Cleric supports forced sex and beatings on women

Mr.Canada · January 28, 2009

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!

Because they think that one must be perfect in order to criticize others. That or be a line walking NDP'er and regular poster over at Rabble.

WIP · January 28, 2009

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?

It's already been covered by Kimmy, but once again, this is not about resolving a private dispute. You don't need to go to court for that. If you have a dispute about your neighbour's fence, you can make a private deal without going to court. This issue is about legal recognition of systems of arbitration. And there are many concerns in England, where recognition of Sharia tribunals is being proposed, that immigrant Muslim women will find themselves railroaded into having their divorce, domestic violence complaints or inheritances settled by a panel of MEN, who are using a system that predetermines a woman is worth half of the value as a man.

Should the British courts uphold the decisions of the tribunals, when even these spineless appeasers recognize that Sharia punishments would be too barbaric for jolly ole England:"It must be recognised, however, that any sanctions for a failure to comply with the agreed terms of mediation would be drawn from the laws of England and Wales." Severe physical punishments such as flogging, stoning and the cutting off of hands would not be acceptable, he said.

Well, if the punishments proscribed by a legal system are deemed too barbaric, why would you want to use it as a basis for any legally binding decisions?

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.

There's nothing stopping them now from entering into contractual business agreement, and they can have their mullahs or muftis, whatever, be the arbitrator and write up the contract. But why should our legal system recognize the Sharia tribunal as an independent legal body?

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.

Which rules out about everything connected with Sharia Law, since it is theologically based, and Muslims consider it superior to civil law -- so they will feel pressured to turn to the Sharia tribunal, rather than the secular courts. Every decision by a Sharia panel would have to be thrown out as in violation of our Charter of Rights....so what's the point?

WIP · January 28, 2009

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

Thanks! I'm glad you enjoyed it.

To highlight a couple of points I thought were particularly of interest...
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, certainly Marion Boyd wasn't being pro-Muslim for racial reasons. It's more likely a result of a desire to appease a core constituency and the simple fact that most secular social liberals are afraid of having to make moral judgments. They want all moral decisions to be private. Many won't deal with questions about some late term abortions - the stock answer is that it is a private matter; and even polygamy, which should be a no-brainer for a feminist, and yet many have taken the position that whatever goes on inside Bountiful, B.C. is not the business of outsiders.

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.)
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

It's worth mentioning also that many of these attitudes were common (at least among men) years ago. When I was young, there was a well known saying:" a girl can run faster with her skirt up, than a man can with his pants down." It's not rocket science to figure out that this dismissive slogan was used by guys who considered every woman who was raped to be at fault for allowing it to happen. In the courts, women were afraid to press charges, especially in date-rape scenarios, because the defending attorney would try to smear her character. If she was wearing a miniskirt, she was asking for it! Same if she was out late at night, or walking alone in a dangerous part of town. Much of what we are seeing with Islam today, is not so much a foreign, alien culture as it is a flashback to the attitudes and the way things were here decades ago. But why go back and relive the past? It's better to tell them to join the modern world if they want to be here.

Molly · January 28, 2009

Sharkman, the explanation is found in the motivation of the person who raises the question.

Mr. C has made it abundantly clear that his motive was to fire up a chummy little hatefest, whereby we would all tut-tut about those terrible, terrible Muslims, cherry-picking outrageous phrases from Imams with roots in cultures far different from our own, in order to damn all concerned.

It's phoney to the core--- mendacious-- bigotted.

If we want to know the effect of Islam here, it is easy enough to ask a local Imam. I don't think you'll find many who agree with this guy-- and many who would be embarrassed by him, and angry that he's giving 'regular folks' a bad name.

That would be just about precisely the way your own local Anglican priest would feel about the Reverend Hagee, for instance, or the way Mr. C feels about the awful rash of pedophile priests, or the general run of Mormons would feel about the likes of Winston Blackmore.

If I believed for one second that Mr. C's great concern actually was for the welfare of abused women instead of cheap bigotry points, I'd cut him some slack. But if it truly was, then he'd be interested in other aspects of woman abuse, and not keep trying to herd conversation back to how only MUSLIM women are victimized by their religion.

Mr.Canada · January 28, 2009

Sharkman, the explanation is found in the motivation of the person who raises the question.
Mr. C has made it abundantly clear that his motive was to fire up a chummy little hatefest, whereby we would all tut-tut about those terrible, terrible Muslims, cherry-picking outrageous phrases from Imams with roots in cultures far different from our own, in order to damn all concerned.

It's phoney to the core--- mendacious-- bigotted.

If we want to know the effect of Islam here, it is easy enough to ask a local Imam. I don't think you'll find many who agree with this guy-- and many who would be embarrassed by him, and angry that he's giving 'regular folks' a bad name.

That would be just about precisely the way your own local Anglican priest would feel about the Reverend Hagee, for instance, or the way Mr. C feels about the awful rash of pedophile priests, or the general run of Mormons would feel about the likes of Winston Blackmore.

If I believed for one second that Mr. C's great concern actually was for the welfare of abused women instead of cheap bigotry points, I'd cut him some slack. But if it truly was, then he'd be interested in other aspects of woman abuse, and not keep trying to herd conversation back to how only MUSLIM women are victimized by their religion.

Ok, so you condone a Muslim Cleric advocating the beating and rape of their wives?

Molly · January 28, 2009

I 'condone a Muslim cleric advocating the beating and raping of their wives' to exactly the degree that I condone a Roman Catholic priest chastizing a battered, raped wife for apparently deserving such abuse, and sending her back to 'try harder'.

Mr.Canada · January 28, 2009

I 'condone a Muslim cleric advocating the beating and raping of their wives'

Wow. I'm surprised that a poster who appears to be female wouldn't mind being severely abused by her husband if she was married and not giving out sex on demand. You must be a Muslim who is under your husbands thumb, even right now. I feel sorry for you.

Molly · January 28, 2009

And- you just RE-made my point in that reply to Sharkman.

Mr.Canada · January 28, 2009

And- you just RE-made my point in that reply to Sharkman.

That's your position. I'm openly Christian therefore I am somehow disqualified from criticizing other groups but you can since you're an atheist socialist. This is your and your socialist allies position

You support women being raped and beaten, you've already said that above. I'm sorry you feel that way.

Edited January 28, 2009 by Mr.Canada

M.Dancer · January 28, 2009

You support women being raped and beaten, you've already said that above. I'm sorry you feel that way.

She supports it as much as she supports a priest telling a woman it's hwer fault....

Are you taking stupid pills today or what?

Mr.Canada · January 28, 2009

She supports it as much as she supports a priest telling a woman it's hwer fault....
Are you taking stupid pills today or what?

I see so " she claims" a priest said that, who knows if he did or not. Cannot be proven or disproved. This guy said these things for sure.

M.Dancer · January 28, 2009

I see so " she claims" a priest said that, who knows if he did or not. Cannot be proven or disproved. This guy said these things for sure.

And an evangelical minister in montreal married a 10 year old....If I take a page from your book of stupid debating tactics I can say I didn't see you speak out against it so I assume you fully and whole heartedly approve and endorse it.

You are pathetic. I'll ask someone who gives a shit to pray for you and your child raping soul.

Mr.Canada · January 28, 2009

Stop the personal attacks please M.Dancer. If you cannot stay on topic please refrain from posting on the the topics. If you wish to discuss that you may begin your own thread. What you're doing constitutes thread hi jaking and is against the rules. Thank you for your cooperation.

M.Dancer · January 28, 2009

Stop the personal attacks please M.Dancer. If you cannot stay on topic please refrain from posting on the the topics. If you wish to discuss that you may begin your own thread. What you're doing constitutes thread hi jaking and is against the rules. Thank you for your cooperation.

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.

M.Dancer · January 28, 2009

Speaking of clerics and their weird ideas of sex and submission....
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto.../?query=pastor+

Mr. Canada supports this fellow. Perhapos if he was a muslim he would condemn it. Or convert ...

Mr.Canada · January 28, 2009

Mr. Canada supports this fellow. Perhapos if he was a muslim he would condemn it. Or convert ...

It is disgusting, of coarse I don't support pedophilia in any form. This topic is about a Cleric not a Minister. If you wish to discuss it please start your own topic sir. You constantly make strawman arguments in every post of mine when you don't want to be seen agreeing with me. I find it funny.

Edited January 28, 2009 by Mr.Canada

Mr.Canada · January 28, 2009

Let's try to keep this on topic folks. the topic is a Muslim Cleric advocating for the rape and beating of their wives for not giving sex on a husbands demand.

M.Dancer · January 28, 2009

This topic is about a Cleric not a Minister.

Ministers are also clerics, so are catholic priests...is the topic about a cleric or sexism or islam? Do you even know why you started this thread?

Mr.Canada · January 28, 2009

Ministers are also clerics, so are catholic priests...is the topic about a cleric or sexism or islam? Do you even know why you started this thread?

the topic is about a Muslim Cleric advocating for the rape and beating of their wives for not giving sex on a husbands demand. This Imam says it's for told by God. So nevermind the strawman and comment directly on the topic or go elsewhere.

M.Dancer · January 28, 2009

....comment directly on the topic or go elsewhere.

Fair enough...

The topic is stupid and done to death.

guyser · January 28, 2009

Mr C., you support the christian who married a 10 year old...I have proof.
Shameful and sad really. Supporting pedophilia like that.

It truly is a shame that he supports pedo's.

dancer:The topic is stupid and done to death.

True , but wanna bet he tries again, and soon?

WIP · January 28, 2009

Sharkman, the explanation is found in the motivation of the person who raises the question.
Mr. C has made it abundantly clear that his motive was to fire up a chummy little hatefest, whereby we would all tut-tut about those terrible, terrible Muslims, cherry-picking outrageous phrases from Imams with roots in cultures far different from our own, in order to damn all concerned.

It's phoney to the core--- mendacious-- bigotted.

But these issues have to be evaluated for other reasons besides whatever Canada's motives are. There is an old saying, "a broken clock will give you the right time twice a day," so I may be a little more wary when I find myself on the same side of an issue as people who hold views that are at least equally dangerous and contemptible, but that does not mean this sort of issue should be papered over by liberals and secularists because we don't want to do anything that the Christian Right is in favour of.

I was listening to the CBC's spiritually themed show 'Tapestry' on Sunday, and host Mary Hines took a break from the usual airhead mystics and spiritualists to include an interview with Sam Harris. On this point of Muslim fundamentalism, Harris makes the point that secularists should be leading the fight to stop religious encroachment on law and government, and that he is saddened by the fact that the only groups challenging Muslim activists are the Christian theocrats in the U.S., and the fascist and neofascist movements in Europe! What is wrong with the people who believe in secular values, that they go weak at the knees and avoid criticizing Islam for things that they would never accept from Christianity?

But because Muslim activists are generally part of the coalition of the left, they are reluctant to criticize them, and there is also a mistaken concept of secular liberals that moral issues are subjective and must be private wherever possible. We need to have objective moral standards or the fundamentalists are left to themselves to claim that they are the only ones who are moral, and their arbitrary, ancient guide books are the source of the movements to try to impose their religious vision on the rest of society.

If we want to know the effect of Islam here, it is easy enough to ask a local Imam. I don't think you'll find many who agree with this guy-- and many who would be embarrassed by him, and angry that he's giving 'regular folks' a bad name.

I've heard a few clerics interviewed by radio an TV who voice their opposition -- but I want to know WHY they oppose him. Do they have actual doctrinal reasons for claiming that he is in error, or are they just embarassed by him, and want him to be a little more subtle about his theme of misogyny.

BigAl · January 28, 2009

A religious leader, a Muslim Cleric, saying that women should be raped and beaten is appalling. I don't see how some people here are disagreeing with this. Womens equality is important to me I'm sorry if that some posters here don't share my view.
We must ensure that Sharia Law is never enacted in Canada. We must fight them on this issue to the end.

You religious types spend all kinds of time picking and choosing what you want to take from your sacred books and what you want to ignore. You make a big deal out of Leviticus condemning homosexuality and using that as your basis for your bigotry against gays (to say nothing of the rest of Leviticus which encourages stoning women to death etc. -- but you ignore that part conveniently), but then you turn around and condemn some other religious wingnut for picking and choosing what THEY choose to believe from THEIR sacred books. Smacks of hypocrisy to me.

Mr.Canada · January 28, 2009

You religious types spend all kinds of time picking and choosing what you want to take from your sacred books and what you want to ignore. You make a big deal out of Leviticus condemning homosexuality and using that as your basis for your bigotry against gays (to say nothing of the rest of Leviticus which encourages stoning women to death etc. -- but you ignore that part conveniently), but then you turn around and condemn some other religious wingnut for picking and choosing what THEY choose to believe from THEIR sacred books. Smacks of hypocrisy to me.

Homosexuality isn't illegal. Rape and beating a women is. Sorry they don't match up sir. I find it funny that not one poster from the left will criticize this Cleric as he's a minority. Priceless. So do you support this Clerics actions then or not?