Of course, not on the head
It’s always nice to get some spiritual advice, don’t you think? A Melbourne imam gave his male followers some of that a few years ago, in a lecture titled ‘The Keys to a Successful Marriage.’
He said under Islamic law, as described in a koranic verse, it was a man’s right to demand sex from his wife whenever he felt like it. “If the husband was to ask her for a sexual relationship and she is preparing the bread on the stove she must leave it and come and respond to her husband, she must respond,” Mr Hamza told his male followers on the video sermon. He then mocked Australia’s criminal laws, which required consent for sex to be lawful. “In this country if the husband wants to sleep with his wife and she does not want to and she hasn’t got a sickness or whatever, there is nothing wrong with her she just does not feel like it, and he ends up sleeping with her by force…it is known to be as rape,” Mr Hamza said. “Amazing, how can a person rape his wife?”
Well quite – one might as well call it beating a hammer if you use it to pound in a nail, wives being much the same kind of thing as a hammer and husbands being, as Mr Hamza indicates, persons. A man is a person, and his wife is an object owned by the person, so obviously a person can’t ‘rape’ an object – what a silly idea. Amazing.
“First of all advise them,” he said. “You beat them … but this is the last resort. After you have advised them (not to be disobedient) for a long, long time then you smack them, you beat them and, please, brothers, calm down, the beating the Mohammed showed is like the toothbrush that you use to brush your teeth.
You are not allowed to bruise them, you are not allowed to make them bleed.”
No, you’re only allowed to beat them, but fortunately you are allowed to do that much, because you are always right and they are always wrong, or if not, it doesn’t signify, because your will is the only one that counts, and theirs is mere disobedience. That’s fair, surely? It must be, because Islam is justice.
Mr Hamza told his followers not to get carried away and become too physical with the beatings. “This is just to shape them up, shape up woman – that is about it,” he said. “You don’t go and grab a broomstick and say that is what Allah has said,” Mr Hamza said to sporadic laughter from his flock.
Oh, ha ha, that’s so funny, ha ha – of course you don’t, who would be so crude and vulgar as to do that? No no, you just hit them on the arms or legs, that’s all.
Mr Hamza runs the Islamic Information and Services Network of Australasia on Sydney Rd, Coburg, which offers spiritual advice, prayer facilities and boxing, karate and gym classes for Muslims.
Spiritual advice is it – yes very spiritual. Highly impressive and thoughtful and elevated, too – but at the same time, charmingly easy to understand. When a man wants to fuck, his wife has to be fucked, and if she refuses, the man can forcibly fuck her, or beat her and then forcibly fuck her, or if he’s really kinky, forcibly fuck her and then beat her. See? No complicated theological niceties, no chatter about ontology or the ground of being, just the man’s right to fuck his wife whenever he wants to; the root of all piety.
Mr Hamza yesterday stood by his comments and blamed controversy over them on a hidden Zionist agenda run by the media. Questioned about his teachings, Mr Hamza said a wife was allowed to be hit on the hand or leg, but “of course, not on the head”. He said if a Muslim wife disobeyed her husband, such as continuing to go out when requested not to, she was able to be subjected to moderate physical punishment. Mr Hamza also reiterated his belief that women should submit to sex when husbands required it. Asked whether it was impossible for a man to rape his wife under Islamic law, Mr Hamza said either male or female partners should be able to demand and receive sex.
And the poor and the rich are both allowed to sleep under bridges. Can’t say fairer than that, can you.
And no one in Australia has challenged this sort of idicoy in the courts?! What a mad world! This imam should be told smartly that women have as many rights as he does, and that if he doesn’t like it, perhaps he’d be more comfortable living in Afghanistan, where they kill little girls for going to school. These links to the hidiousness of Islam, day after day after day, are beginning to make it clear that this is not a religion that can be reformed. It’s a fascist, evil ideology of power. Time to call a spade a bloody shovel!
The same Mr Hamza not only offers spiritual advice, prayer facilities, he also offers boxing, karate and gym classes for Muslims.
Perhaps he teaches them to build up their strength for all daily the beatings on women.
There is video footage of the speech on the following link
sheikyermami.com/2009/01/21/australia-its-ok-to-hit-your-wife-says-
Good one, Ophelia.
It appears to me that the foundational strength of Islam, like that of Judaism before it, lay in the fact that a strong leader took ancient tribal laws and practices and gave them a new and more for then ‘modern’ intellectual underpinning; that is, a re-worked theological foundation and justification. Once the idea arises that there is an all-knowing, all-powerful and all-seeing deity who can be angered or pleased by human acts, it is not such a big step from that to the idea of sacrifice, and from there to human sacrifice for big occasions and big god-pleasings. The founding fathers of Judaism successfully switched their tribes away from the traditional sacrifice of first-born sons to the sacrifice of animals. St Paul took that to a brilliant conclusion: the god had sacrificed his own and only son to himself: end of story. What could top that?
Christianity today outrages the rational sensibility through fatuous clerical pronouncements (of which there seems a never ending supply) and crude ideological rorts like ‘Intelligent Design’. But it is simply not in the same league as Islam when it comes to justifying the continuation of ancient tribal practices, particularly those involved with the subjugation of women, such as the stoning of alleged adulteresses *, female genital mutilation **, and the issue of rape in marriage.
I will say this for Christianity: if some preacher somewhere in the world was in the news for saying it is OK for a man to rape his wife, or to have his daughter genitally mutilated, the rest of the preachers would not be standing silent as boulders in a desert. There would be a chorus of dissent, perhaps coming loudest from those geographically closest to his church who had an eye to picking up recruits from his flock.
The most appalling feature of modern Islam is its unified silence when confronted with the barbarism so routinely carried out in its name.
* take your pick at http://www.google.com.au/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&q=iranian+sisters+spared+death+by+stoning&btnG=Google+Search&meta=lr%3D
** a smorgasbord at http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=islam%2C+female+genital+mutilation&btnG=Search&meta=
Well, what a lovely fellow indeed. The kind of chap who makes it incredibly hard to stay an “absolute freedom of speech” supporter…dammit.
Anyone know if Oz has some kind of “incitement to violence”-type legislation that might, possibly be appropriate? Chrisper’s an Oz-ite, isn’t he? or is it New Zulland? can never remember…
But quickly know – we’d better mention christian evangelicals beating women/children/wombats to death as suspected “witches”, or Resistor’ll be along to accuse OB of unfairly berating the poor, oppressed Imams…
again.
And we all know where that leads, don’t we?
“He said under Islamic law, as described in a koranic verse, it was a man’s right to demand sex from his wife whenever he felt like it.”
That is not in the Qur’an. It is in the Hadith.
“Muhammad said: “If a husband calls his wife to his bed (i.e. to have sexual relation) and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning.” — Bukhari 4.54.460″
Andy free speech is handy it helps scum like this to be recognised? Would anyone else be in favour of giving barbarians like this instant one way tickets back to the hell holes they came from? what purpose can it serve keeping this sort of person in a civilised society?
“what purpose can it serve keeping this sort of person in a civilised society?”
It limits the damage he can do.
Actually, Ian, plenty of Christian pastors and political activists have defended marital rape and maintained their stature. Phyllis Schlafly, for instance.
Mr Hamza said either male or female partners should be able to demand and receive sex.
Can she force him at gunpoint? Hit him with something? What if she’s an athlete and he’s not, can she beat him up?
This is utterly vile.
I will say this for Judaism: it forbids marital rape and says that sex is the WOMAN’S right, not the man’s. In fact the Talmud specifies the minimum quantity and quality of sex a man must offer his wife. He has a duty to give her orgasms.
Jenavir, your Talmud reference is interesting. But my experience has been of Christianity; so divided into competing sects and denominations that most clergy head for the middle ground. Phylis Schlafly is from what I see an outstanding controversialist, but how many preachers back her up? I have honestly never seen a news report of a Christian preacher endorsing rape in marriage; and no matter where he came from, I’m sure it would make the front page where I come from.
Hence the local press interest in Hamza.
Many of the problems Muslims face here in Australia arise from the fact that they are so out of step with values of the Christian-heritage mainstream, which has led to such events as the Cronulla riots of 2005. ( http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/mob-violence-envelops-cronulla/2005/12/11/1134235936223.html )
Freedom of speech?
Aussie Pastors Face Jail Sentences; Won’t Apologize for expressing Beliefs About Islam vs. Christianity
In arguments presented today (Monday, 8/14) in the Appeals Court of Australia, the Becket Fund is seeking to have overturned the 2004 ruling of the Victoria Civil and Administrative Tribunal. That Tribunal found that public expression of the pastors’ beliefs incited hatred against Muslims in violation of Victoria’s Racial and Religious Tolerance Act because the pastors’ beliefs were deemed “offensive” and “unreasonable” interpretations of Christian and Islamic teachings.
KEVIN Rudd has demanded an Islamic cleric apologise for telling male followers they can force their wives to have sex, and hit them if they’re disobedient.
The Prime Minister said Samir Abu Hamza’s comments had no place in modern Australia.
During a 2003 lecture also posted on the internet last year, Mr Hamza told followers that under Islamic law, men could demand sex from their wives.
Despite Australian laws requiring consent, it was impossible for a man to rape his wife even if she refused to have sex, he said.
He also said that Islamic law allowed men to hit their wives as a last resort, but were not allowed to leave them bruised or bloodied,
Mr Rudd said Mr Hamza should apologise.
“Under no circumstances is sexual violence permissible or acceptable in Australia – under no circumstances,” he said.
“Under no circumstances are other forms of violence, physical violence, acceptable towards women in Australia nor are they acceptable in my view to mainstream Muslim teachings.
“… Australia will not tolerate these sort of remarks. They don’t belong in modern Australia, and he should stand up, repudiate them and apologise.”
Good on you, Mr Rudd.
Thanks ChrisPer. I keep saying to myself that this is not acceptable free speech, speech that not only condones violence against women (which is against the law, and is a big social problem practically everywhere), but encourages it. Why is inciting people to break a law licit speech? So, I’m glad to hear that the PM thinks this kind of speech has no place in Australia. It has no place in any civilised society.
“Many of the problems Muslims face here in Australia arise from the fact that they are so out of step with values of the Christian-heritage mainstream, which has led to such events as the Cronulla riots of 2005.”
Racist rioters are responsible for racist riots – not the victims who “provoked” them by being born into a group they despise.
I think Jakob’s right here. I doubt the Aussie punters are deep into worrying about women’s liberation. :)
Yes, Ian, Schlafly is controversial–but she’s got a rock-solid constituency amongst conservative Christians. This is very disturbing to me.
“and she is preparing the bread on the stove she must leave it and come and respond to her husband, she must respond,”
Not only is it her place to give him what he wants – she has to drop the bread, that in all probability, she could, be making, in order to feed the family, she has by him created (from all the times she had to respond to him.)
He is one misogynistic loaf who should be by society put in his place.
Women are mere nonentities to men of his ilk. Heaven help the woman who has to wake up beside him every morning of her life.
Thank you, OB,
Jakob: I read in your post “Racist rioters are responsible for racist riots… “ True enough, by definition, in and of itself. But that doesn’t get us very far, until we find out who, in your opinion, the racists are, or more to the point, are not. Thus the full serve: “Racist rioters are responsible for racist riots – not the victims who ‘provoked’ them by being born into a group they despise.”
I take it the victims who in scary boo quotes ‘provoked’ the riots were those born into the despised category of ‘Lebanese’, specifically ‘Lebanese Muslims.’ This must be true, because political correctness dictates that right must always be on the side of the minority, particularly if it consists of immigrants from the strife-torn Middle East, and doubly so if they are from an alternate culture, namely Lebanese Muslim as opposed to (say) Lebanese Christians. (The complicating [notional only] category of Lebanese Jews we can leave out of it for now.)
Sorry, but the facts were otherwise.
My broad conclusion from my study of the issue: It is possible for gang culture and notions of ethnic and religious superiority to arise in an ethnic minority, no matter what those in thrall to PC might choose to believe.
Congratulations on demolishing that straw man.
Which straw man, Jakob?
If you wish to speak elliptically, and in tongues, then fair enough. But I can’t be bothered with such a conversation.
Ian: Are you really claiming that the yobs were responding to racist Lebanese Muslim gangs? If not, then you are indeed talking about a straw man.
BrianM: Incredible as it sounds, because we know that Lebanese Muslims could ipso facto never be racist and never organise themselves into gangs (and btw could never themselves be described as ‘yobs’), that is precisely what I am saying. On the best evidence available to me at this point in time.
If you disagree, as I think perhaps you will, please provide sufficient evidence to convince me to the contrary.
>>Are you really claiming that the yobs were responding to racist Lebanese Muslim gangs? If not, then you are indeed talking about a straw man.>>
The aussie-white yobs were allegedly responding to perceived incursions of their territory/harassment of women by aussie-lebanese yobs. The aussie-lebanese yobs claimed exclusion. Some innocents were caught up in it but the Cronulla riots were basically 2 groups of thugs slugging it out.
Only one of those ‘groups of thugs’ terrorised residential streets at night with hundreds of racing cars, with drive-by shootings outside churches and beating up beach lifeguards. One of those groups of thugs also had created a gang rape epidemic in western Sydney, which did not slow after the arrest of ‘the perpetrators’.
One of those groups, the less violent one, apologised. I think they were right to apologise exactly to the extent that the individuals apologising broke the law. But if two groups of young men willingly join for a rumble they should be sharing the apologies.
As for the general sexual harassment of women in public streets and at the beach, and beating up lifeguards, how are you going to teach ‘outsiders’ manners in our effeminate western society? One way is to start with a 49-year jail term for a gang rapist, but that was just dismissed as racism.
Another is after a young soldier on leave was beaten up for trying to help a girl being harassed at a railway station, rumour has it that a party of masked young men with short haircuts and made social visits in western Sydney in which matters were apparently clarified to senior family members of people who may have been related to the perpetrators.
But Australia’s culture does not have an effective answer to the swaggering, sexualised aggression of some immigrant youth gangsters and their wannbe imitators.
‘Mirax’: “…the Cronulla riots were basically 2 groups of thugs slugging it out.”
I heartily concur. Wherever one finds in history a bunch of people (usually young men) doing battle, in uniform or otherwise, issues of principle are never involved. It’s just basically 2 groups of thugs slugging it out.
As at Drogheda in 1649, Concord Bridge in 1775, Ballarat in 1854, Fort Sumter in 1861, Stalingrad in 1942-3
Long Tan in 1966, Cronulla in December 2005, and Gaza in the last 2 weeks.
The “Australian Islamic Information & Services Network” has replied to the repudiation of the lecture. You can read the reply and leave comments here:
http://www.iisna.com/?id=252#comments
The imam of the mosque (built by Saudi Arabia) in the town of Fuengirola on the south coast of Spain wrote a book a few years ago which, among other things, described how to beat your wife without leaving telltale marks and bruises. As a result of this he got a jail sentence and he was also ordered to attend a course on the Spanish constitution. Time for Australian lawmakers and prosecutors to wake up!
Wonderful, isn’t it? The US passion for driving cars the size of small buildings funds the Saudi passion for funding misogynistic mosques all over the world. SUV advertising should start to reflect that. ‘Buy a Durango! Pay the salary of another woman-hating imam!’
Its not just the U.S O.B I work in suburbs like Cheam,Epsom ect and almost every other house has an S.U.V that is usualy just used to take a couple of kids to school. That buy a Durango slogan along with a sound clip from the channel 4 under cover mosque documentary would make a great hook for companies that make eco friendly cars.