Thursday, April 06, 2017

Muslim hate speech not tolerated in Singapore

In a major development, Singapore on Monday ordered the expulsion of an Indian imam after he was handed a nearly USD 3,000 fine by a local court for making divisive remarks against Christians and Jews during his Friday sermon at a mosque.

Nalla Mohamed Abdul Jameel pleaded guilty to a charge of promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion or race at the State Courts.

He was handed a fine of Singaporean dollars 4,000 (USD 2,860), the Channel News Asia reported.

What did he say?

In February, a video was circulated online of the imam reportedly reciting a prayer in Arabic that said, "God help us against Jews and Christians", among other things.

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), in a separate statement, said Nalla has paid the fine and will be repatriated.

"Any religious leader from any religion who makes such statements will be held accountable for their actions," the MHA said.

"Under Singapore law, we cannot, regardless of his religion, allow anyone to preach or act divisively and justify that by reference to a religious text," it said.



Anonymous said...

Australia would do well to follow Singapore's example. We have to many Imams willing to follow this Imams lead.

Anonymous said...

If you believe in the ideals that this site is meant to uphold you would decry this decision.
A judgment which tramples on one group's rights to freedom of religion and expression could just as easily trample on yours.
It is a sad day when the criminal law punishes people for the content of their prayers.

Anonymous said...

Nonsense 8:05 PM. Inciting hate is not free speech !

Anonymous said...

The way that last statement reads it could be used against a Christian preaching that Islam is a false religion and/or Jews still need Jesus even though those statements are hardly hate speech.

Bird of Paradise said...

Singapor has the right idea lets start sending back these so called refugees

Anonymous said...

You clearly do not belong here Anon 11:29
Even if there was such a nonsense as 'hate speech', that is precisely the sort of speech which needs the protection of the First Amendment.
Bland speech needs no protection - it is only inflammatory, offensive, or challenging speech which requires it.
I would be saddened if this site changed from protecting the First Amendment rights to being just another 'bash the left' site.

Anonymous said...

The concept of free speech was included in the Constitution to protect individuals who criticized the government; not to protect hate speech and obscenities.
At the time of the revolution, criticism of the king was punishable by death and by extension, criticism of any government agent was criticism of the king.