Cleric supports forced sex and beatings on women

ToadBrother · January 30, 2009

You're wrong. Only Smallc has had the courage to speak up against this Cleric. The rest including you want to create your red-herring and bash Christianity instead out of fear of bashing your kind and gentle Muslims. I have barely read anyone who disagrees with him just lots of Christ bashing yet Christianity isn't under attack either, lol yeah right.

That's a goddamned lie. I made my feelings known.

What some of us were doing was pointing out the fundamental hypocrisy of your position, that it isn't the general principle of religious-based laws you don't like, but simply Islamic religious laws. You'd have us all happily be bound by some portion of "Biblical" law.

If I had my way, there would be no public funding for any religious school, no recognition of any religious-based court (including Jewish courts). The government at all levels would be entirely secular, and anyone, Christian, Muslim or otherwise would have to deal with their affairs in the appropriate civil and family courts, all by the same laws and procedures.

Edited January 30, 2009 by ToadBrother

cybercoma · January 30, 2009

This raises a question about whether or not it is ethical to allow a married couple to settle out of court before an arbiter by mutually agreeing to that arbiter's decision. Currently, other religions are allowed to do this, but Islam is not allowed to use Sharia law. If I am to believe that everyone is to have freedom and liberty, and that the government should interfere in the personal lives of people as little as possible, I have a difficult time saying Muslim couples should not be able to come to a divorce agreement before an arbiter of their own religion and have it upheld by the courts of Canada, should those laws not contradict the Criminal Code.

Molly · January 30, 2009

"But that does not mean that we should go light on the Imam either just because he is also being attacked by Christian fundamentalists!"-- WIP

You know, WIP, over the years, I have broken up lots of fights among children. Those kids always felt they were completely justified in pummelling their fellow- and generally they had a serious point.

But even though they did have a valid point, and the justification of bad acts by the one to whom they were dishing licks, I never once saw my appropriate role as being to ignore the active assault, and use my acknowledgement of the victims poor conduct as a valid reason to get in a couple of my own kicks at the victim, and walk away from the assault in progress.

I don't see much reason to take that approach here, either.

Argus · January 30, 2009

No, I'm going to keep taunting you about your favorite church's hatred and fear of women.

While I don't agree with the Catholic Church's positions on women and sexuality it's a bit much to have someone snivelling about them while ignoring the much worse position of women in Islam. For that matter, women in Hindu, Sikh and other non-Christian religions generally are worse off than Catholics, as well.

Argus · January 30, 2009

And I have no problem with folks being all over this guy. But MrC isnt = he's all over everyday muslims. Not freak exceptions - but all muslims.

There have been a lot of indications that such beliefs are fairly common among Muslim clergy in Canada - all of whom are from third world countries which are, by our standards, quite mysogenistic.

Argus · January 30, 2009

You know, you keep insisting you're not talking about all Muslims, and then you let out little statements like this.

What exactly do you find problematic about the above?

By and large, Christians in western lands are secular by nature. Even those deemed "fundamentalists" are unlikely to want the Church to be running things here. However, Muslims in general are far, far and away more observant than most western Christians. And the majority of them want Sharia law in place in Canada. That does not bespeak a great deal of dedication to the rights of women.

For all the snivelling and bigotry in this topic posted about the Catholic Church, the Church doesn't say that, by law, a man cannot be punished on the unsupported word of women, nor allow a man to divorce his wife by simply stating the case, nor does it instinctively cede all rights to the male.

Argus · January 30, 2009

from your link...
Southern Baptist

It has become the world's largest Baptist denomination and America's largest Protestant body with over 16 million members and more than 42,000 churches.[2]

Are you saying all Baptists are fundamentalists?

M.Dancer · January 30, 2009

Are you saying all Baptists are fundamentalists?

..no..wiki is saying that all southern baptists are..

Argus · January 30, 2009

To the Catholic church, women most certainly are sex slaves.

Take your head out of your ass, much?

Argus · January 30, 2009

I believe the last time you tried that route when your arguments floundered for lack of wit, you got suspended.
A few times in this thread you have accused people of supporting this cleric....see how it is? I say you support the christian who married a 10 year old...I have proof.

You didn't denounce it.

Shameful and sad really. Supporting pedophilia like that.

I think the difference is the he actually started a thread to talk abot this Muslim cleric and a lot of people instead started throwing up nasty anti Catholic bigotry and inferences that Catholics in particular and Christians in general were awful people - without saying a word about the Muslim cleric. This is called deflection. And it's generally only done when one is indignant that the original post was aimed at something they support.

Now if you started a thread about the 10 year old and the minister and people started to criticise you instead, you might have a case.

Argus · January 30, 2009

What the cleric said was wrong. I don't think anyone would disagree with that.

They're just rushing to attack Mr. C and deflect the argument onto Christians and Catholics because uhm... because uhm..... help me out here.

Clearly a lot of people are highly indignant that Mr. C posted that here and was critical of the Muslim cleric. Do tell me why that is.

Argus · January 30, 2009

That 'Muslim activists are generally part of the coalition of the left' strikes me as an utterly bizarre statement.

Really? And if the topic of this thread had been about some miserable Christian minister saying stupid things about women would you and Guyser and the other Lefties have rushed here to attack the person who posted it, again and again and again, and deflect the discussion onto the moral ambiguities other groups are guilty of? I find that rather difficult to imagine, frankly.

The NDP rushed to embrace the wife of Maher Arar as their candidate in my riding a little while back, then were appalled by realizing she absolutely would not support gay rights. I thought their heads were going to explode as they tried to figure out what to do, for they dare not criticise her for her religious beliefs - her being a "brown person", after all. Fortunately, she didn't win the election, or their hypocrisy would have been even more clearly laid bare.

M.Dancer · January 30, 2009

Do tell me why that is.

I think it's because his comments are nothing more than absurd exaggerations. He has said many times he just likes to provoke and this thread is just another attempt....

As we can see here is some more from mainstream Islam. These aren't radicals but everyday Muslims who believe these things. I find it incredible that the left wing support these people and support them behaving in this matter in the name of freedom of religion.

This quote above from the OP is a good example.

1) He claims this cleric represents "mainstream islam".

2) He claims the "left" supports the cleric.

He is of course full of it on both counts but that isn't unusual for Mr. Canada, being wrong is his forte. Being hypocritical in his opinions is his secondary hobby.

Argus · January 30, 2009

Kimmy succinctly made that point in her post earlier. And a valid point it is, too.
However you are mixing up what would be arbitrated with things that are not subject to arbitration. Domestic violence is Assault, at the very least, and not a private dispute.

Yet. But if we can have "sentencing circles" for natives guilty of violent offenses, then why, the Muslims can legitimately ask, can their community not also decide sentence based on their cultural traditions?

.

On the other hand - we have no such Islamic tribunals now so what do these unscrupulous men do? They certainly don't railroad the woman into going to court to resolve the dispute. Instead they would probably railroad her into settling out of court. or actually more likely remaining where she is and putting up with the bullshit.

The difference is that whatever she is pressued to would not be enforceable by the authorities - unless it came from a Sharia court recognized by the authorities. Then, as in the UK, the courts could enforce those decisions.

Argus · January 30, 2009

Yes, backbones are required... to accept that some folks might actually have a concept of living that is disagreeable to you actually does require some backbone. Perhaps you should grow one instead of demanding we impose our beleifs upon others.

I have no difficulty at all in imposing my belief in a secular society and secular courts on anyone who comes here. I have no difficulty in saying that every single Muslim who said he wanted Sharia law should be magically "dissapeared" into a cloud and dropped back into whatever Muslim shithole spawned him, for I don't want his or her kind in Canada.

Maybe you should grow a spine and stop being so frightened people will question your PC credentials if you say one single, solitary thing about other cultures which isn't flattering.

Argus · January 30, 2009

..no..wiki is saying that all southern baptists are..

And wiki is a reliable source on this? Because I know a southern baptist who gets drunk a lot and is as much of a whoremonger as Bill Clinton could ever dream of being.

BigAl · January 30, 2009

That's what I'm talking about Al. I don't believe it to be a few bad apples at all but just moderate Muslims who are behaving as if their in their home nation. I agree it's a slippery slope as for decades it's been fashionable to publicly slam white people and placate minorities sort of patting their hand saying "there, there now". Obviously no sane person can support rape and assault. I find it strange that not many wish to criticize a minority Muslim when their ideals clash so much with ours. While at the same time the left will use any small item to thrash Christianity. I see a huge double standard.

On some level I agree with you -- I think it's fashionable to criticize religion, which is why I try not to do that despite my atheistic beliefs. And there's a prevailing sentiment in this country that suggests it's not "okay" to criticize those identified as a minority group -- but I think to say that Christianity is specifically targeted, given the kind of power still wielded by the Christian element, would be a bit of a stretch. Perhaps among the purist left wing it's popular to bash Christianity, but generally speaking we give Christians a pretty long rope in this country. Example: there's still a dedicated Catholic school board despite the fact that no dedicated wing exists for other faiths. To me that speaks pretty clearly in the camp of favoritism.

M.Dancer · January 30, 2009

And wiki is a reliable source on this? Because I know a southern baptist who gets drunk a lot and is as much of a whoremonger as Bill Clinton could ever dream of being.

That has no bearing on whether the theology or doctrine of the southern baptists is fundamentalist or not.

...I know a muslim who likes bacon and beer and prefers her men educated.

Argus · January 30, 2009

That has no bearing on whether the theology or doctrine of the southern baptists is fundamentalist or not.
...I know a muslim who likes bacon and beer and prefers her men educated.

Would you deny that, as a community, in general, Muslims in the West are FAR more observant than Christians in general? Far more likely to obey the tenets of their religious books, and far more likely to be regularly listening raptly to their religious leaders in their places of worship?

M.Dancer · January 30, 2009

Would you deny that, as a community, in general, Muslims in the West are FAR more observant than Christians in general? Far more likely to obey the tenets of their religious books, and far more likely to be regularly listening raptly to their religious leaders in their places of worship?

I wouldn't know either way. I know theough as a community, they ain't one. Communities perhaps. Arab muslims don't go to mosques dominated by south asians. As such it is foolish to lump all moslems from a myriad of cultures in one pot.

The muslims I know tend to lives their lives conservatively, focusing on issues like mortgages, education and comfort. As far as listening to their religious leaders go, I know some they attend the mosques only on high holidays while the others go as often as I go to church, which is only when I'm forced to go by reason of wedding invite.

Now granted my anecdotal info is biased. I only know a handful of muslims and they are educated professionals. My feeling is though, most muslims who come to the decadent west come here and enjoy their lives and have about as much interest as you or I in living under a theocratic state.

JB Globe · January 30, 2009

As we can see here is some more from mainstream Islam.

Nowhere in the article does it state how "mainstream" this Imam is: we don't know the size of his congregation or his influence.

Until you demonstrate how "mainstream" this Imam is, than he is no more representative of mainstream Islam than the Westboro Baptist Church is representative of mainstream Christianity.

http://www.godhatesfags.com/

^^^ Flashy new website from them, same old ignorant garbage.

ToadBrother · January 30, 2009

They're just rushing to attack Mr. C and deflect the argument onto Christians and Catholics because uhm... because uhm..... help me out here.
Clearly a lot of people are highly indignant that Mr. C posted that here and was critical of the Muslim cleric. Do tell me why that is.

Oh come on, the guy posts these bon mottes to basically slander entire groups, so rather than feed into his need for pissing contests, it seems more apt to remind him that his own religious tradition has its own flaws.

Mind you, with the Pope letting anti-Semitic Holocaust Denier back into the Church simply because the guy seems ready to abide by the authority of the Papacy, I don't think his religious tradition needs any help in demonstrating its flaws. Defying Vatican II can get you excommunicated, but denying that millions of Jews were murdered by the Nazis is just fine.

cybercoma · January 30, 2009

While I don't agree with the Catholic Church's positions on women and sexuality it's a bit much to have someone snivelling about them while ignoring the much worse position of women in Islam. For that matter, women in Hindu, Sikh and other non-Christian religions generally are worse off than Catholics, as well.

Possibly they are worse off, but that doesn't excuse the Roman Catholic Church for denying women a divorce when they're in abusive relationships. But, that argument is beside the point.

The Imam in this case is wrong for advocating violence against women; anyone advocating violence against women would be wrong. Getting in a pissing match about which religion is more abusive towards women is pointless. No one, for any reason, should be abusive towards women.

L4P · January 30, 2009

Possibly they are worse off, but that doesn't excuse the Roman Catholic Church for denying women a divorce when they're in abusive relationships. But, that argument is beside the point.
The Imam in this case is wrong for advocating violence against women; anyone advocating violence against women would be wrong. Getting in a pissing match about which religion is more abusive towards women is pointless. No one, for any reason, should be abusive towards women.

Islam, Christianity, Catholacism - (pardon my spelling) - They ALL have those who are out to lunch. It is most unfortunate that we pay attention to the extreme and ignore the typical.

A lot of people went postal in the US over Rev. Wright.... Obama still got elected because I like to think the majority of people recognize dogma for what it is.

The original post is not representative of the norm - just like Rev. Wright isn't the typical representative of Christians.

Those who latch onto such rhetoric and dogma in an effort to demonize "the other" need to do so to make sense of their own place in the world.

To each his own I suppose.

WIP · January 31, 2009

Oh yes. Quite true. But the difficulty here is that the adherents think their souls are actual real things and not imaginary. Since they believe their souls to be actual real things they are behaving entirely rationaly to fear for their souls. Yet, strangly enough, in this real world there are actual muslims who have been subjected to a lifetime of religious brainwashing and pressure etc etc, who nevertheless reject the very same Sharia courts when given the choice between that or secular courts. Whats up with that?

I pointed that out earlier, and a number of times previously that Muslim women's groups had to almost singlehandedly knock it down in Ontario -- no doubt their real life experiences were a motivating force to fight the establishment of Sharia in Ontario; but that is not going to stop it from coming back, especially if those survey numbers are accurate that half of Canadian Muslims want some form of Sharia Law.

There is no way of sugar-coating this story! Religious courts are not compatible with a secular system of government; and if liberals are afraid to stand up for secular values, it won't be long before we end up having to choose between Muslim or Christian Law, and Muslim or Christian government!

Yes, backbones are required... to accept that some folks might actually have a concept of living that is disagreeable to you actually does require some backbone. Perhaps you should grow one instead of demanding we impose our beleifs upon others.

Are you saying you don't believe that this country should uphold any values or standards that cannot be disregarded by newcomers who wish to bring their laws and create their own little theocracies?

Nice try...but again, here's the goon: They don't agree that it is, as you say, 'unequal justice'.
As for refusing to make moral judgements: Poppycock. I make moral judgements all the time. I've got one for almost everybody on this board. Ive got one for my neighbours, my co-workers, my drinkin buddies, the strippers down the way, my MP, my MLA, the Catholic Church, Jack Layton and Stephen Harper and yes, even you. Fear not; the fundies will never be alone making morale judgments.

I can't help noticing that you won't even share those moral judgments with us....but these are cultural attitudes anyway; I'm talking about core principles that you believe should followed by every citizen regardless of where they come from, or whatever religious beliefs they might have?