Cleric supports forced sex and beatings on women

WIP · January 31, 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.

I don't consider a cleric who supports rape and wife abuse to be a victim! What you are calling the victim is someone who represents a very aggressive, often violent religious movement. I don't consider upholding secular values and telling religious communities that they have to observe the laws of this land to be assaulting the victim. The only analogy I can see with this issue are the few atheists, like Christopher Hitchens, who took sides with Christian fundamentalist driven - Neoconservative foreign policy -- the logic is supposed to be something like "fighting the greater threat," but not many non-religious people bought into it, regardless of Hitchen's pro Iraq War speeches.

But, on the other hand, just because the Muslims are new here, and the minority religion, that does not mean we should refrain from criticizing harmful and destructive beliefs that they have.

So far, critics focus solely on things like terrorism, honour killings, female circumcision etc.. But secularists need to raise issues that Christian fundamentalists equally show no concern for. For example, we need to take them to task for some of the things we are challenging the Catholic Church over: such as the same policies that limit the reproductive choices of women and keep birth rates skyrocketing, at a time when the world's population is reaching 6.5 billion and running out of food, fresh water, causing mass extinction through continued encroachment in remaining wildlife habitats, and polluting the planet by using dirty energy sources -- all of these problems are made worse by population growth, and the religions that discourage birth control and encourage unbridled population growth should be taken to task for "values" that are toxic considering the state the world is in today!

Peter F · January 31, 2009

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.

Marvelous! I'm happy for you. Keep up the good work.

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.

Sorry to disappoint. But cultures are cultures. Praise or criticism means nothing. I may as well criticise the rain.

Edited January 31, 2009 by Peter F

Peter F · January 31, 2009

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?

Nope. I am saying that I see no reason to deny two individuals mutually agreeing to have their civil dispute resolved according to their own religious principles. Thats what I'm saying. You seem to be saying that to allow such is a slippery slope to theocracy. I disagree.

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?

What do you care about my moral judgements? What do I care that you know about them? My moral judgements are made to soothe my own mind not yours or anybody elses. Get your own moral judgements.

Core principles? Sure I have core principles that I beleive everybody else should adhere to:

Don't Kill other people.

Be friendly to your neighbour.

Tell the truth.

etc etc and blah and blah.

Its an extremely long list, probably repetitive, and not very successfull since so many people don't seem to give a hoot that I have deemed that everyone must adhere to these principles.

Peter F · January 31, 2009

But, I agree with your ultimate aim. We should not have two seperate justice systems that would result in penalties for crimes that would vary depending upon a persons religion. A christian theif goes to jail or does community service or maybe both or maybe pays restitution; A muslim thief maybe does those things too or maybe has his hands cut off. A christian adulteress gets ...well...gets to carry on living her life; A muslim adultress gets buried up to her neck in sand and stoned to death - maybe, maybe not, depending.

I am against that sort of thing. So yes, I am against the introduction of Sharia Law or any other system of law. Our criminal laws are the same across the land and so it should remain. But we must recognize that we already have two systems of civil law in this land - Quebec civil code and Canadian common law. And thats ok because neither are Criminal Law. So mutually agreeable arbitrations are ok with me.

Peter F · January 31, 2009

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?

Yeah. Why not? Its a legitimate question. I suspect its because us non-muslims (and I suspect many muslims) consider Sharia law to be far too extreme in what is considered a punishable offence and far too extreme in what the punishment for those offences are. I think thats it in a nutshell.

'Sentencing Circles' are a different matter entirely. Sentencing Circles do not try the case or determine guilt. There are no native courts using any native justice system. The secular courts have already determined guilt but are allowing the prisoners community to determine sentence. To say that 'sentencing circles' are the same as 'Sharia Law' is very wrong. They aren't the same thing at all - not even close. You are comparing apples to mosquitoes.

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.

No, actually anything she is pressured to do could be enforceable by the authorities. Its just that the authorities would have to go through the usuall courts to try to figure out what sort of contract was in effect - if there was one - and wether such a contract (written or implied) was legal or not. An out of court settlement could very well be enforceable.

CANADIEN · January 31, 2009

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.

"Spawned", right? Thank you for reminding us that we are not talking about human beings here.

Of course, it should not come as a surprise to you that I believe that even proponent of sharia law have the freedom to express their opinions. Andthat I believe that religious tribunals have no place in a secular, multicultural society. And that I believe that if they cannot live in a country with no sharia, they are free to move. The same way you are free to move if you can't stand living in a multicultural society.

CANADIEN · January 31, 2009

The comparison between sentencing circles and Islamic (or Jew orthodox, for example) tribunals is an innacurate one, on various level.

Sentencing circles do not sit as tribunals, passing judgement on the guilt or innocence of an individuals. They are a way of determining the sentence for a crime, based on the First nation tradition of restorative, instead of punitive, justice. They cannot impose sentences that are contrary to Canadian law, and in fact their decisions have to be reviewed and confirmed by a judge. While I am sure that some sentencing circle decisions impose a lesser sentence that what a judge would do, I am sure the opposite is true as well.

The existing religious "tribunals" in Canada (such as the Jewish Orthodox ones) do not actually sit as tribunals either, and are in fact an alternate civil litigation resolution mechanisms; they do not hear cases on criminal justice issues. Interesting to note that those who attempted to set such "tibunals" with Sharia at its basis were not seeking to have them pass judgement on criminal matters either. The existing religious "tribunals", like any other alternate civil arbitration mechanisms, could not render decisions that go contrary to canadian law.

Why then not accept them, then? Because, in most cases, religion-based civil justice operates on principles contrary to the Canadian law system, such as inequality of men or women, or a higher value given to the testimony of a member of the particular religion. The risk of decisions contrary to Canadian laws being rendered by those tribunals is, therefore, higher.

Edited January 31, 2009 by CANADIEN

CANADIEN · January 31, 2009

This topic is about the Muslim Imam's saying it's ok to beat and rape women. You have yet to respond to it. Will you do so in your nest post is the question.

Therefore, it is not on Islam, or other Muslims, right, or even on the fact he is Muslim or a cleric? It is about what HE said, and nobody else.

That man is wrong, and he should be denounced accordingly.

Edited January 31, 2009 by CANADIEN

CANADIEN · January 31, 2009

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.

Why would I be surprised that you cut out a sentence of another person's posting to make it sound the exact opposite of what was actually said. Either you can't read, or you're an hypocrite, or both. I'll let you decide.

BTW, the topic is not what she said, but what the cleric said. Right?

Molly · January 31, 2009

Ahhh! Post 158...

Well said, Canadien.

Edited January 31, 2009 by Molly

Argus · January 31, 2009

Nope. I am saying that I see no reason to deny two individuals mutually agreeing to have their civil dispute resolved according to their own religious principles. Thats what I'm saying. You seem to be saying that to allow such is a slippery slope to theocracy. I disagree.

Let me explain to you what the difference is between two individuals settling a dispute, and two individuals settling a dispute in front of some sort of Sharia panel which has official sanction and which is backed up by the weight of the law.

It is the difference between an individual promising to be someone's slave in exchange for cash - which is merely an agreement between two people - and a situation where the state then enforces the act of slavery if the "slave" later changes his or her mind.

Argus · January 31, 2009

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.

And yet, more than half of them would like to live under Sharia law.

CANADIEN · January 31, 2009

Let me explain to you what the difference is between two individuals settling a dispute, and two individuals settling a dispute in front of some sort of Sharia panel which has official sanction and which is backed up by the weight of the law.
It is the difference between an individual promising to be someone's slave in exchange for cash - which is merely an agreement between two people - and a situation where the state then enforces the act of slavery if the "slave" later changes his or her mind.

And let me explain to you the difference between legal and illegal. Slavery, even agreed upon, is illegal.

Argus · January 31, 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.

I disagree that it's pointless. Islam is unchanging. It is not advancing, culturally, not anywhere in the world. It clings to these old, often barbaric notions because, by and large, Islam does not tolerate, much less have a tradition among its adherents, of challenges to the customs and traditions and "laws" set out in their religious texts. If changes are to come they will have to come through the influence of outsiders mocking, ridiculing, and pointing out how savage and barbaric those interpretations are, and thus getting Muslims, at least here in the West, to start thinking about it and perhaps putting pressure on their religious representatives. For sure if we simply accept these ignorant, backward, barbaric practices, and don't challenge the people who advocate them very strenuously, if we don't shame the followers of Islam, then nothing will ever change.

Argus · January 31, 2009

And let me explain to you the difference between legal and illegal. Slavery, even agreed upon, is illegal.

Irrelevent. If we have an "Islamic" court, then masses of Muslims will, in effect, have no choice but to go to them. To do otherwise, they will be told, is to repudiate their own religion and it's laws. So these "courts" will order absurdly unfair solutions to problems - and then we have a situation where, as in the UK, the real courts will enforce those judgements. And it doesn't matter if the original judgement was based on "unconstitutional" laws, for those laws will be protected by being religious in nature. It's actually a way of getting around the Constitution by having religious panels or courts make the decision. Then the state courts merely enforce that decision if the individual balks.

Peter F · January 31, 2009

... it doesn't matter if the original judgement was based on "unconstitutional" laws, for those laws will be protected by being religious in nature

Wrong again. It will matter that the original judgment was based on "unconstitutional law'. The judgment will be rendered null and void.

The sharia arbitrators do not get to change or ignore the constitution to fit their needs. Perhaps they'd like to but too bad for them.

Edited January 31, 2009 by Peter F

cybercoma · January 31, 2009

I disagree that it's pointless. Islam is unchanging. It is not advancing, culturally, not anywhere in the world. It clings to these old, often barbaric notions because, by and large, Islam does not tolerate, much less have a tradition among its adherents, of challenges to the customs and traditions and "laws" set out in their religious texts. If changes are to come they will have to come through the influence of outsiders mocking, ridiculing, and pointing out how savage and barbaric those interpretations are, and thus getting Muslims, at least here in the West, to start thinking about it and perhaps putting pressure on their religious representatives. For sure if we simply accept these ignorant, backward, barbaric practices, and don't challenge the people who advocate them very strenuously, if we don't shame the followers of Islam, then nothing will ever change.

Islam is not culturally homogeneous. One glaring example of the discrepancies between Muslim beliefs is Shi`ia vs Sunni. Their differences are so great that they are willing to kill each other. Christianity also has a large divide in beliefs. Catholics and Protestants have been at odds historically. So, saying "Islam is" and filling in the blank makes as much sense as saying "All Christians ______". Edited January 31, 2009 by cybercoma

CANADIEN · January 31, 2009

Irrelevent. If we have an "Islamic" court, then masses of Muslims will, in effect, have no choice but to go to them. To do otherwise, they will be told, is to repudiate their own religion and it's laws. So these "courts" will order absurdly unfair solutions to problems - and then we have a situation where, as in the UK, the real courts will enforce those judgements. And it doesn't matter if the original judgement was based on "unconstitutional" laws, for those laws will be protected by being religious in nature. It's actually a way of getting around the Constitution by having religious panels or courts make the decision. Then the state courts merely enforce that decision if the individual balks.

Exactly why NO religious "tribunal" or litigation resolution mechanism can be allowed. Muslim or otherwise.

Argus · January 31, 2009

Islam is not culturally homogeneous. One glaring example of the discrepancies between Muslim beliefs is Shi`ia vs Sunni. Their differences are so great that they are willing to kill each other. Christianity also has a large divide in beliefs. Catholics and Protestants have been at odds historically. So, saying "Islam is" and filling in the blank makes as much sense as saying "All Christians ______".

Well the poll said that the majority who identified themselves as Musilm, including 59% of younger Muslims, want Sharia law. It did not separate out which were Sunnis and which were Shiites. However, there appears to be a strong belief in all Muslim countries, Shia or Sunni, that Sharia law is the way to go. A survey was posted here a few months back, I believe, which showed strong majorities in all Muslim countries favoured Sharia law.

WIP · February 2, 2009

Therefore, it is not on Islam, or other Muslims, right, or even on the fact he is Muslim or a cleric? It is about what HE said, and nobody else.
That man is wrong, and he should be denounced accordingly.

This is a disingenuous attempt to absolve religious dogma and tradition from the blame incurred when followers apply it, or at least in this case, claim to be applying Islamic principles. He is not speaking about his own personal opinions about whether married women should be able to refuse sex, or whether husbands have a right to beat their wives -- he is claiming religious authority as the basis for his expressed opinions. Does he have it? Where are the other voices in his community? Are prominent clerics speaking out against him -- and I'm not talking about talking to our media; I mean speaking in the mosques, in front of Muslims against Hamza and his interpretations of doctrine. Are they against misogyny, and for modernization, or are they cheering him on behind the doors of Muslim community?

WIP · February 2, 2009

Islam is not culturally homogeneous. One glaring example of the discrepancies between Muslim beliefs is Shi`ia vs Sunni. Their differences are so great that they are willing to kill each other. Christianity also has a large divide in beliefs. Catholics and Protestants have been at odds historically. So, saying "Islam is" and filling in the blank makes as much sense as saying "All Christians ______".

One thing that makes Islam the most difficult religion to change and modernize is that even the so called progressive Muslims are obliged to accept the entire Quran as a sacred document, direct from God, equivalent to the Commandments brought down from Mt. Sinai by Moses. The rest of the Bible is declared "divinely inspired" which can mean just about anything as fundamentalists and modernists stretch meanings and significance of Biblical verses to suit their own needs. But declaring the Quran to be directly from God doesn't leave as much wiggle room for new interpretations.

The collections of Hadiths that are used to interpret the Quran, are in that divine inspiration category, so there may be room to re-interpret or disregard some of these sayings -- that infamous promise of 72 virgins for martyrdom, would be a good place to get out the black magic marker!

Reforming Islam is something that Muslims will have to come to terms with themselves, and it's difficult to figure out exactly how Westerners should approach this struggle. If we get too involved, and try to interfere with the Muslim World, like the Bush Administration has done with regime change and occupation, the reformers become the big losers and the hardline traditionalists win the argument. On the other hand, if we allow Muslims to ignore and disregard our laws and cultural values and create Londonistans in Western cities, that doesn't help a progressive, reform movement either! A hardline cleric can easily make a case that they can impose Sharia and Muslim cultural values on the West, if we don't demonstrate that we have some secular values that we are not going to change because of the demands of any religious leaders, whether they are Christian or Muslim.

CANADIEN · February 2, 2009

This is a disingenuous attempt to absolve religious dogma and tradition from the blame incurred when followers apply it, or at least in this case, claim to be applying Islamic principles. He is not speaking about his own personal opinions about whether married women should be able to refuse sex, or whether husbands have a right to beat their wives -- he is claiming religious authority as the basis for his expressed opinions. Does he have it? Where are the other voices in his community? Are prominent clerics speaking out against him -- and I'm not talking about talking to our media; I mean speaking in the mosques, in front of Muslims against Hamza and his interpretations of doctrine. Are they against misogyny, and for modernization, or are they cheering him on behind the doors of Muslim community?

Obviously, you didn't get the point of my posting. Of course, we cannot separate what the man said from the fact he speaks as someone who claims relligious authority, or wahtever reaction his audience has.

The point of that specific posting was to respond to Mr. C.'s hypocrisy in screaming "you're off-topic" whenever someone raises a point he doesn't like while he gives himself the right to go in whatever direction fits his bigotry.

Mr.Canada · February 2, 2009

Obviously, you didn't get the point of my posting. Of course, we cannot separate what the man said from the fact he speaks as someone who claims relligious authority, or wahtever reaction his audience has.
The point of that specific posting was to respond to Mr. C.'s hypocrisy in screaming "you're off-topic" whenever someone raises a point he doesn't like while he gives himself the right to go in whatever direction fits his bigotry.

I see. I'm against women being raped and beaten. I'm against this being taught in today's society by religious figures daily in any way, shape or form. I'm sorry but standing up for the woman's right not to be raped and beaten isn't bigotry. No matter how much CANADIEN thinks it is. I'm sorry CANADIEN but shame on you for saying that being against women being raped and beaten is bigotry. Shame.