If said court passes a judgment that is contradictory to the law of the land, then yes indeed, that is illegal. As expected every example you use is at the extreme end of the spectrum, murder or other “atrocious punishments” as a means to sensationalise your argument. When in actual fact the mainstream of Sharia Courts, i.e those that are authorized by the government to operate mainly deal with slightly more mundane business, such as financial disputes. And these judgments are enforceable in a UK court of law.
D Phillips
Dec 2nd 2009, 10:36
@IGalea
Despite your protestations, I think you’ll find that those who sit on them are not “foreigners”. There are two possibilities, 1) born in the UK or 2) Granted citizenship by naturalization. And no, they are not doing wrong as long as they are working and advising within preset guidelines as laid down by the british government, and are not passing judgments that are contradictory to the laws of the land. So please don’t put forward your arguments as fact, when you obviously have very little idea about the subject.
William P Flynn
Dec 2nd 2009, 09:40
@Francis.Saliba
All persecution based on race or religion is a pogrom whether committed by people with a cross on their breast or a hammer and sickle or dressed as a Franciscan Monk holding a crucifix in one hand and a hatchet in the other in a killing orgy against fellow Christians(Orthodox) in Croatia which scandalized even the Nazis.
The EU is taking all the necessary steps by creating a secular union - nor religious bias. That's why it wouldn't have a bar of Ratzinger wanting Christian references in its constitution. It's your own only hope of survival if this Moslem population invasion is ever going to happen.
By the way Stalin became god and Russians were god-conditioned.
In principle how does Jihad differ from Crusades? And I mean the ones against the Jews in WWII, Rwanda, and South Vietnam.
Michelle Dali
Dec 2nd 2009, 08:35
I wholeheartedly agree with the contents of your letter, Mr Mizzi.
Kenneth Cassar
Dec 2nd 2009, 07:26
@ Joe Tabone-Adami:
"Incidentally, given the reference to the Inquisition, should one reasonably conclude that Sharia law still stands at a point where Europe's Christian milieu stood five centuries ago?".
Actually, I would even say that the Muslim faith itself is stuck in the middle-ages. This is because, unlike Christianity, which has a rich theology to update its policies and explain away the ugly parts in the old testament, Islam has taken the opposite course, starting with a rich "theology/philosophy" but regressing to a literalist stance that necessarily prevents any chance of progress.
I am an atheist, but I do distinguish between different religions.
Dr Francis Saliba
Dec 2nd 2009, 07:17
@WilliamPFlynn
When you mention “pogroms” my mind clicks on to Stalin’s purges and the Pol Pot that are the hallmark of atheist communist regimes and communist revolutionary movements throughout the world. These pogroms were the basic ingredients of atheistic Communist regimes and were inflicted even on their own people. They spawned the counter-violence you mention but this never formed part of the official teaching of Christianity (unlike Jihad for example). Today’s violence in the Far East is between Hindus and Moslems with Christians caught in the crossfire.
No matter what you say, Malta is Catholic and practices tolerance and freedom to other religion. It is Islam that impudently pretends to profit from this religious tolerance of European Christian countries whilst denying any reciprocal equal toleration to all other religions. Up to now there is no shred of evidence that the EU is successfully protecting the Christian countries of Europe from the subversive infiltration of Islam with its Jihad and Sharia Law. This creeping infiltration is proving to be much more successful than any previous attempt at Islamisation by conquest from the Ottoman invaders.
lgalea
Dec 2nd 2009, 00:28
D Phillips
Those who sit on them are foreigners who were allowed to remain in england and granted citizenship, but citizenship can always be revoked when they are not natural citizens of the country.
Besides, they are doing wrong because the law is only one, that of the country and the courts are only one, those operating according to the law of the country. Sharia courts are not operating according to the law of the country, are not constituted according to the law of the country and are therefore illegal besides being alien without any basis at law.
These facts clearly show how much such immigrants want to adapt, integrate and observe the law of their adopted country.
Kenneth Cassar Can you be so naive that you are not seeing the religion and culture of the vast majority of the illegal immigrats and the application of Sharia law at least among themselves? At least you agree with Dr Francis Saliba that the application of Sharia law would be a state within a state.
Joe Xuereb
Dec 2nd 2009, 00:22
London is awash with Islam v. Atheism debates at the moment. Three in five days at Colleges Imperial, Birkbeck and King's. 80%to85% of attendees Muslims, with women at the back (mostly) like black clouds.
The Muslim speaker said it is fitting for the women to cover so the men are not aroused. He said this with a straight face. I asked, what about London women, would youh have them cover up? He said he would not but they cause him turmoil. I bet! And the solution? I asked. We get married he retorted. Problem solved. Not so fast (I kept my mouth shut at this point). Monogamy is not a fact of life. Even Muslims are not exempt from this demon. And that was that.
Another speaker claimed that Islam allows questioning, adding that atheists are usually ex-christians. True. Atheists were burnt at the stake in the Middle Ages. But the Vatikan has moved on. I, as an atheist, have never been served with a Pontifical fatwa. Islam has NOT moved on. Hence ex-muslim atheists are thin on the ground. Fatwa, punishment for apostates, still in place. But they exist, underground, in London Town. I could go on and on.
gaffarena joseph
Dec 2nd 2009, 00:14
Mr. Mizzi,all your letters about illegal immigrants,without any doubt,deserve the attention,of all
the maltese that have the love to their country.Time is telling us, that soon we will be witnessing,
what other european countries got by these illegals.They are stealing from us,all kind of jobs,and illegally working,and leaving our younger generation without a part time jobs.Some
university students are eager to have a part time job, to cope with their expenses but now because of these illegals, it is very hard to find.
Now, you see them working everywhere,some of them with a car, and a bank account.
It seems that they are not going to leave our shores so easily,and in a few years , we will be living the hell that most euro countries are living to day.
Gerry Cowie
Dec 1st 2009, 20:14
Sadly recent events in Ireland will give a chance for secularists to say "I told you so!" and no doubt the Church is ready for the onslaught.
William P Flynn will no doubt be one of those and I relish whatever he has to say!
See how below, once again, he is keen to discredit the Church by pointing out its mistakes.
The thing is that, whichever institution is involved, it is made up of human beings.
All human beings are capable of evil.
This is no apology for the Church. It is a simple fact of life!
Beware the spread of secularism in Malta!
A fair balance between Church and State is better than a total domination by one side or the other.
This will not stop Malta's majority of Catholics from allowing their faith to influence their lives, no matter how much the secularist minority rants on, pouring out venemous animosity towards the Church.
The EU will never go so far as to ignore religious beliefs of any kind. After all, those who clamour for complete secularisation have to make sure that in being fair to all that they are also fair to religious folk!
Mario Attard
Dec 1st 2009, 19:23
@ Maurice Mizzi
"The politicians are banking on the EU countries to take the thousands of immigrants to their countries. May this happen, but personally I doubt that this will ever take place. The EU countries have enough trouble with the thousands of immigrants in their territories."
Once again, I totally agree with your views. We have come to the absurd point, where OUR government bows its head to the EU while giving its back to its people. Isn't the government elected by the people for the people?
A few days ago, I heard Barroso addressing Malta. It was as if Barrosos was our daddy and telling us how good and exemplary children we are in the handling of the illegal migration issue. I felt degraded! What happenened to our sovereignty?
Dr Francis Saliba
Dec 1st 2009, 18:19
@D Phillips
All along I have been discussing grievious criminal acts (not consensual civil acts between Muslims) and in that respect all Sharia courts approving punishments in defiance of the national criminal laws would be illegal.
D Phillips
Dec 1st 2009, 17:42
@Francis Saliba.
Indeed, however the phrase you used was "illegal religious courts". What you are now protesting is illegal actions. Which is not the same thing methinks.
Dr Francis Saliba
Dec 1st 2009, 17:37
@DPhillips
When the Muslim relatives of a young girl, resident in a Christian European country, inflict on her atrocious punishment, even murder, that cruel punishment, even if sanctioned or condoned by neighbourhood Sharia Courts, would be illegal and contrary to the laws of the land. Difficulties are being experienced in prosecuting these cases because of the alleged conflict with the freedom to practice one’s religion even if this is abhorrent and illegal in the host country.
D Phillips
Dec 1st 2009, 16:06
@Igalea
Probably because those sitting on them have done nothing illegal. So realistically why would they even consider jailing them. And how, please enlighten me, could a british citizen be expelled from Britain?
Joe Tabone-Adami
Dec 1st 2009, 15:57
A challenging contribution which has prompted intelligent debate - and, unfortunately, hiss and crackle by the usual at-all-costs anti-Christian scource. Incidentally, given the reference to the Inquisition, should one reasonably conclude that Sharia law still stands at a point where Europe's Christian milieu stood five centuries ago?
D Phillips
Dec 1st 2009, 15:53
@Francis Saliba
I’m not sure that your phrase “illegal religious courts” is factually accurate in the context you are applying it, certainly not in relation to the UK. Sharia law, and therefore, Sharia law courts, are indeed used in the UK and are not, as you put it, illegal. Although expected to deal with civil matters rather than criminal, the “sentences” handed down by these courts are enforceable as long as the two (or more) parties have agreed to it, and that the judgement is not in direct contradiction to English law/Scots law/ Irish law.
Now, whether you agree with that or not is a different matter.
louise vella
Dec 1st 2009, 15:32
I thank Mr Maurice Mizzi for his commitment to defending Malta's interests and values.
Mr Mizzi does not need anything and he's doing it for the love of his country and his countrymen. Let's hope more people of his calibre come out to express the will and views of the common men and women of Malta, as against the do-gooders and the promoters of the Politically Correct.
Kenneth Cassar
Dec 1st 2009, 13:31
@ lgalea:
"and (sharia) can only be prevented by the expulsion of all illegal immigrants from Malta".
Can you please enlighten us on what makes the expulsion of all "illegal immigrants" the ONLY way to prevent sharia?
Kenneth Cassar
Dec 1st 2009, 13:17
This must be one of the rare occasions where I am in complete agreement with Dr Francis Saliba. "Freedom of religion" has its obvious limitations. While freedom of worship should be retained, Sharia in democratic states, if tolerated, would be like having a state within a state. Not acceptable at all.
William P Flynn
Dec 1st 2009, 12:58
@Francis Saliba;Paul Borg
Have you forgotten about the pogroms?
Catholic genocide and atrocities didn't end with the Spanish Inquisition. Catholic Vietnamese banished from the North to South Vietnam in the 1950's killed and enslaved hundreds of thousands of Buddhists. 40% plus of the best agricultural land was appropriated by the Catholic church; businesses had to pay “Catholic tax”, compulsory gifts to stay in business. Look it up.
Rwanda happened in the 1990's, and of course, in WWII Croatia under the Ustace Regime with Ante Pavelic, the Franciscan monks and Archbishop Saric of Sarajevo committed crimes which scandalized even the Nazis.
You are between a rock and a hard place. The EU will take all religion out of the gubernatorial equation, so you want the EU to go away. But without the protection of the EU, Malta will be overrun by Muslims; at least according to people like you.
Dr Francis Saliba
Dec 1st 2009, 11:36
@PaulBorg
Could you please confine yourself to Sharia Law as it is being promoted today by the Imam? This has not got anything to do with a Spanish Inquisition that went out of fashion centuries ago.
lgalea
Dec 1st 2009, 10:51
Dr Francis Saliba
You are perfectly correct on illegal sharia law courts. Have a look at the BBC website and so many instances are exposed of parallel sharia courts that it is a wonder how the British government has not clamped down on them and jailed and expelled those sitting on them.
We must never allow such a situation to happen in Malta and that has to be prevented and can only be prevented by the expulsion of all illegal immigrants from Malta.
John Saliba
Dec 1st 2009, 10:47
Chev. Mizzi is voicing the concern of the whole population - why do the authorities continue to dally over this highly important matter. Are there any concrete plans of how to combat immigaration and its effects(e.g. integrating immigrants, insisting on respect for our civic, cultural and religious identities)? It seems that like all other "projects" long term planning beyond 5 years (if at all) is beyond our elected representatives (on both side of the house); however the problem does not solely lie with the authorities - many Maltese look at immigrants as a cheap labour pool!
Immigration is a sensitive issue, however the conservation of our Maltese society MUST be placed high on all agendas. As things stand the erosion of our way of life any many other things Maltese continues unabated and it does not take much to notice the effects that illegal migration (of any race and colour) is having on the traditional Maltese way of life. Latest concerns are the "advertisements" being made that Malta is a step towards easier passage to the USA and Europe! We also need to be aware of the implications and possible adverse effects of hosting the EU Asylum Support office!
Paul Borg
Dec 1st 2009, 10:45
In my previous post I submitted that modern research into the archives of the Inquisition in Spain indicates that over a period of 350 year there were 5250 death sentences or 15 a year. Even in modern USA, the annual number of death sentence is higher than that. However, 80% of the death sentences under the Spanish Inquisition were carried out in the first 30 years, at the time of the "Reconquista" from the Muslims and the unification of the Kingdoms of Aragon and Castille to form Modern Spain: a time of great turmoil and fear for the security of the new State especially from the Muslims and Jews who had been forced to convert to Catholicism and whose loyalty to the new state was suspect. This raises the question as to whether the Inquisition in those first 30 years acted more in a political capacity under the guise of a religious court. In any case, if 80% of the death sentences were carried out in the first 30 years, then it must mean that during the rest of its life there were years and years where there were no death sentences at all.
Paul Borg
Dec 1st 2009, 10:28
@ Maurice Mizzi: Claims that with the Inquisition"Maltese History is jam-packed with instances where vindictive people would accuse an innocent person who would then be executed or tortured"Unless Mr.Mizzi has facts and figures to prove his allegation then he has been carried away by his own rhetoric and the word "jam-packed"is used hyperbolically.No doubt SOME instances did take place.However recent studies and research on the archives of the Inquisition,especially in Spain,have put to rest a lot of urban legends about its methods/ legal procedures and its death/torture rates.It has been established that Inquisitorial courts adopted procedures that were very similar to modern forensic "rules of natural justice" and much fairer hen any civil court of its time.Its acquittal rate was far higher so that many accused preferred trial in the Court of the Inquisition.It kept very good records which still exist,and these records show that the execution rate was less than 1% e.g: for Spain the total was about 5250 deaths over a period of 350 years or 15 year Compare that rate with Courts in Protestant Northern Europe which record over 100,000 deaths for "witchcraft" over same period.
Dr Francis Saliba
Dec 1st 2009, 10:24
No amount of local comments are likely to cause any modification of the Imam's support for Sharia Law and the Koran. At the same time Malta is most unlikely to adopt Sharia and incorporate it in our laws for the foreseeable future. This is totally irrelevant if we look around us pragmatically and see what is already happening in Europe (e.g. the UK and Italy) where there is no Sharia law officially on the statute books, but on the strength of "freedom of religion" , illegal religious courts exist de facto and they are already operating within large immigrant Muslim populations. Theyare taking the law into their own hands and putting into practice their illegal and barbaric punishments.