Cleric supports forced sex and beatings on women

[Mr.Canada]

I just spent some time googling terms like 'Godly submission' in a Canadian context.

I had quite a few eye-rolls and even more good laughs at the results, but I think that I should render this gem in cross-stitch: "After studying God's word this week I have come to this conclusion: No Christian man wants his wife to look like a fundamentalist."

Hardly anyone is a Fundamentalist Christian. There are however millions of Fundamentalist Muslims.

[M.Dancer]

Speaking of clerics and their weird ideas of sex and submission....

The 57-year-old head of the now defunct Church of Downtown Montreal, who also once ran for mayor, has maintained he is not a pedophile and that he did nothing wrong as the pair were married during a ceremony at his obscure evangelical church in 1999.

Court heard he was lovestruck for the youngster.

During the trial, Quebec Court Judge Sylvie Durand announced she would not hear testimony supporting his marriage defence.

The victim, who is now 19, testified she was too young to grasp the idea of marriage. She denied entering a union with him, but said she remembered the sexual abuse in vivid detail.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto.../?query=pastor+

[M.Dancer]

Hardly anyone is a Fundamentalist Christian. There are however millions of Fundamentalist Muslims.

Actually there are 100s of millions of fundy xtians...round 40 million in the US alone

[Peter F]

What was your position on application of Sharia Law back two years ago, when an Ontario special commission was recommending that Sharia tribunals be recognized?

It would have been a volountary process. It could not have contravened the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It could never have been pure unadulterated Sharia Law because of that, and it would have to conform to the rules of evidence as per the Arbitration Act, and its decisions could be appealed to regular law courts - just like every other arbitration in the land. I was fine with it. Others weren't and successfully lobbied against it - I was fine with that too.

It is disgusting how the most of the political Left rolls over or looks the other way when faced with aggressive demands from Muslim activists! You have no credibility if you demand that Christian fundamentalists respect secular values, and at the same time allow Muslim fundamentalist to walk all over them.

What in particular about my posts have led you to believe I favour allowing Muslim fundamentalists to walk all over my Left-leaning-secular-socialist-political beliefs? Was it my belief that fruitcake Imams do not speak for all Muslims? My belief that the vast majority of Muslims do not beat and rape thier wives?

And what's to stop them from adopting the same interpretation as this Australian cleric? If they believe their Quran is a divine revelation, and these instructions are in the book, it's likely that the only force subduing this teaching is awareness that they are a minority in a non-Muslim nation. Can we expect this moderate approach to change in the future, when they feel less bound by Western disapproval?

I see. Its your disapproval thats holding back the deluge. I too remember the good ol days of domestic violence in the 60's and 70's, where women regularly walked into doors and fell down alot and where courts held the view that wives were chattel of husbands.

Hate to rain on the parade but what is holding back the deluge is the Law of the land and the long arduous and ongoing struggle of sufferagettes and feminists to have the law be applied equally to men and women.

[ToadBrother]

Hardly anyone is a Fundamentalist Christian. There are however millions of Fundamentalist Muslims.

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

[Mr.Canada]

Actually there are 100s of millions of fundy xtians...round 40 million in the US alone

I think you're getting Evangelical Christians mixed up with Fund.

These people are stricter than Catholics. No dancing, no alcohol or smoking. No card playing. This is far.

[M.Dancer]

I think you're getting Evangelical Christians mixed up with Fund.

These people are stricter than Catholics. No dancing, no alcohol or smoking. No card playing. This is far.

from your link...

Modern movement

Southern Baptist Convention

Bible Presbyterian Church

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]

[Mr.Canada]

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]

Hrm, I had a feeling you'd bring that up but I threw it out there just to see what'd you do.

They're quite strict imo. No dancing = no big deal for me, I don't dance too much unless I'm at a wedding or some such. No beer and no Euchre or Crazy 8's = Outrageous Blasphemy...hahaha. I enjoy pints and throwing arrows on Saturday too much. I'll never make it as a Fundamentalist...hehe.

[GostHacked]

I think you're getting Evangelical Christians mixed up with Fund.

These people are stricter than Catholics. No dancing, no alcohol or smoking. No card playing. This is far.

You are more or less proving what can go wrong with and within organized religion, all of them. All religions have their own nutcase fundies. It is not isolated to Islam. It is a human character problem and not a religious problem.

QUOTE(Mr.Canada @ Jan 27 2009, 09:17 AM)

Hardly anyone is a Fundamentalist Christian. There are however millions of Fundamentalist Muslims.

----

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

And also with a statement like this

Me saying everyday Muslims believe this and are being taught this isn't equal to you trying to convince people I said "all Muslims", nice try.

Even if Mr.Canada is not talking about ALL muslims ... he is definately talking about the majority of them with statements like that. Everyday muslims, like every day christians, jews, catholics ..ect ect ...

[Mr.Canada]

You are more or less proving what can go wrong with and within organized religion, all of them. All religions have their own nutcase fundies. It is not isolated to Islam. It is a human character problem and not a religious problem.

And also with a statement like this

Even if Mr.Canada is not talking about ALL muslims ... he is definately talking about the majority of them with statements like that. Everyday muslims, like every day christians, jews, catholics ..ect ect ...

AFAIK Fund. Christians aren't calling for the destruction of any nation in the numbers that Fund. Muslims are. There is quite a difference.

[M.Dancer]

AFAIK Fund. Christians aren't calling for the destruction of any nation in the numbers that Fund. Muslims are. There is quite a difference.

The big difference is really that this thread you started has nothing to do with the destruction of a nation.....

[Molly]

Hm. I wonder what the non-Christian citizens of any number of nations would say about that.

I'd bet some feel more than a little threatened by fundy Xtian USA.

(Even some of us in the western world look nervously over our shoulders to see if they are gaining on us.)

[Mr.Canada]

A Muslim Cleric, a leader of the Muslim faith saying that women should be raped and beaten is appalling. I don't see how some people here are disagreeing with this. Women are equal to me this is important to me I'm sorry if that some posters here don't share my view.

[M.Dancer]

Women are equal to me this is important to me I'm sorry if that some posters here don't share my view.

I didn't realise you support women be ordained in the church...

[scorpio]

Hardly anyone is a Fundamentalist Christian. There are however millions of Fundamentalist Muslims.

I think you are forgetting the Southern Baptist who number in the millions. Plus, there are many other organizations that belong to the "religious right" who would embrace the term fundamenalist chrisitian.

[Mr.Canada]

Some posters are missing the topic of an influential Muslim Cleric condoning the rape and beating of women who don't have sex with their husbands on demand. Women are NOT sex slaves nor punching bags for cowards!

[Molly]

Really?

We are supposed to rail against the blackness of the kettle, and just pretend that there aren't any pots around here-- certainly no pots trying desperately to lead the chorus....

[GostHacked]

AFAIK Fund. Christians aren't calling for the destruction of any nation in the numbers that Fund. Muslims are. There is quite a difference.

They may not openly call for it, does that mean it is not happening? How was Christianity spread through the world, and especially the Thrid World, like Africa and the like. It is all wrapped up in something called Foreign Policy.

If you take countries like Canada, the US and parts of Europe, many catholics/christians bring their religious agenda to the table.

Bill O' might just be right about this so called culture war.

[cybercoma]

...if you could choose between living in a Catholic theocracy or a Muslim theocracy, what would you choose?

Either is pretty abhorent to me, but if it was one or the other, I know which I'd choose. How about you guys?

-k

I wouldn't be able to answer the question because you're comparing apples and oranges. Whereas, Roman Catholicism is a subset of Christians, Islam is the general class of an entire subset of beliefs from Sunni to Shi`ia. The beliefs Roman Catholicism is a very different thing from the beliefs of Protestantism, which is different still from the beliefs of Evangelical Baptists. By picking specifically Roman Catholic, one is capable of understanding exactly what the belief system entails. But, when you say generally Muslim, it is impossible to compare because the beliefs are so widely varied.

So, to compare like things, you would need to compare a Christian theocracy to a Muslim theocracy. Since most of us in the west are very familiar with the differences between Christian religions, we would most likely ask, what kind of Christian theocracy. The same question should come up when talking about Muslim theocracies. What kind of Muslim theocracy are we talking about?

I don't believe anyone in their right mind would believe in beating their wives, nor would they condone to a state that permits such behaviours. The Qu'ran, as a literal translation, very clearly condones this behaviours. All the same, Roman Catholicism believes in a literal translation of the Bible. Some unsavory bits of the Bible subjugate women to men, show approval of polygamous relationships, treat women as the property of men and punish women much more severely. Granted, it's better than what is preached in the Qu'ran; however, that's like asking if it's better to murder your wife or just beat her up a little. We should obviously find neither acceptable, so it is by far beside the point.

[WIP]

It would have been a volountary process. It could not have contravened the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It could never have been pure unadulterated Sharia Law because of that, and it would have to conform to the rules of evidence as per the Arbitration Act, and its decisions could be appealed to regular law courts - just like every other arbitration in the land. I was fine with it. Others weren't and successfully lobbied against it - I was fine with that too.

You see, this is the problem with automatically taking the path of least resistance. The concept of Sharia Law in itself cannot be harmonized with the kind of secular, amendable laws and rights that is the basis for our legal system, because it blends law and religion together. A Muslim woman who rejects Sharia Law is at risk of being declared apostate, but the alternative is to submit to a deontological system that did not emerge from an open evaluation process that considers the consequences of applying suggested laws.

In Ontario, the proposal to recognize sharia tribunals was made by a panel chaired by otherwise extreme feminist - Marion Boyd (former NDP Attorney General) who, like many leftwing activists, considered solidarity with Muslim activists to be more important than women's rights (or at least the rights of Muslim women). The only reason the sharia tribunals proposal was killed, was because several Muslim women's groups led a very vocal, uncompromising campaign against the idea. Many of these women had previous experiences with Sharia in their homelands, and didn't want the legal system they escaped from to follow them to a new land.

According to the Sharia, despite declarations of the equality of the sexes before God, women are considered inferior to men in the application of law, and have fewer rights and responsibilities. A woman's evidence is only worth half of what a man's evidence is in a court of law, or in matters of inheritance, she gets half of what her brother would get. In marriage, a husband has the right to beat her for disobedience, and the religious obligation to do so if she disobeys him (that Australian Imam was quoting right from the Quran after all). In marriage, the husband is obligated to perform sexually and provide materially for the wife. The wife must have sex whenever the husband wishes(again, it's in the book). A man can easily divorce a woman by pronouncing that he is divorcing her three times. Polygamy with up to four wives is permitted, and in the Shi'ite sect, temporary marriage is allowed and being used in Iran today to provide religious cover for prostitution.

A woman does not have the right to choose her husband, or her place of residence, to travel freely or have freedom in her choice of clothing. These may be provided as social conventions in modern Muslim societies, but according to Sharia, she is the property of her father until marriage, when she becomes the property of her husband. And even when widowed, she is under the authority of her sons, according to the Sharia. A complete application of Sharia results in horrifying situations like this one being played out in Saudi Arabia right now, where a Saudi court tells girl aged EIGHT she cannot divorce husband who is 50 years her senior....so, is it any surprise that the opposition to any application of Sharia Law comes from Muslim women's groups? It's certainly not coming from weak-kneed liberals who are only focused on appeasement, rather than justice.

What in particular about my posts have led you to believe I favour allowing Muslim fundamentalists to walk all over my Left-leaning-secular-socialist-political beliefs? Was it my belief that fruitcake Imams do not speak for all Muslims? My belief that the vast majority of Muslims do not beat and rape thier wives?

Well, first of all, Australians should not be just brushing this off as the ramblings of a fanatic, since he is using scriptural justification for his views. Also, the other Muslim clerics in the country should be asked some pointed and blunt questions about their opinions on the subject, since this Hamza has presented contradictory opinions in previous lectures. We could be led to the conclusion that he has one message for the Australian media, and a different message behind closed doors for his followers...so what about the other Imams...where do they stand?

Two years ago, their grand Poobah, Sheik Taj Aldin al-Hilali, raised an uproar when he compared women who do not wear head scarves to 'uncovered meat' and said immodestly dressed women invite rape....remember that one?

I see. Its your disapproval thats holding back the deluge. I too remember the good ol days of domestic violence in the 60's and 70's, where women regularly walked into doors and fell down alot and where courts held the view that wives were chattel of husbands.

Hate to rain on the parade but what is holding back the deluge is the Law of the land and the long arduous and ongoing struggle of sufferagettes and feminists to have the law be applied equally to men and women.

Simple, the people who want Biblical Law have little, if any standing in our society. There are a small group of Dominionist Christians who want Theonomy (Mosaic Law) to replace the civil law codes in Canada in the U.S....and most of these Reconstructionists realize that their goal is unattainable without a complete collapse of modern Western society.

Now, since we don't accept the validity of appeals to religious texts to determine what are laws are and how they should be applied, the abuses of patriarchy, that you identified, cannot be legally justified in our courts. So, why would you accept a rival religious system that enshrines patriarchy and the subjugation of women, if you consider it so aggregious when carried out by fundamentalist Christians?

[ToadBrother]

Some posters are missing the topic of an influential Muslim Cleric condoning the rape and beating of women who don't have sex with their husbands on demand. Women are NOT sex slaves nor punching bags for cowards!

To the Catholic church, women most certainly are sex slaves. They are denied any but the most ineffective means of controlling their reproductive system.

[Peter F]

You see, this is the problem with automatically taking the path of least resistance. ..... ..... .....

Now, since we don't accept the validity of appeals to religious texts to determine what are laws are and how they should be applied, the abuses of patriarchy, that you identified, cannot be legally justified in our courts. So, why would you accept a rival religious system that enshrines patriarchy and the subjugation of women, if you consider it so aggregious when carried out by fundamentalist Christians?

Thanks for lecturing me on what I already knew. Sharia law sucks. You know why I say that? Because I'm no Muslim. In fact why restrict that to sharia law? All theocratic religious based law sucks. I say that because I think Religion sucks - any religion. Therefore, you see, I think all religious based law sucks.

So your efforts to convince me that Sharia Law sucks, while impressive, nevertheless hit empty air because, you see, I had come to the conclusion many moons ago, that Sharia Law sucks.

But here's the point you dont seem to comprehend: Others think different. Where do you or the state get off telling folks attempting to resolve a private dispute that they cant have that dispute decided by folks they have great respect for? Who died and made you kingshit of turd island?

I understand the concept that in family disputes a woman will be holding the short end of the preverbial stinky-stick should she be foolish and/or devout enough to agree to a Sharia tribunal.

But what about a business dispute between to men? What would be wrong with them seeking resolution with Sharia arbitration? Abhorrent to you because its Sharia based? Who effing cares? Its not your dispute. In fact if the dispute was resolved with the flip of a coin you'd probably fine that completely crazy - but hey! - its their life. Would you be lobbying the government to stop such wackiness? Would you be railing against the spread of coinflipping to resolve disputes? or writing endless blogs about people referring disputes to the Three Amigo's because you don't like them f*ckers?

Any - Any dispute resolution procedure willingly and openly entered into by informed adults is acceptable as long as the result is not abhorrent to the secular Laws of our land. Sharia law would be severly hobbled by that very fact. So your fear of Imams taking over the courts of the land is groundless. Completely groundless.

Now, since we don't accept the validity of appeals to religious texts to determine what are laws are and how they should be applied, the abuses of patriarchy, that you identified, cannot be legally justified in our courts. So, why would you accept a rival religious system that enshrines patriarchy and the subjugation of women, if you consider it so aggregious when carried out by fundamentalist Christians?

Yes, Now, since me and you dont accept the validity of appeals to religious texts to determine what laws are and how they should be applied, Me and you won't be entering into any such arbitration agreement, will we? No. Of course not.

But that doesnt account for folks who think different. There are catholicsin this world, fewer now that previously to be sure, who's marriages are meaningless farces, but who remain married because an archbishop somewhere refused to grant an annulment. They remain married because, for some bizarro reason, its important to them and their seriously held religious beleifs. They can go to court tomorrow to have thier marriage ended - but they dont. They don't because such a decision would be bogus and without value to them. Go figure.

You see, its not all about me me me or you you you.

[kimmy]

You see, this is the problem with automatically taking the path of least resistance. The concept of Sharia Law in itself cannot be harmonized with the kind of secular, amendable laws and rights that is the basis for our legal system, because it blends law and religion together.

I was doing fist-pumps at my desk while reading your message.

To highlight a couple of points I thought were particularly of interest...

In Ontario, the proposal to recognize sharia tribunals was made by a panel chaired by otherwise extreme feminist - Marion Boyd (former NDP Attorney General) who, like many leftwing activists, considered solidarity with Muslim activists to be more important than women's rights (or at least the rights of Muslim women).

A phrase I've been hearing a lot lately... "race trumps gender". As in, for those of a wont to worry over what would be the most Politically Correct thing to do, side with the brown-guy over the chicks.

Well, first of all, Australians should not be just brushing this off as the ramblings of a fanatic, since he is using scriptural justification for his views. Also, the other Muslim clerics in the country should be asked some pointed and blunt questions about their opinions on the subject, since this Hamza has presented contradictory opinions in previous lectures. We could be led to the conclusion that he has one message for the Australian media, and a different message behind closed doors for his followers... so what about the other Imams...where do they stand?

A documentary in England called "Undercover Mosque" came to a similar conclusion regarding Muslim clerics there. (and for Peter F's benefit: clearly not all Muslim clerics. Just a startling number.)

Two years ago, their grand Poobah, Sheik Taj Aldin al-Hilali, raised an uproar when he compared women who do not wear head scarves to 'uncovered meat' and said immodestly dressed women invite rape....remember that one?

And even more appalling in context: al-Hilali was speaking out against the criminal sentences of a gang of Muslim men convicted of a series of gang-rapes committed against "immodestly dressed" Australian women.

-k

[sharkman]

I have a hard time understanding why, when faced with subject matter that shows mainstream Muslim leaders taking controversial positions on rape and beatings, the left starts talking about Christianity. I think I'll conduct an experiment on the left. I'll start a thread on Pat Robertson, and watch lefties ignore the subject matter to instead criticize Muslims. There's gotta be some logic to it somehow!

[kimmy]

I understand the concept that in family disputes a woman will be holding the short end of the preverbial stinky-stick should she be foolish and/or devout enough to agree to a Sharia tribunal.

She might not have a choice. Should such an option exist, it is likely that any woman refusing to accept it would be made an outcast in her community, or (as WIP noted) an apostate.

Any - Any dispute resolution procedure willingly and openly entered into by informed adults is acceptable as long as the result is not abhorrent to the secular Laws of our land.

If I recall correctly, the discussion was not about whether people could settle disputes by whatever means they wished, but rather about whether to give legal recognition to it.

If you and your buddy want to rock-paper-scissors over who has to pay for the next pitcher, that's your right. If you and your want to rock-paper-scissors for custody of your children... uh, no.

-k