Hindy, hardly a stranger to controversy, is well known for his friendship with the family of Omar Khadr, the young Canadian detainee at Guantanamo Bay, and his outspoken views on the implementation of Islamic law. In the past five years, Hindy said he has officiated or “blessed” more than 30 polygamous marriages; the most recent was two months ago. Even some imams in the GTA have second wives, he added.
“This is in our religion and nobody can force us to do anything against our religion,” he said. “If the laws of the country conflict with Islamic law, if one goes against the other, then I am going to follow Islamic law, simple as that.”
He seems moderate.
If only it was a lack of imagination…
Unfortunately, if the government should try to boot them out of the country, there’ll be more than enough human rights lawyers and associated civil servants willing to defend their right to defy Canadian law.
Hijra: Migration for the Cause of Allah
Google it. You’ll be sorry you did.
Start shooting!!
Of allow polygamy but only after castration not the little operation where they snip a tube I’m talking balls …meet scissors .
The phrase “My Bro from another Mo” takes on new meaning.
Funny thing about polygamy … it’s always about trading up for ever-younger “wives”, “concubines” or whatever you want to call them. So … I guess the squishy leftists will just shrug-off “cultural” differences in marriage … but … how young will the Libs allow them to go ? Menstrual age ? Pre-menstrual ? 16yo ? 14yo ? … 8yo ? After all … it IS their culture. How dare we be so square, and white, and … Judeo-Christian
If you watch the videos on this site, you may have your answer:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0Uu4XnRS1hiz3JCpNFIuUg/videos
The key to understanding how far this will go is to understand what Mohammed did.
Having the government pay for the “single” mother with 5 kids and up to another 3 “single” mothers with 5 kids.
While Mo. visits each and sires 20 future jihadis.
This is the infidels, in effect, paying the jizya tax.
Thus financing the conquering of their once free land of Canada, and quicker than an overt military assault ever could.
The Marxist feminists decry the polygamous at Bountiful, B.C., but are silent as the tomb about the growing practice of Islamic polygamy.
They know silence is the best way to keep their head on their shoulders.
Appart from being a cnut, he has made an error. Having only one wife is not against islam.
I encourage all that when you discuss this with your leftwing acquaintances, do so under the premise of a discussion on human trafficing or spousal abuse.
I would seriously love to see this pushed into the light of day…however the Star article glosses over the real reason islamic polygamy stays under the radar. The implied threat of violence against anyone that would rat out an imam.
Canada’s rule of law must prevail. Or, it means nothing.
The rule of law in Canada depends n rulings by the SSC, they also interpret the Charter. Freedom of religion is one of it’s tenets. If the religion of Islam allows multiple wives all they need is to take it to the Supremes and voila! It’s not a matter of if we get sharia here, it’s when. Our PM is up to his knickers trolling for votes in the Muslim “community”, they may make a request he can’t refuse to keep their support.
Going back some thirty years, I recall conversations in Riyadh with a Pakistani-Canadian; at one point I happened to (rhetorically) ask “Why is it that ‘we’ have no rights here, while people can get off a plane in Toronto for the first time and head directly to Nathan Phillips Square to protest?”
His reply was “Because that’s the way it is”.
He was correct then, and he would still be correct today – That’s the way it is, because Canadians allow it to be that way – and until, (and I don’t see it happening any time soon, if ever), Canadians say “Our country, our rules” it’s only going to get worse.
Polygamy is all about power, slavery and child sexual abuse.
It has NO place in a western society, either through Christianity or Islam.
BTW, I have an ex-best friend who currently belongs to a Christian church in the Vancouver area. They have trained him to believe his wife must be obedient to him, to the point he picks the weight she stops at on a diet, among other things. It’s NOT just the Muzzies spreading these ancient 3rd world bigotries in our modern society.
Out of respect for my daughters’ current and future freedoms, this loser is no longer in our lives.
So the iman openly admits to breaking Canadian law. Where are the police knocking on his door arresting him?
“…if one goes against the other, then I am going to follow Islamic law, simple as that.”
Apart from “Canadian Values” which according to Liberals we don’t have currently, (except they ran about 3 elections on exactly that theme. Paul Martin anyone?) having more than 1 wife at a time contravenes Canadian law. I suggest someone charge these men and refer it to the SC. On second thought, not a good idea; given the current mind set of McLachlin and cronies, they would see nothing amiss with it.
As long as it is Muslim faith involved. Any Christian faith, especially so-called evangelical creeds the Supremes would reject if like a bad smell.
Some religions are more equal than others, that is the new “Canadian Value”
“”…if one goes against the other, then I am going to follow Islamic law, simple as that.”
Islamic law also allows straight-up slavery and the killing of infidels.
Jihad. It’s what Mohammad would do.
Muhammed, the perfect man, consummated his marriage to Aisha, his favourite wife, on her 9th birthday.
See my comment near the beginning.
If the police knock on his door, that imam only has to scream “Religious persecution!” and the human rights lawyers will come crawling out of the woodwork, ready and willing to shred the gendarmes. It won’t matter if his actions are illegal. Being a member of a certain religious minority, and a very privileged one at that, automatically grants him legal immunity.
I used to have faith in the court system. Then that leftist judge decided that Omar Khadr wasn’t going to be a threat to society.
It’s not as if the concept of multiple wives had entirely escaped the attention of the Trudeau clan.
And every Muslim is supposed to copy Mohammed.
In truth, I am inclined to let Mr. Hindy inflict as many wives upon himself as he chooses. Marriage is a religious thing, not a thing of governments.
However, I am very DISinclined to support Mr. Hindy’s household for him, should he fall on evil days. You married ’em, you feed ’em, Hindy baby.
Also, and this is where Mr. Hindy will really start to scream, divorce is a thing that can be instigated by WOMEN in Canada. So if he p1sses one of them off, she gets the kids and half his stuff. And half all the other wives’ stuff too. Because COMMUNITY PROPERTY counts in polygamy, Mr. Hindy.
Polygamy is a great thing when women are chattels, to be traded like goats. It is less awesome when women are free and sovereign, with all the rights and responsibilities of men.
That’s a Canadian value right there, and that’s where Mr. Hindy’s boat is going to hit the pier and sink.
Polygymy is against the Tenants of My Christian Religion. I will follow my Religion when faced with a Conflict such as Many Wifes & Subjecated Children.
A nation that elects the Spawn couldn’t care less about the importation of colonizers from seventh century Arabia.
“So if he p1sses one of them off, she gets the kids and half his stuff.”
Not in a Sharia court she doesn’t.
Islamic law, it’s what’s for dinner. You’ll eat it and like it.
Don’t forget the premise of the thread topic.
If Sharia allows for more than one wife, it also has much more to say on the topic of marriage.
Under Sharia, multiple eggs aren’t just broken to make that omelet, they get beaten too.
Additionally, one has to remember that Mohammadan women are isolated from the community at large.
If the male gets all of his wives from dar Islam, it is unlikely that a wife will be able to speak any language but her mother tongue or see anyone outside of her ghetto community. Only her immediate extended family will even have seen her face.
“Not in a Sharia court she doesn’t.”
Absolutely. That’s why Mr. Hindy ain’t going to get what he wants. Because while I don’t care a damn what -he- does, nobody will be treating Canadian women like goats while I’m around. Nor will you allow such a thing, Oz, or any of the other men around here. Just isn’t going to happen. We will laugh and dare them to bring it on.
I shudder to think what Kate McMillan and Kathy Shaidle would be doing about it.
All this crap goes along under the radar, and everything is lovely, until somebody’s daughter gets dragged into a Sharia court and sentenced to stoning, or a nice flogging. That’s when all the polite fictions fall away, and people stop fooling around.
So the Canadian government can make up whatever foolishness it wants to, but the first stoning that gets ordered by the first Sharia court here, it won’t be the defendant getting hit by the rocks.
Ideally, Hindy should be arrested, convicted, jailed, and then deported back to his native land. If he has been granted Canadian citizenship, it should be revoked, because he has obviously obtained it falsely by deliberately putting Sharia law ahead of Canadian law.
More than one wife? I have enough trouble with one. \sarc
“Bigamy is having one husband or wife too many. Monogamy is the same.” Oscar Wilde
“Polygamy is against the Tenants of My Christian Religion.”
That’s “tenets”, the principles of your belief.
Polygamy in Canada is inevitable.Although this article is from 2008,I have heard of none of the Muslims being arrested for polygamy.With the current Muslim convert in the PM’s Office, there is no chance of prosecution.
Our government will capitulate to almost any demand made by the Muslims,and the more of them that come here,the more they will demand,and get.
Sharia week on the Volokh Conspiracy
By Eugene Volokh
February 18, 2014
Many people worry about the possible encroachment of sharia — Islamic law — into the American legal system. Oklahoma voters banned the use of sharia and other religious law, although the 10th Circuit struck down the ban precisely because it singled out sharia by name.[1] Other state legislatures have considered similar bans.[2] This week, I’ll be serializing my just-published article that discusses this controversy: Religious Law (Especially Islamic Law) in American Courts, 66 Okla. L. Rev. 431 (2014) (which is based on the Henry Lecture that I was invited to deliver in March 2013).
In many of the instances that critics see as improper “creeping sharia,”[3], I will argue, it is longstanding American law that calls for recognizing or implementing an individual’s religious principles, including Islamic principles. American law provides for freedom of contract and disposition of property at death. Muslims (like Christians, Jews, and the irreligious) can therefore write contracts and wills to implement their understanding of their religious obligations. American law provides for arbitration with parties’ consent.[4] Muslims can use this to route their disputes to Muslim tribunals, just like Christians, Jews and the irreligious often route their disputes to private arbitrators of their choice.
American law provides for religious exemptions from generally applicable laws and from employer regulations. Muslims, as well as Christians, Jews, and others, may claim such exemptions.[5] American law provides for the use of foreign law in certain cases stemming from foreign occurrences (marriages, divorces, injuries and the like).[6] Sometimes this calls for the use of foreign religious law, whether Islamic law, Jewish law, or the decisions of Christian tribunals.
Of course, American law also imposes limiting principles on these doctrines. Some contracts and foreign judgments are unenforceable.[7] Many religious exemption requests are denied.[8] But these limiting principles, I argue below, already adequately prevent improper recognition of Islamic law and allow recognition of such law when recognition is proper. There is no need for new law here. The current principles just need to be applied equally to all situations, whether those situations involve Islamic law or other law.
In my experience, much of the criticism of the use of sharia in American courts has come from the political right. And I myself am generally a political conservative, and one who shares some of the concerns about the use of Islamic law in certain contexts.
Read more at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/18/sharia-week-on-the-volokh-conspiracy/?utm_term=.62cca377350c
Tolerating the intolerant is unacceptable.
Islam wasn’t spread with a butter knife.
Slavery and killing infidels are Islamic principles. Mohammad was a very bad man.
Mohammadans, followers of Islam, are therefore evil.
Blowing up and burning down the holy sites of other religions are Islamic principles.
I am not against Islam because I am intolerant.
I am against Islam because it poses a real existential threat to my life because Islam means Submission to a sick bastard’s medieval cult and to force or enslave outsiders to become Muslim.(one who submits)
It’s baked into the cake.
Every act of tolerance is understood by Mohammadans to be a submission.
I will not submit.