English Law v The Koran
 

From today's Times:

KORAN HUNT PLEA

A Muslim who hunted hares for the pot is to testify in the High Court that his human rights have been breached by the ban on hunting with dogs because the Koran permits it. Ahmed Khan, from Lancashire, was one of 11 witnesses named by lawyers for the Countryside Alliance in its case to overturn the ban.


Whether you support or are against hunting with dogs I would suggest that the above mentioned Mr. Khan and The Countryside Alliance are being less than truthful. How many Muslims do you know who keep dogs? I have asked Muslim friends who tell me the reason they don't keep dogs is the fear of rabies. One friend told me if you had ever seen anyone die of this disease you would understand. Mr Khan obviously hasn't.

Re: English Law v The Koran
 

to me its a load of cobblers,mr khan is entitled to practice his religion i have nothing against that-BUT if by doing so you contravene the law of the country you reside in then simply sod off back from where you came and practice it. that way you are NOT breaking the law.

Re: English Law v The Koran
 

I have to admit that anything that reverses the ban on hunting with dogs has my vote. It is an utterly stupid law, as our great and good will discover once they are overrun with foxes.

Very few Muslims in this country seem to keep dogs, but the Afghan hound was bred in a Muslim country specifically for hunting (deer, mostly). There are lots of dogs around in Egypt, which is Muslim, so someone must keep them. Rabies is a dreadful disease, but if dogs are properly kept, then there shouldn't be too much of a problem.

Re: English Law v The Koran
 

Hmmm, this seems to me to clutching at straws. But if it works then hey, why not go for it. It's about time that the human rights legislation was used for something useful.