Sheikh Ahmed Abdul Kader Kandil (or Qandeel أحمد عبد القادر قنديل) serves since 2007 as the imam of al-Jisr Misque in Laval, Quebec. Of Egyptian descent Kandil was in 1990-96 an imam of several mosques in Cairo and Alexandria and worked for 8 years as an imam, preacher and teacher for the Egyptian Ministry of Endowment. In Canada Kandil worked as a teacher of Arabic language and Koran in private schools in Edmonton and Montreal and was for two years the imam of al-Rashid Mosque in Edmonton before moving to Laval.
One of Kandil’s Friday sermons last year at al-Rawdah Mosque in Montreal (the video uploaded to YouTube on June 6, 2014) was dedicated to the the rights of the Muslim husband over his wife. The following are excerpts of Kandil’s sermon (translated from Arabic):
Asim Qureshi, director of Muslim rights group CAGE, was asked about views advocated by an Islamic scholar he had described as a mentor.
These included positions of female genital mutilation, domestic violence and stoning women as punishment for adultery.
When questioned repeatedly about these views on BBC’s This Week programme by presenter Andrew Neil Mr Qureshi refused to condemn the opinions.
Others extreme positions he refused to condemn included horrifying claims that Jews are descended from pigs and that homosexuality is evil.
Responding to the position of Muslim Haitham al-Haddad, Mr Qureshi said: “I’m not a theologian.”
When he was pushed to take a stance during the programme aired yesterday the CAGE director added: “I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about”.
Mr Neil accused Mr Qureshi of using “weasel words” and claimed that the Muslim activist had before spoken in favour of Sharia law and Jihad.
The CAGE director responded: “As far as I am concerned, Sharia law isn’t practised correctly anywhere in the world.
“Jihad is part of the religion of Islam.”
The comments come a week after Mr Qureshi sparked outrage by describing Jihadi John, who has brutally beheaded Western IS hostages, as “beautiful”.
He made the remarks as the identify of the IS killer was revealed as Mohammed Emwazi, a 26-year-old computer science graduate from London.
Mr Qureshi described Emwazi as “such a beautiful young man” during a press conference.
Mr Qureshi also blamed the State for turning Emwazi into a cold-blooded murderer.
He asked: “When are we going to learn that when we treat people as if they are outsiders, they are going to feel like outsiders and they will look for belonging elsewhere?”
This type of event isn’t necessary for Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists – or any other religion. Why? Because only members of one religion are rapidly transforming U.S. towns and cities and committing acts of horrific violence in almost every country in the world. Muslims in the U.S. fully leverage their jihad-waging co-religionists to scare and subjugate non-Muslims. Muslims are the only ones who refuse to assimilate and force Western nations to accommodate their sharia practices. via West Windsor police host four-days of progrms to learn about Islam, Muslim culture | NJ.com. h/t Iron Burka
Close to 100 township workers and emergency responders attended a symposium hosted by the West Windsor Police Department focused on learning about Islam and Muslim culture, police said.
The four-day event took place last month at the Princeton Junction Fire Department and featured daily speakers from the Institute of Islamic Studies in East Windsor, covering aspects of the Islamic religion, cultural practices and sensitivities of the Muslim community.
“I would say I made new friends,” said Sgt. Mark Lee, who helped organize the event. “We’re building bridges of understanding.”
The Institute of Islamic Studies has been located on Princeton Hightstown Road in East Windsor for nearly 20 years and last year broke ground on a new mosqueto be built at 2030 Old Trenton Road in West Windsor.
We covered that mosque in this post: $5M Muslim Brotherhood mosque near Princeton
Tahir Zafar, the institute’s board chairman, said working to build trust between police and the communities they serve helps both sides. Learning about Muslim culture, given the current political climate, is especially important, Zafar said.
“Without the trust of the community, law enforcement can’t function,” Zafar said. “We all have to work together to build that trust.”
In other words, Muslims won’t follow the laws and won’t cooperate with the police unless the police submit to their sharia.
The Islamic Center members served as speakers, covering topics like traditional Muslim dress, the timing and meaning of Muslim prayer, religious holidays and Muslim obligations, Zafar said.
“We learned, they learned, I learned,” Lee said. “I can’t begin to put into words how good this was.”
Lee said he learned about the hajib, the traditional head covering worn by Muslim women. He said some officers asked about removing it from arrestees because it could be a strangulation risk.
Members of the institute said the hajib could be removed in certain circumstances, so long as there is something covering the head.
Lee said there was a frank discussion of Muslim radicalization and extremism, and members of the institute explained that although ISIS and other extremist groups grab the headlines, the vast majority of Muslim people denounce violence, especially violence committed in the name of Islam.
“I could give an analogy, it’s like the thought that every police officer is involved in a Ferguson-type of thing, so every cop is like that,” Lee said. “It’s a generalization and it’s pigeonholing everybody.”
It was the first time the institute put on a symposium on Islam, and Zafar said he thought the event went well, drawing a surprising number of people.
“We were pleasantly surprised,” Zafar said. “It was very, very engaging and we think this could be a real model for other townships.”
“Something very strange happened toward the end of the twentieth century. Heterosexuality went from being the norm to being on the defensive. By calling this phenomenon ‘heterophobia,’ I am not speaking abstractly. Rather, I am referring to a distinct current within feminism [since the late 1960s], a current that has been ‘theorized’ explicitly by feminist scholars and agitators alike as they attack men and heterosexuality. . . .
“But heterophobia is not merely the work of lesbian separatists, since they, vastly outnumbered by heterosexual women, could never have imposed such an agenda were it not acceptable to heterosexual feminists as well. . . .
“The British lesbian separatist Sheila Jeffreys, in her 1990 book Anticlimax, gives a clear account of the attitude I am calling ‘heterophobia.’ The ‘sexual revolution,’ Jeffreys argues, is positively detrimental to women. The aim of women’s liberation . . . is ‘the destruction of heterosexuality as a system.’ . . . Far from being grounded in biology, heterosexual desire ‘originates in the power relationship between men and women’ . . . What sort of sexuality, then, does Jeffreys approve of? ‘The opposite of heterosexual desire is the eroticising of sameness, a sameness of power, equality and mutuality. It is homosexual desire.’”
— Daphne Patai, Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism (1998)
It is true, as Professor Patai makes clear, that the lesbian radicalism of Sheila Jeffreys was, in the 1990s, at or near the ultra fringe of feminist theory. However, it is also true that “mainstream” feminism, even 15 or 20 years ago, never condemned such radicalism but borrowed from the anti-male analyses written by women whose hostile attitude toward heterosexuality was as explicit as it was personal.
Understanding this phenomenon does not require us to engage the specific content of every theory propagated by radical feminists since the 1960s, although in the past few months I have excerpted the works of several of the most notable of them. It is not necessary that I refute their arguments or disprove their analyses for the very reason that it does not matter, for my purposes, whether they are right or wrong. As a matter of fact, there are certain passages of the most radical feminist treatises where I find myself nodding in agreement.
What conservative would disagree, for example, with Sheila Jeffreys’ assertion that the sexual revolution of the past half-century has in many ways been harmful to women? How many abortions, divorces and loveless hookups with selfish creeps does it take before a “liberated” young woman starts wondering if maybe her grandmother had a genuinely better deal back in the supposedly barbaric 1950s?
Yet a conservative critique of the sexual revolution based in myopic nostalgia for the Good Old Days is futile, and no more helpful to women living in the early 21st century than the obsolete rantings of radical feminists who inevitably view the past as the Bad Old Days.
A politics that promises a return to the past is guaranteed to fail because time moves in only one direction. We can learn from the past, but we cannot go back there. By studying the past, we seek an answer to an important question: How did we get here? And we can also, by plotting the trajectory points, get a good estimate of where we are heading in the future, if we continue going in the same direction.
To put it bluntly: We are going to Hell, by the most direct route.
Last summer, I wrote a post with the title, “Taking Feminism Seriously,”which in retrospect seems like the start of a series. A few people have suggested I compile my writing about feminism into a book, a proposal that gives me a headache.
Nevertheless, the point I wish to make now is that I do take feminism seriously, despite my habitual sarcasm. Just because Marxist lesbians seem ridiculous to sane people, doesn’t mean that feminists are notserious in their craziness. A phrase like “the destruction of heterosexuality as a system” may strike us as lunatic gibberish, but there are influential academics — tenured professors of Women’s Studies — who toil daily toward that goal. Even if their radical project is ultimately doomed, even if we believe that human nature must ultimately triumph over ideology, this doesn’t mean that the destructive work of feminism has no impact. To see self-described “queer feminist” Sara Alcid denounce Valentine’s Day as a celebration of “heteronormativity and gender roles . . . the very systems of domination that we work to critique and dismantle” is sad testimony to the fact that this insanity is contagious. And of course,“PIV is always rape, OK?”
Yes, it’s true: The anonymously crazy blogger at Radical Wind —“dropped on her head” – has returned to the feminist fray. After weeks of silence following her global-warming gloomfest, she took up a critique of radical lesbianism that is so nuanced only a Women’s Studies major could understand it. Her chief complaint is that some lesbian feminists condemn other women as benefitting from “heterosexual privilege,” a rhetoric Windy rejects because (a) there is nothing “privileged” about being raped and enslaved by men, (b) the category “heterosexual” is itself a male-imposed myth, and (c) women who criticize other women are misplacing blame, because everything that is wrong in the world can and should be blamed on men. She then followed up with a lengthy explainer:
Intercourse and hetero-captivity being the central building block of men’s oppression, it comes to no surprise that men do everything to erase our awareness of it. . . .
The essence of heterosexuality is sexual violation, and no woman has escaped this violation when in close and prolonged contact with men. . . .
Heterosexuality is compulsory, that is we are psychologically conditioned (through propaganda) and physically forced into it (through sexual harassment, rape, marriage and pimping). This is one of the very basic tenets of radical feminism. Compulsory means the opposite of choice. By definition women never choose to be owned by a man, and the only free choice we can make is to resist hetero-captivity by becoming separatist, lesbian or celibate.
Heterosexuality is the system which guarantees each man sexual access to a woman and exclusive ownership over her so he can rape, impregnate and use her as his personal breeder and domestic slave. . . .
The term “heterosexuality” is fairly recent in history, and appeared in the 19th century at the same time as the pathologisation and psychologisation of lesbians and gays. When women started to free themselves from the institution of marriage, men progressively replaced marriage with compulsory intercourse to all men, and this was sold as sexual liberation to women. However this was nothing other than the liberation of lefty men so they could fuck all the women they wanted outside of the constraints of bourgeois society . . .
Read the whole thing if you need more anti-male enlightenment. “The personal is political,” and if your personal experience — either as a woman or a man, heterosexual or not — fails to corroborate the radical feminist analysis, the question is, “Why?”
Windy’s answer is that you have been “psychologically conditioned” to enjoy your hetero-captivity and oppression: The patriarchy has brainwashed you, because women can “never choose to be owned by a man . . . as his personal breeder and domestic slave.”
All women are victims of the patriarchy, whether they know it or not, and if women don’t realize how oppressed they are, it is only because they haven’t been enlightened by feminist consciousness.
“Feminism Is a Journey to Lesbianism,” as I’ve previously explained, and it is not my purpose to prove feminists wrong about this.
If they say the penis is oppressing them, let ‘em do without it.
Being bound by “the constraints of bourgeois society” myself — as a married father of six who recently became a grandfather — I am not at liberty to take a personal interest in women’s decisions to subtract themselves from oppressive hetero-captivity. Keeping my own “personal breeder and domestic slave” happy is difficult enough, without concerning myself with the discontents of other women.
What does concern me, however, is how feminism’s anti-male rhetoric insults every man — and every woman who loves men. Even if I don’t give a damn what feminists think of me, what about my four sons and my grandson? Why about my wife and daughters? Am I really supposed to remain silent when confronted by radicals who insist that my oldest daughter is being cruelly victimized by my son-in-law, and who further insist that my daughter (who graduated summa cum laude) is too stupid to know she’s oppressed?
Damn you, and damn your insulting ideology.
There is no use in being too angry about these insults, however. “The personal is political,” and feminists who feel a personal sense of grievance toward men do not think specifically about me, my wife or my children when they publish their anti-male screeds. And knowing that their grievances are personal — they are angry about how they have been treated by specific men, and have generalized their personal experience into an anti-male ideology — I don’t begrudge them their anger.
Feminists are so cute when they’re offended.
The politically correct sexuality advocated by Sheila Jeffries — based on “a sameness of power, equality and mutuality” — is rejected even by many lesbians. Do you really want me to quote the words of a hard-core butch lesbian who is tired of being told that she and other butches (and the women who love them) are doing lesbianism wrong? Or perhaps you’d like me to quote a femme lesbian describing how awkward and inauthentic she felt when a partner asked her to wear the strap-on?
News flash: Sameness is boring.
Intellectuals can sit around all day “theorizing” sexuality to fit their own rigid ideological categories, but real human beings are not androgynous interchangeable units. We are different and therefore unequal and you know something? We like it that way!
Being different is sexy. Even within the context of sameness, people find their differences sexy. Go to any Catholic parish in America and see how many Italian-Irish half-breeds you find. It’s almost a cliché nowadays: Every Catholic under 30 named Murphy has a mother whose maiden name was Castellano and vice-versa.
For that matter, I’m a blue-eyed Southerner who married a brown-eyed Yankee; our redheaded oldest daughter married an Argentine (whose nickname is “Che”); and our nearly six-foot-tall 15-year-old son is now dating a girl who is approximately 5-foot-2. Based on the general pattern, there must be a commie peacenik girl somewhere who will one day marry our Army paratrooper son.
A rigid egalitarianism that demands androgynous uniformity — the abolition of gender, as feminists phrase it — fails to take into consideration the voluntary nature of our preferences and how our orientation toward difference benefits both man and woman. We are able to admire and desire each other without envy or resentment. Is Sheila Jeffreys correct that heterosexual desire “originates in the power relationship between men and women”? Who cares?
We want what we want, and we get what we get, and somewhere in that process of wanting and getting, we hope to find happiness.
Feminists view happiness as a zero-sum game in which all happiness enjoyed by men is the product of subtraction from women’s happiness. This is absurd. Men expend enormous effort in their attempts to make women happy, and if we don’t do as much as we should — if, at the end of the day, the women in our lives still experience a happiness deficit — this failure makes us unhappy, too.
From first article:
‘In a shocking twist to the Nagaland lynching case, Assam Chief Minister Tarun Gogoi on Saturday said that ‘unconfirmed medical reports’ show that the complainant in the case was not raped.
Speaking to NDTV, Gogoi said, “it is up to the Nagaland government to come out with the facts. We have received an unofficial report of no rape.” The chief minister further said that the accused Syed Khan was not an illegal immigrant and was a citizen of India.
Moreover, the brother of the accused, Jamal Uddin Khan, corroborated Gogoi’s remarks, saying his brother had been made a scapegoat in the case and that the police was hand-in-glove with certain Naga groups.
“Is the Nagaland government running a jungle raj? The girl who filed the rape complaint was my brother’s wife’s cousin. Nagaland police have said that the medical reports say she was not raped,” Jamal Khan told NDTV, adding that several of his family members were working in the country’s armed forces and they were all Indian.
The victim, however, said she was given money by the accused after the assault to remain silent. “Rumours that I did this for money are false. The police arrested him the very same day. I did not think he would be attacked like this,” she said.’
From second article:
‘Farid’s younger brother Suberuddin, who runs a business in Dimapur, said his sibling was framed for not paying Rs 2 lakh that was demanded by a local woman and her friends. Demand for “donations” – a euphemism for extortion – from traders, particularly non-locals, are commonplace in Dimapur.
“After meeting him in jail on February 25, I decided to return home since the situation in Dimapur was volatile. We have lost touch with my brother’s wife, a Naga woman, and their three-year-old daughter,” Suberuddin said. The woman who accused Farid of rape was known to his wife, he said.’
Posted on | March 7, 2015 | 17 Comments
convincing an anti-feminist man that he’s actually a feminist because he believes in “the equality of the sexes” may seem like a victory, but in the end all you’ve done is convince a woman-hater that he’s a feminist.
This is actually very dangerous. If a man is anti-feminist it’s because he hates women not because of some misunderstanding. Don’t waste your time and energy on convincing a woman hater he’s really a nice guy deep down. All you’ll do is give him a bigger victim complex when things don’t go his way.
Anti-feminism is the political defense of woman hating — Andrea Dworkin
One of the most amazing things is to see how feminists, whose movement is not only anti-male but also anti-heterosexual, become angry when confronted with their own words. This eminent professor or that popular feminist author you’ve quoted does not actually speak for the movement, the feminist will insist, and how dare you suggest that all feminists agree with Andrew Dworkin . . . or Charlotte Bunch, Mary Daly, Marilyn Frye, Monique Wittig, Audre Lorde, Catharine MacKinnon, Joyce Trebilcot, Janice Raymond, Shulamith Firestone, Susan Brownmiller, Sally Miller Gearhart, Judith Butler, Sheila Jeffreys, Gayle Rubin . . .
Feminists have spent decades erecting a wall that divides their esoteric doctrine — the core beliefs which form the theoretical basis of their ideology, the language feminists use when speaking among themselves — from their movement’s exoteric discourse, the “mainstream” rhetoric feminists use in speaking to the public. This separation, which conceals from public view the nature of radical feminist theory as it is taught in university Women’s Studies programs, is essential to preserving the credibility of feminism as a respectable movement concerned only with “equality” and “fairness” for women.
Just before launching the Sex Trouble project last June, I wrote a post called “You Magnificent Lesbians — I Read Your Books!” (An allusion to a line from the movie Patton, in case you didn’t know.) For months, I had explored the canon of radical feminist literature, publishing commentaries based on that literature, and resisting the urging from readers to write a book about it. Anyone who has ever gone through the ordeal of Publishing Hell knows that a book deadline is a soul-destroying nightmare, and I’d been through that human meat-grinder more than once. But this feminist stuff kept piling up and it was apparent that no one else was crazy enough to try to make sense of it all, so I decided to risk it. What I aimed to do was to tear down the wall separating feminism’s esoteric doctrine from its exoteric discourse, to make readers understand how the day-to-day eruptions of feminist insanity we see in the headlines are connected to this core theory of the movement.