# Islam and Western Society



## George Wallace

*This is a very controversial question*.     With the recent actions of extreme Islamic Fundamentalists around the world, in Iraq, Spain, Russia and many other places and the fear of moderate Muslims to act against or voice opposition to the radicals, are the grounds for a 'Reverse Jihad' in the makings?

I don't want to call it a "Holy War" like the Crusades, where Christianity and Islam clashed in the distant past, but perhaps and "UnHoly War" in which all nations of the world....all religions; band together to totally end the madness and eradicate Islam from the face of the earth.   These fanatics have no compassion, even for their own religion, and keep them in fear, and attack any who are not of their faith; be it Christian, Jew, Hindu, Buddist, etc.   It is not only the West who are becoming more aggravated by these terror tactics, but also the East (Nepal, India, Pakistan) who are also being targeted.   What will happen when the 'Sleeping Dragon' China is awakened?

Unless the moderates start turning in the 'Fanatics', are we headed for a major disruption of our societies?   Will we see Islam banned from nations other than those in the Middle East?   What does the future hold in store for us?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I for one would hate to see such an action being taken. Does ethic cleansing, genocide or mass murder ring a bell? What are we going to do next forced conversions? I have quite a few friends that follow Islam and always get upset when terrorists use their religion as a scapegoat and as a way of promoting their evil agenda. Is there a solution for dealing with terrorists whether they follow Buddha, Allah, Jesus or two headed space monkeys?Thats beyond my pay level but the day the CF starts rounding up people to put in "labour or resettlemet camps" is the day I get out


----------



## Torlyn

George Wallace said:
			
		

> *This is a very controversial question*.   With the recent actions of extreme Islamic Fundamentalists around the world, in Iraq, Spain, Russia and many other places and the fear of moderate Muslims to act against or voice opposition to the radicals, are the grounds for a 'Reverse Jihad' in the makings?
> 
> Unless the moderates start turning in the 'Fanatics', are we headed for a major disruption of our societies?  Will we see Islam banned from nations other than those in the Middle East?  What does the future hold in store for us?



Eradicate the Islamic religion from the face of the earth?  I think the last person that thought like that on a grand scale was Adolph Hitler.  Hopefully we've learned enough since then to not repeat that particular mistake.  Just because a few Islamic extremists have done some stupid things doesn't mean you should paint the entire religion with the same brush.  I sincerely hope you posted this just to play devil's advocate...  As well, keep in mind that there are WAY more Islamic people than Christian.  Islam is a more "popular" religion than Christianity...  You may have a hard time gathering conscripts.

B.N.S.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

I don't see this as a religious thing at all. Its about power or more concisely,the need to achieve power. The assholes in the Russian school were NOT followers of Islam, that might have been the religion they were born or claim to be but there is a big difference of convenience and commitment.
I don't believe in the God thing[wish I did but can't fake it] however if you were to ask me what religion I am I would state" United" as thats what I was born. If I take hostages does this make me a "united terrorist" or just another asshole?
As for the original question this is going to be hard to stop as they hide behind the cloakings of the "moderate" Islam when it suits their purpose, I predict a long and bloody decade ahead of us.   The kind our great-great grand-children will read about and shake their heads wondering how man could ever be that barbaric.


----------



## Pieman

I think what George Wallace is suggesting requires that the Islamic world would have to band together against the rest of the world. I don't think that would ever happen on a large enough scale that the rest of the world would see the religion itself as a threat, rather than a group of extremist people. 

The religion itself is not the problem here, the religion is used as a front or an excuse for their actions. What the primary motivation for the actions they take is the core of the issue. If the extremists were true believers of the faith, they would not kill the innocent. So if the attitude is 'kill all the non-believers' it is a front to assert and maintain power for their tribe, the religion is just the excuse used to take the action. The book 'The Lucifer Principle' explains this kind of human behaviour in detail.

So in my book, it would never happen because these extremist groups will always remain small. But I am afraid that Bruce's prediction is probably going to be very true as there seem to be more extremist groups taking action. Tough times on the horizon.


----------



## winchable

Someone has posed this question to my face, in a serious and frank discussion, so I took no offence. I don't take offence to what Mr. Wallace is asking either.
I compare this idea to the Atkins diet, believe it or not.

Studies have shown the Atkins diet, while producing good short term results, actually does a great deal of harm in the long run. One of the few reasons it's still being used is because people like the easy way out, and lets face it, if anyones tried the Atkins diet...you knew it was too good to be true. Anything really good, is going to take hard work and a long time...eradication of an entire religion (and most likely in the progress an entire ethnic group) may seem like a daunting task, but compared with the other option, slug it out and do a proper job at it.

Without arguing the basic logistics of how one would go about eradicating Islam, I believe (Simply an opinion) no matter how bad it may seem at the time(bombings, death destruction) eradicating the entire religion would have rammifications that would last as long has human beings have a recorded history on the planet earth.

Just so we're clear, there are over 1 Billion Muslims living on the planet. To eradicate every last one would require a systematic genocide the likes of which I don't think have ever been seen, or ever will be seen again. So once again, on a personal note I sincerely hope that this doesn't happen. I would die (and I suppose i really would!) knowing that humanity will have to live with this kind of thing on their conscience until what I would presume to be, the end of existence.

Oh and folks...tread carefully on this one..it does have potential..but could just as easily incite illogical and passionate hate.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

I think its been asked and answered.  There is nothing 'fundamental' about so-called Islamics waging open war against everyone else in the world; we're lucky that right now, people understand that - including those in a position to do something about fighting Islam (read: United States).

I'd be more concerned about a genocide of the Palestinians as that is starting to look like a better idea all the tiime to some people.

Never understood the big deal about what kind of church my neighbour prays in, but as Bruce points out correctly, these things are rarely about religion per se anyhow.


----------



## Infanteer

I think you're referring to "The Fence".  I don't know if the term "genocide" would be a good term of reference for "The Fence" or for the Palestinian issue in general.  A recent article in _Foreign Affairs_ has argued that places in which the Fence is completed have experienced a dramatic decrease in the level of violence perpetrated against civilians.  Whether or not it will work remains to be seen, but as I see it, I don't have to see destroyed buses full of daytime shoppers as much anymore.

Far from "genocidal solutions", I feel the wall can convince the Palestinians that their fate is in their own hands.  Their actions can tip the balance between a move to peace or one to further violence.  The problem is, they have let their people become the whipping boy for everybody with an agenda against Westernism/Consumerism/the UN/Judaeism/Progress in General.

Don't like the Jewish settlers setting up their own state?  Tell the Palestinians to uproot themselves under the notion that they may return when every Hebrew man, woman, and child has been driven into the sea.

Don't like the fact that "Zionist occupationists" are still around after trouncing your third-rate, Soviet backed army in the field and you are stuck with a large refugee population of people waiting to go back into a Palestine devoid of Jews?  Forcibly eject them from your country using the same military force in attacks on their ad hoc communities, resulting in violence that is worse than any Jewish action against Palestinians.

Don't like the fact that a political solution that does not include the existence of Israel is impossible?  Radicalize your society, spend any development money from the international community on turning your organization into a criminal terrorist empire, and strap explosives to angry youth and send them into throngs of innocent people trying to live out their lives.  (Pakistan did the same thing in the 1980s to heighten Resistance against India, they are now suffering the consequences of this)

I'm all for a resolution in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, one that is fair to all the people who inhabit that tortured land.  But the Palestinian people need to grow up, realize that they will not solve anything by trying to commit random acts of mass murder against Jewish civilians, and take their destiny into their own hands rather then leaving it up to autocratic Tyrants, rabid Mullahs, and the corrupt machinations of that terrorist Arafat (who has done nothing but stall any effort to peace).


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Infanteer, good post!
What really scares the Palestinian "leaders" of whatever movement they follow is that if the wall goes up the people might see that without the artificial proppings of hate, these clowns couldn't lead a dog to a bone.
I predict that  the completion of the wall will eventually be the catalyst to start the internal revolution necessary to bring the long suffering Palestinian people to their destiny


----------



## Torlyn

Yes, because building a wall between two ideologically opposed groups is a good idea.  Berlin wall sure worked, didn't it.  I agree we need a solution, but a wall?  Seems to be backsliding to me...  Is the wall really going to keep out determined suicide bombers?  I doubt it...  Probably cause more military casualties, as they'll still be performing their acts of terrorism, but at checkpoints instead.  `spose that's why we have checkpoints, but I'd still rather not see a new berlin wall built.

B.N.S.


----------



## Gunnerlove

A little off topic, but placing the blame on either the Israelis or the Palestinians can not be done. Both sides have done horrible things and are reaping the rewards. 

What we are seeing in Palestine is the result of hatred and dehumanization by both sides. It will take decades to repair relations, if not longer. Build the wall and hide behind it, soon you will have to think up a solution to the changing demographics on the Israeli side. 

(Israeli Arabs are allowed to vote but are barred from most public jobs and the military. I doubt it will remain as such for much longer as the Arabs are outbreeding the Jewish citizens by a great deal and soon they will have control of the Israeli democracy.)


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Comparing this wall to the Berlin wall is ludicrous, that wall split up a country that wanted to be whole.
If this was happening out west or in Quebec/Maritimes.[Ont thought ahead, we have our wall] I would want a divider. Who wouldn't except those whom it helps to keep the madness moving along?


----------



## George Wallace

Some interesting points coming up, but there seems to be a tendency to swing towards the light like moths and change the subject to the Israelis and Palestinians.  The problem is more wide ranging than that.

Why I am asking these questions, is because of a talk show I caught portions of today that was discussing some of the reactions to the Terrorists who have for the last decade been Muslims.  A comment was brought up on the show about a radical Muslim group that once again was planning a celebration in England to mark the date of 9/11.  Last year they wanted to celebrate the 19 "Martyrs", but cancelled it at the last minute.  A well educated Muslim woman phoned in and clarified some things about the Islamic faith and went on to say that she and many moderates condemned the actions of the terrorists in Russia, but said that she was afraid to condemn them publicly.  She said that there are Radicals here in Canada, in Ottawa.  

Will the escalation of any more terror tactics by the Radicals, and no condemnation of their actions by the moderates of that faith, condemn them to a backlash worse that what we have seen before?  Will the rest of the world pull off a 'knee-jerk Chretien reaction and focus on all Muslims and drive them out?

Most Western nations are quite tolerant of different races, religions, etc., but will continued escalation of Terror change that?

GW


----------



## Torlyn

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Will the escalation of any more terror tactics by the Radicals, and no condemnation of their actions by the moderates of that faith, condemn them to a backlash worse that what we have seen before?  Will the rest of the world pull off a 'knee-jerk Chretien reaction and focus on all Muslims and drive them out?
> 
> Most Western nations are quite tolerant of different races, religions, etc., but will continued escalation of Terror change that?
> 
> GW



Thanks for re-focusing..    I'm starting to see your point as well..  (I applaud your patience)I think that given some of the reaction we have seen from some western nations, (or at least their citizens) it is indeed a major concern.  We are already racially profiling at airports, border-crossings, etc.  IF the terror activities increase, will we, if not condemning islam, more tightly regulate it?  It's kind of scary, and seems to be a downward spiral.  We get tough on "target" groups, who in turn resent being targeted, and (perhaps) nudge some moderates toward the extreme..  Obviously, I have no answer.  You have, however, given me much pause to think about this subject, which is still an answer of sorts.  To acknowledge the problem is the first step in solving it.  George, a big plus on the ratings for you.

(a more humble) B.N.S.


----------



## winchable

I'm sorry George, I'm just wondering if you could clarify your ideas again, really spell it out. I feel I'm missing something here.


----------



## Slim

Personally I think the terrorists (I won't call them Muslims because there is nothing in the Koran that says doing this to your neighbours is OK) want to try and drive a wedge between Muslims and the rest of the world.

They want the anti-Muslim backlash so that even the moderates who just want to live in peace, will be forced to take up arms against  the "Zionist west"

Then they will truly have a war of religion.

But the terrorists...Just the disenfranchised of the world using a different name...And they're criminals, not freedom fighters. Criminals who need to be placed in a cage so that society can live in peace.

Cheers all.

Slim


----------



## pbi

If we are talking about targeting terrorists who threaten us or our allies, I'm with you. No question about that, whether they're Catholic IRA, Protestant Unionists, Sikh plane bombers or Islamic fundamentalists.

If, however, we are talking about a 21st Century Crusade, as posited by some of the more mouth-breathing elements of the religious Right in the US, then sorry, you're on your own. Several posters have pointed out the dangers there.

The problem, IMHO, comes from our perception of Islam. Before coming over here to Afghanistan, I made it a point to read whatever I could get my hands on about Islam, including a good primer assembled by our Bde Chaplain. Unlike most Western Christians, who long ago learned to compartmentalize their faith from their daily life, keeping it in a box for Sunday/Easter/Christmas, Muslims' everyday life is informed by their beliefs. They do not need to be in church to communicate with God. For the most part, from what I can make out, Islam is a very pragmatic religion: almost common sense. In particular it expresses kinship and respect for the other two "peoples of The Book": Christians and Jews. They regard our God and Allah as the same deity. So, because their faith informs all aspects of their life, it is inseparable from the way they do politics or fight wars.That is, for those Muslims who respect the teachings of their faith. They have backdsliders, same as any religion does.

However, I think we see this all through the lens of our cultural upbringing (I'm talking about WASP or liberal-Catholic mainstream middle class Canadian upbringing...) and see it as a dangerous confusion of "church and state". We assume that religious faith must require a mindless, unquestioning obedience that unavoidably leads to slaughter, suicide bombing, etc. I suggest that while those who engage in these acts will certainly produce an Islamic justification for doing so, the real issue is one of power or the lack thereof. In my opinion, Islamic fundamentalism is strongest in those places where the Islamic population is the most disposessed and powerless, or is in a struggle for power (such as in Pakistan). It is weakest amongst Islamic people who live in relative peace and security (Canada, the US, the UK).

So, let's go after the real baddies, through intelligence sharing, border control, good international police work, and military whack/smack as required. But let's not degenerate to the level of those we seek to defeat. Cheers.


----------



## NavyGrunt

I don't believe in Islam. I dont believe that it is a similar religion to Christianity, however I do believe in someones right to believe any religion they choose. Any set of belief patterns they want. I would never seek to impose my beliefs on someone else. If they want to talk thats fine I'll share.

Worship a TV set for all I care, however use your beliefs as a recruiting tool for soldiers and terrorists and we have an issue. If you'll live in peace with me and mine I'll live in peace with you and yours.


----------



## bossdog

I've spent the last two days trying to figure out a way to script my thoughts on this issue so nobody takes offence or gets the wrong impression.

Basically, my views or school of thought, relates to the link between certain religions and their morals and ethics.

I don't think that that terrorism is linked directly to any sect or religion, rather they can be tied to the way of life and culture that is associated with a religions general population.

The media portrays Islamic cultures to be very aggressive, demanding and protective. How much truth there is to this, I don't know. As a Christian, I was raised with the fear of an all loving God, and respect for others, regardless of their actions or lifestyle.

Here is a quote from an article I was reading:


> Most Muslims are not profound Koranic analysts. For a vast number of "believing" Muslim men, "Islam" stands, in a jumbled, half-examined way, not only for the fear of God â â€ the fear more than the love, one suspects â â€ but also for a cluster of customs, opinions and prejudices that include their dietary practices; the sequestration or near-sequestration of "their" women; the sermons delivered by their mullahs of choice; a loathing of modern society in general, riddled as it is with music, godlessness and sex; and a more particularized loathing (and fear) of the prospect that their own immediate surroundings could be taken over â â€ "Westoxicated" â â€ by the liberal Western-style way of life.


http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/rushdie/yes_its_about_islam.htm

There is a slew of articles that can offer a huge amount of insight into all the issues wrt Islam, Muslims, morals and ethics that can be found here:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles.htm#terrorism

I encourage all users that are interested in this thread to give it a browse.

I hope that I didn't get too lost in my thoughts for anybody here.


----------



## 48Highlander

Look at Christianity in the early days.  Someone in a villiage gets sick?  Find a suspicious looking woman and burn her to death.  She must have been a witch.  They feard science the same way Islamic extremists fear western culture, and any sort of thought that went against the teachings of the bible was considered ground for torture or death.  

So how can any Christian really judge Islam for the things being done in it`s name now?  The religion itself isn't the problem.  Like with any other religion, it's the sadistic bastards who misinterpret it and use it as a device for controlling others that are the problem.  And the social/political situation that exists in some Islamic countries makes it almost impossible for anyone to change that.  One thing that`s easy to notice is that the ammount of religious control practiced within a given country is usualy tied to it`s economic situation.  A country in poverty creates more people looking to God for a solution, as well as creating more opportunities to misuse religious beleifs in order to take advantage of others.  A prosperous country creates the opposite.  Extremists, those who seek to control others through the use of religion, will always exist, in every country and every religion.  Just look at Pat Roberts.  But when people are have food, water, are educated, entertained and comfortable, they generaly tend to ignore people like that.


----------



## ackland

48Highlander said:
			
		

> So how can any Christian really judge Islam for the things being done in it`s name now?   The religion itself isn't the problem.   Like with any other religion, it's the sadistic bastards who misinterpret it and use it as a device for controlling others that are the problem.
> [/quote/]
> 
> While I agree with this in principle, I have to say we can blame them because after 1000's of years we have evolved to respect other religions for the most part. They have not. They continue to kill and oppress in the name of religion. Not many christians doing that these days.


----------



## 48Highlander

I never said anything about blaming "them".  I asked how a Christian can judge Islam based on the things being done in it's name.  Unless by "them" you're refering to every single Muslim in the world (which I sincierly doubt), I think you understand that the religion itself isn't the problem.  I think the whole war on terrorism would be a lot more effective if we could stop making religious distinctions altogether.


----------



## ackland

Yes that is true but when the terrorist claims his acts are in the name of said religion it's hard to exclude that subject. What needs to be done is have the media explian the difference better. I have a friend who is muslim. He is no hard liner but we sat down one day and compaired notes christianity and muslim are very similart in teachings and ideology. 

Christians should not judge at all. "Judge not lest ye be judged".that is some where in the New Testiment.

As North American we like to think we do things for a just cause but the whole war in Iraq is just a war being faught for the religion of commerce.


----------



## QORvanweert

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Look at Christianity in the early days.   Someone in a villiage gets sick?   Find a suspicious looking woman and burn her to death.   She must have been a witch.   They feard science the same way Islamic extremists fear western culture, and any sort of thought that went against the teachings of the bible was considered ground for torture or death.
> 
> So how can any Christian really judge Islam for the things being done in it`s name now?   The religion itself isn't the problem.   Like with any other religion, it's the sadistic bastards who misinterpret it and use it as a device for controlling others that are the problem.   And the social/political situation that exists in some Islamic countries makes it almost impossible for anyone to change that.   One thing that`s easy to notice is that the ammount of religious control practiced within a given country is usualy tied to it`s economic situation.   A country in poverty creates more people looking to God for a solution, as well as creating more opportunities to misuse religious beleifs in order to take advantage of others.   A prosperous country creates the opposite.   Extremists, those who seek to control others through the use of religion, will always exist, in every country and every religion.   Just look at Pat Roberts.   But when people are have food, water, are educated, entertained and comfortable, they generaly tend to ignore people like that.



1. The Salem Witch trials had nothing to do with the "Church" as I would like to be associated with, these so called trials were really nothing more then a way to get back at your enemies. Catholicism is one of the most man centered religions of all time, Islam aside. Thus we had our reformation and have since separated. However this separation was so bloody and prolonged that it effects are still being felt today just take a gander about Belfast etc.. The inherent fault of Catholicism is that they have elevated the Pope as an intercessor with Jesus. Islam did the same thing with Mohammed. What this means is that both fallible men, nothing more then men, are being raised up beyond the general populace by other men. Not by Jesus, hence why they cannot be disciples/prophets/leaders. This man centred view is the reason for so much strife because it involves men making the decisions, not God. 
2. During the Inquisition it is true that any thought that went against the *Catholic interpretation* of the Bible was grounds for torture or death. However, the bible says very little with regards to pure science and many ideas that instigated torture/death went against what *the Pope thought was right* and the views of his many advisors. It must be noted that in the Protestant countries, namely Holland and what was to become Belgium, great pride was taken in being secure cities/burgs/provinces etc.. against the Papist Inquisition.
3. Followers of Islam do not fear Western culture, they hate us because we are Christian, Jew, Hindu, Monks from the moon etc. The Qu'ran explicitly states that it is their job "to convert all those unconverted on pain of death" I am sure we all appreciate history here, right? well, harkening back to the good ol' days of 1453 when Constantinople fell to the Islamic armies of Mmet who later re-christened himself "the Conqueror" I am sure we all remember what happened next. Within the century the Moors were already in Spain. There are a few very good reasons why it is called "Militant Islam".

4. The point of the crusades was a valid one, although not in the quoted text, but nevertheless valid. Once again the prospect of militant christianity came up. The original crusade was comissioned by the Pope and had no biblical pretext aside from the mystic ideals of reclaiming Jerusalem. However, the Templars and Hospitallers were given all the land they took, this of course being the price of the Popes religious allowance. As you can see, they had a slight vested interest. Protestantism preaches that "we go out and preach unto the world", nowhere does it state that we use force to convert those of other religions(as in Islam) nowhere does it state that there are rewards for dieing in an * aggressive* war(as in Islam) and nowhere does it state that we initiate violence of any means except in self defence. The Quakers believe that we are to be totally pacifistic.
5. Ok, this is my last point, I promise. Any more and I will start to feel as if I am Martin Luther himself. speaking of which who do you think "Martin Luther King" was named after, and what did he advocate?!? on a more serious note, Islam is corrupted because of its means of transference. Sharia law, the Qu'ran (a.k.a. Koran) all are based on precepts in Sharia's case or are completely interpretable. There are no strict guidelines to set forth the texts. This allows for unbelievable leeway on the part of the reader. 
     Thus said, I am not advocating the war in Iraq, although I do agree with it. I am not advocating genocide, certainly don't agree with that. And by no means am I saying what they are doing is right even if it is in accord with their teachings. Part of Canada is the "right to freedom of religion" and no religion can be banned. However certain religions should be controlled to within reasonable limits (ie.. don't indoctrinate children to become suicide bombers) and these limits must be very reasonable.


----------



## 1feral1

Meanwhile as all this discussion goes on, yesterday at 1330hrs AEST the Australian Embassy was carbombed (suicide bomber) in Jakarta by the extreme islamic terrorist group JI. 

As of this am 11 killed and over 180 injured. This was a direct attack against Australia, and with a federal election in less than 1 month, many fear of a Spanish style attack on our own soil.

As this was going on I was with some locally based Commandos, and we were discussing in general conversation of the risks of such attacks right here in Sydney. Although they were tight lipped about things, we all realise that the threat of attack against Australian interests overseas and at home is very real. It was not until 45 mins later the radio announced the attack.

Some are saying this attack is payback for Iraq and A'stan, and being allied with the USA, but in reality these terrs see anything western as a target, and hate us for many reasons other than our involvement in operations overseas.

Only one Australian seriously wounded, and sadly that was a 5 yr old child who is in critical condition. Her Indonesian mother, was one of the 11 killed (many were vapourised and the excact count may never be known, as the bomb was detonated in heavy traffic). All killed were Indonesian.

EDIT: As of late this arvo, in regards to the seriously injured 5 yr old girl. She had just recieved her Australian citizenship on 01 Sep, and she and her Mum were at the front gate to pickup her passport when the bomb went off. Her Mum was killed instantly. Her Dad a NSW policeman based out of NSW is reported to be enroute to Jakarta to be with his daughter. Lets hope she pulls through. Also other children are reported to be killed in this incident too.

Traces of AMFO have been found at the sight, and a 3 metre deep water filled crater is visible right out front. This was no small bomb. The blast was heard up to 30km away, and a gaint mushroom cloud hung over the city for hours. Buidlings were extensivly damaged within 600 metres from the detonition point.

Last week was that sickening school siege in Russia. What next? 

Every religion has its right winger nutters, and wiping out the whole religion is not the answer, but destroying the heart of the   :gunner: :akimbo: :flame: :sniper: :cam: :rocket: terrorist groups and their leaders through any reasonable means is necessary.

As for Indonesia, how big is it? Its a nation of some 280,000,000 people, which means its the largest muslim country in the world, with many minority smaller religions. Christians have always lived in fear, and every week churches are burnt, and people are murdered. 

Indonesia has over 16,000 islands of which 13,000 are populated. We are to the south on the largest island continent (roughly the size of the lower 48 states in the USA), with a population of just 19,000,000 which was Canada's population over 30 yrs ago.

Its not gonna happen overnight. We are in for the long haul.

Wanna know more? Try www.dailytelegraph.com.au or www.news.com.au

Regards,

Wes


----------



## winchable

"to convert all those unconverted on pain of death"

If you're going to use quotations, make sure it's the proper one especially when such allegations are concerned.
It is honestly this exact same thing that causes hate for Muslims, not saying your full of hate. But it can be as simple as misquoted passages from the Qu'ran in the media, etc. That causes misconceptions.

â Å“Let there be no compulsion in religionâ ? (2:256a). 
I've said it before and I'll say it again, you find what you are looking for in ANY religion. If you look for a wrathful God unleashing the fires of hell on the infidels, you will find it in ANY religious text etc. If you're looking for peace, brotherhood, spiritual prosperity and guidelines with which to live an upright life, then you'll find them as well.

Firstly, the people that were "converted on pain of death" were polytheists, not Christians and Jews. The Christians and Jews were to pay taxes to the Muslims...now today that's obviously probably not going to fly, but we're not talking modern times..everyone was killing the pagans back then.
Now, I won't lie, the people of the book were certainly under pressure to convert, but under penalty of death? No.

The truth is, Muslims, living in the Near-east and Christians living everywhere else were all behaving in the same manner and following basically the same principles.

But this is all off topic..

By comparing Christianity to Islam in the context of the war on Terror, you essentially turn it into a modern Crusade...which makes us no better then those classic crusaders converting by the sword(On both sides of the religious spectrum)
So In all seriousness folks, I think there is a general consensus that the eradication of Islam is not going to happen, nor is it a viable option. That terrorists are terrorists plain and simple, eradicating the religion that you would believe most of them to be, will not get rid of terrorists and will as I've stated already, leave a blackmark on history that will be remembered as a genocide, not a "good" war.

My prediction is that even if Islam were somehow miraculously eradicated, hundreds of years later after people finally realised that, hey, the world isn't that much better now...and we systematically killed more then a billion people...an officialy apology would be made but 1 Billion people would still have died in vain...So, personally I wouldn't care, and neither would my children..they wouldn't exist and I'll be long dead (Killed in the purges I imagine)   but I'm certain this would weigh on the conscience of many billions more.


----------



## winchable

> Its not gonna happen overnight. We are in for a the long haul.



Precisely Wes, in the context of the thread, this is the answer..not the erradication of the entire religion which is the shortcut to "peace"


----------



## 1feral1

From today's paper. They say a picture has 1000 words. Here is 2000 words.


----------



## QORvanweert

Any resentment lurking around in Indonesia is most likely a remnant of the Dutch East India company's actions. I can certainly admit that what we did there was not right.. but attacking the Australian embassy is slightly off colour for any of the popular protest reasons of today..


----------



## 1feral1

Mate, are you for real?     : Wake up to today!

The attack of our embassy has got nothing to do with the Dutch or its companies, and the same goes with the gutless attack on Kuta Beach in Bali   (thats in Indonesia too) on 12 Oct 02, (oops... you were only 15 yrs old when that happened) where over 200 people were killed which included 89 Australians, and six of them lived in my neighbourhood!

FYI - JI has just announced they are taking responsibilty for yesterday's murderous act, and say they will continue to attack Australian interests overseas and on our own soil until our troops leave Iraq. 

JI was also responsible for the Marriot Hotel bombing in Aug 2003 in Jakarta (12 people murdered, dozens injured), and of course the Bali bombings the year previous to that.

This is the second attack against us in less than two years, and Australia has been attacked not for what we have done, but for who we are.

That is we are a freedom loving people with free views and expressions and complete freedom, while to the north you are mudrered for your beliefs. Sure we were directly involved in defeating Indonesia on the East Timor front, and fighting this new war on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq. We will continue to do this until our mandate is filled.

Many in Indonesia see us as a Christian crusading nation who has forced islam out of and defeated their government in East Timor, and there is much bitterness by many.

Sadly in this cowardly   :rage: attack   :rage: yesterday, its the broad muslim Indonesian people that suffer (and die a the hands of other muslims), along with their tourism industry and economy. Try www.dfat.gov.au if you want to know the Australian governments recomendations on travel to that region. 

Australian Federal Police have flown into Jakarta, and are on site and assisting Indonesian local police with forensic help learned from Kuta Beach.


----------



## QORvanweert

so, in your esteemed opinion, what do you consider to be the reason for this attack?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Wes already answered that:



> FYI JI has just announced they are taking responsibilty for yesterday's murderous act, and say they will continue to attack Australian interests until our troops leave Iraq.


----------



## QORvanweert

point taken


----------



## 1feral1

In my esteemed opinion   , I do beleive another LoEI nomination is about to happen sooner than later.


----------



## winchable

Keep it on topic gents


----------



## gozonuts

I think the question "should we get rid of Islam" may have been tongue in cheek, but even though, it is an interesting question. Aren't we all a little sick of the Muslim problem in the world today? We are told over and over that we shouldn't "paint them all with the same brush", and someone even parroted this in a post. If we can't pait them with same brush, why is it that the Muslim community are not MUCH more vocal in their condemnation of the terrorists? I live in Montreal where you cannot throw a rock without hitting an Arab, and often have classes cancelled due their demostrations (ie breaking windows, ganging up on Jews etc.) . I pay tuition as do they, yet I have to suffer the loss of classes and lecturers scheduled to visit my university that they don't approve of. The government should set basic standards when allowing imports into our country, like basic manners and how to fit into our society, and to leave your hate at the door. Instead the government allows terrorist's wives and children to return to our country on our dime after they have went on record and described in detail why they hate us and our values - at least if this happened in the U.S., they would have been lynched had the government allowed them back in. When Canada gets a taste of terrorism such as the Americans, Australians, and pretty much everyone else, then I feel most people here will get over their liberal ideals. Here is a little tidbit I found on the net - kind of silly, but something to think about.

--- In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, Israeli athletes were kidnapped and   massacred by: 
a. Olga Corbutt 
b. Sitting Bull 
c. Arnold Schwartzeneger 
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 
   
--- In 1979, the U.S. embassy in Iran was taken over by: 
a. Lost Norwegians 
b. Elvis 
c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women 
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 
   
--- During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by: 
a. John Dillinger 
b. The King of Sweden 
c. The Boy Scouts 
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 
   
--- In 1983, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by: 
a. A pizza delivery boy 
b. Pee Wee Herman 
c. Geraldo Rivera making up for a slow news day 
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40. 
   
--- In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old   American passenger was murdered in his wheelchair and thrown overboard by: 
a. The Smurfs 
b. Davy Jones 
c. The Little Mermaid 
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40. 
   
--- In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a U.S. Navy diver was murdered by: 
a. Captain Kid 
b. Charles Lindberg 
c. Mother Teresa 
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 
   
--- In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by: 
a. Scooby Doo 
b. The Tooth Fairy 
c. Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid 
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 
   
--- In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by: 
a. Richard Simmons 
b. Grandma Moses 
c. Michael Jordan 
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 
   
--- In 1998, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by: 
a. Mr. Rogers 
b. Hillary Clinton 
c. The World Wrestling Federation 
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 
   
--- On 9/11/2001, four airliners were hijacked and destroyed and thousands of people were murdered by: 
a. Bugs Bunny, Wile E. Coyote, Daffy Duck, Elmer Fudd 
b. Florida's Governor Jeb Bush 
c. Mr. Bean 
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 
   
--- In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against: 
a. Enron 
b. The Lutheran Church 
c. The NFL 
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 
   
--- In 2002 four French journalists, including one woman, were dragged from their cars near the Pakistan border with Afghanistan, taken behind some rocks, and shot to death by: 
a. Gang Green's front four 
b. Barney 
c. The Smashing Pumpkins 
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 
   
--- In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by: 
a. Bonny and Clyde 
b. Captain Kangaroo 
c. Billy Graham 
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 

--- American Airlines Flight 63 from Paris to Miami on December 22, 2001 had a passenger with a 'Shoe Bomb' who tried to blow up the plane but was over powered and captured by passengers was: 
a. A distraught Al Gore gone radical 1960's hippie mental 
b. Monica Lewinsky who said she was tired of hearing Bill play the Saxophone 
c. Donald Rumsfeld 
d. Richard Colvan Reid a.k.a. Tariq Rajah a.k.a. Abdel Rahim, a typical useless low life cowardly radical Muslim asshole caught and convicted of this crime 

--- In May 2004 American Businessman Nicholas Evan Berg was captured in Iraq and beheaded by: 
a. The French Foreign Legion using a guillotine under direct orders from President Jacques Chirac 
b. A wild band of crazy Japanese Samurai Warriors 
c. A Philippine Truck Driver who rig ran out of control 
d. Committed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of an Islamist (Muslim) terrorist group which is part of al-Qaida operating inside Iraq 


 :soldier:


----------



## winchable

> Aren't we all a little sick of the Muslim problem



What would be your "Final Solution" ?

I'm sorry if you feel I'm parroting the idea that it's wrong to paint a group with the same brush. Would you paint all blacks with the same Brush because 1 in 10 Black males are currently in Prison?
I'm also sorry you think that the majority of Muslims do not oppose terrorism and that the terrorists wives and children are a good representation of what the majority of Muslims (You should take issue with the government over that, not Muslims)
The majority of Muslims want to live their lives like any other, when we do speak out against terrorism who covers it? NOBODY.
Every Friday I give a lecture to the youth at my mosque about how to be a respectful young Muslims and how to live in a secular country, I and a large group of other young Muslims my age give the same lecture in Mosques all over North America.
Why does no one choose to talk about this? Why does everyone choose to present the Arab store owner, or cab driver as a negative image rather then the positive image of how a Muslim can be an outstanding citizen in a country they move to?
Why is it that people such as myself are ignored completely when we represent the majority of Muslims?

I've been saturated by that list of bombings and how clever it is. I'm sure it might interest you to know that the list is generally believed to have been started by a group called "The Heritage Front"
It's the truth, no one will question that. But it is selective reporting, selective in the sense that once again people are only willing to see what they want, that is the image of the AK waving, Qu'Ran reciting long bearded Arab/Muslim.

1 Billion Muslims in the world, 365 days in a year, 1 Billion Muslims live seperate lives that no one considers and believe it or not they don't all fit into the the media friendly image of the Osama bin Laden loving idiot.


----------



## Gunnerlove

Don't forget the sinking of the USS Liberty and the Lavon Affair. 
Oh wait wrong religious fanatics. Guess we should get rid of all people who are crazy about "their" god.


----------



## Niss

I know this is a sensative issue and i by no means condone genocide or anything of the sort, but the fact is that the only people who are really doing anything about the Islamic extremists are the non muslims. Instead of rallying in support of the extremests or saying it was their oppressors (Israel, United States, etc) who drove them to do the acts of terror, why arent they protesting against them? Why arent there thousands of pro peace palestinians infront of the parliment building, saying that the killing on both sides stop? I have never heard of 10 000 palestinians walking the streets yelling peace to the middle east, usually its about how the jews are terrorists, death to the infidel bla bla bla. Instead of perpetuating violent actions or thoughts through rallies and crying when people say that all white people are against middle eastern people why dont you get your communities to hold a rally that opposes the extremests. I believe you are sincere in your wishes for peace and anger at the terrorists. But the fact remains, unless you are ready to speak out against them, your silence speaks with them.

Rant Off


----------



## winchable

Perfect example Niss thankyou.
I've noticed on this site the people are at constant odds with the media in general "IF you believe everything the media tells you, you're an idiot." Except when it comes time to blame the brown guy, then the only thing we know about the Middle east is what we see on CNN (Muhamed Q. Public with his Kalishnakov)
Fact of the matter is I do speak out against them, so in that sense, I suppose I'm not with them. That way of discerning terrorists from regular Ahmed down the street is deeply flawed. There are rallies, Muslims are for peace, but you will not see them on CNN. I rarely bring up the media, mainly because I despise it (CNN, Al-Jaz, Fox, you name it) They are not the cause of all Muslim's problems, but they are keeping the divide between the West and the East nice and wide. They aren't the only ones, leaders in the middle east (Israeli, Arab, American) are TERRIBLE.. bar none, but your average Muslims is almost exactly like you. Perhaps he is more passionate about things religious, that is the nature of Islam, it is part of everyday life for a Muslim (A concept impossible for someone from the West to grasp) which is exactly what makes it susceptible to terrorism. Our perfection is our downfall, it is our devout nature and love for God that makes a young Muslim easy pray.
I'm doing my part, There are literally, thousands of young Muslims my age doing the same, fact of the matter is, you will never see us on TV..you will never read about us in the news. It's a hard concept for someone from the west to grasp, but imagine if the only news you ever saw about America was about people like Ted Bundy and Ted Kazynski.

I could write pages and pages but I do grow quite weary of it, I love to help people understand Islam and I love it when someone finally figures out some of the basics. However I find that mostly people only want to hear the bad things about it and hence, they will only find the bad things about it. I will be no part of that, find a mosque in your area, find a Muslim teacher at a university and talk to them for a proper introduction. You don't have to obviously, but that's the best advice I could give you. Reading about Islam on the internet will give you a flawed perception and I don't want to make it worse, so please if anyone is serious about bridging the gap between west and east, education is the beginning but not here! Go! Seek it out in real life my square eyed minions! LEARN!


----------



## Armymedic

Any militant extremist, no matter what god they pray to, are my enemy.  :threat:

Period


----------



## George Wallace

Che

Thanks for all the calm insight into this matter.   It is a difficult topic to remain calm and that is the question I am asking.   Unfortunately you are one of the few who have spoken out against the radical fundamentalists who are reigning terror around the world.   Many moderates are living in fear, and fear reprisals if they do speak out.   I am worried that if the moderates don't speak up soon, in larger numbers, many other nations and religions will blindly condemn all and there may be dire consequences.



			
				gozonuts said:
			
		

> I think the question "should we get rid of Islam"



Gozonuts.....that was not the question of this topic.   The question is: 





> With the recent actions of extreme Islamic Fundamentalists around the world, in Iraq, Spain, Russia and many other places, and the fear of moderate Muslims to act against or voice opposition to the radicals, are the grounds for a 'Reverse Jihad' in the makings?



"Will the escalation of Terror by a radical few condemn a whole section of society to be ostracized and suffer retaliation world wide scale?   Does the moderates' silence further compound their problem?





> Unless the moderates start turning in the 'Fanatics', are we headed for a major disruption of our societies?   Will we see Islam banned from nations other than those in the Middle East?


  

So far we are living in a very tolerant society here in Canada, but how long will we and the rest of the world "turn the other cheek" and refrain from invoking strict measures to curtail the spread of Violence?   Will we write new "Hate Laws" outlawing certain Sects?   Will we deport enmasse whole segments of our population?   What kind of speculation do you have of our future, if we don't stop the terror?

GW


----------



## 48Highlander

George Wallace said:
			
		

> So far we are living in a very tolerant society here in Canada, but how long will we and the rest of the world "turn the other cheek" and refrain from invoking strict measures to curtail the spread of Violence?   Will we write new "Hate Laws" outlawing certain Sects?   Will we deport enmasse whole segments of our population?   What kind of speculation do you have of our future, if we don't stop the terror?



I doubt any of that will happen.  We DO live in a very tolerant society.  Most of us are still outraged when mosques get vandalized or destroyed here in Toronto, and the police do treat it as a hate crime and deal with it accordingly.  The only way I could see Canadian attitudes and policy changing is if Muslim extremists decided to set up shop here in massive numbers, and began killing people on a daily basis.  If that happened, we might very well have to consider deporting "enmasse whole segments of our population".


----------



## QORvanweert

I believe that the problem does not lie in their religion as I might have come across earlier as saying but in their own comprehension thereof. Che is right when he said 'you will find what you look for in any religion' or something to that measure. Quite possibly the entire prospect of what I shall call 'innocent' terrorists (innocent meaning that they are acting in good faith to their teachings) could be eliminated by a better understanding of their own religion. People like Che are doing the right thing by educating their pupils?/students etc.. in Islam. The people that deserve to be exported/jailed/shot are those that twist the minds of their followers, these of course being the 'bloodied' terrorists. The fact that the media is extraordinarily biased certainly adds to the confusion. Ergo, the only way to solve the 'terrorist' problem is to have every mullah we can get preaching peace/rationalization/debating vs. violence. this would remove the religious factor of their platform. Once done their eventual capture and incarcaration * :threat:*  would see them proscecuted as criminals against mankind instead of martyrs for Islam.


----------



## Gunnerlove

I believe French Muslims just held a massive demonstration against the violence and murder of captives in Iraq and in support of the French journalists held captive there. 

Economic development and the creation/re-creation of a "middle class" in the whole Arab world should be a keystone in the war against terrorism. It is far easier to recruit terrorists and suicide bombers from an uneducated, unemployed group with no hope or future. Waging war against an entire people/ race/ religion will only cause them to close ranks and lash out rationally or irrationally against threats both real and perceived. 

Genocide is a crime that will never be justified.


----------



## gozonuts

Dear Che, 

You stated     _"I'm also sorry you think that the majority of Muslims do not oppose terrorism and that the terrorists wives and children are a good representation of what the majority of Muslims (You should take issue with the government over that, not Muslims)"  _ , I felt that my rant actually suggested that I did in fact take issue with my government. I must appologise for the stupid internet clip at the end of my post, it was in bad taste and surely not funny. I DO realise that all Muslims could not possibly be terrorists or support such a thing. Yes, it probably is the media that fails to show that Muslims do in fact speak out against extremism. I certainly don't buy into the widely held notion that only Muslims are terrorists either, in one of your posts you mentioned _"IF you believe everything the media tells you, you're an idiot." Except when it comes time to blame the brown guy, then the only thing we know about the Middle east is what we see on CNN"_, sure, if all you watched was CNN or FOX! If you prefer the BBC, which I do, then you can get a completely different slant on things - CNN/FOX favours the Israely side, BBC is hyper-critical of Israel's 'defense' tactics. It is just hard to ignore  pictures of school children shot in the back while escaping their captors. Those images were still burning in my mind, I suppose I was just venting. I know this went way off topic, but my hat is off to you for speaking out against stereotypes and I suppose I stand corrected! I should have said "the extremist problem", certainly not "the Muslim problem".


----------



## pbi

Gozonuts: I suspect that we could draw up a similarly brutal list of other atrocities, with the final notation being "Irish Catholics between the ages of 17 and 40". If we apply your rationale, we would treat all Catholics (the majority denomination in Canada...) like IRA or INLA types.

Cheers.


----------



## winchable

Hats off to everyone on the thread for the cool tempermant thusfar


----------



## ackland

Che said:
			
		

> Fact of the matter is I do speak out against them, so in that sense, I suppose I'm not with them. That way of discerning terrorists from regular Ahmed down the street is deeply flawed. There are rallies, Muslims are for peace, but you will not see them on CNN. I rarely bring up the media, mainly because I despise it (CNN, Al-Jaz, Fox, you name it) They are not the cause of all Muslim's problems, but they are keeping the divide between the West and the East nice and wide. I'm doing my part, There are literally, thousands of young Muslims my age doing the same, fact of the matter is, you will never see us on TV..you will never read about us in the news. It's a hard concept for someone from the west to grasp, but imagine if the only news you ever saw about America was about people like Ted Bundy and Ted Kazynski.



Have you ever contacted a local news outlet about maybe doing an interveiw or story about what you do. Go out and preach your view to the media and see if you get any intrest there. Have you tried? If you sit and hope that some one will take notice of your rational teachings I truley beleive that no one outside this thresd will hear what you have to say. Media doesn't seem to search out the feel good stories but will cover them if it is brought to their attention. Mayby you should try. Break the barrier.


----------



## Bograt

Welcome to the new reality. No longer are we facing threats from states with capitals. The new reality is the "stateless" threat- emerging from the ghettos, shanty towns and suburbs. While traditional threats are still present (i.e Iran, North Korea, China) the "clear and ever present danger" is the ethereal force. Fundraising at community bingo games, training in desert camps of sympathizing nations, and unfortunately killing under their banner. I think what is immediately lost is the fact that 900 million people consider themselves Muslim. 

From Indonesia to the Middle east to the family down the street, Muslims are trying to do what normal people do. Make sure their bills are paid, family is safe and their lives are long. It is natural for disenfranchised segments of populations to view their current socio-economic position as a result of "Zionist or western or -insert your cause here-" and not as the result of their own corrupt governments. It is easy for them to be convinced by "perfume spitting monsters" to take up arms and set them selves on fire. 

I think it is okay to say that they are muslim terrorists, because that is what they are- that is the banner the choose to fight under. I am also sharpe enough to know that they are not muslims- in fact they are not even human beings. They are killers, liars, theives, butchers, hypocrites, bastards, monters - I can go on.

I sometimes wonder if God is going to kick all our arses when we die for the things we have done in his name.


----------



## winchable

> Have you ever contacted a local news outlet



Been done, trust me if you folks can think of it, I've done it. Persistence doesn't work. Our local paper prints the most inane garbage about student councils from highschools (I should know, I was in one) but they will not print stuff that could be controversial. The news channel is about the same, nothing controversial. My counterparts in Toronto have done the same with larger papers and larger stations, no response thusfar. There is a huge group of us across North America, so chances are we've tried it all at some point.


----------



## R2Truman

I was just wondering is this a pre shooting George Wallace, or a post shooting George Wallace who is asking about racist removal of a religion ?
R2


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Wrong George Wallace, the question should be the pre-drink George or the post-drink one.


----------



## George Wallace

Bruce

Don't let her 'witticisms' cause us to side track our discussion.  There are some interesting points being put forward and possibly a solution or two to some of the dilemmas being faced.

GW


----------



## winchable

I think perhaps a solution to the whole problem is education on both sides.
It's simplistic, remove the mystery surrounding the "other" side. Proper education too, not the education you get from the telly or the internet.


----------



## George Wallace

I believe that is only part of the overall solution.  It would have been the solution had it been done prior to Terrorist events.  Now we must do more.  It is the stepping block by which we will start putting an end to 'these terrorists', but we must also unite the community at large to stand up to them.

GW


----------



## Lance Wiebe

I agree.  Education is a key, but just one key, and there are many locks.

Muslims are taught from youth (in the extremist schools) that their religion is the only true religion, all others are non-believers.  It is not a crime to kill a non believer, in their eyes.  They are also taught that the west, in particular the US, is the greatest threat to the true believers.  

And we feel somewhat intimidated.  They do not fear death, they do not succomb to threats.  We deal well with countries that respond to threats, we do not deal well with this crowd.  No matter what defenses, they will strive to find a weakness.  And if some die, well, thats OK.  Because it is for the greater good of Islam.

I think that this is what George is really referring to.  We will not, cannot, change their beliefs.  The extremists will always be plotting to hurt the west.  The question remains, will the killing of all of the extremists, worldwide, the only solution?  Is it even possible?  Could we even survive what will be a very ugly war?  What if we lose?


----------



## George Wallace

Che is right about Education and as Lance says it is only one key to the many locks that are 'imprisoning' us.   There are programs that are being implimented, one of which is "Right To Play" and a few programs here in Canada, where differing factions are sending their children here to spend weeks at "Peace Camps" or the sort.   Irish Catholic and Protestant children have been hosted as have Jewish and Palistinian children at some of these camps and the end results have been quite positive.   These programs are working to educate and bring opposing factions together before the hatred festers too much to be changed.   However, we need people dedicated and financially funded, privately or by the state, to run such programs.   The will must be there.   Both opposing factions must have the courage to try and make these programs work.   Courage to stand up to and deny the radical Fundamentalists the spread of their hate and terror is required also.   Strong policing and monitoring of illegal activities must be put into place.   S_Baker's point number 4 has to be resolved.

Not easy, but as we have seen in a few posts here, ideals can be changed.   



GW


----------



## Niss

Would someone of the Muslim faith please enlighten me on Jihad? Don't take this the wrong way, but it seems to me that its kind of hard to claim that your faith is a peaceful one when you have rules and guidlines to a holy war. Perhapse Che could reply, I would prefer to get it from someone who is in the faith rather than a person who has read a book.


----------



## IWannaBePPCLI

OK I couldn't get all the way throught reading the posts so if i repeat someonses.. let me know.   I believe that the action to take against certain people. being terrorists and "evildoers" is  to eliminate them... I HAvE ABSOLUTELY NO reason to say that ANY religion should be depleted... I do however believe that Terrorists should be delt witha ccordingly... I say that when the government gets RELIABLE information that terrorists are in a certain location they should have a force that goes in and TACTICALLY eliminates the TERRORISTS ONLY NOT CIVILLIANS and so thereing meaning that the debriefing will need to include detailed pictures or at least realy good photos of the targets and then when the team gets to the Target Destination they wil eliminate ONLY the terrorists.. allowing this to help eliminate the current problem with terrorism.....


Of course there is also the other side that many people believe that if one terrorist didnt exist.. another would be there instead... such as (only in example)  If Hitler were never exitent.. then someone else would have done what he did... there is no actual way to kill off the entire enemy... except to destroy the planet but unless we finally finish making Mars suitable for living... that wont hapen....  either way i hope this was helpful and that noone thinks i am some sort of weirdo

good luck to you all!!


----------



## winchable

I can direct anyone who wants to two excellent books that can open up your horizons if you are interested.
The first is the cornerstone of educational literature where the middle east (more accurately the "Near East") is concerned, it is called "A history of the Arab Peoples." by Albert Hourani, this book has been used for decades, definetly the definitive research book where the Arab peoples are concerned.
Another excellent book is written by Ira M. Lapidus, it is called "A history of Islamic Societies."   I am currently studying under Mr. Lapidus' protege here in Halifax, both are brilliant men. 
Reading either of these books in their entirety or merely in sections, is certainly a start to understanding and seperating myth from fact in Near east/Muslim/Arab history. So I'd reccomend them to those who are very keen on bridging the gap.

As for Jihad, perhaps one of the most misused terms by ....everyone, haha. It has developed into a word with two meanings. At it's root, it simply means "Struggle" in the context of faith, so a "Struggle of Faith."

 Firstly is the more radical meaning which is the physical Jihad we see on CNN..need I explain more? You know, AK waving, Qur'an shouting, god praising, passionate.(There is nothing wrong with the latter 2)
This meaning is the one you find both terrorists..and those who dislike Islam using. It makes a non-believer a legitimate target of "struggle.' It's quite easy to see where it has become completely bastardized. Armed struggle was the next meaning, and eventually the word Jihad was used by Muslims going to war to expand Muslim territory in the early days of Islam. (After the 8th Century AD..roughly)

The second meaning, the one I ascribe to. It's a more mystical definition that rejects violence, whereby you withdraw from the concerns of the world   in order to achieve spiritual depth. It's a more philisophic meaning and it's the one I prefer. The struggle is a more mental one against the many temptations Muslims face in everyday life. It prizes spiritual, mental depth and strong character in a struggle waged against that which would come between oneself and God.

Folks I'll say it again, it's very important that you don't take this for gospel, the best thing you can do is to talk to a learned Muslim, best place to start is a university or any othe class. They might even say I'm wrong, lord knows I could very well be, but this is what I've grown up knowing.
To be honest; The word "Jihad" I never heard until fairly recently..like late 90's and it was from CNN not from my family and not at my mosque.


----------



## Infanteer

Good post Che; education is often the most powerful weapon out there.

I wandered around Southern Spain for a week on my leave, exploring the Islamic remains of what was Al-Andalus (Andalusia).   I can tell you one thing, the Islamic cultural monuments left behind were a fascinating part of the story of human civilization.   The culture of Islamic Spain was both brutally violent and amazingly productive at the same time, a trend that seems to characterize most human societies and civilizations.   I am not to sure of the accuracy, but check out this page and follow the links on the side to get a better understanding of how truly complex the Islamic world is:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/intro/islam.htm

Many seem to ascribe to the notion that the followers of Islam fall under one big monolith of Western-hating thought.   Those that do are guilty of painting with a broad-brush; this is the same line of thought as the Cold War belief that all Communism was controlled by the Kremlin.   Besides being absolutely incorrect, these kinds of beliefs show both a lack of understanding of the cultures (not just religious) involved and can act as a limitation on the strategic options available to one when approaching the problem.

Bottom line; the acts of terrorists in Beslan and now in Jakarta were terrible.   However, they do not represent a downward spiral for both Islam or those who oppose terrorism.   They are simply part of the human experience; violence like this is part and parcel of human nature and sometimes religion happens to be the motivator.   The power of the Islamic faith to inspire such violence in many who adhere to the religion is no different then the social icons that led Aztecs to sacrifice human beings on alters, Tamurlane to pile up human skulls in conquered cities, "rational" modern Germans to murder 6 million Jews with frightening efficiency, or Americans to flatten most of SouthEast Asia from the comfort of a million dollar plane in the name of democracy.

Wiping out a ideology, a religion, or any other social icon will do no good, as others will only take its place.   We must learn to defend ourselves as best as possible (as I said, knowledge may be the strongest weapon) and be prepared to fight if we must.   We must understand that as humans we will be in a state of constant conflict; it is only in our nature.   If you don't believe me, find a year, one year in history, that experienced no war or conflict on the planet Earth.

Perhaps, instead of looking at the Crusades as an analogy of the troubles we face, we should look to the History of the _hashsashin[/u], the violent cult of radical Isma'ilis that were feared for their asymmetrical, murderous raids during the Middle Ages (leaving us the term *assassin*.   The Hashsashin proved such a problem that they were destroyed in Syria by the ruling Islamic power in the Middle East.

http://i-cias.com/e.o/assassins.htm

PS: I had to change the title to the correct spelling...5 pages and no one picked it up.

_


----------



## gozonuts

Infanteer said:
			
		

> PS: I had to change the title to the correct spelling...5 pages and no one picked it up.



I noticed, and it bothered me so much I couldn't sleep the last few nights, thanks!!!!


----------



## gozonuts

That last post was a joke! I thought I would clarify that as the powers that be don't like certain comments!


----------



## Infanteer

...another idiot bites the dust.

Anyways, back to our regularly scheduled programming.


----------



## muskrat89

Just what we've been asking for!  (I think)

http://worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_12.html




> Muslim group takes responsibility for 9-11: 'We are so sorry'
> 
> 
> 
> Special to World Tribune.com
> www.freemuslims.org
> Friday, September 10, 2004
> 
> We Are So Sorry for 9-11
> This September 11 marks the third unforgettable anniversary of the worst mass murder in American history.
> 
> After September 11, many in the Muslim world chose denial and hallucination rather than face up to the sad fact that Muslims perpetrated the 9-11 terrorist acts and that we have an enormous problem with extremism and support for terrorism. Many Muslims, including religious leaders, and â Å“intellectualsâ ? blamed 9-11 on a Jewish conspiracy and went as far as fabricating a tale that 4000 Jews did not show up for work in the World Trade Center on 9-11. Yet others blamed 9-11 on an American right wing conspiracy or the U.S. Government which allegedly wanted an excuse to invade Iraq and â Å“stealâ ? Iraqi oil.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> As to apologizing, we will no longer wait for our religious leaders and "intellectuals" to do the right thing. Instead, we will start by apologizing for 9-11 . . .
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> After numerous admissions of guilt by Bin Laden and numerous corroborating admissions by captured top level Al-Qaida operatives, we wonder, does the Muslim leadership have the dignity and courage to apologize for 9-11?
> If not 9-11, will we apologize for the murder of school children in Russia?
> 
> If not Russia, will we apologize for the train bombings in Madrid, Spain?
> 
> If not Spain, will we apologize for suicide bombings in buses, restaurants and other public places?
> 
> If not suicide bombings, will we apologize for the barbaric beheadings of human beings?
> 
> If not beheadings, will we apologize for the rape and murder of thousands of innocent people in Darfour?
> 
> If not Darfour, will we apologize for the blowing up of two Russian planes by Muslim women?
> 
> What will we apologize for?
> 
> What will it take for Muslims to realize that those who commit mass murder in the name of Islam are not just a few fringe elements?
> 
> What will it take for Muslims to realize that we are facing a crisis that is more deadly than the Aids epidemic?
> 
> What will it take for Muslims to realize that there is a large evil movement that is turning what was a peaceful religion into a cult?
> 
> Will Muslims wake up before it is too late? Or will we continue blaming the Jews and an imaginary Jewish conspiracy? The blaming of all Muslim problems on Jews is a cancer that is destroying Muslim society from within and it must stop.
> 
> Muslims must look inward and put a stop to many of our religious leaders who spend most of their sermons teaching hatred, intolerance and violent jihad. We should not be afraid to admit that as Muslims we have a problem with violent extremism. We should not be afraid to admit that so many of our religious leaders belong behind bars and not behind a pulpit.
> 
> Only moderate Muslims can challenge and defeat extremist Muslims. We can no longer afford to be silent. If we remain silent to the extremism within our community then we should not expect anyone to listen to us when we complain of stereotyping and discrimination by non-Muslims; we should not be surprised when the world treats all of us as terrorists; we should not be surprised when we are profiled at airports.
> 
> Simply put, not only do Muslims need to join the war against terror, we need to take the lead in this war.
> 
> As to apologizing, we will no longer wait for our religious leaders and â Å“intellectualsâ ? to do the right thing. Instead, we will start by apologizing for 9-11.
> 
> We are so sorry that 3000 people were murdered in our name. We will never forget the sight of people jumping from two of the highest buildings in the world hoping against hope that if they moved their arms fast enough that they may fly and survive a certain death from burning.
> 
> We are sorry for blaming 9-11 on a Jewish or right wing conspiracy.
> 
> We are so sorry for the murder of more than three hundred school children and adults in Russia.
> 
> We are so sorry for the murder of train passengers in Spain.
> 
> We are so sorry for all the victims of suicide bombings. We are so sorry for the beheadings, abductions, rapes, violent Jihad and all the atrocities committed by Muslims around the world.
> 
> We are so sorry for a religious education that raised killers rather than train people to do good in the world. We are sorry that we did not take the time to teach our children tolerance and respect for other people.
> 
> We are so sorry for not rising up against the dictators who have ruled the Muslim world for decades.
> 
> We are so sorry for allowing corruption to spread so fast and so deep in the Muslim world that many of our youth lost hope.
> 
> We are so sorry for allowing our religious leaders to relegate women to the status of forth class citizens at best and sub-humans at worse.
> 
> We are so sorry.
> 
> For more information visit our website at: www.freemuslims.org.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Reading that site made one thing hit home, the trust in this  "conflict" is broken. What I mean by that is I'm always saying that most Muslims are just like you and me, they just want to live in peace and raise a family. Yet as I'm glancing at this website my eyes keep going back to the "donate" butten and I wonder just where the money goes. 
What should be a joy to read instead just makes me think that if I did donate am I helping to train the next suicide bomber?  In a way these *&^%$ # have already won as I must realize that even in something good, I'm looking to see where the sucker punch is coming from.
I've always wanted the "moderate" Muslim to speak out and here is a seemingly good example and yet I read but don't really believe it. Damn them!
Well I won't be beaten on this nor will my children, my oldest daughters best friend's family came here from Lebanon and I couldn't tell you if thier Muslim or Christian and I don't care.
So to those who would try to break my chains of trust in the basic good of man, you can kiss my............


----------



## Torlyn

gozonuts said:
			
		

> That last post was a joke! I thought I would clarify that as the powers that be don't like certain comments!



Sigh...  The powers that be don't like flippant, child-like comments.  They'll be the first to tell you that I'm not exactly welcomed here with open arms, but I don't spout off useless rhetoric, and try to couch it by pretending it's a "serious" question.  The easiest way for you to get honest answers is to ask honest questions.  Comments like this don't endear you to anyone.  And before you say that's not why you're here, fine.  Perhaps you should think about asking for information elsewhere.

T.

Good lord, when I intercede and tell someone to smarten up, that's pretty scary...


----------



## Slim

> Muslim group takes responsibility for 9-11: 'We are so sorry'



Maybe, just maybe, this is the beginning of the proper, moderate and responsible members of the Muslim faith saying "we have had enough, time to act."

That would be great as I have no doubt that it is a few bad apples acting terrably, that ruin it for the the greater majority.

Slim


----------



## Filmilspecs

I have never seen 2 muslims on TV have a go at each others throats about whose interpretations is correct.
That would be fun!   >


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Filmilspecs said:
			
		

> I have never seen 2 muslims on TV have a go at each others throats about whose interpretations is correct.
> That would be fun! >



I would like to see both sides debated in a sensible manner, but to see them attack each other would be counter productive and stupid. Only trailer trash would watch for the Jerry Springer value. To relish a physical confrontation by these two sides puts you in no better stead than the people cutting off hostages heads. It would be neither fun nor entertaining. Grow up and keep your redneck comments to yourself. If you have nothing civilized to add to what has been a decent discussion, please leave. The adults here don't need to be bothered with your childish comments. This is your one and only warning.

For everyone else, we've managed to keep the discussion reasonable, please continue.


----------



## ackland

Ahmen to that recce guy. Let's try and keep a mature dialogue about such a touchy subject.


----------



## Niss

I am reminded of a saying: All terrorists are muslim but not all muslims are terrorists. These words are true, you cant punish an entire people for the actions of a few. That said on a topic close to home the situation in Israel, I have lost sympathy with the palestinian people. One can debate that not all of them are terrorists and that some of them genuinly want peace. When the terrorist organizations have used children (15 yrs old) and women as walking bombs, they lost my sympethy for the women and children, when I saw a picture of a 7 year old in white clothes and the green hamas bandana with a bomb strapped to his chest surrounded by his mentors, you lose the right to say that your children have been killed. There is six degrees of seperation in the occupied territories and if you yourself are not a terrorist you are directly related to one or know someone who is directly related to them. To the people of the Islamic faith on this forum please forgive my rant, this is not against you or your faith, but rather Arab extremists. For the people who are in the occupied territories who do not hate Israelis and want to blow themselves up to kill their "enemy" my prayers and best wishes go out to you, but to the remainder, the people who go to rallies with their kids and wives and teach their children to kill innocent people may God or Allah or whoever have mercy on you, because if I was there there is not a chance in **** I would.


Mod Edit-Please do not circumvent the censor system.


----------



## Torlyn

Niss said:
			
		

> I am reminded of a saying: All terrorists are muslim but not all muslims are terrorists. These words are true, you cant punish an entire people for the actions of a few.



Regardless of the rhetoric of the rest of your statement, the above caused me the most problems, as it is wrong.  Timothy Mcveigh was not muslim.  Weebo Ludwig is not muslim.  Painting muslims as you have done with that statement is both uninformed and bordering on racist, however, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and hope that you can clarify this statement somewhat.  The hypocracy of your writing is inherent, I'm hoping you can see it and recognise it.  You say you can't punish a group of people for the actions of a few, and yet you go on to say how we should treat ALL of them.  Please.  Informed statements, or at least those that don't contradict themselves would be accepted better.

T


----------



## winchable

I'd like to invite anyone with questions about Islam to PM me,
It's my job to spread the word I suppose, I won't try and convert you. But if you feel a particular passage from the Qur'an is evil, or you would like something clarified in general about the beliefs etc. of Muslims, fire me off a PM.
I was thinking of starting a thread, sort of a FAQ, since there are so many misconceptions and bastardizations of texts that you find.
But this little post oughtta do it.


----------



## Niss

My apologies for sounding racist, hypocritical, etc. It was something that I heared and refered too because thats the way it ends up being most of the time. And it was used to not blame Muslams. I realise that there were terrorists that were not Muslam, but I used that because it seems to be the trend. Even in african nations its usualy the arabic ones terrorising innocent people. I do not believe in puinishing a whole relegion or region for the actions of a few but given the global sitiuation the common understanding is that if you harbour a terrorist you are a terrorist, if you support a terrorist, financialy, politically, by any other means you are also a terrorist, if you know a person/persons commiting acts of terrorism and doing nothing to stop it you support it. If I know a person who commited murder but fail to alert anyone, once the murderer is caught and if/when it gets traced back to me i am held just as accountable because i did nothing to prevent that crime or bring them to justice. The ppl who know terrorists and do nothing are just as accountable as thoes who step on the bus packed with explosives. I hope this clarifies my thoughts, probably not though, i have trouble getting the things out of my head and onto the computer.


----------



## winchable

> if you harbour a terrorist you are a terrorist



http://www.nydailynews.com/boroughs/story/237020p-203507c.html
Just thought I'd fire that one on the burner becuase no one seems to want to talk about it.

I'm beginning to dislike the word terrorist more and more every day.
It seems to be turning into a word like "commie'" which bred modern witchunts in it's heyday.
"he/she's a terrorist" --- "They're a commie"

It cheapens the acts committed by these particular people.. It cheapens the memories of their victims and it only further desensitizes the public to the plights of innocents being slaughtered when it's used every 30 seconds by every politician and newscaster that can get some camera time.

Also it seems that with situations like the Carriles case, the word terrorist is subjective.
As long as they're killing Cubans with hundreds of pounds of C4 or plotting to kill Panamanian university students with hundreds of pounds of C4, then they're not terrorists at all?

I came across the Carriles case recently and the utter hypocrisy and arrogance which it has been dealth with is infuriating.
I would absolutely hate to see the word terrorist reduced to a level like McCarthy made Communism out to be, but if the word gets thrown around enough and cheapened, that's exactly what is going to happen.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Actually, Che, Iwould like to hear from some of our American friends on this one. Could you also put in the link you provided in the "political" thread?
From first glance this one smells.


----------



## winchable

Split off a new thread.


----------



## rw4th

I think we can debate all day on what is, and what isn't Islam, and how those who use it to justify violence are wrong or right. It's all a murky quagmire of interpretation and relativistic moral values.

The bottom line for me is simple: I have NOT heard a broad denunciation of the actions of terrorists by Muslims, either internationally or from those around me. The closest I have heard is people who say â Å“Well, it's not good and they are doing bad things but ...â ? and there is always the â Å“butâ ?, usually followed with some bullcrap statement to the effect that â Å“they deserved it because they have ...â ? followed by stuff that usually gets me so pissed off I don't even want to write it here.

There ARE Arab terrorists in Canada and in the US. Why are they not being turned in? Why can they so easily hide amongst the Islamic community? Why don't the people around them turn on them?

Words without supporting actions have no meaning hence I have no piety. I'm not for genocide or for putting people in concentration camps, however no matter how un-PC it is, racial profiling DOES work. If the Arab community were wholeheartedly against terrorism and started to take responsibility for the actions of its members, then the terrorists would have no place to hide. As it stand now, the community that denounces them, also supports them. Hence their words are empty and mean nothing.

My opinion might not be politically correct, but it is supported by facts. This exactly what is going on around me and around the world. I have stopped being friends with several Muslims because of statements the likes of which are mentioned above.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

rw4th said:
			
		

> The bottom line for me is simple: I have NOT heard a broad denunciation of the actions of terrorists by Muslims, either internationally or from those around me.



When was the last time that you heard a Christian "around you" apologise for or denounce terrorists on either side of the conflict in Northern Ireland?  Or for Christian arrogance in the handling of aboriginal peoples around the world?

Islam, like Christianity, is not a monolith.


----------



## pbi

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> When was the last time that you heard a Christian "around you" apologise for or denounce terrorists on either side of the conflict in Northern Ireland? Or for Christian arrogance in the handling of aboriginal peoples around the world?
> 
> Islam, like Christianity, is not a monolith.



Bravo PPCLI Guy. On that note, when are the Roman Catholic Church of Croatia and the Serb Orthodox Church going to apologize for the hideous actions carried out by their co-religionists? Cheers.


----------



## Infanteer

As a note, I changed the name of this thread.  "Eradication of Islam" seemed to do no justice to the level of the conversation that has been going on here.

As an aside, some Muslims feel that  R4W is correct to some degree with the fact that their is tacit acquiescence to extremism in mainstream Islamic sub-cultures.  A perfect example would be the fact that many, high profile Imams openly preach hatred and destruction in urban Mosques in many Western cities.  Although Manji's opinions are controversial and debateable (and some may question her motives as she is a lesbian feminist, which she openly admits in her book), she does bring a fresh look to the idea.

http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/item.asp?Item=978067931250&Catalog=Books&N=35&Lang=en&Section=books&zxac=1


----------



## winchable

Also I'm going to go out on a limb and say that since the majority of Muslims aren't actually Arab, if you're standing at the airport looking for the next Arab/Muslim Terrorist you're probably going to miss all of the Indonesian, black and white Muslims who walk by.



> Why are they not being turned in? Why can they so easily hide amongst the Islamic community? Why don't the people around them turn on them?



In general the people that are inclined to militancy are not of the mainstream Muslim mosques rather they keep to themselves and when the time comes to identify who they are, it's assumed that they are part of the closest mosque to them. 

Also I wouldn't assume that everybody knows a terrorist they could be turning in...there's no 6 degrees of seperation in the Muslim community however small it may be. The *majority*(like 99%) of Muslims in the ummah are outraged by terror tactics as well, and will openly denounce it as I have _previously posted_ but no one particularly cares what the peaceful ones have to say as they don't sell advertising spots.

And I restate my belief that terrorists are terrorists in Spite of Islam rather than because of it. etc. etc.


----------



## rw4th

PPCLI guy and pbi, in principle I agree with both of you. However this isn't a game of â Å“who's hasn't done bad thingsâ ?; every culture has its skeletons. If you want to include bad organizations that claim Christian values, you'd also have to include the KKK and most white supremacist as well. And for the record, while it may have sounded like it I do not lob all Muslims together. 

What is happening right now in the world isn't new. It's a clash of cultures that has been going on for centuries. Parts of the Muslim world believe that the entire world must convert to Islam or die and that anything less is an insult to god. It is not only â Å“a few bad applesâ ? either; this belief is wide spread enough that it is causing a global conflict.



> some Muslims feel that  R4W is correct to some degree with the fact that their is tacit acquiescence to extremism in mainstream Islamic sub-cultures.



That is exactly one of my points, and one the biggest roadblocks to stopping the extremist. This  â Å“tacit acquiescenceâ ? gives the enemy a place to hide, and as long a those sub-cultures do not rise up, point the finger and say â Å“noâ ?, then they are complicit in the acts of the terrorist. 

You could argue that the few bad apples are manipulating the masses and that they are perverting and using Islam to further their own claim to power. While this may be true, the fact is that the masses are complicit in the manipulation, and therefore equally to blame. 

I see a lot of people around me pointing the finger at their own culture, and saying â Å“hey we've done bad things toâ ? as way of avoiding taking a stance on this issue; in fact, it's probably a very Canadian to do. Well, while it is true that â Å“weâ ? have done a lot of bad things, it does not make the threat to â Å“usâ ? and our way of life any less real.

What scares me about this issue is that I can't think of any solution to it. Appeasement and/or a â Å“let liveâ ? policy cannot work against a violent culture that has made statements to the effect that â Å“we will not stop until the entire world converts to the one true religion of Islamâ ?.


----------



## rw4th

> The majority(like 99%) of Muslims in the ummah are outraged by terror tactics as well


In what part of the world? I don't agree that %99 of the Muslims worldwide are outraged by the terror tactics used by extremist. If this were true, the conflict against Islamic Extremist would already be over. 



> Also I'm going to go out on a limb and say that since the majority of Muslims aren't actually Arab, if you're standing at the airport looking for the next Arab/Muslim Terrorist you're probably going to miss all of the Indonesian, black and white Muslims who walk by.



I agree with you. My comments about profiling concerned more race then religion and the potential combination thereof. I do believe that these 2 should make up part of an effective screening system. They should be only part of the picture, but they are 2 very important indicators of potential threat. The problem is that in our overly correct society we have made using these 2 pieces of information practically illegal. A white elderly lady from Toronto, traveling on a Canadian passport who has never been outside North America is screened the same way an Arab male in his mid twenties, who is traveling on a Syrian passport, and who has traveled to several threat countries.


----------



## winchable

> A white elderly lady from Toronto, traveling on a Canadian passport who has never been outside North America is screened the same way an Arab male in his mid twenties, who is traveling on a Syrian passport, and who has traveled to several threat countries.



Well you didn't particularly specify that and I would agree with you on that.
My only issue with racial screening is when it conflicts with the rights and freedoms of Canadian citizens as I have been witness to (and victim of) before. If they're detaining Syrian nationals or Saudia Arabian Nationals travelling by themselves than that's not race, that's nationality and playing the odds. You made it seem as though it were a race issue at first, which I most wholeheartedly disagree with.

My perctentage was exagerrated I'll give you that, but in the hearts and minds department, western countries are not doing well and it's mostly because of what I have maintained is an almost extreme lack of education about "the east"

It's been 200 years since the Brit's first called it "Orientalism" and there is still as much ignorance about the near east as there was then, and until this ignorance is cleared up, the terrorists will continue to use this divide between east and west as a means of recruiting more and more.

Screen everyone you can and you won't put a stop to it, that's like a bandaid where the permanent fix is education on both sides something that terrible leadership in every country in the world is doing nothing to fix. In fact the original title of this thread might reign true one day unless something is done to teach both sides about the realities that exist in foreign cultures. 

There is no easy solution and I'm certain the conflict will be a long one but I doubt that trampling on the same rights and freedoms we are supposed to be protecting is going to be a viable solution. Maybe we've staring into the abyss a bit much?


----------



## Torlyn

As a sidenote on the screening at the airports issue, all of the terrorists who came through Canada would have made it through legally were they subjected to the current heightened restrictions.  So really, is racially/nationally profiliing those coming through our borders really going to stop anything?
We're catching a lot more people smuggling material goods (ie clothing, electronics, etc) to avoid taxes, (of all races & nationalities, I'm not singling anyone out there) but other than that, have we actually turned away anyone who was a suspected terrorist?  If so, I haven't heard about it...  (And if we have, please link the information so I can correct myself, thanks)

T


----------



## dutchie

This thread has some very interesting information, and some very good posts by many (IMHO). I would like to add my points to the discussion. 

The current trend of terrorism is being committed by primarily Muslims, and the majority of these Muslims are of Arab descent/ethnicity. The really important point to me, however, is that it is the _culture_ in a lot of primarily Muslim states that is conducive to accepting terror as a means of furthering one's cause (whether legitimate or not), but NOT THE RELIGION ITSELF. In a lot of these cultures, religion is more central to the fabric of society than it is in the West, so it is difficult for us to separate their religion and their culture, and even more difficult for them, I'd imagine. However, that does not mean that the religion is the source of the terror. 

The terrorists have been successful in convincing the west that it is engaging in terror due to their religious beliefs. We must learn to separate Muslim/Arabic _culture_ and Islam. Islam (correct me if I'm wrong Che) strictly forbids killing others, with some very strict exceptions (none of which apply to any current situation). 

A long time ago, I had a friend who was Muslim (originally from Iran), and I was surprised to learn 2 things regarding Islam: 1)-that the Christian God (the 'Father' in the Trinity) is the same god of Islam. 2)- When asked for help, the Koran states a Muslim must provide help, regardless of their personal feelings towards the person. Re: Islam/Christian God:my point is that our religions are closely linked. Reoint #2- it appears as if the Koran wished it's followers to help and be kind to others, regardless of the follower's opinion of them.

Terrorists committing terror in the name of Allah are 'hijacking' Islam (I heard that somewhere). They use the label to add legitimacy to acts that are reprehensible to almost all people, in all nations, of all religions, of all ethnic backgrounds, and of all socio-economic classes. 

Some unsolicited advice:The next time you hear of an act of terror committed in the name of Islam, think of them not as 'Islamic Terrorists', but simply as Terrorists. Islam has next to nothing to do with it.


----------



## Infanteer

Islam does have something to do with it.   Just because we find the actions of those who kill in the name of religion abhorrent, we cannot denigrate or reduce the role that spirituality plays upon their psyche.

By saying that the Crusaders were not "true Christians" and merely burned the Holy Land down in search of plunder and glory misses out on the fact that there was a very important spiritual motivation coming from the Holy See.   Just because these motivations were mixed in with other, more worldly aspects does not render them irrelevant.

Religion is what people and societies choose to make of it (ie: it does not exist in a vacuum).   It is a social construct that deals with the place of Man (and society) within the greater universe.   Islam for a good man who gives to his community out of piety is no different then Islam which acts to arms the mind of a man to commit violence on behalf of his ideals - they are both a form of spiritual motivation that acts as a reinforcement for behaviour and delving into the common root of both is key for understanding our friends and our enemies.


----------



## winchable

> Religion is what people and societies choose to make of it



Exactly, as I've said, you find in religion what you want.

And yes Caesar you're also right regarding what you said concerning Islam, in it's purest form it is quite beautiful yet quite simple in its logic, but I'm trying not to preach as much as possible here. 

Religion isn't irrelevant at all in the current situation. However the best way to look at it is that they're terrorists in spite of Islam, not because of it.  I'd say the jury is still very much out concerning the merits of racial profiling.


----------



## rw4th

This article will probably stir up some interesting discussion. I don't necessarily agree with everything in it, but I do agree that there now seems to be an "every religion but christianity" double standard prelevant in our society.

http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_6378.shtml



> With all the laws in place in this nation concerning Hate Crimes, it amazes me that we allow Islam to not only be practiced in this nation, but we allow it in our school systems.
> 
> We have recently seen 4 Christian protestors arrested for carrying scriptural signs against homosexuals. We see anything that resembles inflammatory speech shut down and legally dealt with whether it comes from Nazis, KKK members, Aryans, White Supremacists, etc.
> 
> A hate crime can be committed either by speech or action in this nation. Yet we allow the influx of a religion that espouses hatred and slaughter wholesale worldwide and the authority they claim to behave as such comes straight from their Quran.
> 
> 90%-95% OF ALL THE CONFLICTS ON THIS PLANET TODAY INVOLVE MUSLIMS FIGHTING NON-MUSLIMS OR EACH OTHER!
> 
> Now I have heard all the arguments by those who consider themselves â Å“peacefulâ ? Muslims. I have also read the Quran and seen the abominations written therein and the criminal acts espoused and commanded throughout the writings.
> 
> We see the atrocities committed against Christians in several African nations, Egyptian Copts, Jordanian Christians, Iraqi Christians, Eastern Europe, the Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, the Philippines, and Indonesia.
> 
> We see the enslavement of mostly Africans, and the genocides in Sudan. We can walk through the Middle East and see how many slaves are performing domestic duties for their Arab masters. Any yet, all I hear in America is how peaceful this religion is.
> 
> They might be more apt to being peaceful in America due to our freedom and laws that would not tolerate such criminal behavior. But given enough time and the pouring in of Islamic immigrants, I believe this will change. Take a look at the town, Hamtramck, in Michigan that allows them to publicly announce prayer over loud speakers. Yet Christians cannot even walk with protest signs without fear of being arrested. Why are we so tolerant of a religion that is basically not a indigenous religion? Any why are we so tolerant of a religion that espouses such violent behavior and acts of cruelty?
> 
> I recently saw a report with Muhammad Hisham Kabbani of the Islamic Supreme Council of America. In Kabbani's reliable estimation, such "extremists" have "taken over 80 percent of the mosques" in the United States. And not just the mosques: schools, youth groups, community centers, political organizations, professional associations, and commercial enterprises also tend to share a militant outlook, hostile to the present non-militant Islamic society in this nation.
> 
> We also see the CAIR organization coming out with some questionable comments. Take a look at some of these:
> 
> At the Islamic Association of Palestine's third annual convention in Chicago in November 1999, CAIR President Omar Ahmad gave a speech at a youth session praising suicide bombers who "kill themselves for Islam." "Fighting for freedom, fighting for Islam â â€ that is not suicide. They kill themselves for Islamâ Å“, he said.
> 
> â Å“Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.â ?
> 
> This was the statement of Omar M. Ahmad, the Chairman of the Board of the Council on American-Islamic Relations or CAIR, at an Islamic conference held in Freemont, California, in July of 1998.
> 
> We see that at least 80% of all mosques in America are led by militant clerics who preach violence against America and her allies. Not only is this a hate crime in and of itself, it is inflammatory and treasonous. So why are we not treating this as a treasonous entity? Even something such as the Nation of Islam, how can one actually claim to be a separate nation within a sovereign nation without being treated as treasonous?
> 
> We see that in many areas of the globe, any time a Islamic entity becomes part of a society, they begin to contemplate how to force it into Islam. While in Australia I saw several cases of rape and other crimes committed against Australian women due to the fact that the Muslim males who assaulted them deemed them as whores and sluts because of the way they dressed. In one highly publicized case of rape, the mother of one of the rapists was astounded her son was even on trial, because after all, the Australian girl dressed like a slut and â Å“asked for itâ ?! They refuse to realize when they leave their own despotic nations and move into a non-Islamic society, that THEY are the foreigners and must adapt to that nations culture, not infuse and eventually dominate it.
> 
> Yet in the Philippines it is being done. Muslims moved into an area and refused to take orders from a Catholic government. Now they turn to murder, terror, rape, and general mayhem to be bale to get their own little piece of sovereignty. So how long fellow citizens, will it be before they attempt to do this in America?
> 
> When we hear leaders of CAIR and other Muslim organizations speaking of violence and cavorting with terror organizations, (though CAIR will dispute this, it has been shown they have and do), when will we see the agenda of global domination come to this nation full swing?
> 
> How much would we save in tax money if we simply outlawed this violent cult and called it for what it is? I don't care that there may be a handful of Muslims who do not subscribe to the violent nature of Mohammed and his writings. The fact remains that it commands and espouses violence and domination. So why do we allow it exist? And why do we allow it to be taught in our schools? If walking with a protest sign is a crime simply because the signs have scripture against homosexuality, why do we allow a cult that is commanded to dominate, kill, and enslave Christians, Jews, and anyone else they deem below their religious fantasy?
> 
> Are we prepared to fight them within our borders when they decide to assault our society? Are we prepared to watch our children grow up and fight our own soldiers in a perceived Islamic notion of martyrdom as did John Walker Lindh?
> 
> I say we should never allow it to become this strong. Not to even allow someone who calls for slavery, for murder, for complete and total domination. After all, they deem it necessary in Muslim nations to keep only Islam as religion and killing anyone who disagrees or practices differently. Why cannot we do this? I will never believe the framers of our Constitution ever meant freedom of religion to include any cult or philosophy that espoused such evil.
> 
> I could just as easily form my own religion that called upon the annihilation of Muslims, or Jews, or politicians, and could even use the exact Quranic versus to justify it. I also bet it would be shot down and outlawed as fast as it became public. Because it would be a hateful and violent cult, and therefore considered a dangerous entity.
> 
> I say we begin our own jihad against this abhorrent cult and get it out of society before it becomes the Trojan Horse it aspires to become.
> 
> They are within the gates of our society, and we should label them as Hate Group as well as eliminate their teachings from our schools. Unless they like our society and desire to abandon their Quran and public worship in replace of a religion that is not violent, these people should be held to the same standards as any other criminal who spews hatred and violence.
> 
> We will never be equal in the eyes of Islam. We will always be inferior and according to Quran, a prime candidate for domination by Islam. We will always be Infidels, we will always be their enemy.
> 
> So would any of us, knowing someone wanted us and our families dead, invite them to live in our spare bedroom? Of course not. But we as a society have done exactly that. We allow those who desire our death and enslavement to live next door. To participate in politics and in our educational system.
> 
> We have allowed the Spartans to come bearing gifts. Will we also close the gates behind us and watch them burn the city as we sleep?
> 
> Copyright by Pete Fisher


----------



## winchable

Abhorrent Cult?

The following is directed at the author of the article, which I know they will not read but still want out:
Replace the world Muslim with Black in that article and see how brilliant you feel for writing it. 
You're making money off the cancers festering in society, and in the process convincing the thousands who read your articles that Muslims are trying to kill everyone, all Muslims?, and your MAKING LIFE VERY DIFFICULT FOR THE REST OF US.
I'm familiar with your writings Mr. Fisher and 99% of it is simply an attack (not discourse or debate) on Islam,  he's no better then Moore, Limbaugh, Tucker or any other pundit peddling an angle and as such he'll get the attention they get but with the same results, dumber readers.
Fuck off.

While I recognise that I've become the token Muslim on the board, I will no longer be answering for all Muslims everywhere I can't answer for the actions of Sheikh's with agendas and bombs, militant clerics and I wouldn't ask a black person to answer for the Black Panthers, ganster rap and I don't ask any White Christian's to answer for the Crusades, Timothy McVeigh, abortion clinic bombings etc.
Getting sick of trying to convince people that I'm not out for their destruction so if you'd like to believe I'm a sound pounding jihadi with my qur'an and AK, goooo for it.

rw4th,
I don't disagree with your feelings of a double-standard in society but to try and fix it doing the exact same thing we claim "they" are doing is only going to incite other problems. Sort of like Affirmative action, they identified the problem but attempted to fix it by creating another double standard.
While I agree, having come from Christian roots as well, that Christianity has been marginalized unfairly, the place the Mr. Fisher wants to take society is back to the 50's where everyone was good, white and Christian Americans and black people weren't allowed to live in the suburbs so this facade continued to exist in the minds of Americans everywhere.
Flash forward to race riots etc. and "Christian America" didn't work, would "Muslim America" work? No.
But that's where you find Peter Fisher's articles, amongst the many articles calling for a return to that in one way or another.
It's one thing to striive for an ideal in your country but to ignore the obvious differences in society is going land you with a melting pot about to boil over.


----------



## CivU

â Å“Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.â ?

I don't understand how this comment can be taken as unbelievable or unacceptable when the present American administration is pushing an agenda from the religious right that advocates strictly Christian values.  An article in today's issue of the Toronto Star noted the present policy of the Bush government in attempting to remove evolution from science text books and nation wide abstinence policies as a replacement for other birth control methods.  Is this not attempting to place Christian values and the bible as "the highest authority in America" ?


----------



## rw4th

I don't agree with most of the tone or the content of the article, BUT the point I wanted to bring up with it is that people are using Islam, and the â Å“freedom of religionâ ? blanket as a cover to get away with what would otherwise be considered criminal and borderline and treasonous acts within our own borders and we seem completely powerless, and even unwilling, to stop them. 

I'm a blond haired white guy and if I start an organization dedicated to the supremacy of Christianity and white men with slogans that read â Å“All Muslims must Die!â ? and â Å“All Blacks must be enslavedâ ? and other such bullshit, I will be shouted down and probably arrested. 

But, if someone acting under the cover of Islam does the same sort of things, calling for the supremacy of Islam and Arabs while espousing such things as â Å“All Americans must die!â ? then that is somehow protected by freedom of religion and they are untouchable. 

Something is broken there. In my opinion, both the situations I have described are unacceptable in our society and should not be tolerated.


----------



## Dogboy

the big problem with discusing religion is that religion is not Logical at all so you cant have a logical debate on it.



now looking at the conflicts of the world i see most as a class struggle more than a religious one 
it just hapens that one religion is a higher class over another.
and if you believe that your better then someone else and you Holy book says you are its EZer to kill people.
or if your holey book says your suppose to be the better people on earth and your notyou feel mad and want to fight to get to your "rightfull place in the world"

also more often than not whenever you have people using Religion as a weapon to get people to fight, their is often someone who is "in charge" and gaining power. and its hard to question the comands of a man who talks to GOD.
thats my $0.02


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Che, I'm actually curious of your opinion on this topic.   I've read two english translations of the Quran and was blown away at what I saw as an inherent racism which I was not expecting.   Can you comment on your perception of the anti-Jew edicts and whether or not you believe that perhaps those specific edicts should be removed from text?

Many thanks,



Matthew.


----------



## winchable

The biggest problem I've noticed isn't the actualy texts, it's the people who are reading them and how they're told to read them.
You read through alot of religious material written around this time and there is anti-semitism, it's been the popular thing to do for thousands of years now too.
The story of Judas is perhaps the most interesting anti-semitic Christian story and it endures to today.
The people read through and they are told how to think about it rather then reading it for their own and taking the time to make sure they really understand it.
For instance, lad studies the Qur'an for a few years, thinks he knows it, reads it quite literally and goes out and does a great deal of moronic shyte.
People tend to focus on specifics rather then the big message and picture, which is very similar to the other 2 monothesims.

People will find what they are looking for in a religion's texts, be it love or hate, yet they all read the same texts.
It's what they are told to do with it and when they are told what it means rather then finding out for themselves and thinking about it.

I see Islam everywhere, I do not see many Muslims and that's the biggest problem.


----------



## LF(CMO)

The story of Judas is perhaps the most interesting anti-semitic Christian story and it endures to today

 How the above becomes 'anti-semitic' is difficult to understand as Judism and Christianity are inseparably linked.  Hence, the only country that really supports the valiant little nation of Israel is the US.


----------



## 48Highlander

LF(CMO) said:
			
		

> The story of Judas is perhaps the most interesting anti-semitic Christian story and it endures to today
> 
> How the above becomes 'anti-semitic' is difficult to understand as Judism and Christianity are inseparably linked.   Hence, the only country that really supports the valiant little nation of Israel is the US.



The bible may not be anti-semitic, but it certainly does advocate murder for such "crimes" as homosexuality and bigamy.  No text of a major religion is perfect.  They all include passages which would be considered repulsive in modern society.  However, the basic tennants behind each of those religions are usualy quite benign.  They basically break down to something like "love your god and your fellow man" and "do unto others as you would have done onto you".  The Quaran is no different than the Bible in that respect.  The problem has always been the misrepresentation of theological beleifs by those who wish to amass wealth and power.  Thos types of people eist within every major faith, from Christianity, to Judaism, to Islam.


----------



## LF(CMO)

*"do unto others as you would have done onto you".*   Probably the basic tenet of Christianity.   Easy to say and VERY difficult to live as every truly honest person will attest.


----------



## winchable

Judas, from the Greek work for Jew (Or latin, either way, there's no mistake it sounds the way it does)
Look at any painting of the disciples and Judas is invariably going to have, Curly red hair, a hunched back and a crook nose.
That and he betrayed Jesus, and until recently (and still by a good chunk of Christians) the betrayal of Jesus has been blamed on non-other then the Jews.
Once again, this isn't because of the texts really it's because of the people who interpret them, which is what I was driving at.


----------



## canadianblue

"That and he betrayed Jesus, and until recently (and still by a good chunk of Christians) the betrayal of Jesus has been blamed on non-other then the Jews."

I'm not the biggest christian out there, but the thing that I have to bring up is that it is widely understood now that humankind killed Jesus. Jesus was a jew, and so were many of the gentiles. It was a strong belief of Jesus to unite Jews and Gentiles.


----------



## Goober

48Highlander said:
			
		

> The bible may not be anti-semitic, but it certainly does advocate murder for such "crimes" as homosexuality and bigamy.  ...



Are you referring to the Old Testament? As the Old Testament is overridden (for lack of a better word) by the New Testament as to how a Christian should act.

In regards to the Judas, I don't think his story is at all anti-semitic, his physical portrail is of one who is sly, and deceiving and corrupt. Jesus himself was a Jew as were most of his followers.


----------



## Dogboy

thats a big problem with most middle east beginning religions they all have a common back ground 
thats is they all worship the same god fight over the same holey lands and have smiler history's and blood lines.
Jesus was a Jew.
what was Mohamed (is that right?) be for he made Islam 
their is also sub sects. of each 
Orthodox, and normal 
Catholics don't even use the same Bible as most Cristian's 
Mormons and 7th day people have entirely different bibles. 
and then theirs Shiite and Sunni Muslims as well.
all thees groups have fought together and agents each other throughout history


----------



## Edward Campbell

I personally find this whole discussion both mildly offensive and a bit puzzling.

I am not Muslim, nor do I have many Muslim friends (a few colleagues, etc, but very few real friends), nor do I have any particular brief for Islam or Christianity, Judaism or Taoism for that matter.

I don't know who Peter Fisher is, nor do I care, but I think his tone is unnecessarily provocative; it is the job of a _columnist_ to *provoke* but it need not be done so that it gratuitously insults others as, I believe he does in saying e.g.


> How much would we save in tax money if we simply outlawed this violent cult and called it for what it is? I don't care that there may be a handful of Muslims who do not subscribe to the violent nature of Mohammed and his writings. The fact remains that it commands and espouses violence and domination. So why do we allow it exist? And why do we allow it to be taught in our schools?



So, it is, to me a bit offensive ... but maybe I'm just too delicate.

What I find puzzling is why we, in an army forum, are debating it at all.

I think we can agree that there are, as I have said elsewhere, _Arab extremist, fundamentalist Islamic *movements*_ which are our self-declared enemies â â€œ that is to say they have declared war on us.   We must and will defeat them over the course of a long war ... but we are not at was with Islam or even with all the Arabs.   Did anyone here really think that all Germans were slobbering brutes or all Russians drunken savages?   It is one thing for the popular media and the allied _propaganda machine_ to demonize the enemy ... it is quite another thing, a dangerous and unprofessional thing, in my view, for soldiers to do the same.

To make matters worse the discussion, inevitably, degrades into religious slagging which does no good at all.


----------



## winchable

Good point ROJ and to add to it this debate has been done to death on this forum before in another thread.



> Jesus was a jew, and so were many of the gentiles. It was a strong belief of Jesus to unite Jews and Gentiles.



About the Judas thing, this is a sticky point for me.
You guys are proving my point that people can go either way with scriptures. You've both taken the high road. But tell that to Mel Gibson, or the person who wrote the original "passion" play, for thousands of years the Jews have been to blame for Christ's death because people have chosen to interpert the scriptures in a negative way.
The story of Judas is a good example because as a result of his betrayal he is portrayed by many artists depicting the desciples as being a "stereotypical Jew"
A good example might be an episode of SouthPark, where Cartman goes to see "The Passion"....

Trying not to get bogged down in this one again but it seems inevitable that it should be discussed given current world events.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

I have not even read the article yet but I will say this now,..........keep the discussion here on the article, if this even remotely becomes a he said/she said-type thread I will lock and delete.
Thanks in advance,
Bruce


----------



## Goober

Che said:
			
		

> ... for thousands of years the Jews have been to blame for Christ's death because people have chosen to interpert the scriptures in a negative way.
> The story of Judas is a good example because as a result of his betrayal he is portrayed by many artists depicting the desciples as being a "stereotypical Jew"
> ..



I see what you are saying, but thats just the personal agenda of the painter, or script writer to portray him that way, the original story itself cannot be blamed or called anti-semitic for how certain people choose interpret it.

In regards to the article, it was clearly written by someone who hates Islam, as emotion is shown throughout it. I find it an offensive article.


----------



## RCA

Intolerance (whether about politics, religion etc) breeds extremism which brings out the underside of mankind. Those that try and induce intolerance just propergate it and are no better.


----------



## Dogboy

its EZ to keep your people in line if you give them someone to hate more then ther Rulers


----------



## Sparx123

George Wallace said:
			
		

> *This is a very controversial question*.     With the recent actions of extreme Islamic Fundamentalists around the world, in Iraq, Spain, Russia and many other places and the fear of moderate Muslims to act against or voice opposition to the radicals, are the grounds for a 'Reverse Jihad' in the makings?
> 
> I don't want to call it a "Holy War" like the Crusades, where Christianity and Islam clashed in the distant past, but perhaps and "UnHoly War" in which all nations of the world....all religions; band together to totally end the madness and eradicate Islam from the face of the earth.   These fanatics have no compassion, even for their own religion, and keep them in fear, and attack any who are not of their faith; be it Christian, Jew, Hindu, Buddist, etc.   It is not only the West who are becoming more aggravated by these terror tactics, but also the East (Nepal, India, Pakistan) who are also being targeted.   What will happen when the 'Sleeping Dragon' China is awakened?
> 
> Unless the moderates start turning in the 'Fanatics', are we headed for a major disruption of our societies?   Will we see Islam banned from nations other than those in the Middle East?   What does the future hold in store for us?



Hello George.
I just wanted to clear up some misconceptions many have on Islam. I my self am against radical Islam and those who misinterpret Islam with their crazy, aggressive, astray teachings. Islam preaches peace, and yes, I am sure you have heard it and questioned such "peace". You see, there are many extremists, like many religions, in which they brain wash young people with false teachings and misinterpretations in committing terror. I am Muslim my self and am against Taliban, al-Qaeda- and other cunts who touch western countries, specifically Canada. As A Canadian I will eliminate anyone who has harm on my country (Canada). In the Quran, We are told to love our neighbors, love the non Muslims, and especially love the Christians and the Jews as they are people of the book. We are told to NOT destroy holy places of worship such as Churches, etc, as the Christians and the Jews and Muslims believe in the same God. Jesus Christ is highly valued in Islam, I love Jesus! The "Father" in Christianity is the God we worship. Allah means God, it is just an Arabic word for God. The prophet once said, “Beware! Whoever is cruel and hard on a non-Muslim minority, or curtails their rights, or burdens them with more than they can bear, or takes anything from them against their free will; I (Prophet Muhammad) will complain against the person on the Day of Judgment.” 
"He who believes in God and the Last Day should honor his guest, should not harm his neighbour, should speak good or keep quiet.".
"Beware on the Day of Judgement; I shall myself be complainant against him who wrongs a Non-Muslim citizen of a Muslim state or lays on him a responsibility greater than he can bear or deprives him of anything that belongs to him."
As you see, Islam preaches Peace, Love.

THOSE STUPID, and I emphasize STUPID people who call them selfs Muslims then commit terror are *NOT *Muslims. They may think they are fighting for God and calling it a Jihad, but they are brain washed cunts who need to die. I am devastated and it angers me when I see those terrorists committing terror and saying its for God. They are surely the wrong doers.

I do hope I cleared up hatred or misconceptions for anyone. As a fellow Canadian, God bless everyone and may God protect Canada from radical Islam and may God kill those who DARE touch Canada or a Canadian Soldier, or anyone of our brothers/sisters in arms.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Sparx123 said:
			
		

> Hello George.
> I just wanted to clear up some misconceptions many have on Islam. I my self am against radical Islam and those who misinterpret Islam with their crazy, aggressive, astray teachings. Islam preaches peace, and yes, I am sure you have heard it and questioned such "peace". You see, there are many extremists, like many religions, in which they brain wash young people with false teachings and misinterpretations in committing terror. I am Muslim my self and am against Taliban, al-Qaeda- and other cunts who touch western countries, specifically Canada. As A Canadian I will eliminate anyone who has harm on my country (Canada). In the Quran, We are told to love our neighbors, love the non Muslims, and especially love the Christians and the Jews as they are people of the book. We are told to NOT destroy holy places of worship such as Churches, etc, as the Christians and the Jews and Muslims believe in the same God. Jesus Christ is highly valued in Islam, I love Jesus! The "Father" in Christianity is the God we worship. Allah means God, it is just an Arabic word for God. The prophet once said, “Beware! Whoever is cruel and hard on a non-Muslim minority, or curtails their rights, or burdens them with more than they can bear, or takes anything from them against their free will; I (Prophet Muhammad) will complain against the person on the Day of Judgment.”
> "He who believes in God and the Last Day should honor his guest, should not harm his neighbour, should speak good or keep quiet.".
> "Beware on the Day of Judgement; I shall myself be complainant against him who wrongs a Non-Muslim citizen of a Muslim state or lays on him a responsibility greater than he can bear or deprives him of anything that belongs to him."
> As you see, Islam preaches Peace, Love.
> 
> THOSE STUPID, and I emphasize STUPID people who call them selfs Muslims then commit terror are *NOT *Muslims. They may think they are fighting for God and calling it a Jihad, but they are brain washed cunts who need to die. I am devastated and it angers me when I see those terrorists committing terror and saying its for God. They are surely the wrong doers.
> 
> I do hope I cleared up hatred or misconceptions for anyone. As a fellow Canadian, God bless everyone and may God protect Canada from radical Islam and may God kill those who DARE touch Canada or a Canadian Soldier, or anyone of our brothers/sisters in arms.



Holy friggin' necropost there , Batman!!


----------



## GnyHwy

Yeah, that might be the longest one I've ever seen.

I think George may even have converted by now.


----------



## George Wallace

GnyHwy said:
			
		

> Yeah, that might be the longest one I've ever seen.
> 
> I think George may even have converted by now.



Nope.

Although Sparx123 professes to be what he claims, many more others do not.  Later passages in the Quran are far from preaching peace and love, in fact calling for quite the opposite.  This is what we are witnessing today, and our Western governments and societies are turning a blind eye to these developments.  Only now are a very small number of people starting to call attention to the warning signs.  

Personally, from all that I have seen, Islam is not the religion of peace that it professes, but the religion of "Death".  Everything seems to be all about "Death".  To "kill" a non-believer, no matter what their beliefs, even other Muslims, will make you a martyr and guarantee you a place in heaven.  To "die" in the process of "killing" a non-believer will make you a martyr and guarantee you a place in heaven.  To assist in the "killing" of non-believers will guarantee you a place in heaven.  The domination of the world by Islam is the goal laid out in the latter passages of the Quran.  

In Christianity to take the name of the Lord in vain is a no-no, but not a sentence of death.  Look at Islam and any caricature of the Prophet, not even the Lord, will bring about extreme violence.   Definitely not an indicator of "peace and love".

The Quran is supposed to be the word of Allah.  Who wrote the Quran?  It sure wasn't Allah.  It was men.  Just like the Bible, men scribed the text.   Men interpreted the words, then and today, as what they thought they meant.  God/Allah is not vocalizing anything.  Man is.  We all know how we judge people who say they hear voices.

I also question the double standards that Muslims have.  Their condemnation of homosexual acts, yet young boys are fair game to older men.  The attitudes and treatment of women in Middle Eastern and Southwest Asian Islamic states as property or cattle is far from what we would consider proper.  The history of how the Prophet lived and what he preached have conflicting moral and ethical values.  I question whether or not the Quran was actually written by a sane person with the way it swings from one set of values to the complete opposite in its procession from start to finish.  

This is a religion of intolerance, that does not permit the questioning of their Faith.  In my opinion, this religion is still back in the Dark Ages, where anyone questioning that the world was not flat was stoned to death.   It has not seen any reformation.  It is currently headed in the opposite direction; devolving into a very sinister religion of "Death".


----------



## GnyHwy

There was a very good documentary on PBS, just the other day.  "Mohammad: Legacy of a Prophet"http://www.pbs.org/muhammad/index.shtml

No doubt, Islam (and most other religions), have been distorted to their detriment, and all because of a small minority of "assholes".

Ironic too, that the orthodox ones who don't distort or evolve, are probably an even bigger impedance to progress.


----------



## FJAG

GnyHwy said:
			
		

> There was a very good documentary on PBS, just the other day.  "Mohammad: Legacy of a Prophet"http://www.pbs.org/muhammad/index.shtml
> 
> No doubt, Islam (and most other religions), have been distorted to their detriment, and all because of a small minority of "assholes".
> 
> Ironic too, that the orthodox ones who don't distort or evolve, are probably an even bigger impedance to progress.



Saw the program and quite liked it except for one part. The show never really dealt with the issue that if in fact Islam as purportedly envisioned by the prophet is loving and benign, why so many of its followers gravitate toward the radical element and very few of its adherents take steps to criticise or stop such movements and frequently gravitate towards them (Egyptians voting in the Muslim Brotherhood is but one example. On the other hand we in the West are not immune from extremist religious views being foisted on us by religiously motivated electorates and politicians; see for example same sex marriage and abortion issues).

I think the program would have been well served if its third episode had been dedicated to the post-Mohammed schism between Sunnis and Shiites, the role of religious scholars in Muslim society, Saudi Arabia as an exporter and funder of radical Islam and the overall Muslim societies' re-action (or lack thereof) to the various extreme sects that are dominating the Islamic agenda. A program titled "Legacy of a Prophet" ought properly to have done so.


----------



## Edward Campbell

FJAG: I think the problem is not with Islam, _per se_, but, rather, with the cultures of many, indeed most of the countries that have embraced Islam. Primitive, barbaric cultures do not, cannot become _enlightened_ through Islam (or through Christianity, for that matter). Our, Western, enlightenment was a _reaction_ against much of Christian doctrine and teaching, and the _enlightenments_ (I think there were two or three) that took place in China 2,500 years ago were reactions against _Shenism_ (神教).

That fact that some Muslims pick and choose bits of their theology, as do some Christians and Jews, for example, to promote _fundamentalism_, and the fact that fundamentalism breeds extremism and violence, ought not to surprise us. Cultures that are weak, even _retarded_, that are, for example, misogynistic and condone slavery and female genital mutilation are nothing new - our great-great-grandparents used to live in one. Our great-grandparents and grandparents changed ours, although there are still pockets that need some final bits of _enlightenment_. It is my _hope_ that generations of Muslims ~ possibly beginning in Islamic Asia ~ will bring religious reformation and cultural enlightenment to another billion of the world's peoples. Until then drones are nice ...








But let us not forget what the Christian _reformation_ looked like ...






... it was not a pretty process and will not be in the 21st century, but it was necessary.


----------



## Dkhorsand

Changes to the Islamic zeitgeist have to come from the top; through a constitution that guarantees freedom of and freedom from religion, and freedom of expression. Unfortunately, I don't see any Muslims coming together to push the idea of secularism.

Two years ago, I was at York University listening to a guest lecturer who tried to demystify the religion for us a bit. He taught us some history, taught us the real meaning of certain Arabic phrases, but then unfortunately went on to give us his two cents on the subject of Egypt. He said that it only made sense for a Muslim peoples to desire a Muslim government (the Muslim Brotherhood) and went on to praise Egypt's newly formed democracy.

A smart man sitting near the front then put up his hand and asked "doesn't this monopolize all of the citizens of Egypt who are not Muslim?" The lecturer replied that this was a very good question but he did not have an answer.

We all know what happened/is happening to the regime that won the election, but the fact that they came in to power and were endorsed by white university professors brings up an important point: Muslims of any kind are not fighting for secularism in the Middle East. They are not interested in personal freedoms and equality. 

We, who benefit from all the luxuries of personal freedoms should be advocating for an Egyptian Paine or Jefferson to write up a proper, ethical constitution. Unfortunately, even people in the west are apologetic to these racist, sexist, homophobic regimes, and they will call you a racist if you dare utter a word against them!


----------



## Nemo888

FJAG said:
			
		

> Saw the program and quite liked it except for one part. The show never really dealt with the issue that if in fact Islam as purportedly envisioned by the prophet is loving and benign, why so many of its followers gravitate toward the radical element and very few of its adherents take steps to criticise or stop such movements and frequently gravitate towards them (Egyptians voting in the Muslim Brotherhood is but one example. On the other hand we in the West are not immune from extremist religious views being foisted on us by religiously motivated electorates and politicians; see for example same sex marriage and abortion issues).
> 
> I think the program would have been well served if its third episode had been dedicated to the post-Mohammed schism between Sunnis and Shiites, the role of religious scholars in Muslim society, Saudi Arabia as an exporter and funder of radical Islam and the overall Muslim societies' re-action (or lack thereof) to the various extreme sects that are dominating the Islamic agenda. A program titled "Legacy of a Prophet" ought properly to have done so.



I am a lefty liberal, but I made the mistake of reading the Koran. Murder, genocide, wife beating, owning slaves, etc, etc. After his expulsion from Medina he became a right bastard by today's standards. Compared to who he was fighting at the time I would have signed up with him though. Great pay and awesome veterans benefits as well as the best family survivor benefits. He shared the spoils generously. He was a bit of a protosocialist in his system of law and taxation. Pretending it is a religion of peace is either incredibly ill informed or outright subterfuge.


----------



## ballz

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Our, Western, enlightenment was a _reaction_ against much of Christian doctrine and teaching, and the _enlightenments_ (I think there were two or three) that took place in China 2,500 years ago were reactions against _Shenism_ (神教).



Could you expand, maybe with some examples, of what these reactions were, and what they were reacting against? Especially the Western examples?


----------



## FJAG

Sorry guys. I didn't really enter this thread to give my :2c: about the merits or lack thereof of Islam or early Christianity. 

I have read into the religion a bit in order to give some frame of reference for some of the characters in my novels but I consider myself far from a being able to discuss the topic on its merits intelligently.

My purpose was solely to add a comment to GnyHwy's post about the program which I watched and which, while I thought it was generally well done, fell far short on dealing with the prophet's "legacy".

Do carry on. I'll be lurking. op:


----------



## GnyHwy

This wraps it up into a nice neat little package.  Makes sense to me!


----------



## George Wallace

Good reasons to stay the heck out of there.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

GnyHwy said:
			
		

> This wraps it up into a nice neat little package.  Makes sense to me!



That has got to be the best explanation I've heard so far.

It also supports the idea that that best thing to do is to stay out of the area, mind our own business, sit back and watch them kill themselves off.

Check back in 20 years and see if they've gotten themselves sorted out yet.


----------



## GnyHwy

TheRightsOfMan said:
			
		

> Changes to the Islamic zeitgeist have to come from the top; through a constitution that guarantees freedom of and freedom from religion, and freedom of expression.



This is true, but they don't necessarily have to come from there, and that is not the only way.  When it comes from the bottom it is a revolution, which we are witnessing.

Unfortunately, and this can be said for pretty much any culture/society - to get anything to come from the top (without benefits) is very unlikely to happen no matter what the idea, in whatever society/nation.  Getting persons/groups to voluntarily relinquish power/control is a nonstarter in negotiations; and religion and politics don't even have to be part of the conversation.

FJAG,

You are correct that the documentary was... I will call it "optimistic", and only showing the positives.  But, can you call all the bad stuff "his" legacy, if all it is a bunch of jerks twisting it to suit their agenda?

It could be said that Jesus' legacy was give up riches to help the poor, but that one isn't exactly followed to the letter either, and whether there is violence or not, it could still be interpreted as mistreatment according to his "word".  

Oh boy! Why did I get into this?  :facepalm: LOL.


----------



## Brad Sallows

>Changes to the Islamic zeitgeist have to come from the top; through a constitution that guarantees freedom of and freedom from religion, and freedom of expression.

That is like asserting that night will have to become like day by the rising of the sun, but somehow we will still think of it as night.  What you propose is impossible by definition: the religion _is_ the constitution.  The only way to have enlightened Islam - all the classical liberal baggage of western civilization - is to have something that is not Islam.


----------



## George Wallace

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Changes to the Islamic zeitgeist have to come from the top; through a constitution that guarantees freedom of and freedom from religion, and freedom of expression.
> 
> That is like asserting that night will have to become like day by the rising of the sun, but somehow we will still think of it as night.  What you propose is impossible by definition: the religion _is_ the constitution.  The only way to have enlightened Islam - all the classical liberal baggage of western civilization - is to have something that is not Islam.



So?  Following that logic, what we have after the Spanish Inquisition, the Protestant Reformation, and so on; is not Christianity?

Would that not validate jihadists philosophies?  We are no longer followers of "the Book"?


----------



## FJAG

GnyHwy said:
			
		

> FJAG,
> 
> You are correct that the documentary was... I will call it "optimistic", and only showing the positives.  But, can you call all the bad stuff "his" legacy, if all it is a bunch of jerks twisting it to suit their agenda?
> 
> It could be said that Jesus' legacy was give up riches to help the poor, but that one isn't exactly followed to the letter either, and whether there is violence or not, it could still be interpreted as mistreatment according to his "word".
> 
> Oh boy! Why did I get into this?  :facepalm: LOL.



I saw how you did that. Very tricky. First I say I'll just be lurking and then you ask me a direct question knowing I just can't keep my trap shut.

Okay, here goes. One of the definitions of legacy is "something handed down by a predecessor". Islam has essentially two components which are integrated in a third. The first component, the Qur'an is considered the literal word of Allah as revealed to the prophet through the angel Gabriel. The second is the Sunnah which is the way of the prophet; anecdotal evidence about the prophet's actions and teachings by those who knew him. The two components were compiled from numerous sources starting shortly after the prophets death. The two elements together create the third component, Shari'ah.

So essentially Shari'ah is a compilation of the revelations to the prophet and of his actions and his teachings. That's a legacy by and of itself.

Can the subsequent interpretations also be considered part of his legacy? I think they can.

In effect one of the essential reasons that there are a numerous interpretations (aside from the natural instinct of both lawyers and priests/mullahs to debate any issue ad nauseam) is the fact that the revelations within the Qur'an came during two distinct phases: The earlier Meccan phase where the suras were generally benign; and the later Medinan phase where the suras were aggressive. This is logical in that the Meccan phase involved a movement that was weak (not unlike the early Christian movement) while the Medinan phase involved a strong movement dealing with war, conquest and the structuring of a much larger society which fused religion, government and personal morality.

Back to interpretation. At Sura 2:106 the prophet explained why some of the more recent revelations seemed to contradict earlier ones. The sura effectively stated that Allah, being all powerful, can change his mind and, when he so decides, can replace an older revelation with a new one. While this is part of sura number 2, it was clearly a Medinan one and is considered chronologically the 87th of 114.

Long story short, the prophet put into play revelations which vary in time from benign to aggressive and rules which allow (if not mandate) a system of interpretation whereby the newer less tolerant revelations override older tolerant ones. I think that constitutes a legacy.

eace:

I am now officially returning to lurking.  op:


----------



## Dkhorsand

Sparx123 said:
			
		

> THOSE STUPID, and I emphasize STUPID people who call them selfs Muslims then commit terror are *NOT *Muslims. They may think they are fighting for God and calling it a Jihad, but they are brain washed cunts who need to die. I am devastated and it angers me when I see those terrorists committing terror and saying its for God. They are surely the wrong doers.
> 
> I do hope I cleared up hatred or misconceptions for anyone. As a fellow Canadian, God bless everyone and may God protect Canada from radical Islam and may God kill those who DARE touch Canada or a Canadian Soldier, or anyone of our brothers/sisters in arms.


That's great. We all agree that terrorists are bad. There are many more issues than this facing Islam, though. It is disappointing that you typed so many words and failed to mention important topics like women's rights and freedom of expression. I would love to hear your opinion on how most of the Muslim world reacted to the Denmark cartoons a few years ago, among other things.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Here's your religion of peace and tolerance.

http://www.barenakedislam.com/2013/08/28/remember-the-story-of-the-horrific-gang-rape-by-muslim-asylum-seekers-of-a-young-29-year-old-swedish-mother-of-two-it-gets-worse/


----------



## pbi

> Changes to the Islamic zeitgeist have to come from the top; through a constitution that guarantees freedom of and freedom from religion, and freedom of expression.



A problem with this proposal is that, AFAIK, unlike the Roman Catholic Church, or the Anglican Church, or any other church with a structured and recognized hierarchy, Islam has no "top" from which to issues such changes. Apart from vague millenialist rantings about reestablishing a "caliphate", I don't see anything on the horizon either. If anything, Islam remains as fragmented as Christianity.

On top of that, as had already been pointed out on these pages, Islam (like any religion) is understood and practiced through local cultural filters. Don't try looking for enlightened social or political viewpoints from cultures where there isn't (and never has been...) any "fertile soil" for those things. Islam isn't likely to stray too far from what its host cultures understand and are prepared to accept.


----------



## Jed

pbi said:
			
		

> A problem with this proposal is that, AFAIK, unlike the Roman Catholic Church, or the Anglican Church, or any other church with a structured and recognized hierarchy, Islam has no "top" from which to issues such changes. Apart from vague millenialist rantings about reestablishing a "caliphate", I don't see anything on the horizon either. If anything, Islam remains as fragmented as Christianity.
> 
> On top of that, as had already been pointed out on these pages, Islam (like any religion) is understood and practiced through local cultural filters. Don't try looking for enlightened social or political viewpoints from cultures where there isn't (and never has been...) any "fertile soil" for those things. Islam isn't likely to stray too far from what its host cultures understand and are prepared to accept.



I can certainly agree with that. And because of this we in the west can not treat Islam just like any other one of many religions. At least if we wish to keep the core Christian values of our established countries.


----------



## pbi

Jed said:
			
		

> I can certainly agree with that. And because of this we in the west can not treat Islam just like any other one of many religions. At least if we wish to keep the core Christian values of our established countries.



I'm not sure I get the connection. I wasn't suggesting that we single out Islam or its adherents for some sort of persecution or legal restriction. Islam is already practiced in both Canada and the US, but in general its practice doesn't stray far from what our cultures understand, and what they are prepared to accept. Despite all the panicky rhetoric, as far as I can see, most Muslims in Canada just want to get on with life.

If some Muslims in Canada (or the US) decide to act in a way that is clearly unacceptable (ie: planning to bring "jihad" to a VIA rail line near you, or advocating chopping off Mr Harper's head, or urging the institution of Sharia law), then they either get arrested (first two examples)or otherwise told "we don't want that here: behave yourselves." (third example)

We could probably have a good debate about just what the "Christian values" of mainstream Canadian society actually are, and what sort of things really do threaten them, but I don't seriously see Islam in Canada as being one of those threats, any more than Communism in Canada ever seriously posed a threat (as opposed to the true threats of Russian imperialism and militarism)


----------



## Jed

pbi said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I get the connection. I wasn't suggesting that we single out Islam or its adherents for some sort of persecution or legal restriction. Islam is already practiced in both Canada and the US, but in general its practice doesn't stray far from what our cultures understand, and what they are prepared to accept. Despite all the panicky rhetoric, as far as I can see, most Muslims in Canada just want to get on with life.
> If some Muslims in Canada (or the US) decide to act in a way that is clearly unacceptable (ie: planning to bring "jihad" to a VIA rail line near you, or advocating chopping off Mr Harper's head, or urging the institution of Sharia law), then they either get arrested (first two examples)or otherwise told "we don't want that here: behave yourselves." (third example)
> 
> We could probably have a good debate about just what the "Christian values" of mainstream Canadian society actually are, and what sort of things really do threaten them, but I don't seriously see Islam in Canada as being one of those threats, any more than Communism in Canada ever seriously posed a threat (as opposed to the true threats of Russian imperialism and militarism)



Western laws and our culture are based on Christian values and ethics. Granted our society is currently a whole lot more secular, but we still are  basically Christian ethics and culture based.

Sharia law will not cut it here. A quiet push for a world Caliphate will not cut it here.

I agree with you there is no need to get hot and bothered about Islam, but we do not want to ignore it or appease the extremist propagation ala Britain and France, either.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Christianity supplies part of our culture and our laws, too, but so do _classical_  and pagan Greco-Roman ideas and, in significant measure, pre-Christian Anglo-Saxon ideas.

The very idea of the rule of law is pagan Greco-Roman: Aristotle said _"It is more proper that law should govern than any one of the citizens,"_ and Cicero said _"We are all servants of the laws in order that we may be free."_ Christianity has relatively little to say on the subject ~ lots of rules, lots of divine law, little about the rule of law.


Edit: added a phrase for clairty


----------



## Jed

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Christianity supplies part of our culture and our laws, too, but so do _classical_  and pagan Greco-Roman ideas and, in significant measure, pre-Christian Anglo-Saxon ideas.The very idea of the rule of law is pagan Greco-Roman: Aristotle said _"It is more proper that law should govern than any one of the citizens,"_ and Cicero said _"We are all servants of the laws in order that we may be free."_ Christianity has relatively little to say on the subject ~ lots of rules, lots of divine law, little about the rule of law.
> 
> 
> Edit: added a phrase for clairty


Yes ERC, you are correct as usual. I still think my comments stand wrt to the Christian culture. The Greco-Roman and Anglo-Saxon roots are from quite a while back. More recently since 1700 - 1800's I believe the Christian culture is dominant and has adopted the current western rule of law ethos. Although the more recent secular influences are continually morphing the western culture of today.

I am starting to stray out of my lanes as I am not a history scholar however.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I'm just being pedantic because it seems to me that we ought not to compare religions (outside of a classroom, anyway) when we are, really, talking culture. I think pbi is correct: the _values_ and actions that we often ascribe to Islam are, very often (most often?) really well entrenched cultural values from various regions where Islam happens to dominate ~ North Africa, the Middle East, South West Asia and so on.


----------



## Infanteer

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I'm just being pedantic because it seems to me that we ought not to compare religions (outside of a classroom, anyway) when we are, really, talking culture. I think pbi is correct: the _values_ and actions that we often ascribe to Islam are, very often (most often?) really well entrenched cultural values from various regions where Islam happens to dominate ~ North Africa, the Middle East, South West Asia and so on.



I've read tracts (Ishrad Manji comes to mind) where Muslims complain of too much Arab culture tied into the central tenets of Islam.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I've read tracts (Ishrad Manji comes to mind) where Muslims complain of too much Arab culture tied into the central tenets of Islam.




Yes, me too; and, last year, I heard it directly from some Muslims in Malaysia. They complained, fairly vociferously, about the _Arabization_ of Malaysian Islam. They thought that their culture was _superior_ to Arab culture ~ more enlightened ~ and they thought that the _Qur'an_ was wholly and properly accessible in the vernacular ~ shades of William Tyndale.


----------



## Remius

The thing is, those things you find in Christian culture (historically) are the kinds of things you find in Judaism and Islam as well.  Do not kill, do not steal etc etc. 

Western Culture is influence by Judao-Christian values but many of those stem from Greco-Roman values, ethics and laws.

Religious freedom is something the Romans had (at least in the later empire), well before the 1700-1800's.  After the fall of Rome and before the Renaissance (and arguably before the industrial revolution) you would find many "cultural" values similar to what some Islamist Fundamentalist cultures have.  Stonings, burning women, the non faithful, killing pagans and overall intolerance to everything non-christian (or deviating from various christian sects).  It was actually institutionalised as well.

I would say most of our values come from the anglo concept of individual rights and freedoms which was propogated by the industrial revolution and the rise of capitalism, not so much christian values per se but a seperation from them (or at least from the catholic church).


----------



## Colin Parkinson

It is a real concern, the Arabs have funded the mosques. Forcing everyone to behave by their standards. I have always felt the prophet was attempting to modernize the Arabs of the day, his wife trading company would have allowed him to see the benefits of monotheism and a broader legal structure that existed for the Jews and Christians living in Arabia and the M.E. In fact he codified the first set of laws protecting Arabian women rights among other aspects. The reality the Arabs wish to ignore was that until Muhammad came along, they were the savages and  were latecomers to believing in one god/Allah.


----------



## pbi

Jed said:
			
		

> Western laws and our culture are based on Christian values and ethics. Granted our society is currently a whole lot more secular, but we still are  basically Christian ethics and culture based.
> 
> Sharia law will not cut it here. A quiet push for a world Caliphate will not cut it here.
> 
> I agree with you there is no need to get hot and bothered about Islam, but we do not want to ignore it or appease the extremist propagation ala Britain and France, either.



Roger. We are on net. 

We should not appease extremist Islamists, any more than we should appease or empower any other religious extremists, of any denomination. They are usually nasty, narrow-minded oppressive people who thrive on ignorance and fear-mongering. This IMHO is why all of them, regardless of who they claim to worship, all equally hate (AKA "fear") civil rights, education, free media, science and secular society. But what they fear more than anything are critical thinkers.

Let people worship toasters, for all I care. Build the biggest temple you want. Wear pointy hats with flashing lights on them. Just behave yourselves and be productive citizens, and adapt yourselves sufficiently to our culture that you don't become a public nuisance. That's all.


----------



## Allgunzblazing

This is an interesting debate. The topic is "Islam is/ is not a peaceful religion"- 

https://www.youtube.com/user/OxfordUnion

The funny thing is that even in a forum such as the Oxford Union, it is the supporters of Islam who are more animated. I'd like to see this debate happen in an Islamic state. Am I thinking about public stoning, or hands (in this case tongue) being chopped off....? Oh, that is so naive of me - of course Islam doesn't support these barbaric acts ;D.


----------



## pbi

Allgunzblazing said:
			
		

> This is an interesting debate. The topic is "Islam is/ is not a peaceful religion"-
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/user/OxfordUnion
> 
> The funny thing is that even in a forum such as the Oxford Union, it is the supporters of Islam who are more animated. I'd like to see this debate happen in an Islamic state. Am I thinking about public stoning, or hands (in this case tongue) being chopped off....? Oh, that is so naive of me - of course Islam doesn't support these barbaric acts ;D.



You raise a good point here, by referring to these kinds of punishments. Actions like these, and things like dunking, burning, racking, and other joys of the Inquisition, the Witch Trials, the anti-Popery zealots, etc were once features of the Christian religion (or, at least, the way people in certain times and places lived out the Christian religion...).

But these actions have long ago faded into history as far as Christianity is concerned. Today, nobody will be imprisoned, hung, or drawn and quartered for publishing rude cartoons about the Pope. But, once upon a time, these were possible outcomes. Not now. Christianity has generally evolved.

So, here's my question: how much of the violent extremist behaviour we see in Islamic societies is due to the fact that Islam has lots of "growing up" to do? After all, it's at least 400 years younger than Christianity. Is this just an evolutionary phase (albeit a nasty and destructive one)? Can Islam evolve away from this behaviour?


----------



## Brad Sallows

"Time to grow" expectations should be relative to the era.   As it happens, improvements in degrees of enlightenment - increasing respect for people - are rapid these days, and the pace and completeness of distribution of information are also impressive.  There is no excuse for being unable to evolve in one generation, or perhaps two, no differently than the cultural shift seen in immigrant families.


----------



## a_majoor

Sadly, the use of communications technology is a two edged sword (check out the Syrian hacking of US sites), and can only suppliment traditional strategies, not replace them (see the fate of the "Green" revolution in Iran).

Looking at events like the Arab Spring or the radicalization of second generation immigrents in the West, I would bet quite heavily on culture as the defining factor. The fact that *we* generally work to undermine our own culture leaves immegrents rootless and easy prey for radicalization, since that offers them a firm grounding and coherent world veiw (even if this is a view *we* find abhorrent).

Many of the observations offered here show that Islam is (like other religions) quite adaptable and can flourish in other cultural environments. I also suspect that many Wahhabi Imans recognize this and the growth of Wahhabi funded madrasas and mosques around the world in an attempt to impose their culture on Muslims outside of the Arab world.


----------



## pbi

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Many of the observations offered here show that Islam is (like other religions) quite adaptable and can flourish in other cultural environments. I also suspect that many Wahhabi Imans recognize this and the growth of Wahhabi funded madrasas and mosques around the world in an attempt to impose their culture on Muslims outside of the Arab world.



 I have a slightly different thought. I think that the last thing that any of these Islamist zealots and demagogues want to see is Muslims living happy, peaceful and productive lives in "infidel" countries. The fact that thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of Canadian and US Muslims pursue their religion undisturbed, with only a modicum of reasonable cultural adaptation, must both frighten and infuriate them.

I bet that these loonies jump for joy every time some mouth-breather in Canada burns a mosque, or throws pig blood on a mosque, or otherwise wallows around down at their level of stupidity. Then they can say to their "brethren" in Canada: _"Look, you fools! We told you that Muslims can't live with these infidel scum! They hate you and they want to destroy Islam, and you and your families along with! So smarten up and get on the jihad bus!"_


----------



## Jed

pbi said:
			
		

> I have a slightly different thought. I think that the last thing that any of these Islamist zealots and demagogues want to see is Muslims living happy, peaceful and productive lives in "infidel" countries. The fact that thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of Canadian and US Muslims pursue their religion undisturbed, with only a modicum of reasonable cultural adaptation, must both frighten and infuriate them.
> 
> I bet that these loonies jump for joy every time some mouth-breather in Canada burns a mosque, or throws pig blood on a mosque, or otherwise wallows around down at their level of stupidity. Then they can say to their "brethren" in Canada: _"Look, you fools! We told you that Muslims can't live with these infidel scum! They hate you and they want to destroy Islam, and you and your families along with! So smarten up and get on the jihad bus!"_



I bet they do to. I also bet they jump for joy when some troubled and misguided soul in the western world converts, joins Islam, becomes radicalized and heads off to Syria, Afghanistan, etc. to fight the good fight. Kind of like troubled people joining up in a Jim Jones cult, or Hari Krishna or a Waco Texas enclave.


----------



## pbi

Jed said:
			
		

> I bet they do to. I also bet they jump for joy when some troubled and misguided soul in the western world converts, joins Islam, becomes radicalized and heads off to Syria, Afghanistan, etc. to fight the good fight. Kind of like troubled people joining up in a Jim Jones cult, or Hari Krishna or a Waco Texas enclave.



Actually, probably exactly the same kind of people.

"_Why are you here with us, Jihad Brother Dwayne?"

"Ummmmm....because....there was nothing good on TV?_


----------



## Brad Sallows

One of the archetypes of the western-convert-to-Islam is a person lacking structure and purpose.  But in the end, Islam has too much structure and purpose compared to what several other cultures offer.  A little bit of freedom is a strong solvent.


----------



## a_majoor

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> One of the archetypes of the western-convert-to-Islam is a person lacking structure and purpose.  But in the end, Islam has too much structure and purpose compared to what several other cultures offer.  A little bit of freedom is a strong solvent.



Traditional Western culture was designed around providing structure and purpose to people, either formally through various forms of schooling and vocational education, and informally through practices like sons going into their father's line of work or the formation and maintenance of the "small platoons" and associations like Church congregations and the Rotary Club that bound neighbourhoods and neighbours together. I would argue that the erosion of these formal and informal linkages provide the holes for people lacking in structure and purpose to be created in the first place. (_Why_ this has happened is a different story, and the subject of a different thread(s))

This is also the argument that has been expressed upthread about the decline of the "Christian" basis of our society and culture, although like Edward, I would argue that Western culture has very deep roots that go back to Classical Greece, the _Res Publica Roma_,  ancient Judaism and early Christianity.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Sheema Khan, (PhD, Harvard) former Chair of CAIR-CAN, and periodic _Globe and Mail_ op-ed writer, offers a Muslim perspective in this column whch is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/reconciling-muslim-practices-with-western-principles/article14157485/#dashboard/follows/Authors


> Reconciling Muslim practices with Western principles
> 
> SHEEMA KHAN
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> 
> Published Friday, Sep. 06 2013
> 
> An incredible amount of ink has been spent on the reaction to the proposed Charter of Quebec Values, considering that the document itself remains veiled to the wider public.
> 
> For those wishing to brush up on _laïcité_, John Bowen’s _Why the French Don’t Like Headscarves_ provides an excellent analysis of the distinctively French view of the separation between church and state. According to Mr. Bowen, _laïcité_ is a French tradition that began in 1905 when the Roman Catholic church was officially removed from France’s educational system and a greater part of public life.
> 
> The distinction between _laïcité_ and secularism is partly due to the different philosophies of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Locke. According to Rousseau, the individual gains freedom *through* the state, which has the right to regulate the public sphere of religion. On the other hand, Locke placed freedom of conscience as the cornerstone of individual rights, which guarantees freedom *from* the state. These opposing views have permeated societies with French and British roots.
> 
> After having undergone a revolution far more quiet than that of their French counterparts, Quebeckers have embarked on a long overdue debate on their own definition of _laïcité_. It will be shaped by cultural heritage, linguistic identity and the contemporary reality of living in a fully anglicized North American milieu shaped by Lockean roots.
> 
> The past decade witnessed a similar vigorous debate in France. “Conspicuous” religious symbols were prohibited in public schools in 2004; face coverings were banned in public spaces in 2010. Many French Muslim leaders came out in favour of discouraging the face veil, citing the incompatibility of a non-obligatory practice with the French tradition of _laïcité_. It also marked a maturation of Europe’s largest Muslim minority by adapting to the historical and social realities of France – rather than importing those of the Middle East or North Africa. Such an approach provides a valuable paradigm for Muslim communities that seek to integrate into the wider Western fabric, while remaining true to overarching Islamic principles.
> 
> Often, Muslims chafe at monolithic characterizations of their faith. Yet they sometimes do the very same by insisting that Islam should be practised in a uniform manner, regardless of place and time. For example, some will insist that there is only one way to dress modestly. Yet Islamic civilization always took into account local culture and changing circumstances, resulting in cultural tones and variations that are readily apparent in diverse Muslim populations throughout the world.
> 
> Some argue that Islamic radicalization is culturally predatory since it seeks to undercut indigenous culture by imposing an exogenous practice, as evidenced in Somalia and Mali. While Muslim communities do not have such a narrow agenda, they have often failed to examine local history and culture in a meaningful way.
> 
> As a result, some have inadvertently harmed community development by importing foreign cultural practices that have little relevance to local context. Take, for example, the influx during the 1970s and ’80s of foreign preachers and imams into Canada who told Muslims not to vote, since Western governments were un-Islamic. This strategy only served to marginalize Muslims from civic engagement, and delayed the development of civic and political leadership.
> 
> Muslim communities must realize that their home is here, and that it will take great effort to develop Islamic practice that has a Canadian tone, with regional variations. This implies ceasing blind importation of overseas cultural practices, or consultation of overseas imams who have no desire to understand Western cultural context.
> 
> Institutions should reflect local best practices, where discourse, debate and inclusion of stakeholders set the tone. Currently, most Muslim institutions are replicas of their foreign counterparts, with a top-down approach in which the voices of women and youth are often absent.
> 
> We need intelligent, dispassionate discussions of how Western principles, such as gender equality, freedom of conscience, freedom of expression and critical inquiry, meld with overarching Islamic principles.
> 
> Civic engagement will also be paramount for future integration, as Muslims participate in wider policy issues, such as the environment, energy security, aboriginal self-assertion and, yes, Quebec identity.
> 
> In classical Islamic thought, the overriding principle of the faith was understood to be mercy. It was manifest by the intent to do good to others, to bring benefit to the wider society and to prevent harm. It is a principle worth resurrecting as Muslims establish roots here.




Dr Khan reminds us of two important points:

     1. Neither the West nor Islam are monolithic ~ the cultural traditions of the West, she reminds us, rest on bases separated by _liberal_ (Locke) and _illiberal_ Rousseau foundations; and

     2. Many, many Muslim leaders are trying to replicate foreign cultural artifacts rather than build authentic Muslim-Canadian ones.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

There is the "imported cultural artifacts" and the imposed one. The Article is deafeningly silent on the rampant "Whabbization" of the Islamic world (Debondization in other parts such as Afghanistan, both have a historical relation) This forced belief is being imposed on Islamic societies and suppresses the local flavours either through exclusion and all the way to torture and death. We need to recognize the true enemy is the Whabbists/ fundamentals Islamists  and deem them as unwanted and unwelcome. This protects the non-Muslim society and the Muslim society here from real threats.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Colin P said:
			
		

> There is the "imported cultural artifacts" and the imposed one. The Article is deafeningly silent on the rampant "Whabbization" of the Islamic world (Debondization in other parts such as Afghanistan, both have a historical relation) This forced belief is being imposed on Islamic societies and suppresses the local flavours either through exclusion and all the way to torture and death. We need to recognize the true enemy is the Whabbists/ fundamentals Islamists  and deem them as unwanted and unwelcome. This protects the non-Muslim society and the Muslim society here from real threats.




Agreed, and we need to focus on the _source_ of that "Whabbization"~ Saudi Arabian money which does not get spent, in my opinion, without the approval of the Saudi royal family.

Saudi Arabia is not a friend to the West, nor is it a friend to Asian Muslims. It is one of two bitter enemies in a 1,400 year old war - the other being Iran - and it would like us to take its side in that war, something that would be a major _strategic_ blunder.


----------



## Crow_Master

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Agreed, and we need to focus on the _source_ of that "Whabbization"~ Saudi Arabian money which does not get spent, in my opinion, without the approval of the Saudi royal family.
> 
> Saudi Arabia is not a friend to the West, nor is it a friend to Asian Muslims. It is one of two bitter enemies in a 1,400 year old war - the other being Iran - and it would like us to take its side in that war, something that would be a major _strategic_ blunder.



And KSA is America's friend...


----------



## Edward Campbell

Slightly  ff topic: but this item from _CBC News_ illustrates:

     1. The very real perceptual problem many (most?) Muslims have when dealing with _ordinary Canadians_; and

     2. The reason that no one in QC is standing, strongly, against the PQ's _Charter of Values_, which seeks to enshrine _la laïcité_ in the Québec Constitution.

Geneviève Caron and Claude Pineault are representative of, at least, a very large minority of Quebecers ... maybe even a majority. They, and people like them, can swing the results of both provincial and federal elections.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

"Moderate Muslims" will receive far more popular support when they demonstrate against terrorism (a nice "Our religion does not support the 09/11 attacks" nationwide rally) as opposed to rushing out of mosques call for "Death to Infidels" over some cartoons of Mohammed.


Matthew.


----------



## CougarKing

National Post



> *Muslim group demands apology from Stephen Harper and spokesman Jason MacDonald for ‘smear’ linking organization to Hamas*
> 
> OTTAWA — *A major Canadian Muslim group is demanding an apology from Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his chief spokesman for a comment it says linked the organization to a terrorist group.*
> 
> The National Council of Canadian Muslims has filed a notice of libel in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice that accuses Jason MacDonald of acting maliciously when he made the comment earlier this month.
> 
> *The council had criticized the inclusion of a controversial rabbi in Harper’s delegation that went to the Middle East last week.*
> 
> “Rather than responding to our legitimate concerns, the PMO’s director of communications attacked us and attempted to smear our name by claiming NCCM had ‘documented ties to a terrorist organization such as Hamas,”’ Ihsaan Gardee, the council’s executive director, told a news conference Tuesday.
> 
> “Nothing could be further from the truth. NCCM will not let the PMO’s false statement stand.”
> 
> The council says MacDonald’s comment was a deliberate attempt to discredit the group and Harper is responsible for the words uttered by his spokesman.
> 
> (...)


----------



## YZT580

NCCM was originally a part of the Council on American-Islamic Relations which was directly linked to fund raising efforts for Hamas.  A quick check of the name on Google reveals numerous articles suggesting the linkage between CAIM and Hamas and providing some although not necessarily sufficient evidence to back it up.  Now, does a change in name mean a change in Heart?  I don't believe that they really expect the suit to go anywhere.  They just want to embarrass those named and demonstrate that words against Mohammad will always have consequences.  When they talk about freedom of religion it means that everyone must be free to chose Islam (only).


----------



## CougarKing

While requirements are requirements, I agree with Mr. Watson's sentiments that a course aimed at Islamic proselytizing is something better suited for a religious community centre, not a publicly-funded university. 

National Post



> *Ontario university defends decision to kick non-Muslim out of course that teaches Islamic preaching*
> 
> A London, Ont., university is defending its decision to restrict access to a course that teaches Muslims how to proselytize.
> 
> The Huron College course — The Muslim Voice: Islamic Preaching, Public Speaking and Worship — was, according to the syllabus, “open to Muslim men and women who offer religious leadership and/or speak publicly about Islam on behalf of their communities.”
> 
> *
> The school allowed a non-Muslim to enrol in the course, but then kicked him out because, they said, they didn’t want to open the course to auditors.*
> 
> That student, *Moray Watson, is an accountant who says he is an opponent of Islamic extremism and enrolled in the course partly to test the prerequisite in the syllabus*.
> 
> I’m not allowed to take the course because I’m not a Muslim.
> 
> *“[The school] gets $6.5-million [from the government]. Some of it is mine and I’m not allowed to take the course because I’m not a Muslim,” he said.*
> 
> After he complained, the school changed the syllabus, saying the course was “open to men and women who offer religious leadership to Muslim communities and/or speak publicly about Islam on behalf of a Muslim community.” It noted: “Enrollment is limited; preference is given to matriculated students.”
> 
> *While both the professor and the school have said Mr. Watson could re-enroll in the course if he were willing to take it for credit, they defended the need to restrict the class to Muslims or people who serve the Muslim community.*
> 
> Stephen McClatchie, the principal of the college, said he regretted that Mr. Watson was allowed to successfully sign up for the course before the requirements were clarified.
> 
> “That was clearly something we should have done better. Situations like this arise and it’s an occasion for us to review our auditing policy, which we will certainly be doing coming out of this, as well as our expectations coming out of pastoral colleges,” he said.
> 
> Huron College, an affiliate of the University of Western Ontario that started out as an Anglican seminary, offers several practical religious courses aimed at teaching future priests and Christian church leaders rhetorical and preaching skills.
> 
> This year, the school created a course aimed at Muslims, devised by Ingrid Mattson, the London and Windsor Community Chair in Islamic Studies, an academic position that focuses on research and teaching relevant to Islamic thought and theology.
> 
> She said that as a practical matter, the course is largely graded on a student’s ability to, for example, preach Islamic scripture and deliver an Islamic blessing. The interactive nature of the course makes it difficult for an auditor, she said, but there’s no religious requirement for this class, per se.
> 
> “I thought [Mr. Watson] may have been Muslim. I had no idea when he came to class whether he was Muslim or not,” she said.
> 
> Mr. Watson said he believes that the prohibition against auditors was put in place to keep non-Muslims like himself out of the class.
> 
> *“It was the speed at which I was rejected,” he said, noting another auditor was allowed to take the course for credit. “I [received] an email telling me her course was full. … I was never given the option of taking her course for credit.”*
> 
> If Mr. Watson continued to pursue a spot in the class, Mr. McClatchie said, the school would talk to him about the practical requirements, as it did when other students made similar requests.
> 
> *A Buddhist student tried to take a course on Christian homiletics a few years ago. After some discussion, it was decided that the student in that case would not be comfortable with some of the requirements.*
> 
> *
> “We do not feel we have discriminated against him on the basis of religion. Here, we were concerned about the experience of students in what is a practical class and their need to apply leadership skills from a particular perspective,” said Mr. McClatchie.*
> 
> Yet Mr. Watson believes he is unable to pursue a spot in the course as he doesn’t meet the prerequisites spelled out in the syllabus.
> 
> James Turk, the executive director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers, said his group opposes faith tests. The exception, however, is seminaries. It’s reasonable, Mr. Turk said, to require students who are training to be leaders within their religious communities to adhere to those beliefs.
> 
> *Mr. Watson believes a course on how to preach is better suited for a mosque or community centre than it is for a publicly funded university.*
> 
> The student believes he should have the right to see what Ms. Mattson is teaching, particularly in light of what he believes is a growing strain of Islamic extremism in the community.
> 
> *Ms. Mattson encouraged Mr. Watson to take one of her alternative courses on Islam and politics instead.
> *
> 
> “I don’t know to what extent he has a genuine interest or to what extent he has an ideological commitment to a certain world view of Muslims,” she said. “There are people who have genuine concerns and there are ways for them to engage in discussions with Muslims, or with me, about these issues. I would think the Islam and politics class would have been much more suited to his interests.”


----------



## CougarKing

A scary prospect- A video that shows Islamic supremacists wanting to implement Sharia law in the UK:  these people obviously sympathize with those two men who killed an unarmed British soldier on the street recently.   Yikes.

Military.com video feed:"Islamists Campaign for Islamic Law in UK"


----------



## Kat Stevens

I weep for the land of my birth, and the future of my family members still there.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Sorry, folks but Anjem Choudary, the bearded fellow doing all the talking ...







... is not any more scary than a whole boatload of Christian fanatics preachers screaming talking about the _rapture_ and their _God's law_ and similar shamanistic bullshit ...






... like this fricking wingnut!

I object to anyone who drives around neighbourood streets spewing drivel with loud hailers, (I object more to the noise than to the drivel ~ if it doesn't intrude on my solitude I don't much care). Other than that I see nothing much wrong with Islamic lunatics, at least not when compared with Christian, Hindu and Buddhist crackpots.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Agreed.  The Christian fundimentalists down south the opposite side of the coin from that POS Choudary.  That being said, I would fear either side of them becoming too powerful down the road.  Neither would be good news.


----------



## Edward Campbell

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Agreed.  The Christian fundimentalists down south the opposite side of the coin from that POS Choudary.  That being said, I would fear either side of them becoming too powerful down the road.  Neither would be good news.




But my point is that Choudary is to, say, the Aga Khan as Jones is to the Pope. They are all religious _leaders_ but some are pursuing goals that are, broadly, socially acceptable in civilized societies and some are pursuing goals that are unacceptable. Further, the Aga Khan and the Pope are pretty much, _mainstream_ and, largely representative (well not the child abuse) of the majority of the adherents of their respective religions, even though each represents just one _sect_ or _denomination_ within the broader community. Choadary and the hillbilly preachers do not represent anything other than small minorities of Muslims or Christians ... but they are brilliant at garnering media attention and then provoking fear in fora like this.


----------



## jollyjacktar

And may they ever remain as small in power and influence as their minds.


----------



## Brad Sallows

Christian extremists have been losing ground for 200+ years.  Have Islamic extremists recently been increasing or decreasing their influence?


----------



## CougarKing

Where are the usually vitriolic gender and feminism activists that would speak out against this?

National Post



> *Islamic women could be denied equal inheritance as Britain recognizes Sharia wills
> 
> British law society’s move to allow Islamic ‘Sharia compliant’ wills called ‘deeply disturbing’*
> 
> LONDON —  Islamic law is to be effectively enshrined in the British legal system for the first time under guidelines for lawyers on drawing up “Sharia compliant” wills.
> 
> Under ground-breaking guidance, produced by The Law Society, *lawyers will be able to write Islamic wills that deny women an equal share of inheritances and exclude unbelievers altogether.
> *
> 
> The documents, which would be recognised by Britain’s courts, will also prevent children born out of wedlock — and even those who have been adopted — from being counted as legitimate heirs.
> 
> Anyone married in a church, or in a civil ceremony, could be excluded from succession under Sharia principles, which recognise only Muslim weddings for inheritance purposes.
> 
> 
> (...EDITED)


----------



## FJAG

Not sure whether to get excited or not about this.

Basically under Common Law you could do whatever you wanted in a will anyway. If you wanted to leave your wife out of the will, then you could and the will would still be valid.

A wife's protection came under what we called Dower legislation. This legislation meant that when a wife was not properly provided for in the will, then she could claim under the Dower Acts for such things as the right to remain in the marital home for her life and also to a certain share of the estate. These laws have been modernized in most Common Law countries so that, for example, the provisions are now in marital property law or family law legislation.

Have tried to see what the new UK laws are and been unable to find any intelligent discussion. If a "shari'a" will, like any other will, is still subject to the ordinary matrimonial, family or dower laws in the UK then there has been a minimal change in the law.

Cheers.

 :cheers:


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Even if it's "voluntary" it's really not. A devout female may be forced to accept a Sharia judgement under the threat of exclusion from her community. Oddly enough Sharia law was the really the first true protection for Arabian women some 1400 years ago and was likely met with a lot of resistance by the tribal customs of the time. Now it is the chain around their neck.


----------



## pbi

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Christian extremists have been losing ground for 200+ years.  Have Islamic extremists recently been increasing or decreasing their influence?



Christian extremists have lost ground in mainstream Western liberal democratic societies in general, but not completely. I would argue that they have remained disproportionately influential in the US (albeit with some geographic variances), and in some pockets in Canada, but with far less influence than the US. 

The conditions that produce religious extremism: poverty, ignorance, severe cultural friction, readiness to resort to hatred as a tool, a commonly-held sense of oppression by "others" a tendency to be suspicious or fearful of education, etc have in my opinion always underpinned Christian fundamentalism to a great degree. As these gradually receded over the centuries in our "lucky few" of Western nations, so has fundamentalism. (But again, not completely).

Islamic fundamentalism is in my opinion just as ugly, stupid and dangerous as Christian (or any other...) religious fundamentalism. The difference is that the conditions I identified above are generally much more common throughout the Islamic world (but not universally by any means...). As well, when Islam is the only game in town, and there are no other significant religious, cultural or political influences to keep it between the fences, it has in my opinion an even greater tendency than Christianity to go bad, big time.

This is why I think that in Canada, if we are careful, firm and smart, we will never have to fear Islamic fundamentalism or sharia law except in a very small minority of the population. In other Western countries that don't assimilate as well as we usually (eventually...) do, it is more of a danger. And in Islamic countries, well....


----------



## Brad Sallows

All true.  I suppose my question (to which the answer should make the point) is this: how much have Christian extremists scared us into altering our lives and tiptoeing around their sensitivities, and how much have Islamic extremists done so?  That's "influence".


----------



## MacIssac

Technically Canada has parts of "Sharia Law" implemented into society already as its translation is Islamic Legislation. Muslims in Canada can divorce and create wills that follow the Quran. The UK is moving next to do the same thing.


----------



## pbi

Mac Isaac said:
			
		

> Technically Canada has parts of "Sharia Law" implemented into society already as its translation is Islamic Legislation. Muslims in Canada can divorce and create wills that follow the Quran. The UK is moving next to do the same thing.



Where in Canada do we have this? I thought it was defeated in Ontario years ago.


----------



## pbi

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> All true.  I suppose my question (to which the answer should make the point) is this: how much have Christian extremists scared us into altering our lives and tiptoeing around their sensitivities, and how much have Islamic extremists done so?  That's "influence".



Depends. I'd suggest that in the US, and in certain States in particular, the answer concerning Christians might be "quite a bit". In Canada, I wouldn't say that we tiptoe around Islamic extremists particularly, as much as we may tiptoe around the whole  issue of unacceptable or threatening behaviour by recent arrivals in general.

That could of course change if our demographics were to change significantly without time for assimilation to occur, but I'm not 100% convinced that is really the danger that some people depict it as.


----------



## BorisK

pbi said:
			
		

> Where in Canada do we have this? I thought it was defeated in Ontario years ago.



I've heard of underground courts operating in Hamilton and in a few locations in Scarborough & Mississauga.  Has been a while since I kept up to date on the subject though.   I stopped looking into it after I found out about the blatant hate literature being passed out at a local mosque (Kennedy and Eglington in Scarborough) - was so scathed that was happening so close to my house I had to stop casual research into local extremism in order to maintain comfortable levels of ignorance.   Though the 3 devout Muslims who wouldn't get on the elevator yesterday because I was on there wasn't exactly inspiring of a utopian future.  

That being said I still have hope in humanity . Just have to roll my eyes some days.


----------



## pbi

It's these sort that we have to worry about. By "worry about" I mean make it very clear that their BS is not acceptable and will stop or they will be prosecuted.

The trick is to separate what I believe is the great mass of immigrants who want only to work for a better life, and pursue their respective religions and cultures in non-threatening ways, and those few groups who not only can't adapt, but use their relative freedom in Canada as a base for sh*t disturbing. I don't care if they are Muslims, Palestinians, Serbs, Sri Lankans, IRA or what. Don't bring that sh*t here.


----------



## BorisK

pbi said:
			
		

> It's these sort that we have to worry about. By "worry about" I mean make it very clear that their BS is not acceptable and will stop or they will be prosecuted.
> 
> The trick is to separate what I believe is the great mass of immigrants who want only to work for a better life, and pursue their respective religions and cultures in non-threatening ways, and those few groups who not only can't adapt, but use their relative freedom in Canada as a base for **** disturbing. I don't care if they are Muslims, Palestinians, Serbs, Sri Lankans, IRA or what. Don't bring that **** here.



Indeed.  Would be nice if more people were vocal on what's really not cool but considering I live in the mecca of moral relativism (Toronto, or so it feels some days anyway) I won't hold my breath that anyone will speak up against shit disturber until things get pretty ugly (areas of the U.K. are coming to mind but that's not an isolated data point... and heck it may take worse than that bust up the pretty little notion floating around the streets that all ideas are equal.)

Like I sad, can't give up hope.  I'm still happy to live here, just a little less enthusiastic about my chances of not getting injured by a dumbass (I worked at the Toronto stock exchange during the time the'Toronto 18' jihadis were arrested for their plans of a foreworks celebration or two downtown courtesy of ammonium nitrate, and also your preview post reminded me of the kid in highschool shot dead by Tamils gangs because they thought he was someone else... [he wasn't. He was a nerd, a nice kid, and just waiting at a bus stop to go home from his math tutor].  

Maybe as world literacy rates go up violence will drop... Or maybe more cultures will adopt pre-marital sex / masterbation as an option and ease up on the war mongering lol 

Back to playing guitar with my head in the clouds for me - 'peace'


----------



## Brad Sallows

As far as I know the creator of "Piss Christ" is alive and well and not in any mortal danger.  I haven't seen any of the provocative artists who courageously explore social boundaries explore the boundary of "Piss Mohammed" yet.

People who dislike Christianity, mock it, and push it around in the political and public spaces, apparently do not fear reprisals from its adherents.  But all it takes is a handful of angry protesting Muslims to shut down an exhibit / presentation / lecture / etc - not because anyone is overcome with shame, but because they are overcome with fear.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Yes, but there was a time when.................


----------



## Kat Stevens

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Yes, but there was a time when.................



So if we want to wait 600 years everything should be good, then.


----------



## Brad Sallows

Maybe not that long.  People slightly long in the tooth may remember hypotheses that Reagan and fundamentalist Christians wanted secretly to bring Armageddon to fruition in their lifetimes.  People claimed to be genuinely fearful of the prospect.

I suppose they might be having flashbacks now, with Iran cast as the zealous seeker of the end times.


----------



## CougarKing

At one point should a society not accommodate one group whose actions are done at the expense of another?

National Post



> *‘Muslim morality squads’ accused of confiscating students’ Easter eggs in U.K.*
> 
> *Children who took Easter eggs to class allegedly had them confiscated by “Muslim morality squads” patrolling a school in Birmingham, England, according to press reports.*
> 
> The school is at the centre of an investigation into claims Islamic hardliners are attempting to infiltrate and run secular state schools in the city.
> 
> The mother of one of the students — who did not want to be named for fear of reprisals — told the Daily Express that groups of older students were taking the eggs from younger children and teachers were ignoring their actions.
> 
> “My daughter tried to bring in an Easter egg for a friend and one boy grabbed it and smashed it against a wall,” she said.
> 
> (...EDITED)


----------



## pbi

Disgraceful.

But is it really "Muslim Morality Squads" or a bunch of bullies stealing candy from kids?

If it's the latter, not very nice, but no panic.

If it's the former, then IMHO all the levers of society need to be mobilized against them, and against anybody else who thinks it's OK to force their religious views on people, especially by intimidation. Treat them like anybody else who disrupts a school. To me, one's faith is a personal matter: I have mine, you have yours. Unless I'm hurting people or breaking the law, leave me alone and I'll leave you alone.

But, what if these were Muslim kids in the class? Does it have the same meaning? Are the "squads" just enforcing the beliefs on the believers?

That thought aside, why does it seem to be predominantly Islamic adherents that are resorting to using violence to enforce/protect their faith? Stoning, flogging, shunning, honour killing, ranting mobs, etc, etc. I see the very odd bit of this sort of stupidity from others such as Christians, but mostly it seems to be a Muslim issue.

Have I got that wrong?


----------



## George Wallace

pbi said:
			
		

> Disgraceful.
> 
> But is it really "Muslim Morality Squads" or a bunch of bullies stealing candy from kids?
> 
> If it's the latter, not very nice, but no panic.
> 
> If it's the former, then IMHO all the levers of society need to be mobilized against them, and against anybody else who thinks it's OK to force their religious views on people, especially by intimidation. Treat them like anybody else who disrupts a school. To me, one's faith is a personal matter: I have mine, you have yours. Unless I'm hurting people or breaking the law, leave me alone and I'll leave you alone.
> 
> But, what if these were Muslim kids in the class? Does it have the same meaning? Are the "squads" just enforcing the beliefs on the believers?
> 
> That thought aside, why does it seem to be predominantly Islamic adherents that are resorting to using violence to enforce/protect their faith? Stoning, flogging, shunning, honour killing, ranting mobs, etc, etc. I see the very odd bit of this sort of stupidity from others such as Christians, but mostly it seems to be a Muslim issue.
> 
> Have I got that wrong?



Quite a 'generalization'.  Remember, Islam is like Christianity in that it has various sects.  Like we had the Roman Catholic Church of Rome condemning and persecuting Protestants in past centuries, we also find Sunni and Shite Muslims at each others throats in many regions still today, vying for dominance of the Muslim faith.  The more violent sects that condone suicide bombing feel that one of the only way to get to Heaven is through death; martyrdom through killing non-believers, Infidel and Muslim alike.   To die in Holy Jihad is one way.  It matters not what collateral damage is involved, as long as a non-believer is killed.  Even if you are Muslim, but of another Sect, then you are considered a non-believer by these radicals.  

There are other religions that condone "stoning, flogging, shunning, honour killing, ranting mobs, etc, etc".  Sikhs, even in Canada, have been known to condone many of these barbaric practices.  You can find some of these practices among the Hindu as well.  It may be that Islam is such a large religion, world wide, and more in the view of the observer, that it seems that they are the ones most likely to conduct these practices.


----------



## Edward Campbell

pbi said:
			
		

> Disgraceful.
> 
> But is it really "Muslim Morality Squads" or a bunch of bullies stealing candy from kids?
> 
> If it's the latter, not very nice, but no panic.
> 
> If it's the former, then IMHO all the levers of society need to be mobilized against them, and against anybody else who thinks it's OK to force their religious views on people, especially by intimidation. Treat them like anybody else who disrupts a school. To me, one's faith is a personal matter: I have mine, you have yours. Unless I'm hurting people or breaking the law, leave me alone and I'll leave you alone.
> 
> But, what if these were Muslim kids in the class? Does it have the same meaning? Are the "squads" just enforcing the beliefs on the believers?
> 
> That thought aside, why does it seem to be predominantly Islamic adherents that are resorting to using violence to enforce/protect their faith? Stoning, flogging, shunning, honour killing, ranting mobs, etc, etc. I see the very odd bit of this sort of stupidity from others such as Christians, but mostly it seems to be a Muslim issue.
> 
> Have I got that wrong?




Yes ...

Look at the picture in the article:







There is nothing Muslim about that; it reflects a culture, mostly Middle Eastern mostly, mostly
patriarchal, mostly tolerant if not actually supportive of slavery ... a culture which defines women as
chattels, as property and requires them to be _invisible_ to other men. It, extreme _modesty_, is a
cultural artifact which was present in Europe 500 years ago, even later ...

And which is still present, today, in our 'Western' societies:






I don't know a great many Muslims but the ones I do are, essentially, indistinguishable from Christians, Jews, Hindus, atheists and so on, save, perhaps, for a few items of dress, reflecting their cultural traditions or when they worship in their churches, synagogues mosques and temples.

What we are seeing in the UK, in my opinion, is an attempt to impose Middle Eastern and West Asian cultural values on the community ... because the immigrant community is terrified of the larger society into which they they find _integration_ uncomfortable and in which they feel themselves unwelcome.

To your other question: "But, what if these were Muslim kids in the class? Does it have the same meaning? Are the "squads" just enforcing the beliefs on the believers?" the answer is that it actually *matters more*.

The public (state) school system is _secular_, even in Canadian provinces that have _confessional_ school systems, guaranteed by the Constitution. Parents _may_, at their own expense, enroll their children in private, religious schools, but the public, state system must be open and accessible to all and must not discriminate against or for any particular creed.


----------



## pbi

Hmmmm.

I think of myself as something between a "small-l liberal" and a "libertarian" (with a bit of Red Tory thrown in...) but I still struggle with my view of Islam and how it plays out in real life.

I see that any faith has three forms:

-the original tenets as established by its prophets-usually quite benign and widely acceptable;

-the manner in which believers interpret those tenets; and

-the manner in which certain sects/individuals exploit those tenets to justify other ends that are usually of a political, economic or cultural nature.

On reflection, and as I have commented elsewhere, I think ERC is probably right in assigning the primacy of culture in shaping how religious beliefs play out. An example here in North America would be the difference between a Baptist church in suburban middle-class southern Ontario, and a Baptist church in the red clay backwoods of Georgia. Both white, Christian, European descent, but quite different cultures and, I'll bet, different takes on their faith. Catholicism offers an even better example: compare the average middle class suburban Canadian Catholic with their coreligionist from Africa or Eastern Europe. I think you will find a big difference.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _New York Times_ is an interesting article about the difficulty of relating terms like _Islam_, _Islamist_, _jihad_, _terrorist_ and _al Qaeda_:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/nyregion/interfaith-panel-denounces-a-9-11-museum-exhibits-portrayal-of-islam.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0


> Interfaith Panel Denounces a 9/11 Museum Exhibit’s Portrayal of Islam
> 
> By SHARON OTTERMAN
> 
> APRIL 23, 2014
> 
> Past the towering tridents that survived the World Trade Center collapse, adjacent to a gallery with photographs of the 19 hijackers, a brief film at the soon-to-open National September 11 Memorial Museum will seek to explain to visitors the historical roots of the attacks.
> 
> The film, “The Rise of Al Qaeda,” refers to the terrorists as Islamists who viewed their mission as a jihad. The NBC News anchor Brian Williams, who narrates the film, speaks over images of terrorist training camps and Qaeda attacks spanning decades. Interspersed with his voice are explanations of the ideology of the terrorists, rendered in foreign-accented English translations.
> 
> The documentary is not even seven minutes long, the exhibit just a small part of the museum. But it has suddenly become over the last few weeks a flash point in what has long been one of the most highly charged issues at the museum: how it should talk about Islam and Muslims.
> 
> With the museum opening on May 21, it has shown the film to several groups, including an interfaith advisory group of clergy members. Those on the panel overwhelmingly took strong exception to the film and requested changes. But the museum has declined. In March, the sole imam in the group resigned to make clear that he could not endorse its contents.
> 
> “The screening of this film in its present state would greatly offend our local Muslim believers as well as any foreign Muslim visitor to the museum,” Sheikh Mostafa Elazabawy, the imam of Masjid Manhattan, wrote in a letter to the museum’s director. “Unsophisticated visitors who do not understand the difference between Al Qaeda and Muslims may come away with a prejudiced view of Islam, leading to antagonism and even confrontation toward Muslim believers near the site.”
> 
> Museum officials are standing by the film, which they say they vetted past several scholars.
> 
> “From the very beginning, we had a very heavy responsibility to be true to the facts, to be objective, and in no way smear an entire religion when we are talking about a terrorist group,” said Joseph C. Daniels, president and chief executive of the nonprofit foundation that oversees the memorial and museum.
> 
> But the disagreement has been ricocheting through scholarly circles in recent weeks. At issue is whether it is appropriate or inflammatory for the museum to use religious terminology like “Islamist” and “jihad” in conjunction with the Sept. 11 attacks, without also making clear that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful.
> 
> The terms “Islamist” and “jihadist” are frequently used in public discourse to describe extremist Muslim ideologies. But the problem with using such language in a museum designed to instruct people for generations is that most visitors are “simply going to say Islamist means Muslims, jihadist means Muslims,” said Akbar Ahmed, the chairman of the Islamic studies department at American University.
> 
> “The terrorists need to be condemned and remembered for what they did,” Dr. Ahmed said. “But when you associate their religion with what they did, then you are automatically including, by association, one and a half billion people who had nothing to do with these actions and who ultimately the U.S. would not want to unnecessarily alienate.”
> 
> The question of how to represent Islam in the museum has long been fraught. It was among the first issues that came up when the museum began asking for advice in about 2005 from a panel of mostly Lower Manhattan clergy members who had been involved in recovery work after the attacks.
> 
> Peter B. Gudaitis, who brought the group together as the chief executive of an interfaith organization, said the museum rejected certain Islam-related suggestions from the panel, such as telling the story of Mohammad Salman Hamdani, a Muslim cadet with the New York Police Department who died in the attacks and was initially suspected as a perpetrator.
> 
> There was wide agreement, however, that the exhibit space should make clear that Muslims were not just perpetrators, but also among the attack’s victims, mourners and recovery workers — an integral part of the fabric of American life.
> 
> A year ago, concerns about how the film might be viewed by Muslim visitors were raised at a screening by a select group of Sept. 11 family members, law enforcement and others. As a result, several months ago, museum officials invited the interfaith group to view the film and tour the still unfinished exhibits.
> 
> The panel was pleased to see photographs of Muslims mourning included in photo montages. The museum also includes stories of Muslim victims and the reflections of Representative Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, on the impact of the attacks on America, the museum said.
> 
> “In general, everybody was very moved and impressed,” Mr. Gudaitis said.
> 
> But then the group screened the Qaeda film and grew alarmed at what they felt was its inflammatory tone and use of the words “jihad” and “Islamist” without, they felt, sufficient explanation.
> 
> “As soon as it was over, everyone was just like, wow, you guys have got to be kidding me,” Mr. Gudaitis said.
> 
> He and another member of the panel, the Rev. Chloe Breyer, executive director of the Interfaith Center of New York, began to organize a response. On Monday, they sent the museum’s directors a formal letter on behalf of the 11 members of the interfaith group who had seen the film, asking for edits. Their concern was heightened by the personal experience many on them have had with anti-Muslim sentiment, including the national uproar over the construction of a mosque and Muslim community center a few blocks from ground zero.
> 
> The response from the museum was immediate, though accidental: Clifford Chanin, the education director, inadvertently sent the group an email intended solely for the museum’s senior directors, indicating he was not overly concerned.
> 
> “I don’t see this as difficult to respond to, if any response is even needed,” he wrote.
> 
> The museum did remove the term “Islamic terrorism” from its website earlier this month, after another activist, Todd Fine, collected about 100 signatures of academics and scholars supporting its deletion.
> 
> In interviews, several leading scholars of Islam said that the term “Islamic terrorist” was broadly rejected as unfairly conflating Islam and terrorism, but the terms Islamist and jihadist can be used, in the proper context, to refer to Al Qaeda, preferably with additional qualifiers, like “radical,” or “militant.”
> 
> But for the imam, Mr. Elazabawy, and many other practicing Muslims, the words “Islamic” and “Islamist” are equally offensive when used to describe Al Qaeda, and the word “jihad” refers to a struggle against evil, the antithesis of how they view terror attacks.
> 
> “When you use the word ‘Islam,’ that means they are a part of us,” he said in an interview. “We reject that.”
> 
> For his part, Bernard Haykel, a professor of Near Eastern studies at Princeton University, defended the film, whose script he vetted.
> 
> “The critics who are going to say, ‘Let’s not talk about it as an Islamic or Islamist movement,’ could end up not telling the story at all, or diluting it so much that you wonder where Al Qaeda comes from,” Dr. Haykel said.
> 
> The museum declined to make the film available for viewing by The New York Times.
> 
> Michael Frazier, a museum spokesman, said the film would be shown in a gallery that also had two large interpretive panels illustrating how Al Qaeda was portrayed as “a far fringe of Islam.” Museum officials emphasized that Mr. Chanin and the rest of the museum took the concerns about the film very seriously.
> 
> “What helps me sleep at night is I believe that the average visitor who comes through this museum will in no way leave this museum with the belief that the religion of Islam is responsible for what happened on 9/11,” said Mr. Daniels, the president of the museum foundation. “We have gone out of the way to tell the truth.”




It is, in my opinion, quite wrong to try to equate Islam, the religion, with the _al Qaeda_ terrorists who attacked, who continue to attack, America and the West. But it is obtuse, to be charitable, to deny that _al Qaeda_ uses _Islam_ as part of its _political_ ideology. But it, _al Qaeda_, promotes only one certain brand of _Islam_ and it does so within a wider _strategic_ agenda. (I hasten to point out that I've never been certain about that agenda; it appears, to me, to have gone beyond Osama bin Laden's original aim of driving the _infidels_ out of the _Ummah Wāhidah_, the original homeland if _Islam_; I'm not sure what the aim of _wings_ like e.g. _Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb_ might be.)

It seems, to me, that many, many Muslim leaders are unwilling to acknowledge that _al Qaeda_ is a radical _Islamist_ terrorist group. I sympathize with their discomfort, just as I sympathize with Jews who don't like acknowledging that the _Jewish Defence League_ is a terrorist group or, at least, provides 'cover' for individual terrorists. There are, by the way, Buddhist terrorist, too ...






Generally "we," the big, broadly liberal, Western "we," are not afraid of describing individual or groups as e.g. Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jewish or Sikh extremists of even terrorists, but we _appear_ to fear that Muslims will react violently to the term _Islamist_ or _jihadist_, unfair or unclear though those terms may be.


----------



## pbi

> “The terrorists need to be condemned and remembered for what they did,” Dr. Ahmed said. “But when you associate their religion with what they did, then you are automatically including, by association, one and a half billion people who had nothing to do with these actions and who ultimately the U.S. would not want to unnecessarily alienate.”



But, they are quite clearly already associated with Islam: they believe they are fighting for it: without this their actions would appear meaningless. And, it would seem,  at least a part of the Muslim world has difficulty in expressing outright condemnation of these terrorists and their actions. Why is that? Who knows, but the effect on the general public is that silence appears as acceptance if not as support.

I think that we need to be very conscious of the fact that religious faith, _*any *_religious faith, is capable of givig rise to this kind of extremism: Christianity, Hinduism and Judaism have all been connected with bloody, miserable behaviour that involved the terrorizing of others. We , the big "we", need to be reminded of this. Not just about Muslims, but about religious extremists of all sorts. This museum would appear to do that. Because it offends some people is not, in my mind, sufficient reason to close it as long as it is telling the truth in a responsible way.


----------



## Loachman

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/10778554/The-feisty-baroness-defending-voiceless-Muslim-women.html

The feisty baroness defending 'voiceless’ Muslim women

Baroness Cox of Queensbury is fighting to stop sharia 'seeping' into enforcing divorce settlements

By Peter Stanford

7:02AM BST 22 Apr 2014

The House of Lords has long encouraged a spirit of imperviousness to conventional wisdom, whether because of its members’ rank and wealth, or more recently when those appointed to the upper chamber have risen so high in their various careers and callings. Baroness Cox of Queensbury, its former Deputy Speaker, is a prime example.

A nurse, educationalist and human rights campaigner, she caught Margaret Thatcher’s eye in 1982 and was named as a Tory working peer. “The first baroness I ever met,” recalls this feisty 73-year-old, “was when I looked in the mirror that morning”. Ever since, she has used the red benches to raise neglected, inconvenient and unfashionable causes.

“I prefer to think of myself,” she muses over Earl Grey and scones in the House of Lords tea room, as the “voice of the voiceless”. Her latest crusade is to rally to the defence of British Muslim women, spurred on by the recent decision of the Law Society to publish “good practice” notes for solicitors on making wills compliant with sharia. This can deny women equal shares of inheritance, and exclude children born out of wedlock.

“The suffragettes will be turning in their graves,” says Lady Cox. “It undermines the most fundamental principles of equality enshrined in British law”. Not so, claim government ministers; while the retired president of the Supreme Court, Lord Phillips, has said: “There is no reason why the principles of sharia law… should not be the basis for mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution.” Lady Cox shakes her head: “Give me a break.”

In Britain’s 85 sharia courts and councils, she says, sharia “seeps” into enforcing divorce settlements, ignoring domestic violence and deciding access to children, all properly the preserve of British law. And that is why Lady Cox is determined to get her Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill on to the statute book.

“In these sharia councils, men can very easily divorce women, but for Muslim women it is much harder. I had a 50-year-old widow come to me for help because she wanted to remarry. She was told she had to have the permission of her closest living male relative, who turned out to be an 11-year-old son, living in Jordan. She showed me where he had signed his name in childish Arabic handwriting to give permission.”

She reels off further examples. “One Muslim lady who came to meet me here suffered horrific physical abuse in her marriage, ending up in hospital, yet she was under huge pressure from her community not to involve the police because it would shame her family. So she went to a sharia court instead, which denied her a divorce and told her to go back to her abusive husband and give him another chance. He carried on abusing her. She wept as she told me about it, and I wept with her.”

What she labels injustice, though, is seen by others as evidence of this devout Christian’s “Islamophobia”. They point out that, in 2009, she invited the banned far-Right Dutch politician, Geert Wilders, to screen his film Fitna, which attacked Islam, in the House of Lords.

“I believe in freedom of speech,” she replies robustly. “Yes, it hurts a little, but I’ve been called Islamophobic many times. It’s rubbish, of course. I’m passionate about Muslim women and yet I am called Islamophobic.”

Today’s politicians, she says, don’t want to upset community leaders. “Yet this concern with cultural sensitivity seems to be justifying practices that contravene the fundamental qualities of our democracy – one law for everyone.”

Lady Cox tells me that her country home is in David Cameron’s Witney constituency. Is she part of his Chipping Norton Set? “I’d rather spend my time in South Sudan,” she almost barks back. Indeed, she is overseas in troubled regions for six months of every year as chief executive of Humanitarian Aid Relief Trust (Hart), the charity she founded in 2004.

Her Bill first surfaced in the Lords in 2011, and passed its second reading in the autumn of 2012. Yet it has been languishing since because it lacks the support of the main parties. “And it doesn’t even mention sharia,” she notes with a hollow laugh.

Among its proposals is that it be made clear to the bride and groom at Islamic weddings that the ceremony is not a marriage under British law, and that this has implications in terms of property and custody rights.

Another clause – “the one with the sharpest teeth” – makes it a criminal offence to operate in a way that imitates a court. “I went to a divorce hearing recently in a sharia court in the East End of London. The room was arranged just like a courtroom, with three men sitting up behind a bench looking down on us. The woman in question was intimidated into silence because, as she told me later, she believed it was to be a proper constituted court.”

Because it wasn’t, the woman could, of course, just take her case to a British law court. “Just?” Lady Cox laughs. “That’s what the Government says. Muslim women can choose to use British courts, but that ignores the family pressures put on them to keep such matters within their community. We have all read about honour killings. These women need our support. That is what so many have told me.”

And, as a voice of the voiceless, she will not refuse them. “If we don’t act,” she warns, “we are condoning discrimination.”


----------



## Fishbone Jones

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It is, in my opinion, quite wrong to try to equate Islam, the religion, with the _al Qaeda_ terrorists who attacked, who continue to attack, America and the West. But it is obtuse, to be charitable, to deny that _al Qaeda_ uses _Islam_ as part of its _political_ ideology. But it, _al Qaeda_, promotes only one certain brand of _Islam_ and it does so within a wider _strategic_ agenda. (I hasten to point out that I've never been certain about that agenda; it appears, to me, to have gone beyond Osama bin Laden's original aim of driving the _infidels_ out of the _Ummah Wāhidah_, the original homeland if _Islam_; I'm not sure what the aim of _wings_ like e.g. _Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb_ might be.)
> 
> It seems, to me, that many, many Muslim leaders are unwilling to acknowledge that _al Qaeda_ is a radical _Islamist_ terrorist group. I sympathize with their discomfort, just as I sympathize with Jews who don't like acknowledging that the _Jewish Defence League_ is a terrorist group or, at least, provides 'cover' for individual terrorists. There are, by the way, Buddhist terrorist, too ...
> 
> Generally "we," the big, broadly liberal, Western "we," are not afraid of describing individual or groups as e.g. Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jewish or Sikh extremists of even terrorists, but we _appear_ to fear that Muslims will react violently to the term _Islamist_ or _jihadist_, unfair or unclear though those terms may be.





			
				pbi said:
			
		

> But, they are quite clearly already associated with Islam: they believe they are fighting for it: without this their actions would appear meaningless. And, it would seem,  at least a part of the Muslim world has difficulty in expressing outright condemnation of these terrorists and their actions. Why is that? Who knows, but the effect on the general public is that silence appears as acceptance if not as support.
> 
> I think that we need to be very conscious of the fact that religious faith, _*any *_religious faith, is capable of givig rise to this kind of extremism: Christianity, Hinduism and Judaism have all been connected with bloody, miserable behaviour that involved the terrorizing of others. We , the big "we", need to be reminded of this. Not just about Muslims, but about religious extremists of all sorts. This museum would appear to do that. Because it offends some people is not, in my mind, sufficient reason to close it as long as it is telling the truth in a responsible way.



Then it is high time, in my opinion, that Muslims around the world including Saudi Arabia, et al, stood up and in one resounding voice denounce the terrorist factions of their religion. And not just denounce them, cut them off financially, stigmatize them and hunt them down and kill them.

Until they are ready to actually do something about the problem, except try and make it our fault, they can wallow in their own self pity and wring their hands about how we view them.

I'm tired of turning the other cheek, appeasing their self righteous indignation, and having to wear PC slippers as to not offend their delicate sensibilities.

You want respect? Come back after you've killed all the assholes making your religion a joke, show me their heads and I'll welcome you with open arms.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Loachman said:
			
		

> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/10778554/The-feisty-baroness-defending-voiceless-Muslim-women.html
> 
> The feisty baroness defending 'voiceless’ Muslim women
> 
> Baroness Cox of Queensbury is fighting to stop sharia 'seeping' into enforcing divorce settlements
> 
> By Peter Stanford
> ...
> Another clause – “the one with the sharpest teeth” – makes it a criminal offence to operate in a way that imitates a court. “I went to a divorce hearing recently in a sharia court in the East End of London. The room was arranged just like a courtroom, with three men sitting up behind a bench looking down on us. The woman in question was intimidated into silence because, as she told me later, she believed it was to be a proper constituted court.”
> 
> Because it wasn’t, the woman could, of course, just take her case to a British law court. “Just?” Lady Cox laughs. “That’s what the Government says. Muslim women can choose to use British courts, but that ignores the family pressures put on them to keep such matters within their community. We have all read about honour killings. These women need our support. That is what so many have told me.”
> 
> And, as a voice of the voiceless, she will not refuse them. “If we don’t act,” she warns, “we are condoning discrimination.”




But it's not just Muslims. Jewish women can, often do face the same or even worse hurdles in obtaining a divorce. The problems, including _honour killings_ and female circumcision that we ascribe, generally, to Muslims are found in a variety of cultures, not all of them Islamic.


----------



## pbi

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But it's not just Muslims. Jewish women can, often do face the same or even worse hurdles in obtaining a divorce. The problems, including _honour killings_ and female circumcision that we ascribe, generally, to Muslims are found in a variety of cultures, not all of them Islamic.



Roger that. Hence my point that we have to be vigilant, and to have long and active memories, where *all *sorts of religious extremists are concerned. They are all equally rotten in my opinion, and they all make horrible mockeries of the faiths they claim to uphold. 

Believe me that I'm not "picking" on Muslims: I'm quite sure that we have Christian fundamentalists who, if given the opportunity, would gleefully turn back the clock and burn not just books they don't like but people as well. Just like them good ol' days.

These types are by nature quite lethal when they get their hands on power. In my opinion, because they are (at least in their minds) doing God's will, then anybody who opposes them opposes God. And, of course, enemies of God must be friends of Satan. And if they are friends of Satan then the faithful must do all they can to root out and destroy them. No quarter for the Godless.


----------



## Edward Campbell

recceguy said:
			
		

> Then it is high time, in my opinion, that Muslims around the world including Saudi Arabia, et al, stood up and in one resounding voice denounce the terrorist factions of their religion. And not just denounce them, cut them off financially, stigmatize them and hunt them down and kill them.
> 
> Until they are ready to actually do something about the problem, except try and make it our fault, they can wallow in their own self pity and wring their hands about how we view them.
> 
> I'm tired of turning the other cheek, appeasing their self righteous indignation, and having to wear PC slippers as to not offend their delicate sensibilities.
> 
> You want respect? Come back after you've killed all the assholes making your religion a joke, show me their heads and I'll welcome you with open arms.




I'm with you, recceguy and so, I expect, are most Canadians, and Americans and Brits and, and, and ... I sympathize with the immigrant who just wants to make a good life for his family here, in Canada, and worship his own god(s) in his own way. But I want him or her to be as horrified as I am when terrorists from his _community_ or homeland attack innocent people, anywhere. I have no trouble condemning Christians who practice _ethnic cleansing_ in the Balkans or in Africa ... I expect my fellow citizens to do the same.

I think the Muslim community is afraid of the violent _Islamists_ and I suspect they should be. When I proclaim that Irish terrorists - all Christians of one sort or another - ought to be helped to meet their god ASAP I do not expect to have my condo fire bombed nor even to be disowned by my Irish-Canadian in-laws. But I fear that the Iraqi-Canadian fellow who owns the corner store near my home wouldn't, shouldn't be so bold, I believe he, and his wife, might be 'visited' in the night by some of their co-religionists if he spoke out against radical, violent _Islamists_. How brave does he have to be? I don't blame him for staying quiet. I do, however, blame his self-proclaimed community *leaders* for their silence. If they want to be leaders they should act like leaders, and, as Warren Bennis says, "leaders do the right things."


----------



## jollyjacktar

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I don't blame him for staying quiet. I do, however, blame his self-proclaimed community *leaders* for their silence. If they want to be leaders they should act like leaders, and, as Warren Bennis says, "leaders do the right things."


Their "community leaders" will keep quiet because they have no incentive to do otherwise if their "flocks" keep their lips zipped.  If the sheep don't baaaa, why should the Sheppard's?  I would take their silence as tacit approval of the status quo from both parties.  Until, as recceguy suggests, they prove otherwise with words and action, I won't believe otherwise myself.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

It's not so much the little guy on the street that I expect to condemn terrorists, but the high up Muslim religious leaders and governments. Those are the ones who would get world attention and press. They are also, in large part, the ones that support the terrorists financially and in silence. Lastly, they are the ones with the militaries, secret police and intelligence assets to go out and kill the renegade zealots.

If they spoke out and put action to their words, the little guy would start feeling emboldened and add his voice.


----------



## pbi

recceguy said:
			
		

> It's not so much the little guy on the street that I expect to condemn terrorists, but the high up Muslim religious leaders and governments. Those are the ones who would get world attention and press. They are also, in large part, the ones that support the terrorists financially and in silence. Lastly, they are the ones with the militaries, secret police and intelligence assets to go out and kill the renegade zealots.
> 
> If they spoke out and put action to their words, the little guy would start feeling emboldened and add his voice.



I agree with this sentiment, but part of the problem is that unlike hierarchical religions like (say...) Catholicism or Anglicanism, Islam has no "Pope" or similar figures to speak for the religion as a whole. On top of that, Islam , much like Christianity, is fragmented into different sects, persuasions, confessions or what have you. A Wahabist wants little to with a Sufi, and would probably like to do away with him given a chance.

All that aside, I still think that leaders at the local, regional or national level could and should speak out. Why don't they? Or do they, and the media just isn't covering it?


----------



## CougarKing

Just as bad as so-called honour killings...



> *The Pakistani immigrant who beat his wife to death in their New York apartment because she made him the wrong dinner - but his lawyer claims that's just his culture*
> 
> Daily Mail
> 
> A Pakistani immigrant allegedly beat his wife to death with a stick for making him the wrong dinner, a court heard.
> Noor Hussein, 75, believed he had the right to discipline 66-year-old Nazar at their apartment in Brooklyn, New York, his defense said.
> But prosecutors claim he murdered her because she had made the mistake of cooking him a vegetarian meal made of lentils instead of goat meat.
> 
> At the start of Hussein's murder trial yesterday, a court heard the victim was left a 'bloody mess'.
> 
> *Court papers quoted by the New York Post said: 'The defendant asked [his wife] to cook goat and [his wife] said she made something else.
> 'The conversation got louder and his wife disrespected defendant by cursing at defendant and saying motherf***** and that the defendant took a wooden stick and hit her with it on her arm and mouth.'*
> 
> (...EDITED)


----------



## CougarKing

Yahoo News



> 'This is an Islamic Area Now': Police Investigate 'Divisive' Sign in East London Park
> By Samantha Payne | IB Times –
> 
> *An area of east London has become 'Islamic' overnight according to a poster that has appeared outside an east London Park.
> The warning in Bartlett Park, Poplar, reads: "Do not walk your dog here! Muslims do not like dogs. This is an Islamic area now."*
> 
> Police are now investigating the matter after being alerted to the sign by Labour MP Jim Fitzpatrick, who was himself informed by a concerned constitutent.
> 
> *The Poplar and Limehouse MP wrote to police to find out if the "highly divisive" sign was put up by Islamists or a far-right group such as the English Defence League (EDL), and to see what action they were taking to prevent posters from appearing in future.
> 
> He told the Standard: "The question is whether it was put up to be provocative or by religious zealots to be racist.*
> 
> "It's another facet of intolerance, or, because there's no guarantee it was done by Islamists, it could be those in society who are trying to polarise and divide us.
> 
> "Whichever side it was ought not to be able to get away with it and whoever's responsible ought to pack it in."
> 
> (...EDITED)


----------



## George Wallace

How much of this are we seeing slowly creeping into our society?

Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

LINK



> THE TELEGRAPH
> 
> Trojan Horse debate: We were wrong, all cultures are not equal
> 
> By Allison Pearson
> 8:48PM BST 11 Jun 2014
> 
> If I have learnt one thing working with children as a teacher, a volunteer and, more recently, a parent, it’s that what children want above all else is to fit in. The desire not to be different must be hard-wired, so urgent is the need of your average nine-year-old to have the same pencil case as every other nine-year-old. Individuality, much prized in adult life, is abhorred by our conservative juniors, who crave acceptance as the thirsty crave water. “Fitting in” is braided into the DNA of every child, regardless of creed or colour. When the deep, resonant bell of human evolution tolls, it says: “Belong, belong, belong.”
> 
> Integrating children into a new society, then, should not present too much of a problem. A football, some Panini World Cup stickers to trade, One Direction, Harry Potter, 97 episodes of Friends, especially the one where Rachel has a baby: common interests for youngsters are not hard to find. So how have we ended up with a situation where so many Muslims are adrift from the mainstream? Why this scandal in Birmingham where five overwhelmingly Muslim schools, some until recently judged to be outstanding, are to be put into special measures because they have sought to inculcate ideas that are repellent to this country?
> 
> Let me quote Myriam Francois-Cerrah, a writer and Muslim convert, who told Channel 4 News on Tuesday that she rejected calls by the Prime Minister and Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, for schools to promote British values. “In many ways, the problem is creating a hierarchy of cultures when you say you need to promote British values,” she objected. “What does that say to children in a classroom whose heritage harks from outside the British Isles? It says this country has superior moral values and you are coming from some backward culture whose values you … must not consider equal to our own.”
> 
> Funnily enough, that’s exactly what we are saying, Myriam. Spot on! A Muslim girl who winds up in Bolton or Luton should thank her lucky stars she doesn’t live in Sudan – or Pakistan, where, only last month, a woman was stoned to death by her family for the crime of marrying a man of whom they disapproved. Farzana Parveen’s father explained: “I killed my daughter as she had insulted all of our family by marrying a man without our consent, and I have no regret over it.”
> 
> Are British values superior to Mr Parveen’s? I do hope so.
> 
> Unfortunately, the great lie underpinning the creed of multiculturalism, as spouted by Francois‑Cerrah and her ilk, is that all cultures are “equally valid”. Well, patently, they’re not. The reason irate Pakistani patriarchs are not chucking bricks at their errant daughters in the Birmingham Bull Ring is because Britain has a basically uncorrupt police force, a robust judiciary and an enlightened, hard-won system of liberal values that regards women and girls as equals, not third-class citizens.
> 
> But instead of standing up to barbarism and ignorance, too often we have looked away in embarrassment or fear. How many teachers have averted their gaze when 13-year-old Muslim girls suddenly disappear from the classroom to be taken “home” for a forced marriage, because this would present unwelcome evidence that some cultures are less valid than others?
> How many health professionals in Bradford are concerned, but never say so, that intermarriage in the Muslim community – 75 per cent of Pakistanis in the city are married to their first cousin – is causing babies to be born blind, deaf and with other disabilities? Back in 2008, when Labour environment minister Phil Woolas said that British Pakistanis were fuelling the rate of birth defects, he was slapped down by Downing Street, with a spokesman for prime minister Gordon Brown saying the issue was not one for ministers to comment on. Government after government has filed this thorny issue in “The Too Difficult Box”, the title of a timely new book edited by former Cabinet minister Charles Clarke.
> 
> This was all so predictable. Back in the summer of 1981, I was working in a primary school in west London where the children were dizzy with excitement about Prince Charles and Lady Di. The royal wedding was a great unifying event, but there was one group of pupils who were not allowed to fit in. The little Muslim girls did not wear cool, gingham-checked dresses in the heat like the others. Instead, they were dressed in the winter uniform – a polo neck and tunic worn over strictly non-uniform trousers and thick tights. As far as I could tell, no teacher dared challenge this clear breach of school rules. In a similar spirit, it was accepted that the Muslim girls could not attend the weekly swimming lesson.
> 
> When a trip was planned to Hampton Court, the children were told they would be seeing Henry VIII’s bed. Somehow, the word “bed”, coupled with the humongously horny Henry, set off alarm bells among Muslim parents, who withdrew their sons and daughters from the outing. This irrational boycott was tolerated. I remember thinking how awful and sad it was that liberal, white teachers didn’t stick up for the Muslim children’s right to play a full part in the life of their country.
> 
> It made me angry when I was practically a child myself, and it makes me even angrier now, 30 years on, thinking of the lost decades when good people did nothing to prevent the toxic situation outlined this week by the chief inspector of schools. Music and dancing banned in a primary school because they are un-Islamic. Muslim pupils not allowed to study Shakespeare’s Much Ado About Nothing because it shows young people falling in love and marrying. A preacher who believes homosexuals should be stoned to death invited to address an assembly – in a British school in a British town, forsooth. Children as young as six told that Western women are “white prostitutes”, if you please.
> 
> Sir Michael Wilshaw, the Ofsted chief, said that hardline Islamists wanted to impose a “narrow, faith-based ideology” on schools in Birmingham, though clearly the problem is not confined to one city. Now Bradford, Luton and east London are being investigated.
> 
> And still our politicians will not face up to what multiculturalism has unleashed: one of the biggest peacetime challenges ever faced by Britain. Nick Clegg, at his most ineffectually Fotherington-Thomas, says he is “sure that all parents will support a wide curriculum”. As if. The promised “dawn-raid” school inspections, which will not give schools time to stage Christian lessons to fool Ofsted inspectors, are too little, too late.
> 
> Growing suggestions that all faith schools should be banned because some Muslims cannot be trusted to prepare their children for life in contemporary society are simply outrageous. Why should Catholic, Jewish and Church of England schools, which provide a terrific, disciplined learning environment for millions of children, be forced to cease their good work and shut down? Why must the tolerant be made to carry the can for the intolerable?
> 
> The crisis in Birmingham made me look up Ray Honeyford. The headmaster of a school in Bradford, Honeyford published an article highly critical of multiculturalism around the same time that I was wondering why Muslim girls in west London weren’t allowed to learn how to swim. Honeyford was damned as a racist and forced to take early retirement, but how prophetic his words seem now. The alarmed headmaster referred to a “growing number of Asians whose aim is to preserve as intact as possible the values of the Indian subcontinent within a framework of British social and political privilege”. Honeyford questioned the wisdom of the local education authority in allowing such practices as the withdrawal of children from school for months at a time, in order to go “home” to Pakistan, on the grounds that this was appropriate to the children’s native culture.
> 
> “Those of us working in Asian areas,” he wrote, “are encouraged, officially, to 'celebrate linguistic diversity’ – ie, applaud the rapidly mounting linguistic confusion in these growing number of city schools in which British-born Asian children begin their mastery of English by being taught in Urdu.”
> Ray Honeyford died in 2012, so he didn’t live to see the Leeds secondary school where every single pupil, including a handful of white ones, is being taught English as a foreign language. He didn’t need to see it. He knew it would happen, and what the cost would be, and his warnings were shouted down or put away in the Too Difficult Box.
> I think the battle we must fight now really has very little to do with sincere religious belief. It’s about social control, repression, misogyny and cruelty. The battle is about Kamaljit, a 14-year-old girl I once taught, who chided me when I read the class a story about snakes in India, like the good, clueless multiculturalist that I was. “Please, Miss, we don’t like that stuff,” she said. “We’re English. We like ice skating.”
> 
> We have to expose Muslim children to as wide a range of experiences as possible so they will feel the gravitational pull of British values. If a Devon primary school recently criticised by Ofsted for not being multicultural enough (yes, really) can arrange a horizon-broadening trip to the inner city, then surely it’s time that Birmingham and Bradford came to Hereford and Hampshire. It was Rodgers and Hammerstein who observed in South Pacific: “You’ve got to be taught to hate and fear / You’ve got to be taught from year to year / It’s got to be drummed in your dear little ear / You’ve got to be carefully taught. / You’ve got to be taught before it’s too late / Before you are six or seven or eight / To hate all the people your relatives hate / You’ve got to be carefully taught.”
> 
> But there is another song, and a better one, and children will learn it if they are only given the chance: Belong, belong, belong.



More on LINK


----------



## s2184

When I saw this topic, I remembered Pat Condell. I have been watching his youtube videos for years (doesn't mean I agree with his views on different things). May be you may want to check his videos.

http://www.youtube.com/user/patcondell/videos


----------



## George Wallace

s2184 said:
			
		

> When I saw this topic, I remembered Pat Condell. I have been watching his youtube videos for years (doesn't mean I agree with his views on different things). May be you may want to check his videos.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/user/patcondell/videos



Seen many of his videos.  Some of them are quite entertaining.  Just a point: we may all not be "racists", but we are by nature "biased towards anything that is different to our norm".  Often the two are confused.


----------



## CougarKing

CBC



> *'Terrorists will come to Calgary:' 2nd Muslim rally draws crowd*
> CBC
> 
> For the second time in two days, Calgary Muslims gathered at City Hall in a show of unity against terrorism and violence by the Islamist group, ISIS.
> 
> ​On Saturday, about 200 people protested with signs opposing the Taliban, Al-Qaeda and ISIS. Sunday's rally was organized by local Iraqi community groups rather than the Hussaini Association of Calgary, which was behind Saturday's rally. For many, it marked an opportunity to draw attention to a growing risk.
> 
> *"One day the terrorists will come to Calgary," said organizer Fatima Albarli. "We need to stand together now."
> 
> Over the past several months, CBC News has uncovered exclusive details about young Calgary men moving overseas to fight as jihadists for ISIS in Syria and Iraq.*
> 
> (...EDITED)


----------



## Edward Campbell

In an article that is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, Sheema Khan argues for a _reformation_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/death-for-apostasy-islam-needs-to-reflect-the-21st-century/article19316659/#dashboard/follows/


> Death for apostasy? Islam needs to reflect the 21st century
> 
> SHEEMA KHAN
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> 
> Published Wednesday, Jun. 25 2014
> 
> Meriam Yahya Ibrahim is a free woman today – albeit in hiding. She was ordered released from prison by a Sudanese appeal court after spending the past few months incarcerated. She entered prison while eight months pregnant and gave birth there. Her crime? According to a Sudanese lower court ruling, Ms. Ibrahim had committed apostasy by refusing to recant her Christian faith. And for this, she was sentenced to death.
> 
> Her lawyers argued that Ms. Ibrahim had never professed Islam, and thus never committed apostasy. Her Muslim father abandoned the family when she was 6; she was raised by her Christian Orthodox mother and chose to follow Christianity. Later, she married another Christian and they started a family together.
> 
> For reasons that are unclear, some of Ms. Ibrahim’s relatives complained to state authorities that she had converted from Islam to Christianity. An investigation was launched and she was found guilty of apostasy – renouncing her faith. According to Sudan’s version of sharia law, children of Muslim fathers are de facto Muslims, and the penalty for apostasy is death. Since Ms. Ibrahim was pregnant, she was ordered imprisoned until the weaning of her newborn, after which she was to be executed.
> 
> The case sparked outrage throughout the world, and rightfully so. Human rights groups, Western governments and ordinary citizens called for Ms. Ibrahim’s release. To their credit, her Muslim lawyers argued that the sentence was in violation of Sudan’s 2005 constitution, which guarantees freedom of religion. The appeal court agreed and ordered her unconditional release. Fearing reprisal from relatives, Ms. Ibrahim and her family have gone into hiding.
> 
> Some point to this case as an example of how apostasy laws can be misused to settle personal grudges, or to divert attention from government misdeeds. The potential abuse is reason enough to do away with the law, they argue.
> 
> Yet there is something inherently wrong with a law that calls for the execution of an individual who chooses to renounce their religion. At the heart of the matter is an individual’s fundamental, and highly personal, choice of belief. The Koran makes it clear that “there is no compulsion in religion,” and nowhere does it prescribe death for an apostate.
> 
> In a detailed study of apostasy, Dr. Jamal Badawi, professor emeritus at Saint Mary’s University, points out the obvious: “It is inconceivable to attain … peace if any person is forced or coerced to become a Muslim or to remain a Muslim against his or her free will.”
> 
> There are many accounts of apostates being brought before the Prophet Mohammed – including his personal scribe – who were left unharmed. Renunciation of faith, unaccompanied by sedition or treason, did not warrant punitive action.
> 
> With time, professed faith defined the status of citizenship. Islamic laws regarding apostasy were developed within particular political and social conditions, in which Muslim identity was inextricably linked to the Islamic empire. Apostasy was seen as the equivalent of treason against the state.
> 
> While times have changed, views rooted in medieval Islamic law have not. According to a recent Pew Research Center study, 20 countries – all with a Muslim majority – prohibit apostasy. Pew has also found that a majority of Muslims in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Malaysia, Egypt, Jordan and the Palestinian territories favour the death penalty for apostates.
> 
> This is problematic, that large numbers of Muslims view a highly personal religious choice as a political statement punishable by death – a view shaped by history more than by the tenets of the faith itself.
> 
> But asking Muslims to simply discard their faith and join 21st century secularism, or denigrating medieval Islamic laws will only harden attitudes. Another way forward is a reformative path that affirms the fundamental sources of Islam, namely the Koran and the example of the Prophet, in light of the 21st century.




I think the final paragraph is entirely correct: *we*, the secular West, cannot 'tell' Islam to reform itself; if we do we are very likely to get a _reformation_ we don't like at all. But Islam must find its way into the 21st century ... and it must do so sooner, rather than later or it may not even survive the 21st century.


----------



## CougarKing

More barbarism:

Agence-France-Presse



> *Pakistan girl burned alive for rejecting marriage proposal*
> 
> (...)
> 
> *A teenage girl died in Pakistan after being doused in petrol and set alight by a man who wanted to marry her but whose proposal had been rejected*, police said Sunday.
> 
> It was the second brutal killing in Pakistan's Punjab province within days, after a 17-year-old girl and her husband were murdered by a group of relatives for marrying against their wishes.
> 
> (...EDITED)


----------



## pbi

> ...Unfortunately, the great lie underpinning the creed of multiculturalism, as spouted by Francois‑Cerrah and her ilk, is that all cultures are “equally valid”. Well, patently, they’re not. The reason irate Pakistani patriarchs are not chucking bricks at their errant daughters in the Birmingham Bull Ring is because Britain has a basically uncorrupt police force, a robust judiciary and an enlightened, hard-won system of liberal values that regards women and girls as equals, not third-class citizens...



I try very hard not to be a "racist", but I am unrepentantly a "culturist". Sadly, criticism of evidently dysfunctional and oppressive cultures usually gets marginalized as "racism". The two are apples and oranges. The shape of a person's eyes, or the colour of their skin have little or nothing to do with how they believe people should live together and relate to each other.

I should clearly state my bias by saying that I am highly suspicious of religious fundamentalists of any sort, and I would like to see the greatest possible separation kept between them and the levers of state power. Politicians yelling about "what God wants:" have no place in my idea of a democracy.

That said, for all of its various failings, I believe that our society/culture is a pretty good one. For example, I want my daughter to become whomever or whatever she is fit to become, and not be told by some religious cretin that her place is in the kitchen, or locked up out of sight, or married to whomever it is dictated that she will be married to. Nor could I imagine beating her or burning her because she made a decision I didn't like. I want my gay son to live as freely as he may, to be a productive citizen, and to enter into permanent relationship as he sees fit. I don't want him stoned, beaten, imprisoned, ostracized, etc. by some medieval throwbacks.

I do believe that in our Canadian society today, I have little to worry about in those regards.

So, therefore, I don't like cultures that espouse any of that sort of nonsense, or stupid PC apologists who try to tell me that I must accept it. No. I don't. And I do believe that we have the right to say that new arrivals must adapt to some basic requirements.

I do accept that all people of all cultures can come to this country to work hard, to contribute, and to live and worship as they will as long as those actions don't involve oppressing or harming other people, or encouraging others to do so. That is not too much to ask.


----------



## The_Falcon

pbi said:
			
		

> I try very hard not to be a "racist", but I am unrepentantly a "culturist". Sadly, criticism of evidently dysfunctional and oppressive cultures usually gets marginalized as "racism". The two are apples and oranges. The shape of a person's eyes, or the colour of their skin have little or nothing to do with how they believe people should live together and relate to each other.
> 
> I should clearly state my bias by saying that I am highly suspicious of religious fundamentalists of any sort, and I would like to see the greatest possible separation kept between them and the levers of state power. Politicians yelling about "what God wants:" have no place in my idea of a democracy.
> 
> That said, for all of its various failings, I believe that our society/culture is a pretty good one. For example, I want my daughter to become whomever or whatever she is fit to become, and not be told by some religious cretin that her place is in the kitchen, or locked up out of sight, or married to whomever it is dictated that she will be married to. Nor could I imagine beating her or burning her because she made a decision I didn't like. I want my gay son to live as freely as he may, to be a productive citizen, and to enter into permanent relationship as he sees fit. I don't want him stoned, beaten, imprisoned, ostracized, etc. by some medieval throwbacks.
> 
> I do believe that in our Canadian society today, I have little to worry about in those regards.
> 
> So, therefore, I don't like cultures that espouse any of that sort of nonsense, or stupid PC apologists who try to tell me that I must accept it. No. I don't. And I do believe that we have the right to say that new arrivals must adapt to some basic requirements.
> 
> I do accept that all people of all cultures can come to this country to work hard, to contribute, and to live and worship as they will as long as those actions don't involve oppressing or harming other people, or encouraging others to do so. That is not too much to ask.



Slow clap :bravo: I am posting this as my FB status.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Well said, pbi ... you speak for me, too, and I am proud to associate myself with your comments.


----------



## pbi

Thanks. Even a closet lib-lefty like me can only take so much. Somebody has to have the conviction to say: "Stop that! We don't do that here."


----------



## jollyjacktar

Fantastic commentary, PBI, wish I had said it myself.


----------



## The_Falcon

I did post it on my FB, several shares/likes and kudos.


----------



## George Wallace

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Slow clap :bravo: I am posting this as my FB status.



I echo that sentiment.  Well said PBI.


----------



## Spimx

I am an immigrant naturalized Canadian Citizen, and honored and proud to share you views and believe on how every immigrant to this great country SHOULD addapt to Canada, and NOT Canada addapt to them... I have nothing against religion, I believe, like you, eevryone is free to have their own faith and culture, but they must respect others so if they want to be respected. PBI buddy, I think you are the first person that I've read in this forum with the most intellegent and reasonable post.. My respect


----------



## dimsum

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> I did post it on my FB, several shares/likes and kudos.



As did I.  Thanks pbi for stating my thoughts about all this in a much better manner than I would have.


----------



## eurowing

I could not have been that articulate. Thank you pbi .


----------



## CougarKing

Ahh yes, so-called "morality police'- yet another anachronism that Islam needs to get rid of in this modern age:

Looks like some corrupt people in authority "just can't handle the truth", as Jack Nicholson would say.  ;D



> *Lashes for Saudi woman who called morality police liars*
> 
> RIYADH (Reuters) - A Saudi Arabian judge has upheld a sentence of a month in prison and 50 lashes for a businesswoman convicted of insulting members of the morality police during an argument, the local al-Medina newspaper reported on Sunday.
> 
> Incidents of heavy-handed behavior by the morality police have come under growing criticism on social media from inside the kingdom in recent years, straining relations between Saudi citizens and the official body.
> 
> More here...
> 
> MSN News


----------



## George Wallace

I think this turns a new light onto the issues we face today and the threats of fanatical barbarians who are currently terrorizing our beliefs. 

I am not familiar with the Quran, nor a linguist who would understand the nuances of whom is being referred to in the various verses of the Quran, but I know that we have Muslims and scholarly types on the site who would have insight into what this video presents:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10204849308975393


A quick Google does bring up some references of Jesus in the Quran:

A Comprehensive Listing of References to Jesus ('Isa) in the Qur'an



> *A Comprehensive Listing of References to Jesus ('Isa) in the Qur'an*
> 
> _Among the major world religions, Islam is the only non-Christian faith that recognizes the person of Jesus. Qur'an talks a great amount about Jesus. However, Jesus Christ is the most controversial personality in Islam. In the Qur'an, Jesus is referred to in over ninety verses in fifteen surahs. Islam corroborates that Jesus was born to a virgin, was sinless, performed miracles, and was superior to other prophets. Yet, Islam teaches that Jesus was no more than a prophet. It denies the central message of Christianity by denying Jesus' divinity, crucifixion, and resurrection._
> (Yusufali translation)
> 
> *SURAH REFERENCE*
> 
> *2:87* We gave Jesus the son of Mary Clear (Signs) and strengthened him with the holy spirit.
> 
> *2:136* We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them . . .
> 
> 2:253 . . . To Jesus the son of Mary We gave clear (Signs), and strengthened him with the holy spirit.
> 
> *3:45* O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah.
> 
> *3:46* "He shall speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. And he shall be (of the company) of the righteous."
> 
> *3:48* And Allah will teach him the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel.
> 
> *3:49* And (appoint him) a messenger to the Children of Israel, (with this message): "I have come to you, with a Sign from your Lord, in that I make for you out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, and breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by Allah's leave: And I heal those born blind, and the lepers, and I quicken the dead, by Allah's leave; and I declare to you what ye eat, and what ye store in your houses. Surely therein is a Sign for you if ye did believe."
> 
> *3:50* (I have come to you), to attest the Law which was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was (Before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear Allah, and obey me.
> 
> *3:52* When Jesus found Unbelief on their part He said: "Who will be My helpers to (the work of) Allah?"
> 
> *3:55* Behold! Allah said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute."
> 
> *3:59* The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam . . .
> 
> *3:84* . . . and in (the Books) given to Moses, Jesus, and the prophets, from their Lord.
> 
> *4:157* That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";-but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not.
> 
> *4:163* We have sent thee inspiration, as We sent it to Noah and the Messengers after him: we sent inspiration to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes, to Jesus, Job, Jonah, Aaron, and Solomon, and to David We gave the Psalms.
> 
> *4:171* O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His messengers. Say not "Trinity": desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth.
> 
> *4:172* Christ disdaineth nor to serve and worship Allah . . .
> 
> *5:17* In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary.
> 
> *5:46* And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah.
> 
> *5:72* They do blaspheme who say: "Allah is Christ the son of Mary." But said Christ: "O Children of Israel! worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord." Whoever joins other gods with Allah,- Allah will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode.
> 
> *5:75* Christ the son of Mary was no more than a messenger; many were the messengers that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food.
> 
> *5:78* Curses were pronounced on those among the Children of Israel who rejected Faith, by the tongue of David and of Jesus the son of Mary: because they disobeyed and persisted in excesses.
> 
> *5:110* O Jesus the son of Mary! Recount My favour to thee and to thy mother. Behold! I strengthened thee with the holy spirit, so that thou didst speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. Behold! I taught thee the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel and behold! thou makest out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, by My leave, and thou breathest into it and it becometh a bird by My leave, and thou healest those born blind, and the lepers, by My leave. And behold! thou bringest forth the dead by My leave. And behold! I did restrain the Children of Israel from (violence to) thee when thou didst show them the clear Signs, and the unbelievers among them said: 'This is nothing but evident magic.'
> 
> *5:112* Behold! the disciples, said: "O Jesus the son of Mary! can thy Lord send down to us a table set (with viands) from heaven?" Said Jesus: "Fear Allah, if ye have faith."
> 
> 5:114 Said Jesus the son of Mary: "O Allah our Lord! Send us from heaven a table set (with viands), that there may be for us-for the first and the last of us-a solemn festival and a sign from thee; and provide for our sustenance, for thou art the best Sustainer (of our needs)."
> 
> *5:116* Allah will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah'?" He will say: "Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart . . ."
> 
> *6:85* And Zakariya and John, and Jesus and Elias: all in the ranks of the righteous.
> 
> *9:30* The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah.
> 
> *9:31* They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of Allah, and (they take as their Lord) Christ the son of Mary; yet they were commanded to worship but One Allah: there is no god but He. Praise and glory to Him: (Far is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him).
> 
> 19:19 He said: "Nay, I am only a messenger from thy Lord, (to announce) to thee the gift of a holy son."
> 
> *19:20* She said: "How shall I have a son, seeing that no man has touched me, and I am not unchaste?"
> 
> *19:21* He said: "So (it will be): Thy Lord saith, 'that is easy for Me: and (We wish) to appoint him as a Sign unto men and a Mercy from Us': It is a matter (so) decreed."
> 
> *19:22* So she conceived him, and she retired with him to a remote place.
> 
> *19:27* At length she brought the (babe) to her people, carrying him (in her arms). They said: "O Mary! truly an amazing thing hast thou brought!"
> 
> *19:30* He said: "I am indeed a servant of Allah: He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet."
> 
> *19:31* "And He hath made me blessed wheresoever I be, and hath enjoined on me Prayer and Charity as long as I live."
> 
> *19:32* "(He) hath made me kind to my mother, and not overbearing or miserable."
> 
> *19:33* "So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)!"
> 
> *19:34* Such (was) Jesus the son of Mary: (it is) a statement of truth, about which they (vainly) dispute.
> 
> *19:88* They say: "(Allah) Most Gracious has begotten a son!"
> 
> *19:91* That they should invoke a son for (Allah) Most Gracious.
> 
> *19:92* For it is not consonant with the majesty of (Allah) Most Gracious that He should beget a son.
> 
> *21:91* And (remember) her who guarded her chastity: We breathed into her of Our spirit, and We made her and her son a sign for all peoples.
> 
> *23:50* And We made the son of Mary and his mother as a Sign: We gave them both shelter on high ground, affording rest and security and furnished with springs.
> 
> *33:7* And remember We took from the prophets their covenant: As (We did) from thee: from Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus the son of Mary: We took from them a solemn covenant.
> 
> *42:13* The same religion has He established for you as that which He enjoined on Noah-the which We have sent by inspiration to thee-and that which We enjoined on Abraham, Moses, and Jesus: Namely, that ye should remain steadfast in religion, and make no divisions therein: to those who worship other things than Allah, hard is the (way) to which thou callest them. Allah chooses to Himself those whom He pleases, and guides to Himself those who turn (to Him).
> 
> *43:57* When (Jesus) the son of Mary is held up as an example, behold, thy people raise a clamour thereat (in ridicule)!
> 
> *43:61* And (Jesus) shall be a Sign (for the coming of) the Hour (of Judgment): therefore have no doubt about the (Hour), but follow ye Me: this is a Straight Way.
> 
> *43:63* When Jesus came with Clear Signs, he said: "Now have I come to you with Wisdom, and in order to make clear to you some of the (points) on which ye dispute: therefore fear Allah and obey me."
> 
> *57:27* We sent after them Jesus the son of Mary, and bestowed on him the Gospel; and We ordained in the hearts of those who followed him Compassion and Mercy . . .
> 
> *61:6* And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary, said: "O Children of Israel! I am the messenger of Allah (sent) to you, confirming the Law (which came) before me, and giving Glad Tidings of a Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad." But when he came to them with Clear Signs, they said, "this is evident sorcery!"
> 
> *61:14* O ye who believe! Be ye helpers of Allah: As said Jesus the son of Mary to the Disciples, "Who will be my helpers to (the work of) Allah?" Said the disciples, "We are Allah's helpers!" then a portion of the Children of Israel believed, and a portion disbelieved: But We gave power to those who believed, against their enemies, and they became the ones that prevailed.
> 
> N. S. R. K. Ravi



What does Islam and the Quran say about Jesus?



> What does Islam and the Quran say about Jesus?
> by Matt Slick
> 
> Following is a chart that lists the verses in the Quran that teach about Jesus.  There are many other verses that mention him, but they are largely repetitive.  The English version used is the Usuf Ali Translation of 1985.  http://quran.com
> 
> Teaching	                                                        Verse
> 
> Jesus was born of a virgin	He said: "Nay, I am only a messenger from thy Lord, (to announce) to thee the gift of a holy son. 20 She said: "How shall I have a son, seeing                                     that no man has touched me, and I am not unchaste?" 21 He said: "So (it will be): Thy Lord saith, 'that is easy for Me: and (We wish) to appoint him as a Sign unto men and a Mercy from Us': It is a matter (so) decreed."  (19:19-21, Yusif Ali)
> 
> And (remember) her who guarded her chastity: We breathed into her of Our spirit, and We made her and her son a sign for all peoples. (21:91, Yusif Ali)
> 
> Jesus strengthened with the Holy Spirit	We gave Moses the Book and followed him up with a succession of messengers; We gave Jesus the son of Mary Clear (Signs) and    strengthened him with the holy spirit. Is it that whenever there comes to you a messenger with what ye yourselves desire not, ye are puffed up with pride?- Some ye called impostors, and others ye slay! (2:87, Yusif Ali)
> 
> Jesus was given revelation by Allah	He said: "I am indeed a servant of Allah: He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet. (19:30, Yusif Ali)
> 
> Jesus taken bodily into Heaven	Behold! Allah said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute. (3:55, Yusif Ali)
> 
> Jesus was created	The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". And he was. (3:59, Yusif Ali)
> 
> Deny Jesus' Crucifixion	That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not. (4:157,Yusif Ali)
> 
> Jesus is no more than a messenger of Allah	O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His messengers. Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs. (4:171, Yusif Ali)
> 
> Christ the son of Mary was no more than a messenger; many were the messengers that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how Allah doth make His signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth! (5:575, Yusif Ali)
> 
> Jesus was a miracle worker	We have made some of these messengers to excel the others among them are they to whom Allah spoke, and some of them He exalted by (many degrees of) rank; and We gave clear miracles to Isa1 son of Marium2, and strengthened him with the holy spirit. And if Allah had pleased, those after them would not have fought one with another after clear arguments had come to them, but they disagreed; so there were some of them who believed and others who denied; and if Allah had pleased they would not have fought one with another, but Allah brings about what He intends. (2:253, Shakir)
> 
> Jesus, Son of Mary, did not say to worship himself or Mary	And behold! Allah will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah'?" He will say: "Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, Thou I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden. (5:116, Yusif Ali)
> 
> Allah sent the Gospel to Jesus
> And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah. (5:46, Yusif Ali)
> 
> Then, in their wake, We followed them up with (others of) Our messengers: We sent after them Jesus the son of Mary, and bestowed on him the Gospel; and We ordained in the hearts of those who followed him Compassion and Mercy. But the Monasticism which they invented for themselves, We did not prescribe for them: (We commanded) only the seeking for the Good Pleasure of Allah; but that they did not foster as they should have done. Yet We bestowed, on those among them who believed, their (due) reward, but many of them are rebellious transgressors. (57:27, Yusif Ali)
> 
> You are cursed if you say Jesus is God's son	The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth! (9:30, Yusif Ali)
> Jesus spoke as a child	But she pointed to the babe. They said: "How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle? 30 He said: "I am indeed a servant of God: He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet" (19:29-30, Yusif Ali)
> 
> Deny Jesus is Son of God	Such (was) Jesus the son of Mary: (it is) a statement of truth, about which they (vainly) dispute. 35 It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be", and it is. (19:34-35, Yusif Ali)
> 
> Jesus is the Son of Mary	And remember We took from the prophets their covenant: As (We did) from thee: from Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus the son of Mary: We took from them a solemn covenant:  (33:7,Yusif Ali)
> 
> Jesus was no more than a Servant	When (Jesus) the son of Mary is held up as an example, behold, thy people raise a clamour thereat (in ridicule)! 58 And they say, "Are our gods best, or he?" This they set forth to thee, only by way of disputation: yea, they are a contentious people. 59 He was no more than a servant: We granted Our favour to him, and We made him an example to the Children of Israel. (43:57-59, Yusif Ali)
> 
> Jesus said to obey him	When Jesus came with Clear Signs, he said: "Now have I come to you with Wisdom, and in order to make clear to you some of the (points) on which ye dispute: therefore fear Allah and obey me. (43:63, Yusif Ali)



1. Isa is the Quranic word for Jesus
2. Marium is the Quranic word for Mary



Google will turn up many more links on Jesus in the Quran.  If you Google Muhammad, and the number of times he is mentioned in the Quran, you will find Muhammad: Only mentioned 4 times in the Quran. What’s up with that? 

This opens up a lot of questions that seem to be forgotten, or totally overlooked, by the followers of the fanatical barbarians.  It would indicate that many of them are uneducated and used as the tools of false propaganda.


----------



## Jed

Very Interesting. I don't see too many people taking this message to heart though. Probably a similar percentage of Muslims read and study the Koran to that of Christians who read and study the Bible.


----------



## CougarKing

Due to pressure from Muslims, Subway Sandwiches in the UK has gone Halal. I'm normally pretty accommodating but IMHO this is a step too far. Offering Halal meat is one thing but dropping non Halal meat is too much.


Daily Mail



> *Subway removes ham and bacon from nearly 200 stores and offers halal meat only after 'strong demand' from Muslims*
> 
> 185 branches across UK and Ireland now sell halal-only meat
> 
> Halal refers to objects or actions permissible under Islamic law
> 
> Pork is forbidden and while other meat can be eaten, it must be sourced, slaughtered and processed according to strict rules
> Subway said all halal meat served in its branches has come from animals that were stunned before being slaughtered
> Halal-only menu is in response to 'strong demand' from Muslim customers
> 
> (...EDITED)


----------



## George Wallace

WHAT !!!!!!! 

No Bacon.

Sacrilege.


----------



## Jed

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Due to pressure from Muslims, Subway Sandwiches in the UK has gone Halal. I'm normally pretty accommodating but IMHO this is a step too far. Offering Halal meat is one thing but dropping non Halal meat is too much.
> 
> 
> Daily Mail



I concur with your opinion but the motive to do this was most likely just a business sales decision.


----------



## cavalryman

Jed said:
			
		

> I concur with your opinion but the motive to do this was most likely just a business sales decision.


And the folks who object to having their dietary decisions dictated by 7th century superstition can spend their junk food money elsewhere.  The free market is a fine thing when allowed to work.  It will be interesting to see if and how this affects Subway's bottom line.  Which consumers can you afford to annoy?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

In Islam Jesus was considered one of the most important of the early prophets, I think there are 25 important ones and about 300 minor ones.


----------



## George Wallace

Colin P said:
			
		

> In Islam Jesus was considered one of the most important of the early prophets, I think there are 25 important ones and about 300 minor ones.



Question comes to mind: If Jesus is more often referred to than Mohammed, then why such a high regard for a 'prophet' who was a 'flawed human-being'?


----------



## BorisK

cavalryman said:
			
		

> And the folks who object to having their dietary decisions dictated by 7th century superstition can spend their junk food money elsewhere.  The free market is a fine thing when allowed to work.  It will be interesting to see if and how this affects Subway's bottom line.  Which consumers can you afford to annoy?



Worth mentioning I think that quite a few food chains have served Halal only without notifying the average guest using signage or any other notice in a shady attempt to limit the potential for objections.   I will be interested to see how prominently said menu changes are advertised at Subway.


----------



## George Wallace

BorisK said:
			
		

> Worth mentioning I think that quite a few food chains have served Halal only without notifying the average guest using signage or any other notice in a shady attempt to limit the potential for objections.   I will be interested to see how prominently said menu changes are advertised at Subway.



I was thinking much the same......The eating public will show their opinions with their feet.....Fish N Chips anyone?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Question comes to mind: If Jesus is more often referred to than Mohammed, then why such a high regard for a 'prophet' who was a 'flawed human-being'?



Seriously George? You're actually trying to decipher this? Islamist scholars cannot even agree what it says.

Save yourself the headache.


----------



## George Wallace

recceguy said:
			
		

> Seriously George? You're actually trying to decipher this? Islamist scholars cannot even agree what it says.



Thant may be the problem.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> Save yourself the headache.



I really don't get into theology.    ;D


----------



## YZT580

If you want a possible solution George then think of the early history of Islam.  It was a start up religion in an area that was totally dominated by Christianity.  If Mohammed had denied that Christ existed he would have been locked up as being totally nuts.  by accepting the miraculous bits of Christianity and re-writing their importance in support of himself, the last prophet, he was able to add legitimacy.


----------



## CougarKing

British Muslim community leaders denounce what they say is the "jihadi subculture" that drove many of their sons to go to Iraq to fight for ISIS:

Reuters



> *British Muslims blame jihadi subculture after beheading video*
> 
> (...SNIPPED)
> 
> The video caused particular shock in Britain, which is home to about 2.7 million Muslims, although the hundreds of British men fighting with the militants in Iraq and Syria have created concern for some time.
> 
> Iqbal Sacranie, an adviser to the Muslim Council of Britain, said Britons from across the country's communities had to stop young men being seduced by radical ideologies.
> 
> "This sub culture of this 'jihadi-cool' - as they call it in the media - within the margins of society ..., that is the real challenge," he told BBC Radio. "This is a problem that affects all of us and it will only be dealt with more effectively if all of us are working together on this."
> 
> Sacranie said the Muslim community was pushing the message that "this is totally alien to Islam" and families were reporting to the authorities when they discovered their sons had headed to the Middle East to fight. He also told London's Evening Standard newspaper that anyone who recognized the man in the video had a duty to contact police.
> 
> JOHN, PAUL AND RINGO
> The Guardian newspaper said a former hostage had identified the masked man as the leader of three Britons who guarded foreign hostages in the city of Raqqa - Islamic State's stronghold in eastern Syria.
> 
> The BBC also reported that hostages had given their three captors nicknames after members of the Beatles pop group - John, Paul and Ringo.
> Ghaffar Hussain, managing director of the counter-extremism Quilliam Foundation, said it was almost inevitable that men who had fought in Syria would return to plan attacks in Europe.
> 
> "It is disturbing that people born and raised in Britain and who have gone to the same schools as us could have been essentially indoctrinated to the extent where they can justify raping women and chopping heads off," he said.
> 
> (...EDITED)


----------



## Colin Parkinson

YZT580 said:
			
		

> If you want a possible solution George then think of the early history of Islam.  It was a start up religion in an area that was totally dominated by Christianity.  If Mohammed had denied that Christ existed he would have been locked up as being totally nuts.  by accepting the miraculous bits of Christianity and re-writing their importance in support of himself, the last prophet, he was able to add legitimacy.



Much more complex than that, the place was awash with religion, zortestions, Jews, Christians, Abrahamic worshiping tribes, Paganistic tribes, Abrahamic-pagan tribes, some Buddhists and few others. Muhammad first marriage to a woman that ran a large trading empire I suspect gave him significant exposure to other cultures in the area, I think he saw the power of a single Monolithic faith had on a people and wanted to bring the Arab into such a group. It was a hard slog and he was advised to incorporate many of the then current practices into his new religion, incorporating the existing Kaba supposedly built by Abraham himself was key as that was also the yearly gathering area of the tribes at a holy place where they would put aside their feuds for a bit. Another bit that was added was the whole 3 times around the rock throwing pebbles. He tried allying with the Jews and Christians, but they saw him as yet another "wannabe prophet" which explains his hatred of the Jews as he was apparently betrayed by a Jew in Medina and forced to flee. To be fair he did create the first codified laws protecting Arab woman, I suspect they were not well received back then either.


----------



## s2184

I have watched couple of videos in VICE News about ISIS, & they are very disturbing.  :facepalm:

I am grateful for living in Canada.

My mentor used to tell me Islamist extremists try to go back to centuries. Oil, and money might give them power to reach their goals up to some extend.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Then you'll be happy to hear their PAFO (press officer) who stars in one of the video's has been reported by IS of being martyred in a missle strike.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Here in Montreal, the local CTV after the beheading had a McGill University expert on Extreme Islamism who described ISIS as a "death cult" within Islam.

If so, I think the world should grant them their wish. They are as much a menace to Islam itself throughout the world as to the West.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Here in Montreal, the local CTV after the beheading had a McGill University expert on Extreme Islamism who described ISIS as a "death cult" within Islam.
> 
> If so, I think the world should grant them their wish. They are as much a menace to Islam itself throughout the world as to the West.




I suspect he is (partially) right ... but I also think the idea of a new _caliphate_ resonates with many young people. Remember it was just a few centuries ago that the Mughuls and Ottomans had the biggest and 'best' empires in the known world. Now, with China rising and America evidently not all powerful it must seem reasonable that Muslims can have the 'glory' back. So, it is likely more than just a death cult.

But I think that to "grant them their wish," unless the "granting" is massive, bloody and downright sickening to almost everyone, will be counterproductive. I don't know how to win at _asymmetrical warfare_, but I'm pretty sure what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan isn't the right answer.


----------



## s2184

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Then you'll be happy to hear their PAFO (press officer) who stars in one of the video's has been reported by IS of being martyred in a missile strike.



I don't think it was going to make any difference. I read a comment yesterday in NYT; somebody saying US could simply make an end to ISIL by just using 1000 missiles. I don't believe ISIL is that simple & easy to deal with.

There should be a non stop collaborative efforts among countries to bring down ISIL ineffective over long term. It cannot be done overnight or in weeks or months. It will take years to bring ISIS down to earth. They are in their dream paradise until then.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

It's like a weed. You can't kill it by tearing off the plant. You have to go all the way down to the last bit of root.

For Islamic extremist organizations, it's the same thing. The people on the ground, no matter how high up they seem, are just the plant. We have to dig way down and eradicate the very tip of the root. In this case, you have to eliminate the very top of the financial support.

Groups like the Saudis.


----------



## jollyjacktar

s2184 said:
			
		

> I don't think it was going to make any difference. I read a comment yesterday in NYT; somebody saying US could simply make an end to ISIL by just using 1000 missiles. I don't believe ISIL is that simple & easy to deal with.
> 
> There should be a non stop collaborative efforts among countries to bring down ISIL ineffective over long term. It cannot be done overnight or in weeks or months. It will take years to bring ISIS down to earth. They are in their dream paradise until then.



Of course, taking one shitbird out a flock the size of what Passenger Pigeons must have looked like (millions), won't make much difference in the long run.  It's just pleasant to read of one of their media stars getting the gong on the Gong Show.  Besides, he was frigging annoying to watch...


----------



## George Wallace

recceguy said:
			
		

> It's like a weed. You can't kill it by tearing off the plant. You have to go all the way down to the last bit of root.
> 
> For Islamic extremist organizations, it's the same thing. The people on the ground, no matter how high up they seem, are just the plant. We have to dig way down and eradicate the very tip of the root. In this case, you have to eliminate the very top of the financial support.
> 
> Groups like the Saudis.




It is not only the money, though.  It is also the radical Imams who lead Islamic worship services and indoctrinate the young and mostly uneducated impressionable minds, with these barbaric teachings.  They float under the radar, spreading the disease and are like the mythical Hydra.  It is even harder to track down and end 'thought' than bank accounts and financiers.


----------



## s2184

But, are we - Canada prepared for possible treats by ISIS?  :

I won't be surprised if anyone or considerable number of people from Canada already joined, and working for ISIS.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Better to light one candle, as they say ....


> A Calgary imam will start a 48-hour hunger strike Friday evening to protest the beheading of an American journalist in Iraq this week by ISIS.
> 
> Imam Syed Soharwardy, founder of Muslims Against Terrorism and the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada, says he wants to draw attention to the actions of ISIS — a group of militants fighting for an Islamic state in the Middle East whose violent activities show they are not Muslims.
> 
> "The atrocity that is being carried out by ISIS is quite horrible. It's quite inhumane. It's terrorism and in Canada they have successfully recruited more than 100 people to go and fight for them in Iraq and Syria," Soharwardy said.
> 
> "I want to create awareness about the nature of their work — they are using Islam, they are quoting Qur'an, they look like Muslims, they pray like Muslims but they are not Muslim. They are deviant people, and they are doing exactly everything which goes against Islam."
> 
> Soharwardy said he wants to make sure Muslim youth know that ISIS militants are not Muslims because many are being brainwashed by the terror group and other radical leaders ....


Let's see how much coverage THIS guy gets ....



			
				s2184 said:
			
		

> I won't be surprised if anyone or considerable number of people from Canada already joined, and working for ISIS.


Behold ....

_"Farah Mohamed Shirdon of Calgary fighting for Islamic State of Iraq and Syria"_
_"Canadian Jihadists Revealed Fighting For ISIS in Iraq"_
_"Canadian ISIS member’s online ‘wake up call’ urges Muslims to follow example of Calgary suicide bomber"_


----------



## s2184

I was not following world & National news for a while. It looks like so much happened. I started looking into more details of current developments after the beheading of a journalist. 

What I understand from watching ISIS videos is that they are deliberately making horror to get media & public attention in international scene. They have been very successful in reaching the audience and get the messages across. 

They are using Islam as their lethal weapon for propaganda. An average educated person like me, I don't even know what is written in their holy book, and where they draw the line between right & wrong.


----------



## Kat Stevens

s2184 said:
			
		

> I was not following world & National news for a while. It looks like so much happened. I started looking into more details of current developments after the beheading of a journalist.
> 
> What I understand from watching ISIS videos is that they are deliberately making horror to get media & public attention in international scene. They have been very successful in reaching the audience and get the messages across.
> 
> They are using Islam as their lethal weapon for propaganda. An average educated person like me, I don't even know what is written in their holy book, and where they draw the line between right & wrong.


The line is wherever their particular bearded nut job cleric tells them it is.


----------



## BorisK

This is somewhat off topic but correct thread I'm thinking :

A friend posted the following video on Facebook.  

Now based on my own understanding of history, religion & politics I feel I can reasonably dispute the narrative in the video that professes 'Islam' is by no means an aggressor and is only fighting for sovereignty and pluralism (peace).  
However, as I enjoy hearing other perspectives, I was hoping to hear a reaction to this video from some members of this forum - both because I not only respect the opinions around here, but also because frankly I find this to be a 'safe' place to have a civil discussion on the topic since Facebook in my experience does not welcome any discussion on this topic other than 'White people are the real terrorists' [a statement I always find ironic coming from people claiming to be 'not racist'] or 'blame the Jews / blame the west / blame corporations / blame bacon / blame anybody but the guy holding a sword screaming death to __________ (insert many of the worlds populous here).  

Here's the video - would appreciate some comments if anyone has the time or inclination : (sorry if it hijacked the thread's discussion)

http://youtu.be/Tv4iBGjJbaw


----------



## s2184

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> The line is wherever their particular bearded nut job cleric tells them it is.



This is of course true for other religions too. The religious leaders mostly rule the world directly or indirectly.  ;D


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Can any lessons from ending Japan's hard line beliefs in WWII be applied to our present predicament?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

For the more educated. Thoughts?

http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/08/29/what-to-do-about-isis/


----------



## jollyjacktar

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> Can any lessons from ending Japan's hard line beliefs in WWII be applied to our present predicament?



Let's see, the coup de grace which allowed a paradigm shift in their beliefs was Fat Man and Little Boy was it not?  

ER did ponder at the possibility of a really graphic example being made necessary in order to get their attention and stop the madness.  How far should the rest of the world be prepared to go to get that attention?


----------



## GAP

He is basically saying the US should bow down and kiss their ass.....what's educational about that? :


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Are the situations similar though?



			
				jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Let's see, the coup de grace which allowed a paradigm shift in their beliefs was Fat Man and Little Boy was it not?
> 
> ER did ponder at the possibility of a really graphic example being made necessary in order to get their attention and stop the madness.  How far should the rest of the world be prepared to go to get that attention?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

The enemy of my enemy is my friend thinking has seemed to prove more harmful. So is it that discretion is the better part of valour or ramp it up and put the fear of Allah into them?



			
				GAP said:
			
		

> He is basically saying the US should bow down and kiss their ass.....what's educational about that? :


----------



## jollyjacktar

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> Are the situations similar though?



That all depends upon your viewpoint on the subject.  Prior to the outbreak of hostilities 75 years ago, there were those who felt, as today, that Fascism presented no threat or at the very least not to them and therefore should be ignored as it wasn't their problem.  There were those also that were held in thrall by the various Fascist regimes (Germany, Japan, Italy etc etc) either as eager participants or sympathizers.  And of course there were the rest, who believed they needed to be stopped whatever the cost and took that as far as was believed to be needed to curb stomp the enemy into submission (nuclear combat in 1945).

It was desirable to force Japan post capitulation to change their path which led the world to the precipice.  Today, we seemingly face the same Hobson's choice (take it or leave it) with respect to radical Islam.  The Islamists of ISIS etc, have stated their end game is to make the world surrender and submit to their faith at the point of a sword.  They seem to be incapable of reasoned co-existence or compromise as they are in thrall to the twisted vision of Islam they operate under.  To me, this seems as if this will turn into a fight to the death by one side or the other as it was in my dad's war.  Maybe not today, this month or year, but one day.

So are the situations similar?  I believe so, as radical Islam needs to be made to let go of their objectives of world domination.  And that, I think will have to come from within Islam itself if it is to be achievable.  The silent majority must be convinced to turn upon this cancer that is eating their faith and desires the world.  What will be that tipping point?  Or more to the point, how far is one side going to have to go to change the other?

I have read by some that they believe Islam is already on its reformation as described by ER, however, these same authors believe the reformation is in the form of radical Islam.  If so, that does not bode well to make Islam a true religion of peace.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

If total war to stop an ideology is thought of as just in WW2, is a war in today's day and age to purge a branch of religion palatable? 

Japan was fire bombed and nuked into obedience. Japanese were put internment camps in North America. Will society be willing to go to those extremes again?

Or do we try to understand what is making our citizens feel disenfranchised, make possible and understandable concessions and quarantine the rising tide by pulling back and setting up a blockade around the Islamic countries


----------



## GAP

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> If total war to stop an ideology is thought of as just in WW2, is a war in today's day and age to purge a branch of religion palatable? Not initially until something al la 9/11 happens again....
> 
> Japan was fire bombed and nuked into obedience. Japanese were put internment camps in North America. Will society be willing to go to those extremes again?
> 
> See above
> 
> Or do we try to understand what is making our citizens feel disenfranchised, make possible and understandable concessions to whom? the Islamists? and quarantine the rising tide which don't work, but ok by pulling back and setting up a blockade which don't work, but ok around the Islamic countries



It is nice ideal, not very practible or enforceable  :2c:


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

I believe those leaving the west may be joining for more then just a sudden change in ideology. 

That said, what would you like to try, because arming the enemies enemy is not working out so well.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> If total war to stop an ideology is thought of as just in WW2, is a war in today's day and age to purge a branch of religion palatable?
> 
> Japan was fire bombed and nuked into obedience. Japanese were put internment camps in North America. Will society be willing to go to those extremes again?
> 
> Or do we try to understand what is making our citizens feel disenfranchised, make possible and understandable concessions and quarantine the rising tide by pulling back and setting up a blockade around the Islamic countries




I grew up in the 1950s, in a small town in British Columbia. My high school girl friend was a Canadian of Japanese ethnicity, she was born in an internment camp. Some of my chums in the Army, including two of my Staff College classmates, were also Canadians of Japanese ethnicity, also born in those camps. I have a continuing horror of what "we" did to our fellow citizens ... just because their parents had a (largely religious) _link_ to a country with which we were at war ... oh, and their eyes were shaped differently and they were damned hard working folks, too. 

Would I inter Canadians again? Yes ... but on a very, VERY selective basis. The idea of making everyone of this, that or the other ethnic, religious or cultural group into an enemy is abhorrent to me.


----------



## Brad Sallows

Given sufficient fear, any inhumane mob behaviour is possible.  People reluctant to confront a problem (or who oppose simply for the sake of factional opposition) should think carefully about where inaction leads.

The Islamists are not going to win.  Either they are going to be defeated messily, or they are going to be defeated brutally.  The choice, ironically, lies with those who shrink from dealing with the problem.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

You're very optimistic


----------



## Colin Parkinson

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I grew up in the 1950s, in a small town in British Columbia. My high school girl friend was a Canadian of Japanese ethnicity, she was born in an internment camp. Some of my chums in the Army, including two of my Staff College classmates, were also Canadians of Japanese ethnicity, also born in those camps. I have a continuing horror of what "we" did to our fellow citizens ... just because their parents had a (largely religious) _link_ to a country with which we were at war ... oh, and their eyes were shaped differently and they were damned hard working folks, too.
> 
> Would I inter Canadians again? Yes ... but on a very, VERY selective basis. The idea of making everyone of this, that or the other ethnic, religious or cultural group into an enemy is abhorrent to me.



All done legally by people speaking of the Public good and Public Safety, supported no doubt by the "soccer moms" of the day. It is a good lesson that society should be reminded of on a regular basis so as not to repeat again.


----------



## Lightguns

Colin P said:
			
		

> All done legally by people speaking of the Public good and Public Safety, supported no doubt by the "soccer moms" of the day. It is a good lesson that society should be reminded of on a regular basis so as not to repeat again.



Is that not the great thing about Common Law nations, how we can come together and make laws to vilify our fellow Canadians, laws to make ownership of property illegal without any real recourse and all in the name of the Public Safety.  Irish settlers, Native Reserves, Chinese Head Tax, Ukrainians in WW1, Japanese in WW2, and, yes, even firearms owners today.  We do the same Public Safety Warning over and over again and get away with.  We never learn, even our own constitution puts limits on every right we hold so dear.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Is that not the great thing about Common Law nations, how we can come together and make laws to vilify our fellow Canadians, laws to make ownership of property illegal without any real recourse and all in the name of the Public Safety.  Irish settlers, Native Reserves, Chinese Head Tax, Ukrainians in WW1, Japanese in WW2, and, yes, even firearms owners today.  We do the same Public Safety Warning over and over again and get away with.  We never learn, even our own constitution puts limits on every right we hold so dear.



I'm ready for the list of places in the world that do it better then.


....and did you even pay attention to the 70+ year gap in your examples?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Seems like ISIS may have it's sights set on Russia. Good for them.


----------



## Lightguns

The enemy of my enemy is my friend?  Has worked for us very well in the last few decades.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I'm ready for the list of places in the world that do it better then.
> 
> 
> ....and did you even pay attention to the 70+ year gap in your examples?



We do better than most, but it's a good reminder to the people who like to say; "That would never happen here", well it did and it can happen again. Let's not forget the War Measure Act for the FLQ crisis and calling out the army for Oka for what was pretty much a fight over a golf course. Democracy requires vigilance of those who exercise power.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

I think if ISIS enters into Russia ISIS may have some education handed to them and no other country will say boo about how Russia handles them in their own country.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Colin P said:
			
		

> We do better than most, but it's a good reminder to the people who like to say; "That would never happen here", well it did and it can happen again. Let's not forget the War Measure Act for the FLQ crisis and calling out the army for Oka for what was pretty much a fight over a golf course. Democracy requires vigilance of those who exercise power.



Of course it could..........democracy also requires vigilance of those who would try and subvert it or attempt to take it by force.  See what I did there?


----------



## jollyjacktar

I prefer the avenue the UK is exploring.  Making the sh1ts who leave for jihaid stateless.  

I like the thought of a one-way door for these dubious citizens regardless of where they were born.  You leave as a radical as some have, you don't come back.  Ever.  If by some chance you do make it back, if and when you're caught you get jugged until such time as you're not able to or going to be a threat to the rest of us.

Better still, treat them as we did this snake.  

Kanao Inouye (1916 – August 27, 1947) was a Canadian citizen convicted of high treason and war crimes for his actions during World War II. Known as the "Kamloops Kid," he served as an interpreter and prison camp guard for the Imperial Japanese Army and the political police, or Kempeitai.


----------



## Brad Sallows

>I like the thought of a one-way door...

I like the thought of it being the exit from a fuselage at 3,000 metres.


----------



## GAP

The US for decades had a law that you could be arrested is you served as a mercenary soldier. 

It obviously has gone by the wayside, but I know it was in place when I got back as I was considering it....


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

With all the PMC's nowadays that issue could get muddy unless the law stipulated that the marks fought against the USA (which would make sense).


----------



## a_majoor

What the crackheads in ISIS and similar groups don't seem to have considered is that the US, at least, has a very volatile and polarized electorate. At some time the outrages will cause a tipping point, and the Americans will change from passive spectators wringing their hands to an avenging army wielding the Jacksonian "Terrible Swift Sword". You can ask the Japanese and Germans how that went for them. 

And the radicals should also consider that while they strive to make small quantities of nuclear weapons, the United States and the Western Powers made these things on an assembly line. Yes, war material is much more complex and expensive now, but the "Willow Run" assembly plant is still a possibility once people get pushed far enough. Even in our degraded state *we* command far more military, material, economic and intellectual resources than the entire Islamic world (or the Russians, or even the Chinese).

And of course, as alluded, the "Terrible Swift Sword" is also going to be deployed in the homeland. We may not like it, and we may even "know" that it isn't very effective, but if the tipping point comes then all the terrible things that were done to our own citizens in the Great War and WWII will come back in spades as well. All it needs is for the electorate to move from *fear* to *anger*.


----------



## jollyjacktar

> The Burn ISIS Flag Challenge: Outraged Muslims flood web with their version of the Ice Bucket Challenge in protest against Islamic State barbarism
> 
> - Pictures and videos showing protesters torching black standard go viral
> - Video posted on YouTube nominates the rest of the world to follow suit
> -Comes after beheadings of two U.S. journalists and a Lebanese soldier
> - Even hate cleric Abu Qatada has denounced beheadings as un-Islamic
> 
> 
> BySimon Tomlinson for MailOnline  Published: 10:11 GMT, 8 September 2014
> 
> Furious Muslims are flooding the internet with their own version of the Ice Bucket Challenge in protest against the Islamic State - by burning the terror group's flag.  Dozens of pictures and videos are trending on Twitter and YouTube showing campaigners from America to Lebanon setting fire to the black jihadist standard.  The groundswell of disgust comes after the sickening beheadings of two U.S. journalists which were even denounced by hate cleric Abu Qatada.
> 
> One image posted on Twitter shows demonstrators in London torching an IS flag with the message: 'Arab World's version of the Ice Bucket Challenge.'  Another shows a middle-aged woman holding a burning flag with the defiant tweet: 'Burn that flag! Kill the flagwavers!'  A video uploaded to YouTube which has more than 100,000 views also urged everyone else to follow suit.  It said: 'I nominate the whole world to the #BurnISISFlagChallenge. You have 24 hours. GO!!'  The movement, which uses the hastags #BurnISISFlagChallenge and #BurnISIS, started in Lebanon with a group of students disgusted by the beheading of one of their soldiers last month.
> 
> Yesterday, even Qatada, who was recently extradited from Britain to Jordan on terror charges, condemned the barbaric tactics employed by the Islamic State.  Qatada was once described by a Spanish judge as the right-hand man in Europe of Al Qaeda terror network founder Osama bin Laden.  Speaking to reporters from the dock at a Amman courthouse about the beheadings of U.S. journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff, he said: 'Journalists should not be killed because they are messengers of the truth.'
> He also branded IS 'a killing and demolition machine' and likened its fighters to 'dogs of hellfire'.
> 
> Meanwhile, U.S. warplanes have wiped out Islamic State insurgents menacing Iraq's Haditha Dam with five air strikes that widened what Barack Obama called a campaign to ultimately defeat the jihadist movement.  The aerial assault drove Islamic State fighters away from the dam, according to a police intelligence officer in the vast western province of Anbar, a hotbed of Islamist insurgency.
> The U.S. military said in a statement that the strikes destroyed four IS Humvees, four IS armed vehicles, two of which were carrying anti-aircraft artillery, an IS fighting position, one IS command post and an IS defensive fighting position.
> 
> U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the strikes on the Sunni Muslim insurgents had been carried out at the request of the Shi'ite Muslim-led central government in Baghdad.  'If that dam would fall into (Islamic State's) hands or if that dam would be destroyed, the damage that would cause would be very significant and it would put a significant, additional and big risk into the mix in Iraq,' Hagel told reporters during a trip to Georgia's capital, Tbilisi.
> 
> Obama said on the weekend he would explain to Americans this week his plan to 'start going on some offense' against Islamic State.
> 'We are going to be a part of an international coalition, carrying out air strikes in support of work on the ground by Iraqi troops, Kurdish troops,' he said in an NBC TV interview.  'We are going to systematically degrade their capabilities. We're going to shrink the territory that they control. And ultimately we're going to defeat 'em.'
> 
> Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2747644/The-Burn-ISIS-Flag-Challenge-Outraged-Muslims-flood-web-version-Ice-Bucket-Challenge-protest-against-Islamic-State-barbarism.html#ixzz3CjAeZ4aQ
> Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook



Nice to see some reaction at last that is meaningful.  Lots of photos and a video at story link.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Islam-fascism 
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=G03ddcUs1zQ

Also 3 members of the Muslium Brotherhood in top levels of the White House.


----------



## brihard

On a different note:


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/inuvik-mosque-to-stock-new-food-bank-with-country-food-1.2766377

*Inuvik mosque to stock new food bank with country food*

CBC News Posted: Sep 15, 2014 7:10 AM CT Last Updated: Sep 15, 2014 7:54 AM CT

They've built Canada's northernmost mosque. Now the Islamic community in Inuvik, N.W.T., is building a food bank in the arctic community.

“Any society where food and cost of living is very expensive, that community needs help," says Imam Abdul Azim. "As a Muslim community it is incumbent on us to extend this help to all the people that live in the North.”

In addition to canned and dry goods, the food bank is working with elders to stock their freezers with country food, such as fish, Arctic char and caribou.

Like any other people they have traditional foods, so we have our system set up where we can access the fish and the caribou — not only seasonally, but the year long.”

The new food bank is being built behind the Midnight Sun Mosque. It will include freezers to store the meat and fish, and is expected to open by December.

“There's a lot of people who cannot afford to go hunting,” says Ruth Wright, who volunteers in the community’s homeless shelter.

“There's a lot of people who have not had kidneys or heart since their grandparents died because they just can't afford to go get it.”

For Imam Azim, the project is something he hopes to see elsewhere in the Arctic.

“Inuvik is just the first stop. It is just the beginning.”


----------



## GAP

I hope they have the sense to imbed the freezers into the permafrost, where they are not susceptible to thawing in the event of a power failures. I does happen, but they have a work around in the event it happens....


----------



## George Wallace

How can they ask us 'non-believers' to be tolerant, when they do stupid things like this to demonstrate their beliefs:

NYC Muslim Day Parade 2014 Pro-Terror March

One of these days, people will awake to a world their forefathers fought to protect us from.  Tolerance does have a breaking point.  When that day does come, it may likely be very encompassing of all barbarian Muslim Sects, as well as the innocent moderates who did nothing to deny them.


----------



## cryco

that's terrible. I checked out that link... 
It's as if some part of certain Muslims refuses to evolve with time. 
Weapons and tactics evolved but the mentality hasn't. 
Israel isn't going anywhere, women play an equal role in society, education is vital. Wake up! 
But I don't blame the moderate Muslims for doing nothing (or not enough) to curb the doings of the psycho/fanatic/extremist clowns. It's not up to me as a christian to denounce an evil act by a christian somewhere else in the world (or even in my back yard). It's up to me as a human to denounce it.


----------



## Kirkhill

Brilliant article from The Telegraph by Kate Maltby
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/katemaltby/100286595/to-understand-isil-europe-must-remember-its-own-religious-history/



> Kate Maltby
> Kate Maltby is a writer and academic. She has written for most major British publications on politics, foreign policy, culture and theatre; she is also completing a PhD on the intellectual life of Elizabeth I. She is on the Executive Team for Bright Blue, and has recently co-edited Bright Blue's Modernisers' Manifesto, with Ryan Shorthouse and James Brenton, released on April 30th, but she writes in her own capacity.






> To understand Isil, Europe must remember its own religious history
> 
> How do we win the battle of hearts and minds against Isil, Boris Johnson asked on these pages yesterday?  Well, comes one obvious answer, by pointing out that they do nasty things to anyone they perceive as their enemy. This is the tack taken by the US State Department’s latest video, aimed at US Muslims at risk of radicalisation. The 70-second video points out that anyone who signs up with Isil is likely to find himself complicit in the deaths of fellow Muslims, and then provides a gory show reel of Isil inflicting atrocities amongst anyone they consider an enemy.  “Are you really capable of this?” That’s the implicit message. “Do you really want to go to Iraq, to do horrific things to our fellow human beings?”
> 
> Except, as we all know, many of us are secretly thrilled by the idea of doing horrific things to our enemies. That’s the first problem with using atrocity footage to put young men or women off violent Jihad. Particularly – and I write this, shamefacedly, as a doubting-but-pretty-much-believing Christian – especially where religion is involved. The horrors of the French Wars of Religion, just one example, have rather drifted from our school curricula, but my own work as a literary historian involves reading pamphlet after pamphlet detailing atrocities inflicted by Catholics upon Protestants, and vice versa, on European soil. You might not think of it on your next holiday to Lyon, but only four hundred and fifty years ago, the Rhone ran red with Protestant blood.
> 
> We modern sceptics used to assume that the worst of these Elizabethan reports were superstitious fiction. The work of Professor Natalie Zemon Davis, however, has shown that there’s solid evidence to believe even the most anatomically repulsive records of atrocities committed at the 1572 Massacre of St Bartholomew, when ultra-Catholics massacred several thousand Huguenot Protestants. And we can’t blame everything on poverty any more. The old Marxist historians like Eric Hobsbawm or George Rudé looked at riots over grain, bread and cotton prices, to show that all crowd violence was fundamentally economic in nature. But crucially, Zemon Davis’s painstaking analysis of every detail we have about participants in religious violence shows that “more often, the social composition of the crowds extended upwards to encompass merchants, notaries and lawyers”. Looking at Isil’s recruits, we should know this already. Private school girls like Amira Karroum don’t fly to Raqqa because they’re starving. Wealthy polyglots like Islam Yaken aren’t rioting for bread. They may be deluded, but they believe in ideas. And if today’s Middle East has a lesson for the way we look at history, it’s that ideas, not merely grain prices, have consequences.
> 
> To understand Isil, Europe must remember what it was to be a continent where religion mattered. Zemon Davis also demonstrated that religious violence mimics religious ritual: in what she has termed “The Rites of Violence”, Catholics "exorcised" Protestants by ritually drowning them in rivers instead of simply dipping them in Holy Water; a Protestant child was baptised in the blood of her parents; bodies were burned in incense in imitation of Old Testament rules for the purification of the unclean animals. When Protestants fought back, their violence could be just as ritualistic and dehumanising, but they focused on profaning Catholic relics or mocking the Mass.  The parallels are not exact. In history, they rarely are. St Bartholomew’s Massacre was an incident of urban violence; though well-organised, it was the work of crowds, not a highly drilled Middle Eastern army. But the key point is that religious violence speaks a language of its own. To defeat it, we must break its spell.
> None of that makes the religious heritage of Europe sound very appealing. But it is essential to remember that in Europe, with the Reformation, Enlightenment, Emancipation, we’ve moved on. Those of us who still practise a faith – Catholic, Protestant, Muslim or Jew – preserve a sense of sanctity without killing each other over it. Crucially, we’re no longer theocrats: the C of E may tell me adultery is sinful, but the state won’t stone me to death over it. But in moving on too fast, we’ve also lost the religious literacy that tells us why people look to priests and saints for guidance in the first place. There will always be those for whom the post-modern world just seems a bit too fractured, a bit too liberal, frankly, in all its dazzling, confusing choices, a bit too frightening. If we want to keep young Muslims from religious violence, the answer is not secularism, but religious alternatives. The violent history of Christianity shouldn’t be a reason to discredit our religious impulse, but to demonstrate the impossibility of repressing it completely.
> 
> And to (sic) despite the State Department’s best efforts, we can’t build the moral case against Isil simply by pointing out the cruelties it inflicts upon its enemies. As Professor Ian Robertson points out, that’s not how out-group/in-group dynamics work. Religious fanatics have always slaughtered their enemies – and for radical Sunnis, that includes the Shia. Instead, it is the mundane misery of Isil’s ideal state that should horrify the world. Amira Karroum isn’t scared of being beheaded, because she doesn’t think of herself as an infidel. But once the glamour of war is gone, does she really want to live in an eternal shroud, forbidden from leaving the house, denied an education? Do young British men – one of whom notoriously asked “Do the mujahideen play footy and that?” – understand that a state ruled by blasphemy laws is a state where a wise crack at the local cleric could cost you your life? Many states are forged in war – not all of them then ban music, art and history in peace time.
> 
> It is bizarre to imagine that there are people who haven’t made up their minds about the moral toxicity of the so-called Islamic State. It horrifies me that I type this. But clearly, there are – the flow of recruits alone shows that. So don’t imagine that propagating the slaughter of infidels will put them off. We in the media have enjoyed reporting on stories of war crimes. But Isil aren’t just war criminals. Their peace is criminal too.


----------



## Kat Stevens

So all we need to do is wait 500 years for them catch up and all will be good?  Whew, good news indeed!


----------



## cryco

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Brilliant article from The Telegraph by Kate Maltby
> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/katemaltby/100286595/to-understand-isil-europe-must-remember-its-own-religious-history/



that last line, "Their peace is criminal too" just nailed it... Great read.


----------



## CougarKing

Even in a supposedly more secular Islamic country such as Indonesia, one encounters this from the radical clerics there...

Straits Times



> *Indonesian radicals protest against 'infidel' new Jakarta governor*
> 
> JAKARTA - Hundreds of Islamic hardliners on Wednesday protested against the incoming governor of the Indonesian capital, labelling the Christian, ethnic Chinese politician an "infidel" and "the devil".
> 
> *Basuki Tjahaja Purnama will be Jakarta's first leader from the tiny ethnic Chinese minority of the world's most populous Muslim-majority country, and only the second Christian governor to lead the capital.*
> 
> Known by his nickname Ahok, the 48-year-old is now deputy governor and is due to automatically become leader when the current governor, Joko Widodo, steps down in the coming weeks to be sworn in as president.
> 
> Purnama's straight-talking, no-nonsense style and campaign for transparency in the graft-ridden nation has helped him win strong public support.
> 
> (...EDITED)


----------



## CougarKing

How fitting that the UAE's first female fighter pilot would be the one to ignite this debate in the Islamic world:

Christian Science Monitor



> *Islamic State: Arab female F-16 pilot stirs debate in Muslim world*
> 
> UAE fighter pilot Mariam al-Mansouri shot to fame last week for her role in a US-led bombing campaign in Syria. While Americans hailed her pluck, for Arabs it's more complicated.
> 
> Last week *Mariam al-Mansouri, a F-16 pilot from the United Arab Emirates*, was introduced to the world. Smiling out from under her helmet and hijab after launching air strikes in Syria, part of a US-led campaign against Islamic State, her image went viral.
> 
> For some Americans, she was a sort of Katharine Hepburn meets Amelia Earhart who had shattered prevalent stereotypes of Arab women. A popular Internet meme reads: “hey ISIS. you were bombed by a woman. have a nice day.”
> 
> Her mission has aroused considerable “you go girl” sentiment in the Arab world as well, from Twitter to newspaper editorials.
> 
> (...EDITED)


----------



## Rifleman62

I heard, therefore without verification, that if a Muslim man is killed by a female, he becomes an apostate. No virgins awaiting.

That's why the controversy of a female Muslim Fighter Jock Jill.


----------



## jollyjacktar

There was a story that her family have now disowned her as they're big ISIS supporters and are pissed off with her actions.  I say, good for her, her family on the otherhand, can all stuff themselves.


----------



## The_Falcon

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> I heard, therefore without verification, that if a Muslim man is killed by a female, he becomes an apostate. No virgins awaiting.
> 
> That's why the controversy of a female Muslim Fighter Jock Jill.



I just asked the Jordanian's that I work with about this, and they confirmed this.  They think it's pretty funny actually.


----------



## Rifleman62

jollyjacktar: 





> There was a story that her family have now disowned her as they're big ISIS supporters and are pissed off with her actions.  I say, good for her, her family on the otherhand, can all stuff themselves.



If the primary,secondary targets cannot be hit, rather than land with the munitions, she knows where to lay them!


----------



## dimsum

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> There was a story that her family have now disowned her as they're big ISIS supporters and are pissed off with her actions.  I say, good for her, her family on the otherhand, can all stuff themselves.



So the fact that she's a fighter pilot (and not tucked away at home) was OK?   ???


----------



## jollyjacktar

Dimsum said:
			
		

> So the fact that she's a fighter pilot (and not tucked away at home) was OK?   ???



 :dunno:


----------



## CougarKing

Meanwhile...



> *Arkansas shooting range declares itself a ‘Muslim Free Zone’*
> Washington Times
> 
> The proprietor of an Arkansas shooting range announced on social media Sunday that she is banning Muslims from her establishment out of fear for the safety of her patrons.
> 
> “This is not a coffee and donut shop. This is a live fire indoor shooting range. People come here to buy, rent, and shoot lethal weapons,
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

Canadian Muslims, including the group NCCM, in the spotlight with this article:

Yahoo Daily Brew



> *Politics may be hindering Canadian Muslim effort to combat radicalization*
> Daily Brew – 15 hours ago
> 
> Ever since the 9/11 terror attacks there’s been a steady demand for Canadian Muslims to speak out against radical Islam.
> 
> But it appears an effort to do just that may have been partly derailed by politics.
> 
> The RCMP suddenly pulled out of a news conference Monday to launch United Against Terror [PDF], a pamphlet produced by two Muslim organizations with the help of the Mounties, who contributed a chapter to it.
> 
> Members of the Muslim community, surprised by the move, worry it could undermine efforts to build trust between law enforcement agencies and young Muslims who they hope to keep from becoming radicalized.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)
> 
> *Since 9/11, some Muslims have complained about being harassed by CSIS agents and Mounties over their associations and attitudes, making segments of Canada’s million-member Muslim community leery of helping the authorities.*
> 
> (...SNIPPED)
> 
> Besides the ISSA and the RCMP, the other main partner in the project was the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM), whose involvement may provide a clue to what happened.
> 
> (...SNIPPED0
> 
> The council, formerly known as the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-CAN), launched a defamation lawsuit last May against Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Jason MacDonald, his director of communications, for comments linking the council to Hamas, which governs Palestine’s Gaza Strip and is listed as a terrorist organization in Canada.
> 
> The NCCM had demanded an apology after MacDonald lashed back against the council’s criticism of inclusion of a Toronto rabbi as part of Harper’s party during his state visit to Israel last year. Critics have claimed CAIR-CAN’s U.S. parent organization was a longtime Hamas front group.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## jollyjacktar

Which may be the origins of vicious circle they feel they find themselves in.  They don't help for whatever reason, therefore they're view with suspicion (fairly or not), therefore they don't help, repeat cycle...


----------



## The Bread Guy

Dimsum said:
			
		

> So the fact that she's a fighter pilot (and not tucked away at home) was OK?   ???


I suppose.  

I guess the aviator glasses is a universal thing among fast air folk?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

How does one "Hide their modesty" when they are a jet fighter pilot?


----------



## Kirkhill

I thought it was a requirement for zoomies to hide their modesty.   >


----------



## Edward Campbell

Here is. I _think_, part of the reason so many of 'us' fear Islam and so many Muslims hate Christendom: too many of us are religiously _isolated_.






The Middle East has a low level of religious diversity; North America has only, at best, moderate religious diversity. It ought not to surprise us when we/they don't _understand_ that which is _foreign_ to us/them.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Here is. I _think_, part of the reason so many of 'us' fear Islam and so many Muslims hate Christendom: too many of us are religiously _isolated_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Middle East has a low level of religious diversity; North America has only, at best, moderate religious diversity. It ought not to surprise us when we/they don't _understand_ that which is _foreign_ to us/them.




Or it could be the religion's foundation principle of jihad....


Matthew.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

All religions are BS.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I thought it was a requirement for zoomies to hide their modesty.   >



Preferred kit is a pair of Half Jackets or other suitable Oakley product.  Also common at a FDU where they are worn *up* negating need for head dress. 8)


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> All religions are BS.




Yet they play a huge part in the majority of peoples lives


----------



## YZT580

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Or it could be the religion's foundation principle of jihad....




Matthew. In almost all Islamic countries it is against the law to be anything other than Muslim.  Proselytizing will result in the death sentence as will changing faith from Muslim to any other form of religion.  With those kinds of laws it is little wonder that there is no diversity.  It is also little wonder that Europe and NA are predominantly "Christian" since that was the faith of those who founded both the US and Canada and the faith of those who conquered SA for that matter.  It is only since WW2 that we have had a preponderance of people of other faiths moving into the west.  Hindu, Buddhist and others are relatively tolerant but Muslims will not live and let live.  Take a real good look at Denmark and Belgium if you want to see the end result of allowing them to set the rules and Britain is rapidly joining them.  There are areas in all 3 countries where Islam reigns supreme and others just stay out (or die).  Some of those reading this thread have mentioned elsewhere that we are repeating the story of tar baby and that may be true.  But doing nothing will result in another fable being enacted here: that of the camel in the tent so chose your fable, I much prefer doing it over there rather than watching it happen here.  Regardless, for you folks who have to carry the load, fly safe and watch your six.  Those of us who can't will be praying for your safety.  

EDIT: fixed the quote box.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

After 9/11 I was very confused.  I could understand how easy it could be to brainwash someone inside a totalitarian state.  I could not understand how people operating outside those monolithic states could continue to be brainwashed when given an opportunity to be enlightened with freedom to learn whatever they wanted.  And so I sought out English translations of the Quran and Hadiths.

Short Version is we in the West struggle to reconcile Islam's hate of "western culture" and reach to find all sorts of complicated explanations such as poverty, demographics, etc.  Most of the time it almost appears guilt-based:  "What have we done to bring this upon ourselves?" to the point we literally take the blame for their actions without even understanding what had happened.

What I believe to be true is that why Islamists hate us is in no way complicated.  In fact it is incredibly simple.  It's because each tenet of the written religion is about the unquestioning conquering and domination of all the world's infidels.  Until there is some sort of Islamic Reformation, nothing will change.

For those struggling with this question, please don't take my word for it.  Please don't read other peoples views.  Take the time to read the Quran and Hadiths with your own eyes and common sense and come to your own conclusions.


M.


----------



## BorisK

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> After 9/11 I was very confused.  I could understand how easy it could be to brainwash someone inside a totalitarian state.  I could not understand how people operating outside those monolithic states could continue to be brainwashed when given an opportunity to be enlightened with freedom to learn whatever they wanted.  And so I sought out English translations of the Quran and Hadiths.
> 
> Short Version is we in the West struggle to reconcile Islam's hate of "western culture" and reach to find all sorts of complicated explanations such as poverty, demographics, etc.  Most of the time it almost appears guilt-based:  "What have we done to bring this upon ourselves?" to the point we literally take the blame for their actions without even understanding what had happened.
> 
> What I believe to be true is that why Islamists hate us is in no way complicated.  In fact it is incredibly simple.  It's because each tenet of the written religion is about the unquestioning conquering and domination of all the world's infidels.  Until there is some sort of Islamic Reformation, nothing will change.
> 
> For those struggling with this question, please don't take my word for it.  Please don't read other peoples views.  Take the time to read the Quran and Hadiths with your own eyes and common sense and come to your own conclusions.
> 
> 
> M.



My honest and best efforts in study of theocracy for over ten years led me to a similar conclusion to yours.  I have a few ideas on how to encourage reformation, but in the meantime, my deepest respect to those who stand watch.  

On a more positive note : Happy thanksgiving to all.  Celebrate.


----------



## CougarKing

Who would have thought that Malaysia, which is more economically developed in some ways than Indonesia, is actually less open to secular ideas of a liberal Muslim scholar from their neighbour? To think it's also illegal to try to proselytize/convert Muslims to another religion such as Christianity in Malaysia...

Malaysian Insider



> *Indonesian liberal Muslim scholar on immigration blacklist *
> 
> A Muslim scholar from Indonesia has been barred from entering the country, the Home Ministry said today.
> 
> Dr Ulil Abshar Abdalla, who was scheduled to speak at a roundtable discussion on Islamic fundamentalism, *has been barred as "he would mislead the Muslims in the country if he is allowed to spread his brand of liberalism here",* Home Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi was quoted as saying by the New Straits Times.
> 
> The roundtable discussion entitled "Religious fundamentalism threat in this century" is organised by the Global Movement of Moderates Foundation together with the Islamic Renaissance Front and was scheduled for Saturday, October 18, with Dr Ulil set to arrive on Wednesday.
> 
> According to NST Online, Zahid said: "Dr Ulil was invited by local NGOs to speak about liberalism but at the same time we received various reports of those who are against his idea of liberalism."
> 
> On Thursday, director-general of the Malaysian Islamic Development Department (Jakim) Datuk Othman Mustapha had called for the entire roundtable discussion to be stopped as it involved the Jaringan Islam Liberal speaker from Indonesia.
> 
> Bernama reported Othman as saying that Malaysia held to the edict of the National Fatwa Council in 1996 that only the practices of the Ahli Sunnah Wal Jamaah (Shafie sect) are allowed in the  country.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Colin Parkinson

the Whabbi's have Malaysia under tight control, the only thing saving us is the Malays are generally laid back and the majority of them will not stay hardcore, must drive the Pakistani's Jihadist nuts trying to keep them motivated.


----------



## CougarKing

How can these idiots claim to represent university students in the UK if they have these overt, anti-US/western views? 

Spectator



> *‘Islamophobia’ strikes again – national students’ union refuses to condemn Isis*
> 146 comments 16 October 2014 10:01Douglas Murray
> 
> In a world often devoid of good news, there has been a fine development on the farthest-flung shores of insanity.* The British National Union of Students aspires to represent students, though traditionally tends only to represent those students who are politically ambitious and possess left wing views. *In any case, its latest idiocy is that it has tied itself in knots over the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria – Isis.
> 
> A condemnation of the ebullient Islamic group was tabled by a student of Kurdish descent. The Kurds, some people will recall, have not been treated well by Isis of late. Of course such a motion would be fairly pointless. It is unlikely that even one Isis fighter will be persuaded to put down their meat-cleaver because the British NUS has passed a motion against them, however strongly-worded.
> 
> But sometimes the symbolism of things matters. *It would have been nice if the NUS – which has done so much in recent years to smear and otherwise attack the critics of Islamic extremism – could have found it within itself to condemn Isis. But they didn’t manage it. Specifically, they didn’t manage it because, as student officer reported on his blog, the Black Students officer Malia Bouattia declared that the condemnation of Isis consisted of ‘blatant Islamophobia’, and was a shill for ‘pro USA intervention’ to boot.
> 
> In fact the motion – which you can read in full here – is absurdly weakly worded, and rather typically over-heavy on its anti-Americanism.* But not enough so for Ms Bouattia and the Black Students section of the NUS, who have now succeeded in stopping any condemnation of the most racist, sectarian group of our time.
> 
> As I have often said, the word and charge of ‘Islamophobia’ really is deadly. Today it is deadliest of all for the Kurds, the Christians, the Shia and the Yazidis of Iraq and Syria.


----------



## George Wallace

In the 1930's the UK had Neville Chamberlain.   Now, not only the UK, but all of us have thousands of Neville Chamberlains.


----------



## Kirkhill

Same mob George ....



> The King and Country debate took place at the Oxford Union debating society of Oxford University in England on 9 February 1933. The motion, that this House will in no circumstances fight for its King and Country, was carried by 275 votes to 153.[1] It is one of the most famous and notorious debates conducted at the Oxford Union.
> 
> ...
> 
> "It is no mere coincidence that the only country fighting for the cause of peace, Soviet Russia, is the country that has rid itself of the war-mongering clique. The justification urged for the last war was that it was a war to end war. If that were untrue it was a dastardly lie; if it were true, what justification is there for opposition to this motion tonight?"



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_King_and_Country_debate

The same mob that I have encountered amongst the Scots that in all seriousness, while taking home a healthy capitalist paycheck, look forward to:

"Come the day! Up against the wall!"  It was common enough during the recent civilized debates on independence.

The closer I get to retirement, the more enamoured of bullets I become myself.


----------



## CougarKing

Shouldn't a practical reason, such as the need to positively identify the individual taking the oath, be another consideration for the court to rule that the niqabs be taken off during citizenship oath-takings? 

Yahoo News/Andy Radia's Canadian Politics column



> *Muslim groups split on Jason Kenney's no-veil policy for citizenship oaths*
> By Andy Radia | Canada Politics – 19 hours ago
> 
> There’s yet another debate taking place in Canada about niqabs, face coverings and religious accommodation.
> 
> This one, however, is not focused on Quebec; it’s happening in an Ontario court. And no, it’s not the result of a separatist government. It’s all thanks to multicultural minister, Conservative Party ethnic outreach king and former immigration minister Jason Kenney.
> 
> Back in 2011, Kenney and his government amended regulations to place a ban on face coverings — such as niqabs — for anyone taking an oath of citizenship in front of a citizenship judge.
> 
> That change is now being deliberated over by a court.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)
> 
> On Friday, Kenney took to Twitter to reassert his position.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)
> 
> *But in the case of niqabs  — there’s no unified position on the issue within the Muslim community.
> 
> According to the National Post, the Muslim Canadian Congress lauded Kenney, in 2011, calling it  a “courageous decision.”*
> 
> "The niqab or burka is a political tool by Islamists who wish to segregate Muslims into religious ghettos, cut off from mainstream society," Farzana Hassan of the Muslim Canadian Congress said in 2011, according to the Post.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)
> 
> Muslim Council of Montreal leader Salam Elmenyawi, who was one of the key figures in the fight against Quebec Values Charter, says he admires Ishaq’s courage and conviction.
> 
> "The only places where there are dress codes like this…are in the dictatorships. Not in Canada, Canada is the place that gives freedom of expression," he told Yahoo Canada News suggesting that Kenney has political reasons for pushing for the change.
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## George Wallace

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Shouldn't a practical reason, such as the need to positively identify the individual taking the oath, be another consideration for the court to rule that the niqabs be taken off during citizenship oath-takings?
> 
> Yahoo News/Andy Radia's Canadian Politics column



Indeed.  As they will also have to have a photo taken for their Citizenship Card, just like a Drivers Licence, how would we be able to identify the person if she is masked?   The cards would be easily passed between many masked women for activities and seeking benefits.  It would promote fraud of our Health Care system, our Highway Acts, and not to mention a security concern for those issuing Passports.  

Those forms of dress are after all cultural, not religious.


----------



## CougarKing

More of the barbarism that shouldn't have a place in today's modern societies...

Reuters



> *Saudi Arabia steps up beheadings; some see political message*
> Mon Oct 20, 2014 10:52am
> 
> (...SNIPPED)
> 
> A sudden surge in public executions in Saudi Arabia in the last two months has coincided with a U.S.-led bombing campaign against Islamic State. This has led to inevitable comparisons in Western media between Islamic State's beheadings and those practiced in Saudi Arabia.
> 
> Defenders of the Saudi death penalty say beheadings, usually with a single sword stroke, are at least as humane as lethal injections in the United States. They deplore any comparison between the kingdom's execution of convicted criminals and Islamic State's extra-judicial killing of innocent hostages.
> 
> But rights activists say they are more concerned by the justice system behind the death penalty in the kingdom than by its particular method of execution. And critics of the Al Saud ruling family say the latest wave of executions may have a political message, with Riyadh determined to demonstrate its toughness at a moment of regional turmoil.
> 
> *Saudi Arabia beheaded 26 people in August, more than in the first seven months of the year combined. The total for the year now stands at 59, compared to 69 for all of last year, according to Human Rights Watch.*
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

Meanwhile, in France...

International Business Times



> *Paris Opera House Expels Woman for Wearing Niqab after Cast Refuses to Perform La Traviata*
> 
> By Ludovica Iaccino | IB Times – 13 hours ago
> 
> *A Muslim woman wearing a niqab has been forced to leave a theatre in France after the cast refused to perform in protest against her attire.
> 
> The niqab is a traditional Muslim garment which covers the head and chest, with the exception of the eyes. It is illegal in France.*
> 
> The incident occurred during the performance of La Traviata at Opera Bastille in Paris, the opera house's deputy director Jean-Philippe Thiellay told AFP.
> 
> The episode is believed to have happened on 3 October. However, French media did not report it until Sunday [19 October].
> 
> The woman, from the Gulf State, was visiting France with her companion. She was asked to remove the veil or leave the theatre as "performers said they didn't want to sing," Thiellay explained.
> 
> After the deputy-director was made aware of the cast's request, an usher approached the woman.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Kirkhill

Apparently "toleration" doesn't survive in French dictionaries.... 

Another defining characteristic of that nation ... they only ever have room for one thought at a time.


----------



## pbi

My current project at work is requiring me to travel to Europe quite a bit (Norway, Belgium and Germany). On my last trip to Norway, I was surprised to see Norwegian soldiers who were visible minority members. When I was deploying to North Norway in the 90's under AMF(L) and NCF, that idea was unheard of.

This current situation in Norway provoked our team into a discussion of immigration in NW Europe, and why it so often doesn't work well at all. Immigrants seem to have a much worse time being accepted in Europe than they do in Canada or the US. 

Of course, France came up as an example of a country that seems to struggle very badly with this whole business, to the point that they seem to think it is OK to tell people what clothes to wear. It's only a short jump to the infamous "Protection of Values" bill that the now-defeated PQ Govt proposed, and which seemed to have similar levels of fear-driven support.

Is there a disposition in Gallic culture towards this view of "The Other"?

I'm fine with stopping immigrants from engaging in barbarous, oppressive or illegal behaviours, but I really couldn't care less what they wear. (And, yes...official government photos should require a full face view)


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

pbi said:
			
		

> I'm fine with stopping immigrants from engaging in barbarous, oppressive or illegal behaviours, but I really couldn't care less what they wear. (And, yes...official government photos should require a full face view)



THANK YOU!


----------



## cryco

I believe it's not so much wanting to deny newcomers to look differently, it stems from the fear of assimilation, but the other way around.
Here in Quebec, the francos, from what i gathered (my opinion alone) don't have a problem with any religion or clothing or customs, but the fear of being absorbed into NA and the general culture, along with the english language triggers a some sort of protection mechanism. 
In order not to lose our identity (I consider myself both - but disagree with a charter), strength in numbers seems to be a way out, so, require that people look like you, talk like you and think like you and tada! A make believe scenario that would supposedly preserve the culture. Now add an exponent to this, and you get France's situation.


----------



## CougarKing

From bullying to outright intimidation, as seen in this incident last year:

Source:American Thinker



> November 25, 2013
> *British Teacher Coerces Kids to Join in Muslim Workshop*
> By M. Catharine Evans
> 
> *"A Staffordshire primary school in England tried to force 8 and 11 year-olds to attend an "Explore Islam" workshop by intimidating their parents. The Head Teacher of Littleton Green Community School sent a letter home threatening to brand the children as 'racist' if they opted out."*
> 
> Refusal to allow your child to attend this trip will result in a Racial Discrimination note being attached to your child's education record, which will remain on this file throughout their school career.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## YZT580

There are a number of reasons why assimilation doesn't work in Europe.  1.  jobs  - employment opportunities are scarce and the feeling is that the immigrants are taking all the positions  2.  fear  -  there are many areas throughout a number of major cities where indigenous people dare not walk.  Sharia rules are strictly applied by gangs of youth.  The police seldom enter and even more rarely act to enforce the law.  Those cities that aren't affected yet have taken note.  Fear rules. 3.  Crime - crime statistics in both Sweden and Denmark have shown a large upswing particularly rape and assault.  The majority of these crimes are committed by 5% of the population, yes, the Muslim immigrants  Norway in particular has seen this happen and, whether the government acknowledges it or not, the people are less than receptive to having these same minorities allowed into their country.  In addition, the minorities have established street gangs that are rude, intimidating, and belligerent.  When these thugs specialize in swarming.  A 40 something husband with a pot belly, wearing glasses and escorting his wife is easy prey and there are dozens of examples in the neighbourhood but curiously not in the news to ensure that everyone is becoming hostile to the very idea of immigration.  Those stories from north England regarding numerous assaults on children are heard in many other centres as well.  People are living in fear so when devote Muslims show up in veil and scarf it becomes an in your face threat rather than a being simply a person being true to his/her particular religious practices.  I apologise if I seem to be on a rant but these are the things I observed and heard through years of living there.  The change has occurred only in the last 5 years or so.


----------



## pbi

YZT580 said:
			
		

> There are a number of reasons why assimilation doesn't work in Europe.  1.  jobs  - employment opportunities are scarce and the feeling is that the immigrants are taking all the positions...



 I think this might be a reason, but the anti-immigrant feeling also exists in Germany, where the employment situation is considerably better than say, Italy or Greece.



			
				YZT580 said:
			
		

> 2.  fear  -  there are many areas throughout a number of major cities where indigenous people dare not walk.  Sharia rules are strictly applied by gangs of youth.  The police seldom enter and even more rarely act to enforce the law.  Those cities that aren't affected yet have taken note.  Fear rules.



What cities did you have in mind? I would be interested to hear where these are. The suburbs of Paris seem to be in a bad state, in some cases.



			
				YZT580 said:
			
		

> e 3.  Crime - crime statistics in both Sweden and Denmark have shown a large upswing particularly rape and assault.  The majority of these crimes are committed by 5% of the population, yes, the Muslim immigrants  Norway in particular has seen this happen and, whether the government acknowledges it or not, the people are less than receptive to having these same minorities allowed into their country... The change has occurred only in the last 5 years or so.



 I was in Stavanger, which is a very modern and well-off city on the southwest coast of Norway. One of the expat Canadians we were working with there plays hockey with the Stavanger police force team. He related that his team mates say their biggest concerns are drugs and rape. These have nothing to do with Muslims, but are connected to the oil industry crews (especially drilling ships) who come into port frequently. From talking to folks while I was there, the immigrant situation in Norway doesn't seem nearly as bad as it does in say, France, Holland or southern Europe. There is a very small right wing anti-immigrant movement in Norway, but most Norgies regard it as idiot fringe.
Norway's official policy is to bring in immigrants who are coming from areas where human rights are at most risk, which seems to have popular support. The generally high levels of education and standard of living in Norway may also have a bearing on the situation. If there were large numbers of poor, ignorant Norwegians their view of immigrants migt be quite different.


----------



## The Bread Guy

YZT580 said:
			
		

> There are a number of reasons why assimilation doesn't work in Europe.  1.  jobs  - employment opportunities are scarce and the feeling is that the immigrants are taking all the positions


When I was in Italy last year, the only jobs I saw foreigners doing were those that university-educated folks, for some reason, weren't doing:  personal care aides for the infirm, street cleaners, etc.  Like with parts of the U.S. that have a lot of immigrant labour, it's a "problem" that they're foreigners, but it would be a BIGGER problem if those (often underpaid) foreigners were told en masse, "can't work, off you go then."


----------



## pbi

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> When I was in Italy last year, the only jobs I saw foreigners doing were those that university-educated folks, for some reason, weren't doing:  personal care aides for the infirm, street cleaners, etc.  Like with parts of the U.S. that have a lot of immigrant labour, it's a "problem" that they're foreigners, but it would be a BIGGER problem if those (often underpaid) foreigners were told en masse, "can't work, off you go then."



You hear it in Canada too. "Them f****in' immigrants is takin' all our f*****in' jobs!". Having married into an immigrant family, I know that some (but not necessarily all) immigrant groups take a bit of a longer view than many native Canadians. Work hard, scrimp save and live twelve in a small apartment for now, but our kids will have three car-garage houses out in the suburbs. The GTA is a great example of this, particularly Mississauga, Oakville and York Region.


----------



## Brad Sallows

The problematic populations tend to be concentrated in particular cities.  In Norway, Oslo.  In Sweden, Malmo.  It is natural for immigrants to seek a critical mass of fellow expats.


----------



## CougarKing

Meanwhile...in Georgia, 



> *Georgia town bans mosque in controversial vote*
> 
> A small Georgia city has voted to ban an Islamic group from renting a retail space to open a temporary mosque in the city, even after the landlord agreed to the deal.
> 
> *The City Council of Kennesaw, a city of about 30,000 people in north Georgia, ultimately voted down the Muslim group’s request 4-1.*
> 
> The issue has engendered a lot of tension in the town, and from critics outside of it. To give you a small idea of the intensity of the attitudes at play, here’s the video’s description from the man who recorded this week’s City Council vote: “The scumbag lawyer for the terrorist org. says he will sue... good luck with that.”
> 
> Attorney Doug Dillard called the decision unconstitutional and “a blatant attack on First Amendment rights." He says the group will continue to fight and is strongly considering a federal lawsuit against the city.
> 
> *Anti-Muslim protesters stood outside the meeting with signs such as “Ban Islam” and “Islam Wants No Peace!” but the issue of religion didn’t actually come up in the meeting itself.
> *
> 
> That was deliberate. Mayor Mark Matthews forbade comment from the public about religion, so critics instead said they opposed the temporary mosque on the grounds of the center’s hours of operation, attendance, and parking.
> 
> DailyDot


----------



## CougarKing

Growing anti-Islamic sentiment in Germany...

Reuters/Yahoo News



> *Merkel condemns racism as Dresden anti-Islam marches grow*
> Reuters
> 
> By Stephen Brown
> 
> BERLIN/NUREMBERG (Reuters) - *Chancellor Angela Merkel on Friday condemned anti-Muslim demonstrations centered on the eastern city of Dresden, saying there was "no place in Germany" for hatred of Muslims or any other minority.
> *
> In a speech at a party congress of her Bavarian allies in Nuremberg, Merkel also denounced an attack on buildings in a nearby town being turned into refuge for asylum-seekers. The structures were set on fire and daubed with swastikas.
> 
> "It is unbearable when homes of asylum-seekers are defiled, when people try to make radical slogans," Merkel said, adding that everyone coming to Germany had the right to be treated decently.
> 
> Earlier on Friday, Merkel's spokeswoman Christiane Wirtz said: "In the name of the government and the chancellor I can say quite clearly that there is no place in Germany for religious hatred, no matter which religion people belong to."
> 
> *"There is no place for Islamophobia, anti-Semitism or any form of xenophobia or racism," Wirtz said of the growing Monday evening marches in Dresden under the motto PEGIDA, standing for "Patriotic Europeans against the Islamization of the West".*
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

More barbarism that harkens back to the 7th century:

Reuters



> *Mauritania condemns man to death for 'insulting the prophet'*
> 
> By Kissima Diagana
> NOUAKCHOTT (Reuters) - Mauritania on Thursday condemned a man to death for "insulting the prophet", a human rights group said, a day after the country opened the trial of an anti-slavery activist.
> 
> *Mohamed Cheikh Ould Mkhaitir, 28*, was arrested a year ago for writing an article about the Prophet Mohammad and the caste system, an extremely sensitive subject in a West African country with deep social and racial divisions.
> 
> *He claims his article has been misinterpreted.
> 
> The prosecution asked for the death penalty* to be carried out in accordance with Islamic sharia law and recommended he be shot. Mauritania, a poor country straddling Arab and black Africa, last applied the death penalty in 1987.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Edward Campbell

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> More barbarism that harkens back to the 7th century:
> 
> Reuters




But we keep shovelling money at these thugs.


----------



## CougarKing

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But we keep shovelling money at these thugs.



In your view, so reorganizing CIDA under DFAIT/DFATD didn't even begin to address the problem?


----------



## Edward Campbell

Bringing CIDA under DFAIT was a very good, I daresay essential move.

I have no problems with foreign aid as bribes ... we shovel money as some disreputable country, they vote for our position in whichever body may matter. The problem is that very, very few poor countries have votes in any international bodies that matter. UN agencies, like the ITU, for example, that really matter require members to pay dues to vote. When we need votes from Africans, IF we really need votes from Africans we both *a)* pay their dues to the gency concerned, and *b)* send 'foreign aid' (bribes).

When there are natural disasters or famines I am neutral. If domestic politics says we must help then, fine, shovel money at them through Canadian NGOs.

We have important mining interests in Mauritania so our _aid_/bribes are, likely, thinly disguised licence fees.


----------



## CougarKing

Colin P said:
			
		

> the Whabbi's have Malaysia under tight control, the only thing saving us is the Malays are generally laid back and the majority of them will not stay hardcore, must drive the Pakistani's Jihadist nuts trying to keep them motivated.



And speaking of Pakistanis' influence in another majority Muslim, Asian country:

International Business Times



> *The Rise Of Islamic Hard-Liners: Is Indonesia Turning Into Pakistan?*
> 
> Islamic hard-liners in Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim nation, are cracking down on “sinful” activities like alcohol and pornography in tandem with the monthlong fasting observance of Ramadan. Muslims are required to refrain from eating, drinking, smoking or having sex from dawn till dusk during Ramadan, making it the ideal period for Islamic fundamentalists to target nightclubs, alcohol vendors and other entities they contend violate Muslim principles.
> 
> One prominent hard-line group, the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) – which some moderate Indonesians would like to see banned by the government – also use the pretext of “morality” to attack religious minorities, including Christians, Hindus and Buddhists. “We will take firm action against the circulation of alcohol, naked dancing and prostitution,” Habib Idrus Algadri, leader of an FPI group in Depok, a district outside Jakarta, told a local paper.
> 
> Habib Salim Alatas, who leads FPI in Jakarta, told Agence France-Presse that men from his group would raid nightclubs and bars in the city that sell alcohol. “We will send out groups of two to three wearing civilian clothes to spy on sinful activities like the drinking of alcohol taking place around Jakarta during the Ramadan holy month,” he warned.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## a_majoor

Places like Malaysia and Indonesia have a certain amount of "cultural" strength to resist the advances of Wahhabi fundamentalism, but ultimately it will take the collective will of the people saying "sod off!" and stomping on these goons to effectively preserve their culture and society.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The saving grace for Malaysia is that the average Malay takes "manana" fairly serious. "Yes we will do a suicide attack, perhaps tomorrow, maybe the day after, hey want to listen to my new ringtone?" 

I can imagine for the Arab recruiter the Malays are maddening.


----------



## Brad Sallows

>I can imagine for the Arab recruiter the Malays are maddening. 

And vice versa.  When the Malay finally shows up for the interview, the negotiations take three days and involve enough sugar and caffeine to keep a platoon awake for an RV.


----------



## CougarKing

Outspoken radical cleric Anjem Choudary in the news again; wasn't this guy arrested in the UK not too long ago? Don't tell me they can access Twitter in prison?

Sun News



> *Radical Muslim cleric Anjem Choudary defends Paris shooting*
> 2:19 pm, January 7th, 2015
> 
> (...SNIPPED)
> 
> Anjem Choudary took to Twitter to claim the attack on Charlie Hebdo headquarters for publishing cartoons of the Muslim prophet Muhammad were justified.
> 
> *"Freedom of expression does not extend to insulting the Prophets of Allah, whatever your views on the events in Paris today!"* he tweeted.
> 
> "Muslims love the Messenger Muhammad (saw) more than their parents, children and even themselves! Why don't people understand?"
> 
> One of the magazines most famous cartoonists was killed in the attack. Stephane Charbonnier known to many as Charb famously said "I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees," after Charlie Hebdo was firebombed in 2011 after publishing cartoons of Muhammad.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

Barbarism from a country that we in the west continue to deal with mainly for its oil:

Source: The UK Register



> *Saudi Arabia to flog man 1,000 times for insulting religion on Facebook*
> So much more civilized than shooting satirists
> 
> After Friday prayers at the Al-Jafali mosque in the Saudi Arabian city of Jeddah, Raif Badawi will receive the first 50 lashes of his 1,000 stroke sentence for the crime of publishing blasphemy against Islam on Facebook.
> 
> In May, *Badawi, a father of three, was sentenced to five years in prison, and will receive 1,000 lashes to be administered in public over the next 20 weeks using a seven-foot bamboo cane the width of a man's little finger. His misdeed: admitting on Facebook that he is an atheist, a supporter of women's rights*, and saying: "The combination of the sword and the Quran are more dangerous than a nuclear bomb."
> 
> *The court also gave Badawi an additional five years in prison, fined him one million Saudi Arabian riyals (about US$266,370), and banned him from traveling abroad for ten years after release – all for the crime of setting up a website called Liberal Saudi Network,* on which members of the site posted similar views.
> 
> "The news that Raif Badawi's flogging will start tomorrow is shocking," said Philip Luther, Middle East and North Africa Director for Amnesty International
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

A vitriolic firestorm was hurled at a Fox News commentator who claimed that one UK community had been completely assimilated by Islamic immigrants, even to the point of dropping the word "ham" from the town's name simply because it was not halal. It earned him a landslide of mockery from Twitter users who said things like "Cardiff is now the Diff".

BBC



> *Apology for 'Muslim Birmingham' Fox News claim*
> 
> An American terrorism commentator has apologised for describing Birmingham as a "Muslim-only city" where non-Muslims "don't go" during a Fox News interview.
> 
> *Steven Emerson told the channel that in London "Muslim religious police" beat "anyone who doesn't dress according to Muslim, religious Muslim attire".*
> 
> He later issued an apology for his "terrible error".
> 
> His comments have come in for ridicule, with the hashtag #FoxNewsFacts trending on Twitter.
> 
> Mr Emerson, who founded a group called The Investigative Project on Terrorism, was giving his perspective on the terror attacks in France to Fox presenter Jeanine Pirro.
> 
> 'Check your facts'
> Birmingham City Council said Mr Emerson's "curious" comments had no foundation, and welcomed his apology, while Birmingham Edgbaston MP Gisela Stuart described the remarks as "stupid".
> 
> (...SNIPPED)
> 
> Speaking on Radio 4's PM programme, *Mr Emerson said: "I don't want people to use this to claim there's no such thing as radical Islam."
> 
> He said he "absolutely" stood by comments about "vigilante Muslim groups" in some parts of London.
> 
> Mr Emerson said he had been "living under a death threat" since an assassination attempt in the mid 1990s.*
> 
> In terms of Birmingham, however, he admitted that he had "made an egregious error here in not doing my homework", adding: "I deserve what I got."
> 
> He said he had relied on sources he had used in the past, but accepted "responsibility" for his comments and did not know how his reputation would be affected in the long term.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Just ask for a "hamburger" at the McDonald's in KL  :nod:

A panic look on their faces

The city (Birmingham) is approx. 1/4 Muslim and most immigrants have arrived in the last decade, hmmmm


----------



## CougarKing

Apparently in Erdogan's eyes, no Muslims can do wrong.   : 

Maybe NATO should start thinking about severing ties with a Turkey that's increasingly moved away from secularism.

Fox News



> *Muslims never guilty of 'terrorist massacres,' Turkey's Erdogan insists*
> 
> Turkish President Recip Tayyip Erdogan’s increasingly bizarre rhetoric continued this week when he told reporters Muslims have "never taken part in terrorist massacres" and appeared to blame the West for the recent Islamist attacks in Paris.
> 
> The NATO nation leader and western ally has moved his powerful nation further from its Constitutionally-mandated secularism in recent years, and has drawn criticisms for not doing more to stop the flow of foreign jihadis, who pass through Istanbul on their way to join Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. But Monday's comments, against the backdrop of near-universal condemnation of the Islamist attack on French satirical tabloid Charlie Hebdo, could further isolate Erdogan from the West.
> 
> *“As Muslims, we've never taken part in terrorist massacres," Erdogan said. "Behind these lie racism, hate speech, and Islamophobia. French citizens carry out such a massacre, and Muslims pay the price. The West's hypocrisy is obvious.”*
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## George Wallace

Although alcohol may be taboo for him, apparently smoking Hash is not.


----------



## Edward Campbell

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Although alcohol may be taboo for him, apparently smoking Hash is not.




Given what _I think_ his *strategic aim* is ~ to shift Turkey from an "almost European" country on the outside, looking in, to a leader of the Islamic world ~ then his rhetoric is perfectly clear and sensible.

Europe has, tacitly, rejected Turkey as being "not European," and, therefore, not "good enough" for the EU. That doesn't leave Turkey many options, does it? It must, now, compete with Egypt and Iran for regional power and influence in a region in which it is more welcome. But, first, it must burnish its Islamic credentials.


----------



## Rifleman62

S.M.A. 





> Apparently in Erdogan's   Obama's eyes, no Muslims can do wrong.



FTFY.


----------



## CougarKing

At least the RCMP has been watching them...

International Business Times



> *Muslim Group In Canada Accused Of Supporting Hamas-Linked Militants, Allegedly Gave $300K*
> 
> By  Esther Tanquintic-Misa @ibtimesau on January 30 2015 3:38 PM
> 
> The Muslim Association of Canada or MAC, is now in a hotseat after reports flaunted it allegedly gave $300,000 to a Hamas-linked militant group that had been spent buying property in Canada. The properties were said to be converted into mosques, community centres and schools.
> 
> A report by the Toronto Sun said the buying spree caught the attention of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, which immediately launched an investigation into the matter. *A search conducted by QMI Agency revealed MAC has bought at least 11 buildings in Ontario, Quebec and Alberta since 2006.* Registered as a charity, MAC said the acquisitions were needed in order to "establish an Islamic presence in Canada that is balanced, constructive, and integrated, though distinct."
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

As if having to bear with past grad. school classmates, from various Muslim countries, who interrupted lectures to rant about how "evil" Israel was  wasn't enough...   :

Their hatred of Israel probably will never subside until Hamas achieves their goal of pushing Israel into the sea...

Free Beacon



> *Hamas On Campus
> At U.C. Davis, Students for Justice in Palestine chant "Allahu Akbar," endorse terrorism*
> 
> Anti-Israel activists at the University of California, Davis heckled Jewish students and shouted “Allahhu Akbar” at them during a vote last week on a resolution endorsing a boycott of the Jewish state, according to video of the event obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.
> 
> The commotion erupted late Thursday evening as pro-Israel students attempted to counter a student government resolution to divest from Israel as part of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement.
> 
> Activists waving Palestinian flags shouted at the Jewish and pro-Israel students as they left the meeting room ahead of an eight to two vote in favor of the divestment resolution, which is part of a larger movement by anti-Israel groups to attack Israel and pro-Israel students on campus.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

It seems there's no way to prevent fraud by certain applicants then who happen to be wearing niqabs/hijabs then?   

*Sun News video: "COURT STRIKES DOWN NIQAB BAN"*


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Just wear one when doing a "hate crime"


----------



## CougarKing

Someone trying to promote tolerance in a community filled with a group that opposes it:



> *French Artist’s Calls For Peace End in Brutal Beating By Local Muslims*
> Posted by Jim Hoft on Monday, February 9, 2015, 11:33 PM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> French street artist Combo was physically assaulted over his latest art work. Photo: Combo Culture Kidnapper/Facebook
> 
> It was very offensive and local Muslims demanded he take it down.
> 
> Four Muslims in Porte Dorée (the Golden door), a ghetto east of Paris, beat artist Combo after he refused to take down his Coexist street art. Combo suffered a dislocated shoulder, bruises and a black eye.
> 
> ...



Source: Gateway Pundit


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Lucky he's still breathing.


----------



## CougarKing

And Erdogan still believes that Muslims went to the Caribbean before Columbus... riiiiiight.  :

Reuters


> *Turkey's Erdogan proposes building mosque in Cuba*
> 
> ISTANBUL (Reuters) - Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan has proposed to Cuba the construction of a mosque on the Caribbean island during a visit to Havana, pushing ahead with a plan apparently inspired by his belief that Muslims discovered the Americas.
> 
> After talks with Cuban President Raul Castro, Erdogan said on Wednesday he had sought approval for Turkey to build the place of worship in Havana that would be based on the model of a mosque in the Ortakoy district on the European shore of the Bosphorus strait in Istanbul.
> 
> Last November, *Erdogan told a conference of Muslim leaders from Latin America in Istanbul that Muslims had reached the Americas in the 12th century, before the European explorer Christopher Columbus did so in 1492.*
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I hate to disabuse poor Mr. Erdogan, but even though they had "absorbed" the descendants of the Phoenicians, the Muslims were never seaman and could barely row their way across the Strait of Gibraltar (which explains why they only ever conquered the lower part of Spain). They were land fighters and never developed any technology related to ships and seamanship, other than the local fishing and communication D'ows and Egyptian river boats that they "inherited" locally with their conquests.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I hate to disabuse poor Mr. Erdogan, but even though they had "absorbed" the descendants of the Phoenicians, the Muslims were never seaman and could barely row their way across the Strait of Gibraltar (which explains why they only ever conquered the lower part of Spain). They were land fighters and never developed any technology related to ships and seamanship, other than the local fishing and communication D'ows and Egyptian river boats that they "inherited" locally with their conquests.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_pirates

While not a current "Naval Power" there has been effective Muslim sea power in the past.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I hate to disabuse poor Mr. Erdogan, but even though they had "absorbed" the descendants of the Phoenicians, the Muslims were never seaman and could barely row their way across the Strait of Gibraltar (which explains why they only ever conquered the lower part of Spain). They were land fighters and never developed any technology related to ships and seamanship, other than the local fishing and communication D'ows and Egyptian river boats that they "inherited" locally with their conquests.



What???  What about "Sinbad", you mean those bad ass movies were not factual...  man, I've been living in a dreamworld


----------



## CougarKing

A hate crime or simply a parking dispute that went out of hand?

USA Today



> *Chapel Hill 'rocked' by killings of 3 Muslim students*
> 
> The mayor of Chapel Hill, N.C., said Wednesday that the college town has been "rocked" by the shooting deaths of three Muslim students that the father of two of the victims calls a "hate crime."
> 
> The fatal shootings have sparked condemnation from a national Muslim civil liberties group and triggered a Twitter uproar over allegations of anti-Muslim bias.
> 
> *The victims, all shot in the head, were identified about 2 a.m. Wednesday as Deah Shaddy Barakat, 23, and his wife, Yusor Mohammad, 21, of Chapel Hill, and her sister, Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha, 19, of Raleigh, police said.
> 
> All were U.S.-born and grew up in the area.*
> 
> Barakat, a Syrian-American and a second-year dental student at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Yusor Mohammad were married in late December.
> 
> The couple traveled to Turkey last year to provide free dental care to students, according to a Facebook page created in their memory by friends.
> 
> Muneeb Mustafa, 23, of Cary, said he attended the same Raleigh mosque as Barakat.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Jarnhamar

> The couple *traveled to Turkey last year to provide free dental care to students*, according to a Facebook page created in their memory by friends.



Very noble of them.


----------



## Force

Same behavior as the charlie hebdo terrorists. 
Either both tragedies are hate crimes or both are terrorist attacks. Both killers were driven by hatred.


----------



## George Wallace

Looks more like a 'very angry' man who hated almost everything, not just religion, and was perhaps a bit schizoid.  To me it looks like a parking dispute with a man on the edge who fell off that edge.  It is a shame that so many acts of violence in the US bring out vocal radicals like Al Sharpton, or in this case, the Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR).   Their involvement tends to inflame matters rather than allow the authorities to investigate and allow justice to be fairly dispensed.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Force said:
			
		

> I came to montreal canada in 2000, I grew up here and studied here. From what I learned in chemstey/philosophy/maths/etc, ALL the people they talk about come from europe, they never gave credit to any middle eastern scientist. I'm not trying to discredit the europeeans, they infact did discover many things. You can google about middle eastern scientists you will be astonished about how much science and maths the europeeans took from the middle east and got the credit only for themselves. Also keep in mind that one of the biggest reasons the west is so develloped compared to the east is because of the colonialism. Aftica/australia/america got looted for almost 500 years. This is a whole lot of resources. It is only 100 years ago that the west discovered that all humans are equal and that colonialism is terrorism.  So when claiming that the west is the most advanced/etc, dont forget that its 500 years of vandalism that got us here. Ofcourse today things have changed but im just highlighting some history that we tend to ingore often.



So we're moving forward and evolving. 

They are moving backward and regressing into the dark ages. They have lost their scholars and knowledge, they continue to  treat humans, ever more barbarically.They retain slaves and have various levels of societal castes. They run their society based on various interpretations of the Koran (if they can read it) and fear. Not as a fair and just society, based on education and human rights.

What am I forgetting, what am I missing?


----------



## Force

recceguy said:
			
		

> So we're moving forward and evolving.
> 
> They are moving backward and regressing into the dark ages. They have lost their scholars and knowledge, they continue to  treat humans, ever more barbarically.They retain slaves and have various levels of societal castes. They run their society based on various interpretations of the Koran (if they can read it) and fear. Not as a fair and just society, based on education and human rights.
> 
> What am I forgetting, what am I missing?



As a muslim myself, I confirm all the things you have said. But I also want you to know something, our governments do not represent our people.Britain and france created our countries and installed most of our governments, and even before that, the most recent muslim governments before ww1 were in fact retarded and never gave the chance to the people to evolve. But I take myself and my whole community for example, we are all educated and live here, and islam does not tell us to kill people and get retarded. The first word in the coran is READ, and science and education is a MUST. I just want you to know that when we see groups like al qaeda and isis we are even more pissed off and we hate them even more than you do because they are killing our families in the middle east. These group adhere to the saudi wahhabism that got created in the 19th century. The muslim world is destroyed and teared apart, and geopolitical interests is the main reason, before religion. Take saudi arabia for example, the most influental country on sunni muslims with its mosques worldwide and tv channels, the royal family is protected by the Quincy accords that got renewed in 2006 by Bush. USA protects this family on exchange of oil. In my opinion this accord is against our ideology because it protects the biggest and worse monarchy in the world. In saudi arabia women cannot drive and must wear the niqab, but inside the kings palace women are not allowed to wear the veil and the king and his family buy worldwide high class whores. These people aint muslims and they are a disgrace to the human race. They do not dictate and decide what islam is, but unfortunately this is what happening and muslims are brainwashed and deteriorated in the middle east because of kingdoms like saudi arabia and Qatar.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Force said:
			
		

> As a muslim myself, I confirm all the things you have said. But I also want you to know something, our governments do not represent our people.Britain and france created our countries and installed most of our governments, and even before that, the most recent muslim governments before ww1 were in fact retarded and never gave the chance to the people to evolve. But I take myself and my whole community for example, we are all educated and live here, and islam does not tell us to kill people and get retarded. The first word in the coran is READ, and science and education is a MUST. I just want you to know that when we see groups like al qaeda and isis we are even more pissed off and we hate them even more than you do because they are killing our families in the middle east. These group adhere to the saudi wahhabism that got created in the 19th century. The muslim world is destroyed and teared apart, and geopolitical interests is the main reason, before religion. Take saudi arabia for example, the most influental country on sunni muslims with its mosques worldwide and tv channels, the royal family is protected by the Quincy accords that got renewed in 2006 by Bush. USA protects this family on exchange of oil. In my opinion this accord is against our ideology because it protects the biggest and worse monarchy in the world. In saudi arabia women cannot drive and must wear the niqab, but inside the kings palace women are not allowed to wear the veil and the king and his family buy worldwide high class whores. These people aint muslims and they are a disgrace to the human race. They do not dictate and decide what islam is, but unfortunately this is what happening and muslims are brainwashed and deteriorated in the middle east because of kingdoms like saudi arabia and Qatar.



So what are you and your communities doing about it? It's one thing to say you hate them and they are destroying everything for you.

It's something else to do something about it. 

That is your land, religion and people.

You say you hate them more than us? Yet, we've been the ones going over and fighting them, to protect our homeshores. Where have you and yours been during this time? Standing in front of the news reporters after each attack saying they are not Muslims and you don't support them doesn't work anymore. 

Time for you and your communities to get physically busy over there.

It's not our war (yet), but yours. Start doing something about it.


----------



## Force

recceguy said:
			
		

> So what are you and your communities doing about it? It's one thing to say you hate them and they are destroying everything for you.
> 
> It's something else to do something about it.
> 
> That is your land, religion and people.
> 
> You say you hate them more than us? Yet, we've been the ones going over and fighting them, to protect our homeshores. Where have you and yours been during this time? Standing in front of the news reporters after each attack saying they are not Muslims and you don't support them doesn't work anymore.
> 
> Time for you and your communities to get physically busy over there.
> 
> It's not our war (yet), but yours. Start doing something about it.



So far the syrian army and the local civilian legions that are defending each village are the ones that inflicted the heaviest losses on isis and al nusra, followed by the Iraqi army. in bahrain for example, it's the fourth year of protests against the bahraini royal family, they are still getting shot at everyday in the protests. You think the peiple do nothing over there but you hve no idea how hard it is to make a change, people are dying every day fighting for their rights. Me for example because I got raised here and I live here and I am a canadian citizen, I want to join the canadian army because I like its values. So far the coalition against isis changed absolutely nothing on the ground exept maybe in kobani. The strikes are not effective at all. On the other hand, THOUSANDS of isis terrorists are dying each month under the hands of the syrian and iraqi people. We are living a luxury life here we don't know what its like to live poverty and a survival life. World powers are playing geopolitical wars on the middle eastern lands and its the civil population that is paying the price, it is not true that they are not trying, its a huge mess over there.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Good enough for me, bring the F 18s home and let the locals get on with it if they're doing such a bang up job.


----------



## Force

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Good enough for me, bring the F 18s home and let the locals get on with it if they're doing such a bang up job.


why would you say that... I was just highlighting that its not true that the locals are sleeping on gas and doing nothing. I just said that they are fighting well. That doesnt mean that we should not help them lol.. Im just saying that its not us that are doing the biggest damage on isis and we have to give credit to the locals instead of saying they are doing nothing.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Force said:
			
		

> why would you say that... I was just highlighting that its not true that the locals are sleeping on gas and doing nothing. I just said that they are fighting well. That doesnt mean that we should not help them lol.. Im just saying that its not us that are doing the biggest damage on isis and we have to give credit to the locals instead of saying they are doing nothing.



Then gather all the fighting age men and women in your community and giddy up.

People are tired of going to fight in an attempt to make things better there, when your own, here and there, do nothing. At least nothing substantial.

Sorry, I'm wrong. :facepalm: They are doing something. Radicals in your community are indoctrinating people and sending them to fight for ISIS (IL) and you're not turning them in or forcing them out.

And if you think that our coalition is not doing more than your own there? Well, Kat already answered that. I dispute the fact that we are not killing more of them than yours. You're being taken in by your own propaganda.


----------



## Force

recceguy said:
			
		

> Then gather all the fighting age men and women in your community and giddy up.
> 
> People are tired of going to fight in an attempt to make things better there, when your own, here and there, do nothing. At least nothing substantial.
> 
> Sorry, I'm wrong. :facepalm: They are doing something. Radicals in your community are indoctrinating people and sending them to fight for ISIS (IL) and you're not turning them in or forcing them out.
> 
> And if you think that our coalition is not doing more than your own there? Well, Kat already answered that. I dispute the fact that we are not killing more of them than yours. You're being taken in by your own propaganda.


It is the sunnis that get brainwashed into joining isis in their saudi funded mosques. Why would I be the one responsible to containt their actions? Just because I'm muslim? 1.5 billion people are muslims and from different communities that have entire different ways of living, you cannot put the whole muslim world as a single entity. I am lebanese, and for example here in canada it's mostly the north african sunnis that tend to hold the saudi wahhabi ideology. They don't live the same way I do and I have no connections with them and it's not even the same community. if they get brainwashed in their saudi funded mosques then I bear more responsability than you over their actions? 
As to why I am not in lebanon fighting... well my father ran away from lebanon when it was under occupation and couldnt find work nor go back to his house, and went to Congo and I was born there. Then a civil war erupted in Congo and we came to Canada. I was raised and educated here, what do I have in lebanon? You can't even find a job there unless you have connections with the corrupted government officials. Why would I leave Canada? And if I am against isis but stay in Canada then I am a coward? I can't have an opinion unless I act? What do you want us to do when we don't even have governments and when our countries are packed with gangs and corrupted governments? The middle east is a peace of cake that is getting divided between the usa russia and iran and the people are powerless.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Force said:
			
		

> why would you say that... I was just highlighting that its not true that the locals are sleeping on gas and doing nothing. I just said that they are fighting well. That doesnt mean that we should not help them lol.. Im just saying that its not us that are doing the biggest damage on isis and we have to give credit to the locals instead of saying they are doing nothing.



This sounds very much to me like you're saying our aircraft are having no effect, the locals are tearing ISIS up, so our aircraft are irrelevant. I never said the locals weren't carrying a substantial piece of the load.  I'm not trying to get into a fight with you at all, just trying to clarify what you said below.



			
				Force said:
			
		

> So far the syrian army and the local civilian legions that are defending each village are the ones that inflicted the heaviest losses on isis and al nusra, followed by the Iraqi army. in bahrain for example, it's the fourth year of protests against the bahraini royal family, they are still getting shot at everyday in the protests. You think the peiple do nothing over there but you hve no idea how hard it is to make a change, people are dying every day fighting for their rights. Me for example because I got raised here and I live here and I am a canadian citizen, I want to join the canadian army because I like its values. So far the coalition against isis changed absolutely nothing on the ground exept maybe in kobani. The strikes are not effective at all. On the other hand, THOUSANDS of isis terrorists are dying each month under the hands of the syrian and iraqi people. We are living a luxury life here we don't know what its like to live poverty and a survival life. World powers are playing geopolitical wars on the middle eastern lands and its the civil population that is paying the price, it is not true that they are not trying, its a huge mess over there.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Force said:
			
		

> In my opinion, fighting the islamic terrorists shiuld not be done only by force. The best way is to track the people who fund them, and the people who recruit them, and the people who promote wahhabism(wahhabism is radical islam that got created in he 19th century in saudi arabia, with the alliance of the saudi family and muhammad ibn wahhab). This form of islam rejects anything that is against it, beginning with muslims themselves. So once saudi arabia and qatar stop promoting wahhabism and funding those groups, they will dissapear automatically within a few months. How is isis surviving in syria and irak? Who gives them ammunitions? Who gives them sophisticated anti-tank weapons? These are the main questions that have to be answered. Why is Turkey still recieving them from all over the world and dispatching them in syria and irak? Turkey have no control over its borders?



Pitter patter, time for you to get at 'er.

Look, you're making some pretty good observations, however, the Muslim community at large is not doing any more than you. Everyone is aware of most of the problems, but the Muslims are waiting for someone else to clean their yard. 

The ones in the ME don't have a choice, fight, die or live as slaves. Around the rest of the world, they won't go and help. They're comfortable and reasonably safe from harm, so they don't do anything.

It's time the Muslims, world wide, picked up their garden tools and did their own landscaping. The longer we hear platitudes without action from your community, the more people will think that you're not really serious about ridding yourselves of this burden.

The world is more than happy to help you, however it's up to you to take the lead and start sorting out the ME yourselves.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Force said:
			
		

> It is the sunnis that get brainwashed into joining isis in their saudi funded mosques. Why would I be the one responsible to containt their actions? Just because I'm muslim? 1.5 billion people are muslims and from different communities that have entire different ways of living, you cannot put the whole muslim world as a single entity. I am lebanese, and for example here in canada it's mostly the north african sunnis that tend to hold the saudi wahhabi ideology. They don't live the same way I do and I have no connections with them and it's not even the same community. if they get brainwashed in their saudi funded mosques then I bear more responsability than you over their actions?
> As to why I am not in lebanon fighting... well my father ran away from lebanon when it was under occupation and couldnt find work nor go back to his house, and went to Congo and I was born there. Then a civil war erupted in Congo and we came to Canada. I was raised and educated here, what do I have in lebanon? You can't even find a job there unless you have connections with the corrupted government officials. Why would I leave Canada? And if I am against isis but stay in Canada then I am a coward? I can't have an opinion unless I act? What do you want us to do when we don't even have governments and when our countries are packed with gangs and corrupted governments? The middle east is a peace of cake that is getting divided between the usa russia and iran and the people are powerless.



But you think WE should go and sort it out.

This is exactly what I've been driving at. Don't stand on the corner saying "Don't hate us because we're here and Muslim. We agree with you. Those guys over there are crazy bad."

But you leave it to us to try and clean it up for you.

How about petitioning the government to prevent Saudi Arabia from funding every Wahhabi mosque outside the ME. How about sending money to the Kurds? You lost your countries because everyone that could, fled instead of fighting for what was theirs. That fault lies with no one else except those that lived there.  

If you're (the Muslim community at large) not willing to put solid action behind your words, quit talking and expecting non Muslims to sort out your shit for you.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The Saudi's are funding mosques in Canada, one just opened in North Vancouver, that money always comes with strings attached.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Being PC is biting us in the a$$. If we can't identify them as "Islamic Terrorists" without being attacked by our OWN side (media and fuzzy headed people who think hot chocolate and hugs solve every problem) we are fighting with one hand tied behind our collective backs.



I have no problem calling them all terrorists. If they are not, they can prove it to me, not visa versa.

We live in a sad, dangerous and factioned world. Those on the other side are adept at deception. All they do is make me dubious of their peaceful, normal, leave me out of this shit, brothers and sisters. I don't know who to trust as a result and refuse to become a trusting victim to their treachery. Everyone one gets treated like an enemy until I can discern otherwise.

It's time for them to rise up as a religion and take a stand against those who would corrupt and defile their beliefs to gain superiority over the rest of the world. 

That is their problem firstly, and only secondary for us. However, I have no doubt that if it reaches our shores, in it's present configuration, the local Muslims, that only voiced platitudes, are going to get targeted by the general population, for their inaction to stop the problem of their own making.


----------



## Kat Stevens

recceguy said:
			
		

> I have no problem calling them all terrorists. If they are not, they can prove it to me, not visa versa.
> 
> We live in a sad, dangerous and factioned world. Those on the other side are adept at deception. All they do is make me dubious of their peaceful, normal, leave me out of this shit, brothers and sisters. I don't know who to trust as a result and refuse to become a trusting victim to their treachery. Everyone one gets treated like an enemy until I can discern otherwise.
> 
> It's time for them to rise up as a religion and take a stand against those who would corrupt and defile their beliefs to gain superiority over the rest of the world.
> 
> That is their problem firstly, and only secondary for us. However, I have no doubt that if it reaches our shores, in it's present configuration, the local Muslims, that only voiced platitudes, are going to get targeted by the general population, for their inaction to stop the problem of their own making.



And that's what the islamoturds are waiting for, massive backlash against any and all Muslims, providing them a huge pool of recruits to draw from without getting their own hands dirty.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> And that's what the islamoturds are waiting for, massive backlash against any and all Muslims, providing them a huge pool of recruits to draw from without getting their own hands dirty.



Then we can start to identify them.

When the locals see themselves threatened, they will have no compunction but to turn on their own. So far they've, for the majority, shown themselves as cowards for not turning in those in their midst that would do us harm, even when they suspect them. They need to stand up and be counted, whatever the consequence. 

We've carried the fight too long and lost too many of our own for them.

If they want us to trust them, it's time for them to start doing the same, as Canadians.


----------



## OldSolduer

The biggest mistake we ever made was to listen to the PC soft headed crowd.
"Oh you can't profile, its racist, so sixty year old Canadian grandmothers have to subjected to searches, just like the 20 something punk"


----------



## Force

As a muslim canadian, I dont feel any need to prove to anyone that I am not a terrorist. If anyone has a complaint we can sort it out in court and the judge will tell you if I am a terrorist or not. It is your own responsability to do your research and discover that muslims are not terrorists. ISIS/al qaeda are mercenaries that are getting funded by certain countries for political and geostrategical reasons. Someone buys their oil, someone gives them weapons, someone trains them, and someone gives them missions. And that someone is certainly not the Coran. Using and deforming religion to recruit soldiers and advance political agendas is a mean that existed since the beginning of time. Books do not tell you to attack this or that country, politics, greed, and interests do. So enough with this childish talk about islam and muslims. If you are convinced that the majority of the 1.5 billion muslims are being thought to hate the non-muslims, that is your own problem and it is only a proof to me that you have no idea what you are talking about. I know that islam is a peaceful religion because that's what i learned from it. 

-Just for your own information, everyone in the canadian army, or in any army in the world is doing ''jihad''. The word ''jihad'' is scary today but by definition you are all doing jihad. Defending your country is jihad, beheading is terrorism.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Force said:
			
		

> As a muslim canadian, I dont feel any need to prove to anyone that I am not a terrorist. If anyone has a complaint we can sort it out in court and the judge will tell you if I am a terrorist or not. It is your own responsability to do your research and discover that muslims are not terrorists. ISIS/al qaeda are mercenaries that are getting funded by certain countries for political and geostrategical reasons. Someone buys their oil, someone gives them weapons, someone trains them, and someone gives them missions. And that someone is certainly not the Coran. Using and deforming religion to recruit soldiers and advance political agendas is a mean that existed since the beginning of time. Books do not tell you to attack this or that country, politics, greed, and interests do. So enough with this childish talk about islam and muslims. If you are convinced that the majority of the 1.5 billion muslims are being thought to hate the non-muslims, that is your own problem and it is only a proof to me that you have no idea what you are talking about. I know that islam is a peaceful religion because that's what i learned from it.
> 
> -Just for your own information, everyone in the canadian army, or in any army in the world is doing ''jihad''. The word ''jihad'' is scary today but by definition you are all doing jihad. Defending your country is jihad, beheading is terrorism.



Really? Do tell;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad


----------



## Force

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Really? Do tell;
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad


''Muslims and scholars do not all agree on its definition''

''Javed Ghamidi states that there is consensus amongst Islamic scholars that the concept of jihad will always include armed struggle against wrong doers''

Wrong doers can be Bashar or George W Bush, or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or Putin, or it can be anyone that is against ISIS,   it all depends on your political agenda. It also can be to simply fight against oppression, witch is the real meaning.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Force said:
			
		

> As a muslim canadian, I dont feel any need to prove to anyone that I am not a terrorist. If anyone has a complaint we can sort it out in court and the judge will tell you if I am a terrorist or not. It is your own responsability to do your research and discover that muslims are not terrorists. ISIS/al qaeda are mercenaries that are getting funded by certain countries for political and geostrategical reasons. Someone buys their oil, someone gives them weapons, someone trains them, and someone gives them missions. And that someone is certainly not the Coran. Using and deforming religion to recruit soldiers and advance political agendas is a mean that existed since the beginning of time. Books do not tell you to attack this or that country, politics, greed, and interests do. So enough with this childish talk about islam and muslims. If you are convinced that the majority of the 1.5 billion muslims are being thought to hate the non-muslims, that is your own problem and it is only a proof to me that you have no idea what you are talking about. I know that islam is a peaceful religion because that's what i learned from it.
> 
> -Just for your own information, everyone in the canadian army, or in any army in the world is doing ''jihad''. The word ''jihad'' is scary today but by definition you are all doing jihad. Defending your country is jihad, beheading is terrorism.



No-one is asking you to prove you're not a terrorist.  What is pissing us off and you seem to be missing the point is that these POS that are committing these acts of barbarism and want to take over the world are YOUR co-religerants.  They are part of YOUR faith, and are using YOUR faith as a tool to terrorise and assimilate all they can get their mitts on.  President al-Sisi of Egypt made an excellent speech to the rest of your faith who occupy this planet along with us.  It is mentioned here, I suggest you take the time to find it and read.  What we want, the rest of us, is for you as a Muslim to take back your faith from those who defile it.  As you have mentioned they are doing harm to other Muslims where they can.  

It seems as if at the drop of a hat, or cartoon that offends, streets are mobbed by baying crowds demanding heads be chopped off.  Well, you want our respect and assistance, then lets see those crowds baying in the streets, worldwide, against ISIS, Boko Haram et al.  What they are doing is indeed Haram as was explained to me by my wife (who is Muslim by the way).  All I see, is, well, silence from the majority.  And that speaks louder than words do and smacks of tacit approval of what they're (ISIS) are doing.  

There, that should be pretty clear to you, I hope.


----------



## Remius

Force said:
			
		

> ''Muslims and scholars do not all agree on its definition''
> 
> ''Javed Ghamidi states that there is consensus amongst Islamic scholars that the concept of jihad will always include armed struggle against wrong doers''
> 
> Wrong doers can be Bashar or George W Bush, or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or Putin, or it can be anyone that is against ISIS,   it all depends on your political agenda. It also can be to simply fight against oppression, witch is the real meaning.



Force,  I posted this above.  Please read it.

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

It actually expalins a lot and why this has to be treated as a religious issue both for muslims and the rest of the world.


----------



## Force

Crantor said:
			
		

> Force,  I posted this above.  Please read it.
> 
> http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
> 
> It actually expalins a lot and why this has to be treated as a religious issue both for muslims and the rest of the world.


it's true that religion is the driving force of the terrorists, but as I said that is only the recruitment tool. Who is giving them weapons and buying their oil? Why is Turkey still recieving tens of thousands of them from all over the world and dispatching them in Syra and Irak? Your article has logical flaws. A huge organisation like isis does not pop out of nowhere without logistical help from neighbors.
Wahhabism is named after an eighteenth century preacher and scholar, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (1703–1792).[16] He started a revivalist movement in the remote, sparsely populated region of Najd,[17] advocating a purging of practices such as the popular cult of saints, and shrine and tomb visitation, widespread among Muslims, but which he considered idolatry, impurities and innovations in Islam.[5][18] Eventually he formed a pact with a local leader Muhammad bin Saud offering political obedience and promising that protection and propagation of the Wahhabi movement, would mean "power and glory" and rule of "lands and men."[19] The movement is centered on the principle of Tawhid,[20] or the "uniqueness" and "unity" of God.[18]

The alliance between followers of ibn Abd al-Wahhab and Muhammad bin Saud's successors (the House of Saud) proved to be a rather durable alliance. The house of bin Saud continued to maintain its politico-religious alliance with the Wahhabi sect through the waxing and waning of its own political fortunes over the next 150 years, through to its eventual proclamation of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 1932, and then afterwards, on into modern times. Today Mohammed bin Abd Al-Wahhab's teachings are state-sponsored and are the dominant form of Islam[3][21] in 21st century Saudi Arabia.

Estimates of the number of adherents to Wahhabism vary, with one source (Michael Izady) giving a figure of less than 5 million Wahhabis in the Persian Gulf region (compared to 28.5 million Sunnis and 89 million Shia).[22][23]

With the help of funding from petroleum exports[24] (and other factors[25]), the movement underwent "explosive growth" beginning in the 1970s and now has worldwide influence.[3] The movement also draws from the teachings of Medieval theologian Ibn Taymiyyah and early jurist Ahmad ibn Hanbal.[26]

Wahhabism has been accused of being "a source of global terrorism",[27][28] and for causing disunity in the Muslim community by labeling non-Wahhabi Muslims as apostates[29] (takfir) thus paving the way for their bloodshed.[30][31][32] It has also been criticized for the destruction of historic mazaars, mausoleums, and other Muslim and non-Muslim buildings and artifacts.[33][34][35] The "boundaries" of what make up Wahhabism have been called "difficult to pinpoint",[36] but in contemporary usage, the terms Wahhabi and Salafi are often used interchangeably, and considered to be movements with different roots that have merged since the 1960s.[37][38] [39] But Wahhabism has also been called "a particular orientation within Salafism",[5] or an ultra-conservative, Saudi brand of Salafism."

This is the source of all the terrorism we are witnessing today. Declaring a war on the saudi family is declaring a war on the USA, and no one has the guts to take this decision in the middle east. The saudi family is protected by the Quincy accord.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Thanks for the history lesson.

However, you still haven't pointed out what concrete action the moderate Muslim world community is doing to stop it.

And if your just going to cut and paste something, it's practice around here, to give a link to the website so it can be seen in its entirety.

Or at least, take out the reference numbers.


----------



## Jed

A good history Lesson.   I would like to point out though; just as most of the world tends to lump all Christians into the same melting pot the western world tends to lump all Muslims into the same bunch as well.

Recceguy has stated it very plainly. The majority of Muslims need to step up and very vocally and actively begin to sort their  problems out. The rest of the world won't tolerate their BS very much longer, at least in their own backyards, anyway.


----------



## Remius

Force, did you even read the article? it adresses your concerns about where recruits are coming from.  the religious philosphy isn't only a recruitment tool as you put it.

i'll quote this part of it which i feel expresses a lot about the prevailing sentiment here

_*Virtually every major decision and law promulgated by the Islamic State adheres to what it calls, in its press and pronouncements, and on its billboards, license plates, stationery, and coins, “the Prophetic methodology,” which means following the prophecy and example of Muhammad, in punctilious detail. Muslims can reject the Islamic State; nearly all do*. But pretending that it isn’t actually a religious, millenarian group, with theology that must be understood to be combatted, has already led the United States to underestimate it and back foolish schemes to counter it. _ 

you are making the same mistake, many in the west including myself until recently are doing.


----------



## Force

recceguy said:
			
		

> Thanks for the history lesson.
> 
> However, you still haven't pointed out what concrete action the moderate Muslim world community is doing to stop it.
> 
> And if your just going to cut and paste something, it's practice around here, to give a link to the website so it can be seen in its entirety.
> 
> Or at least, take out the reference numbers.


Sorry this is the link : http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism

I dont know what concrete action I can do to stop isis. what I do here is tell the people who are filled with hatred against muslims about the reality of the conflict and the history behind it. As for public demonstrations against isis, I find it useless. A public demonstration is to pressure  governments or legal entities. But a demonstration against a gang of rats? What will that do? This will have absolutely no effect on isis. 
As an arab myself, I can tell you that most of the arab population gets easly brainwashed into sectarian conflicts and arabs are known to backstab each other, history proves it. But arabs are only 400 million muslims out of the 1.5 billion. The muslim world is so big and it is not one connected entity. The muslims, like christians, are living in countries, they cannot act on their own they are not a government, they are just people living. When you say what are moderate Muslims doing... well alot of them are fighting actively and passively against isis, and others are not, theres no united worldwide muslim community, theres countries with muslims in it. Me in Canada I don't know what to do against isis? I want to join the canadian forces because I think their mission is noble and helps all over the world, I dont know what to do to fight isis from canada?


----------



## cupper

The conclusion I draw from reading the article is that ISIS is essentially a religious based Ponzi scheme that will eventually, if left to its own devices will eventually collapse upon itself because it cannot sustain the fundamental needs that drive it to exist and grow. The leadership will eventually be caught up in it's own internal disputes as to whether the Caliph is maintaining the teachings of the Prophet and the Koran, and not expanding the Caliphate through unending Jihad.

Unfortunately the rest of the world cannot wait for this thing to fall apart and implode upon itself.


----------



## Remius

cupper said:
			
		

> Unfortunately the rest of the world cannot wait for this thing to fall apart and implode upon itself.



That's what he gets at, at the end. 

The whole point is that we have to stop traeting this movement as just a bunch of terrorists.  Various leaders are treading lightly with the whole religious thing and he is stating that it needs to be confronted for what it is.


----------



## cupper

Crantor said:
			
		

> That's what he gets at, at the end.
> 
> The whole point is that we have to stop traeting this movement as just a bunch of terrorists.  Various leaders are treading lightly with the whole religious thing and he is stating that it needs to be confronted for what it is.



No, I got that.


----------



## McG

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> It seems as if at the drop of a hat, or cartoon that offends, streets are mobbed by baying crowds demanding heads be chopped off.  Well, you want our respect and assistance, then lets see those crowds baying in the streets, worldwide, against ISIS, Boko Haram et al.


The crowds that you want to see are there to be seen:  http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/hundreds-of-calgary-muslims-protest-isis-violence-in-iraq-1.2683589



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> ... what concrete action the moderate Muslim world community is doing to stop [ISIS].


Would that not be Egypt, UAE, Jordan, etc going to war with ISIS?

... or maybe Canadian Mulim leaders calling for the investigations to rout-out domestic terrorist aggitators/supporters/recruiters, publicly denouncing such behaviours, less publicly working to "de-radicalize" youth, and warning police of radicalized members of the muslim community?  It has all been done. 

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/calgary-imam-calls-for-inquiry-into-recruitment-of-muslim-radicals
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/young-muslim-calls-on-police-nenshi-to-do-more-about-extremists-1.2685124
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/algonquin-college-muslim-students-association-denounce-extremism-1.2945534
http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/persecution/toronto-mosque-offers-detox-for-extremists.html
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2013/04/24/muslim_community_deserves_credit_for_thwarting_toronto_terror_plot_editorial.html


----------



## Jed

MCG said:
			
		

> The crowds that you want to see are there to be seen:  http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/hundreds-of-calgary-muslims-protest-isis-violence-in-iraq-1.2683589
> Would that not be Egypt, UAE, Jordan, etc going to war with ISIS?
> 
> ... or maybe Canadian Mulim leaders calling for the investigations to rout-out domestic terrorist aggitators/supporters/recruiters, publicly denouncing such behaviours, less publicly working to "de-radicalize" youth, and warning police of radicalized members of the muslim community?  It has all been done.
> 
> http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/calgary-imam-calls-for-inquiry-into-recruitment-of-muslim-radicals
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/young-muslim-calls-on-police-nenshi-to-do-more-about-extremists-1.2685124
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/algonquin-college-muslim-students-association-denounce-extremism-1.2945534
> http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/persecution/toronto-mosque-offers-detox-for-extremists.html
> http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2013/04/24/muslim_community_deserves_credit_for_thwarting_toronto_terror_plot_editorial.html



These are all good moderate muslim actions standing up and being heard, MCG; A big however; they are very late coming and still a very small percentage of events and demonstrations holding a different view. It will take years of major actions to turn public opinion in the west in the opposite direction.


----------



## jollyjacktar

MCG said:
			
		

> The crowds that you want to see are there to be seen:  http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/hundreds-of-calgary-muslims-protest-isis-violence-in-iraq-1.2683589



I'm thinking more of the throngs you see in Pakistan, Yemen, etc etc etc. that are out in the streets baying at the cameras and number in the tens of thousands.  I'm happy that some here in Canada are stepping forwards but the great Muslim diaspora elsewhere is what interests me.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Western progressives deal with fundamentalist Christians by being appalled by religion;then they deny Islamism is religion-based.  Go figure:
https://www.google.ca/search?q=obama+islamism&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=bOPjVKKSE5GsyASB2IGQAg

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Brad Sallows

If Newton had never "discovered" gravity, someone else would have by now.  If Newton and Leibniz had not invented calculus, someone else would have by now.

The knowledge we traditionally regard as "pre-Columbian" and originating in the Eurasian land mass bounced back and forth from the western shore of the Pacific to the eastern shore of the Atlantic.

All this dick-waving doesn't obscure the fact that a staggering amount of our most valuable social institutions and technology come from a pretty narrow set of sources.

That most civilizations went through warlike phases and practiced slavery is unexceptional.  What is exceptional are the ones that reasoned their way out of inhumane practices and try to avoid repeating those injustices.

In the internet era, "we need time to evolve" is a weak excuse for barbaric behaviour.  The examples have been set.  The knowledge is freely available.  The only reason to be barbaric is because you want to be.


----------



## tomahawk6

ISIS is well on their way to establishing a caliphate from Syria to Libya and maybe Tunisia.Algeria and Morocco will be harder nuts to crack.Brutality has won many a conquest through history.Savage a city and the next city will fold without a fight.Then the brutality gets worse because ISIS lacks enough thugs to control all of their territory.Even the Nazis ruled through fear and oppression,until dying for a cause was better than dying for nothing.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Hold the phone here, whoever split this off.  I resent the hell out of having my comments on this thread being considered part of an "anti Muslim narrative".  I am NOT, and never have been anti Muslim, anti Christian, anti Jew, anti tank, or anything other than anti asshole.  Whoever arbitrarily decided that I am, can take a long hard suck on my lily white, not anti Muslim, English arse.

Interesting side note;  I deliberately typed all religion names in lower case.  The only one auto correct didn't pick up for capitalization was "christian", strange, no?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Oh come now- you have too been "anti-tank" at some point in your life.


----------



## Kat Stevens

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Oh come now- you have too been "anti-tank" at some point in your life.



Only when assholes are in them  ;D


----------



## Jarnhamar

Force said:
			
		

> As a muslim myself



Do you practice Islam and believe non believers should be converted or killed?



I find it strange when someone identifies as a muslim, jew, christian, buddist etc.. except they pick and choose which religious rules or laws they follow and which they don't.  Is a watered down christian or muslim really following the teachings of the quran or bible?  

It reminds me of a friend of mine who is a vegetarian; except she eats pepperoni on pizza, hot dogs from A&W and sometimes bacon on bagels when shes too lazy to pick it off.


----------



## Loachman

Hot dogs are meat?

Every person interprets religious texts and concepts, as well as everything else, at least slightly differently.


----------



## Kilo_302

This is a joke. The same people on here who don't seem to have a problem with us being so close with the Saudis also seem to be overly concerned with the "threat" ISIS poses to Canada. We can't have it both ways. We're cleaning up a Saudi mess in Iraq (and potentially Syria), until we address these issues with Saudi Arabia directly this whole thing is a side show. The roots of ISIS lie in Saudi funding for extremist groups, and we've never batted an eye at this. Following the British model, the US and West in modern times have always preferred radical Islam to secular nationalism in the Middle East, we're just reaping what we've sowed here. 

IF we're serious about combatting ISIS and Islamic extremism we'd better push the Saudis, hard. If the royal family ever collapses, you can bet the extremists that fill the vacuum will remember it was Canadian LAVs suppressing resistance. It'll be pretty rich of us at that point to try and support moderate groups, if there are any left. THEN we'll have an actual threat to Canada and it will be of our own making.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Actually, no. I am under no illusions as to the extent that the House of Saud is the root of the problem.

I am also realistic, given the money and power they have amassed, about how much of the western world they gave in their pocket.

I also know that ISIS is an existential threat to them. I am all for selling as many LAVs into the region as possible. They are no threat to Canada over there and virtually any permutation of who they get used against in that region is a long term win for us. What would have us do? Invade Saudi Arabia and depose the house of Saud? I'm sure that would play well...

Kilo, I think your problem is that you are are an idealist. You would like a perfect solution to a perfect problem. I, on the other hand accept that most problems are messy and intractable. Having all the usual suspects fighting amongst themselves, works for me presently.


----------



## Kilo_302

I don't buy that realist argument though, as in the long run that approach hurts Canada too. Again, by support the current Saudi regime we are virtually guaranteeing that whatever replaces them will be hostile to us. We've seen what the results of a realist approach gets us. Call it blowback, call it whatever you want but the current realist policies the West pursues don't benefit anyone but a select few in the long run. Who is going to pay the price for us selling LAVs to the Saudis? The Canadian government? General Dynamics? It'll be the Saudi populace and then Canadian civilians killed in attacks motivated by our support for the regime. And to prevent these attacks, we'll sacrifce democracy at home and give the government carte blanche to spy on whoever it pleases. History has shown us where these policies will take us, ISIS (and Islamic extremists in general) aren't stupid. They know how to provoke overreactions and our government is very eager to give them what they want.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Loachman said:
			
		

> Hot dogs are meat?


Well closer to meat than plants 
Like onion rings are vegetable donuts.



> Every person interprets religious texts and concepts, as well as everything else, at least slightly differently.


Exactly.  When I hear someone say I'm a Muslim (or whatever) I think of how ambiguous the term is.   When I hear someone offended because of something religion-based it goes in one ear and out the other because people basically pick and choose what rules they follow, and what offends them.


----------



## a_majoor

There already is an "anti-muslim" narrative going in Europe, with various extremist parties pumping up the volume and getting an ever increasing share of the vote by disgruntled Europeans.

Things like the Charlie Hedbo massacre and the shootings in Denmark can only serve to intensify the narrative, and of course daily doses of barbaric practices broadcast on TV from the Middle East only serve to reinforce fear and hatred people are feeling.

As has been said upthread, the only true way to defuse the "anti-muslim" narrative and the potential massive backlash against Islamic people settled in Europe and North America is for the Islamic peoples themselves to eject the violent and radical jihadists and their enablers. Sadly, I have the feeling we are getting close to a tipping point where if the job isn't done internally, it will "get done" in ways we probably will not like. Things like internment camps are part of our own history, so no one should sit back and say "oh, things won't get so bad over here...."


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I don't buy that realist argument though, as in the long run that approach hurts Canada too. Again, by support the current Saudi regime we are virtually guaranteeing that whatever replaces them will be hostile to us. We've seen what the results of a realist approach gets us. Call it blowback, call it whatever you want but the current realist policies the West pursues don't benefit anyone but a select few in the long run. Who is going to pay the price for us selling LAVs to the Saudis? The Canadian government? General Dynamics? It'll be the Saudi populace and then Canadian civilians killed in attacks motivated by our support for the regime. And to prevent these attacks, we'll sacrifce democracy at home and give the government carte blanche to spy on whoever it pleases. History has shown us where these policies will take us, ISIS (and Islamic extremists in general) aren't stupid. They know how to provoke overreactions and our government is very eager to give them what they want.



Newsflash, Kilo. They already hate us - the Saudis included. Nothing we do will change that.


----------



## NSDreamer

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Do you practice Islam and believe non believers should be converted or killed?
> 
> I find it strange when someone identifies as a muslim, jew, christian, buddist etc.. except they pick and choose which religious rules or laws they follow and which they don't.  Is a watered down christian or muslim really following the teachings of the quran or bible?
> 
> It reminds me of a friend of mine who is a vegetarian; except she eats pepperoni on pizza, hot dogs from A&W and sometimes bacon on bagels when shes too lazy to pick it off.



 This is pretty off target on two fronts, at several points in the Koran, and I'd have to be at home to look up the notes from back when I was in university, it states that "People who are of the book (ie christians, jews, budhists) should be left alone, as they worship the same god so long as they do not attack Islam" So it's not kill or convert. 

 If you identify as a Christian, you can still sin, but there is forgiveness in the religion as such. So that "follow all the rules or none" is really a straw man arguement. 

 I'm all for good intellectual discourse, but stuff like this frustrates me.

(quote unrelated) Also I know quite a few muslims in the CF, I think they joined to help push back this tide. Do we disregard them and say they 
are doing nothing? People always forget them and say "you people are doing nothing" I'm pretty sure any arguement that begins with "You people" is a bad one...


----------



## Loachman

Most of the people on this planet aren't doing anything about ISIS, either.

Most of the people on this planet aren't even aware of ISIS.

If ISIS is not a sports team, musical artist, or reality TV star, they're just not worthy of notice.


----------



## Jarnhamar

NSDreamer said:
			
		

> This is pretty off target on two fronts, at several points in the Koran, and I'd have to be at home to look up the notes from back when I was in university, it states that "People who are of the book (ie christians, jews, budhists) should be left alone, as they worship the same god so long as they do not attack Islam" So it's not kill or convert.
> 
> If you identify as a Christian, you can still sin, but there is forgiveness in the religion as such. So that "follow all the rules or none" is really a straw man arguement.
> 
> I'm all for good intellectual discourse, but stuff like this frustrates me.
> 
> (quote unrelated) Also I know quite a few muslims in the CF, I think they joined to help push back this tide. Do we disregard them and say they
> are doing nothing? People always forget them and say "you people are doing nothing" I'm pretty sure any arguement that begins with "You people" is a bad one...



NSDreamer,

 I did a search for the notes you spoke of.  I didn't find them yet but I did find some of these cheerful passages which seem to counter the note you recall seeing.
   


> Qur’an:9:5 - “*Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them*, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.”
> 
> Qur’an:9:29 “*Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender*, paying the protective tax in submission.”
> 
> [Qur’an:8:39 “*Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah*.”
> 
> *Qur’an:8:39 “So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone *.”
> 
> Ishaq:587 “Our onslaught will not be a weak faltering affair. We shall fight as long as we live. *We will fight until you turn to Islam*, humbly seeking refuge. We will fight not caring whom we meet. We will fight whether we destroy ancient holdings or newly gotten gains. We have mutilated every opponent. We have driven them violently before us at the command of Allah and Islam. We will fight until our religion is established. And we will plunder them, for they must suffer disgrace.”
> 
> Qur’an:9:123 “Fight the unbelievers around you, and let them find harshness in you.”
> 
> Ishaq:578 “Crushing the heads of the infidels and splitting their skulls with sharp swords, we continually thrust and cut at the enemy. Blood gushed from their deep wounds as the battle wore them down. We conquered bearing the Prophet’s fluttering war banner. Our cavalry was submerged in rising dust, and our spears quivered, but by us the Prophet gained victory.”



Etc.. Etc..

Most definitions of a "muslim" I found say it is someone who follows the Qur'an/ follows the teachings of Islam.  

I've outlined a few of the teachings above.  My argument is a Muslim that doesn't subscribe to these rules is like my vegetarian friend. 

We then get into what Loachman wisely pointed out; people basically pick and choose which tenants they follow.  We make special allowances based on religion in which the followers pick and choose just how religious they are.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Hold the phone here, whoever split this off.  I resent the hell out of having my comments on this thread being considered part of an "anti Muslim narrative".  I am NOT, and never have been anti Muslim, anti Christian, anti Jew, anti tank, or anything other than anti asshole.  Whoever arbitrarily decided that I am, can take a long hard suck on my lily white, not anti Muslim, English arse.
> 
> Interesting side note;  I deliberately typed all religion names in lower case.  The only one auto correct didn't pick up for capitalization was "christian", strange, no?



 :goodpost:

I agree Kat. I'm going to have to do some looking behind the curtain to find who started this thread with such an inflammatory title and decided to make one of my posts the first one to try inflame a situation that doesn't exist.

I, also, am not anti Muslim\ Islamist. I just want to know where they stand and what their going to do to recover themselves and their religion.

Anyway, the title has been changed.


----------



## jollyjacktar

This video surfaced last week.  I cannot recall if anyone posted a link to it.  It is a Granny taking some ISIS thugs to task, she really schools them and at the end owns them.  At the very least it is something to see her have a go at them, a "Raging Granny" for sure. 

Grandmother Bravely Stands Up To ISIS Telling Them To Stop


----------



## Fishbone Jones

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> This video surfaced last week.  I cannot recall if anyone posted a link to it.  It is a Granny taking some ISIS thugs to task, she really schools them and at the end owns them.  At the very least it is something to see her have a go at them, a "Raging Granny" for sure.
> 
> Grandmother Bravely Stands Up To ISIS Telling Them To Stop



That is the type of reaction we should see everywhere, from everyone. Unfortunately, the world is not all Grandmothers, who carry a great amount of respect and underlying power in that society.


----------



## McG

recceguy said:
			
		

> I'm going to have to do some looking behind the curtain to find who started this thread with such an inflammatory title and decided to make one of my posts the first one to try inflame a situation that doesn't exist.


I split the thread.  The title was a play on the thread it first came from (the anti-western narrative) and the thread was labeled as having been split from there.

The source posts by Force were left in the source threads because they were on topic to those threads (anti-western narrative and Islamic civil war in the Middle East), and your posts fully quotes them (making them unneccesary in the new thread).

Change the name if you want.

That being said, this thread has not been about "The Role of Islam in Western Society" (as currently labeled) it has been about a precived obligation of all moderate Muslims (Western or not) to be accountable for and prove themselves different from extremist (particularly including terrorist) Muslims.


----------



## Naval Reservist

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> This video surfaced last week.  I cannot recall if anyone posted a link to it.  It is a Granny taking some ISIS thugs to task, she really schools them and at the end owns them.  At the very least it is something to see her have a go at them, a "Raging Granny" for sure.
> 
> Grandmother Bravely Stands Up To ISIS Telling Them To Stop



I actually think that grandma has more courage than I would if I were there, in that situation, with a bunch of ISIS guys. As much as I don't want to admit it, fear is one of the reasons I believe they are doing so well.


----------



## The Bread Guy

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> This video surfaced last week.  I cannot recall if anyone posted a link to it.  It is a Granny taking some ISIS thugs to task, she really schools them and at the end owns them.  At the very least it is something to see her have a go at them, a "Raging Granny" for sure.
> 
> Grandmother Bravely Stands Up To ISIS Telling Them To Stop


I hope she lasts the week ....


----------



## NSDreamer

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> NSDreamer,
> 
> I did a search for the notes you spoke of.  I didn't find them yet but I did find some of these cheerful passages which seem to counter the note you recall seeing.
> 
> Most definitions of a "muslim" I found say it is someone who follows the Qur'an/ follows the teachings of Islam.
> 
> I've outlined a few of the teachings above.  My argument is a Muslim that doesn't subscribe to these rules is like my vegetarian friend.
> 
> We then get into what Loachman wisely pointed out; people basically pick and choose which tenants they follow.  We make special allowances based on religion in which the followers pick and choose just how religious they are.



 Fair enough, I'll find some points when I get home. I understand where you're coming from.


----------



## CougarKing

An example of European Muslims standing up against radicals in their communities?

Reuters



> *Norway's Muslims form protective human ring around synagogue*
> 
> OSLO (Reuters) - More than 1000 Muslims formed a human shield around Oslo's synagogue on Saturday, offering symbolic protection for the city's Jewish community and condemning an attack on a synagogue in neighboring Denmark last weekend.
> 
> *Chanting "No to anti-Semitism, no to Islamophobia," Norway's Muslims formed what they called a ring of peace a week after Omar Abdel Hamid El-Hussein, a Danish-born son of Palestinian immigrants, killed two people at a synagogue and an event promoting free speech in Copenhagen last weekend.*
> 
> "Humanity is one and we are here to demonstrate that," Zeeshan Abdullah, one of the protest's organizers told a crowd of Muslim immigrants and ethnic Norwegians who filled the small street around Oslo's only functioning synagogue.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Brad Sallows

>That being said, this thread has not been about "The Role of Islam in Western Society" (as currently labeled) it has been about a precived obligation of all moderate Muslims (Western or not) to be accountable for and prove themselves different from extremist (particularly including terrorist) Muslims.

I'll take a stab at that.

Islam needs a schism: an absolute formal division between medievalist tyrants and those wishing to assume the mantle of "religion of peace".  A schism by definition only happens if the adherents do it themselves.  The tyrants aren't going to do it.  It isn't going to happen in the tightly regulated closed Islamic nations.  It can only happen in countries with strong democratic institutions; it can only happen if moderate Muslims take up the challenge to be accountable and prove themselves different.  The role of Islam in Western Society is to create a new Islam compatible with Western Society.  It is not Western Society's responsibility to make itself compatible with Islam.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >That being said, this thread has not been about "The Role of Islam in Western Society" (as currently labeled) it has been about a precived obligation of all moderate Muslims (Western or not) to be accountable for and prove themselves different from extremist (particularly including terrorist) Muslims.
> 
> I'll take a stab at that.
> 
> Islam needs a schism: an absolute formal division between medievalist tyrants and those wishing to assume the mantle of "religion of peace".  A schism by definition only happens if the adherents do it themselves.  The tyrants aren't going to do it.  It isn't going to happen in the tightly regulated closed Islamic nations.  It can only happen in countries with strong democratic institutions; it can only happen if moderate Muslims take up the challenge to be accountable and prove themselves different.  The role of Islam in Western Society is to create a new Islam compatible with Western Society.  It is not Western Society's responsibility to make itself compatible with Islam.


 :goodpost:

What I've been trying to say.


----------



## McG

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The role of Islam in Western Society is to create a new Islam compatible with Western Society.  It is not Western Society's responsibility to make itself compatible with Islam.


That would seem to necessitate rejecting the violence and terrorism, rejecting individuals who espouse the violence from the western Muslim community, and otherwise contributing productively to whichever western nation the Muslim is a part of.  This would not seem to necessitate abandoning one's place in western society to fight a south Asian war.   A Muslim, volunteering as a CAF member to fight where and when our government deems to be in the national interest, surely does not need to be challenge to join a moderate Middle East militia in order to meet his obligations to Canadian society.

We have seen there are examples that the Canadian Muslim  community is doing what it needs to do:


			
				MCG said:
			
		

> jollyjacktar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems as if at the drop of a hat, or cartoon that offends, streets are mobbed by baying crowds demanding heads be chopped off.  Well, you want our respect and assistance, then lets see those crowds baying in the streets, worldwide, against ISIS, Boko Haram et al.
> 
> 
> 
> The crowds that you want to see are there to be seen:  http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/hundreds-of-calgary-muslims-protest-isis-violence-in-iraq-1.2683589
> 
> 
> 
> 
> recceguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... what concrete action the moderate Muslim world community is doing to stop [ISIS].
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would that not be Egypt, UAE, Jordan, etc going to war with ISIS?
> 
> ... or maybe Canadian Mulim leaders calling for the investigations to rout-out domestic terrorist aggitators/supporters/recruiters, publicly denouncing such behaviours, less publicly working to "de-radicalize" youth, and warning police of radicalized members of the muslim community?  It has all been done.
> 
> http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/calgary-imam-calls-for-inquiry-into-recruitment-of-muslim-radicals
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/young-muslim-calls-on-police-nenshi-to-do-more-about-extremists-1.2685124
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/algonquin-college-muslim-students-association-denounce-extremism-1.2945534
> http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/persecution/toronto-mosque-offers-detox-for-extremists.html
> http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2013/04/24/muslim_community_deserves_credit_for_thwarting_toronto_terror_plot_editorial.html
Click to expand...

So what more is wanted?


----------



## a_majoor

The difficulty is that Islam is conceived of as an all encompassing religious and social movement; there is no separation of Church and State in Islam, nor is it even possible under most interpretations of the Quran (both moderate and radical). That alone makes Islam incompatible with Western society, since our civilization is based on clearly delineated roles of Church, State, legislatures, and courts of law. Our civilization is also predicated on individual freedoms and property rights (the practical implementation of individual liberties), which are also downplayed or ignored in the Quran.

Like many people have said upthread and in other fora; only the Muslims themselves can make the changes necessary to become functional members of Western society. Many have, as individuals, but there is not a critical mass who are vocal and active in integrating into our society and speaking, acting and fighting against radicals.


----------



## Force

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The difficulty is that Islam is conceived of as an all encompassing religious and social movement; there is no separation of Church and State in Islam, nor is it even possible under most interpretations of the Quran (both moderate and radical). That alone makes Islam incompatible with Western society, since our civilization is based on clearly delineated roles of Church, State, legislatures, and courts of law. Our civilization is also predicated on individual freedoms and property rights (the practical implementation of individual liberties), which are also downplayed or ignored in the Quran.
> 
> Like many people have said upthread and in other fora; only the Muslims themselves can make the changes necessary to become functional members of Western society. Many have, as individuals, but there is not a critical mass who are vocal and active in integrating into our society and speaking, acting and fighting against radicals.



That's not true.. muslims that don't live in an islamic state are forced to abide to the laws of the country they live in. And that's what I'm doing. There is also one thing that people don't understand, most muslims don't even know their religion, they just pray and fast without actually having studied islam, they were just born muslim. Those people are like anyone you meet on the street, you cannot go and ask them to justify/act/fight, they are in no way connected to any of the things happening in the world and are just normal citizens. If there are radical fanatics in Canada, it is every canadian's duty to stand up against them, regardless of their religion. Muslims do not have more responsability than others because they are not even connected to those fanatics and those fanatics have a totally different religion than the normal muslim. Why would you hold a grudge against a muslim that doesn't give a damn about those fanatics if he doesnt act/etc ? 

Once you understand that islam is not a country or a worldwide organisation, you will understand that muslims living in the west are Canadian/Americans/French/etc, and their islam is just a way of living, not a political movement... Are there muslim organisations in the west? Yes . Are all muslims part of organisatons? No. 

Take a normal muslim for example, what do you expect him to do? Pick up the phonebook and call every mohammad on it and organise a march?  You think hes connected to thousands of muslims and that he is part of social movements? Why can't a normal muslim be looked at like a normal citizen? Not all muslims are implicated in social movements nor participate in social activities...


----------



## McG

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Like many people have said upthread and in other fora; only the Muslims themselves can make the changes necessary to become functional members of Western society. Many have, as individuals, but there is not a critical mass who are vocal and active in integrating into our society and speaking, acting and fighting against radicals.


Where does that conclusion come from?  What I have seen of Muslim Canadian society through media seems to suggest the majority are openly opposed to radicals, and the police are warned when the community perceives individuals of its population have become dangerous.  The Muslims who I know (most of them Canadian Soldiers), are very much against the violent radicals.  What is this critical mass that must be reached for the Canadian Muslim community to deserve the trust of the broader Canadian society?  What does this critical mass need to do?


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Okay, I guess I'll be the one that goes off PC script.

I'm not against Muslim individuals but I most certainly have a problem with the Quran and Hadiths.

The fact they still exist in their current form and are accepted as a base of faith for so many is deeply disturbing to me.

Until there is a fundamental reformation of the concept of Dar al Islam vs Dar al Harb and Jihad, there will be a constant war of Islam against non-Islam.

It's up to the moderates to say "enough is enough" and the make the changes that allow most other major religions to now peacefully co-exist.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Force said:
			
		

> Why can't a normal muslim be looked at like a normal citizen?



To my way of thinking a "normal muslim" would be a muslim who follows the Qur'an pretty much to the T.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Force said:
			
		

> That's not true.. muslims that don't live in an islamic state are forced to abide to the laws of the country they live in. And that's what I'm doing. There is also one thing that people don't understand, most muslims don't even know their religion, they just pray and fast without actually having studied islam, they were just born muslim. Those people are like anyone you meet on the street, you cannot go and ask them to justify/act/fight, they are in no way connected to any of the things happening in the world and are just normal citizens. If there are radical fanatics in Canada, it is every canadian's duty to stand up against them, regardless of their religion. Muslims do not have more responsability than others because they are not even connected to those fanatics and those fanatics have a totally different religion than the normal muslim. Why would you hold a grudge against a muslim that doesn't give a damn about those fanatics if he doesnt act/etc ?
> 
> Once you understand that islam is not a country or a worldwide organisation, you will understand that muslims living in the west are Canadian/Americans/French/etc, and their islam is just a way of living, not a political movement... Are there muslim organisations in the west? Yes . Are all muslims part of organisatons? No.
> 
> Take a normal muslim for example, what do you expect him to do? Pick up the phonebook and call every mohammad on it and organise a march?  You think hes connected to thousands of muslims and that he is part of social movements? Why can't a normal muslim be looked at like a normal citizen? Not all muslims are implicated in social movements nor participate in social activities...



What is a normal Muslim? A Sunni, Shia, Ismail? If you want to say "Modern Muslim" being one that does not believe the Quaran is the definitive word of Allah upon the earth, but a book set in a particular time and place to be used in a similar way that the bible is used in the west here. This is what defines you, do you believe it is the absolute word of god or not? Either way you become part of the problem, if you are the former then your normal is not our normal, it can't be and you are lying to us, yourself or both. If you are the latter and you sit quietly while the Iman spews vile, contempt and hatred, then you are part of the problem. I have heard with my own ears the contempt of the Iman's here have, i see the mosque in my area is funded by Saudi's and I know what strings are attached and what they are expected to preach. I know good Muslims, like my brother inlaw, who could not hurt anyone, but the problem is that the good Muslims have done nothing and allowed evil to flourish, so yes either way you are part of it, the only question is which part?


----------



## jollyjacktar

MCG said:
			
		

> We have seen there are examples that the Canadian Muslim  community is doing what it needs to do:The crowds that you want to see are there to be seen:  http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/hundreds-of-calgary-muslims-protest-isis-violence-in-iraq-1.2683589
> Would that not be Egypt, UAE, Jordan, etc going to war with ISIS?
> 
> ... or maybe Canadian Mulim leaders calling for the investigations to rout-out domestic terrorist aggitators/supporters/recruiters, publicly denouncing such behaviours, less publicly working to "de-radicalize" youth, and warning police of radicalized members of the muslim community?  It has all been done.
> 
> http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/calgary-imam-calls-for-inquiry-into-recruitment-of-muslim-radicals
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/young-muslim-calls-on-police-nenshi-to-do-more-about-extremists-1.2685124
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/algonquin-college-muslim-students-association-denounce-extremism-1.2945534
> http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/persecution/toronto-mosque-offers-detox-for-extremists.html
> http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2013/04/24/muslim_community_deserves_credit_for_thwarting_toronto_terror_plot_editorial.html
> So what more is wanted?


I believe I already addressed your post earlier.


----------



## McG

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I believe I already addressed your post earlier.





			
				jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I'm thinking more of the throngs you see in Pakistan, Yemen, etc etc etc. that are out in the streets baying at the cameras and number in the tens of thousands.  I'm happy that some here in Canada are stepping forwards but the great Muslim diaspora elsewhere is what interests me.


My post yesterday noted that it was about the Canadian Muslim community.  So, is your position that Canadian Muslims are accountable for society in Pakistan and Yemen, or are you saying that the Canadian Muslim community is doing what it needs to do?


----------



## jollyjacktar

If members of your faith or organization are running amok committing barbarous crimes against humanity, in particular against fellow members of your faith.  Then yes, I believe it is your responsibility to speak out and take your faith back from those who would defile it.  And again, I've already as stated such prior.


----------



## Kat Stevens

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> If members of your faith or organization are running amok committing barbarous crimes against humanity, in particular against fellow members of your faith.  Then yes, I believe it is your responsibility to speak out and take your faith back from those who would defile it.  And again, I've already as stated such prior.


Not to be a dick, well okay, a bit of a dick, but our fellow "Christians" in the Balkans did some pretty awful shit to each other, all, as far as I could tell, over the number of crosspieces on a crucifix, and an alphabet.  No it wasn't strictly speaking a war about religion, but it was definitly drawn up along religious lines.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Not to be a dick, well okay, a bit of a dick, but our fellow "Christians" in the Balkans did some pretty awful shit to each other, all, as far as I could tell, over the number of crosspieces on a crucifix, and an alphabet.  No it wasn't strictly speaking a war about religion, but it was definitely drawn up along religious lines.



Those Christians are no better than the Muslims burrying women in the ground and bouncing rocks off their heads.

Islam doesn't have a role in Western society because it is too impossible for enough moderate Muslims to distance themselves from their seemingly psychopathic cousins and change how the rest of the world see's Islam.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Those Christians are no better than the Muslims burrying women in the ground and bouncing rocks off their heads.
> 
> Islam doesn't have a role in Western society because it is too impossible for enough moderate Muslims to distance themselves from their seemingly psychopathic cousins and change how the rest of the world see's Islam.



I get that completely, my pseudo point was that no Christians over here took to the streets in their thousands denouncing them.  I however am in complete agreement that the only ones who can deal with radicalized Muslims, are Muslims.


----------



## McG

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> If members of your faith or organization are running amok committing barbarous crimes against humanity, in particular against fellow members of your faith.  Then yes, I believe it is your responsibility to speak out and take your faith back from those who would defile it.


The Canadian Muslim community is speaking out.  You quoted a list of examples.  You have dismissed such examples as not good enough.  So what does the community need to do to satisfy you?

Kat's analogy is exactly right.  Canadian Roman Catholics and Canadian Ortodox Catholics were not held accountable for attrocities comitted along religious lines by thier religions in the Balkans.  We did not demand that thier religions identity take precedence over thier place in Canadian society; we did not suggest they should abandon thier roles in our society (doctors, engineers, teachers, contructions workers, soldiers, etc) to engage in some foreign battle.  We accept that Canadian Catholics (and Protestants, Jews, Aethiests, etc) hold certain Canadian values regardless of how thier bretheren may be behaving on the far side of the planet.  That is how it should be.



			
				Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> ... the only ones who can deal with radicalized Muslims, are Muslims.


Right again Kat.  I would take it a step farther and and say that any societal barriers will get in the way of this.  A western raised and educated Muslim trying to influence cultural values of Syria will be seen first as just another westerner.  The problems in the middle east need to be solved from the middle east.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I get that completely, my pseudo point was that no Christians over here took to the streets in their thousands denouncing them.



Your absolutely right.  Could it be a matter of ignorance?
Christianity seems more diluted that Islam thus it's easier to compartmentalize it?  For example when I hear or think of Muslims and Islam I think of 3 types.  

1. Rational, good hearted citizens.  
2. Crazy woman abusing frothing at the mouth types. 
3. Muslims that seem to be moderate but are hiding their true beliefs.

When I think of Christians I think of 100 different sub-religions (if that's a word) with 1000 different takes on the bible so Christians don't come across as a single entity (or even 2 or 3).

Not saying it's fair but it may explain why there's no Christian outrage over similar incidents?


----------



## jollyjacktar

If, the Ummah can get up in arms about cartoons, then the Ummah can get up in arms about the Islamofascist zealots who would defile their faith and murder untold thousands of their brothers and sisters.  Cuts both ways.  I am talking about the same worldwide Ummah that President el-Sisi was directing his comments towards and asking them to get on with showing ISIS et al that they are the problem, not the solution.  What is going on today with Islam is a worldwide issue, not, just a Canadian Muslim community one and, that, is what I and others have been saying.  

For the Canadian gang?  As Colin has noted he has heard with his own ears, some Imams preaching hate in Mosques here in Canada.  I know it is no longer fashion or legal to tar, feather and ride out of town on a rail anyone whom is bad for the townsfolk.  So how about, the faithful in those communities were these pricks are operating, buy them a one way ticket to whence the originated and frog march their asses to the airport and out of the country.  I can't believe they are not known for what they're up to in the Mosques amongst the members of said community.

As far as I am concerned, if the Crusades were in operation today I would hope Christians everywhere would go on the street to denounce it as it defiles their faith.

What will satisfy me?  The above and when I see mobs that can be generated worldwide taking back Islam from the control of barbarians who now have it hostage.  They are the only ones who can truly stop the madness.


----------



## Force

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> If, the Ummah can get up in arms about cartoons, then the Ummah can get up in arms about the Islamofascist zealots who would defile their faith and murder untold thousands of their brothers and sisters.  Cuts both ways.  I am talking about the same worldwide Ummah that President el-Sisi was directing his comments towards and asking them to get on with showing ISIS et al that they are the problem, not the solution.  What is going on today with Islam is a worldwide issue, not, just a Canadian Muslim community one and, that, is what I and others have been saying.
> 
> As far as I am concerned, if the Crusades were in operation today I would hope Christians everywhere would go on the street to denounce it as it defiles their faith.
> 
> What will satisfy me?  When I see mobs that can be generated worldwide taking back Islam from the control of barbarians who now have it hostage.  They are the only ones who can truly stop the madness.


No one took arms against cartoons exept isis and its likes. Those are the 19th century wahhabis and not muslims. Even obama is saying that. http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6730310


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

If the moderates want to show that terrorism and violence against non-Muslims is truly unacceptable, they need to start by flagging that violent psychopaths/terrorists like the Copenhagen murderer are heretics and denying them Muslim burial rights....as opposed to a grand official funeral with 500 attendees.

And that can start with any Muslim association.  It can start with a student association, a Shia Association, a Sunni Association, from Canada, from the UK, from Indonesia, from wherever. But that message needs to come out loudly and clearly from Muslim voices.

Until that happens I'm not buying "the religion of peace" narrative.


M.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Force said:
			
		

> No one took arms against cartoons exept isis and its likes. Those are the 19th century wahhabis and not muslims. Even obama is saying that. http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6730310



From the Oxford dictionary and my useage.



> Definition of up in arms in English:
> Protesting vigorously about something:
> ‘teachers are up in arms about new school tests’
> 
> http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/up-in-arms



Tens of millions were up in arms about the cartoons.  Now if they could only get up in arms about ISIS.


----------



## YZT580

The source book for Christianity, the Bible, does not compel its adherents to go out and take the head off someone who holds an opposing view: Islam does.  There is no government associated with Christianity.  With Islam you cannot differentiate between the two.  The Bible does not demand war against unbelievers nor does it place women in a subservient role.  In fact many of the early church leaders were women.  Christianity teaches peace  in its holy books, Islam teaches war in its holy books.  Christians who teach war or oppress others are radicals and are going against Biblical teachings. There are Christians who have murdered family members for marrying outside their faith.  Those Christians are violating Biblical commands.  There are Moslems who have murdered family members for marrying outside their faith.  Those Moslems are following Koranic commands.  A Moslem who teaches peace and acceptance is a radical and is going against Koranic teachings.  Fortunately, there are a lot of Moslems who would like to see changes made but we as westerners have to realize that those brave souls are going against 1500 years of teaching.  I could go on with this comparison but I think that is enough.  Suffice it to say that a Moslem who speaks up against ISIS teaching is speaking out against people who are practicing what they preach.  It is the moderates who are the real fanatics!


----------



## Colin Parkinson

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/


----------



## Edward Campbell

I'm sorry but this nonsense has to stop ... Islam has a "role" in some societies because, and only because, some political factions choose to give it a role, to use it, exploit it for political purposes. Five hundred year ago, when we, the European West, were locked in an earlier war with an Islam _caliphate_, "we" proudly referred to ourselves as _Christendom_. Despite the crosses on many, many flags, think the UK and some Scandinavian countries, I doubt any significant country today (sorry Vatican, I don't regard you as a "significant country" in political/economic terms) would say it is, in the 21st century, out there promoting Christian values. (Leave Israel and the defence of the Jews aside, please ... it's _sui generis_.)

Now, some countries do define themselves as Islamic: consider both Saudi Arabia and Iran. They do so for their own specific reasons ... reasons which, in both cases, I understand but find, to be charitable, silly, even childish. Most states that are predominantly or even overwhelmingly Muslim still offer at least token recognition of religious liberty ~ even if it is usually "more honor'd in the breach than the observance."

Islam is nothing more (nor less) than a system of beliefs ... there are as many styles and types of Muslim 'beliefs' and 'practices' as there are amongst the Buddhists, Christians and Hindus. There are just as many brave, noble, upright Muslims as there are Christians, and just as many Muslims cowards and charlatans as there are amongst the Hindus. Some terrorists, some barbarians, some charlatans are using Islam as a propaganda tool. Buddhists, Christians and so on are not above doing the same thing when they think it will work. Some (too many) Muslims come from societies with weak, even retarded* social and political cultures and they (and poorly educated young Canadians with weak socio-cultural 'values') are easy prey for well crafted propaganda that tells them they they are _superior_ and/or _entitled_ and that all they need to do is fight a bit to gain whatever it is (status? meaning?) their sad little lives lack now.

So, don't blame Islam ... in fact don't even think about Islam. Blame some leaders and promote (indeed, demand) action to get rid of them ... starting with, say, the Saudi Royal family, dozens of Iranian Ayatollahs and the leaders of e.g. Boko Haram, Hezbollah and the Irish National Liberation Army (because not all dangerous terrorists are Muslim).

_____
* As in delayed or not yet as advanced as others, not as a medical term.


----------



## Remius

YZT580 said:
			
		

> The source book for Christianity, the Bible, does not compel its adherents to go out and take the head off someone who holds an opposing view: Islam does.  There is no government associated with Christianity.  With Islam you cannot differentiate between the two.  The Bible does not demand war against unbelievers nor does it place women in a subservient role.  In fact many of the early church leaders were women.  Christianity teaches peace  in its holy books, Islam teaches war in its holy books.  Christians who teach war or oppress others are radicals and are going against Biblical teachings. There are Christians who have murdered family members for marrying outside their faith.  Those Christians are violating Biblical commands.  There are Moslems who have murdered family members for marrying outside their faith.  Those Moslems are following Koranic commands.  A Moslem who teaches peace and acceptance is a radical and is going against Koranic teachings.  Fortunately, there are a lot of Moslems who would like to see changes made but we as westerners have to realize that those brave souls are going against 1500 years of teaching.  I could go on with this comparison but I think that is enough.  Suffice it to say that a Moslem who speaks up against ISIS teaching is speaking out against people who are practicing what they preach.  It is the moderates who are the real fanatics!



I really think you need to re read the bible...


----------



## Jed

Crantor said:
			
		

> I really think you need to re read the bible...



I am no bible thumper expert, however; To me the Bible tells an epic story in two volumes. The old and the new testament. The stories in the old testament describe the essence of the human experience. It is not meant to be a detailed code for living your life, except for maybe the 10 commandments which the Jews follow as well. (No instructions in these telling you to go to war, chop off heads, or convert or slay everyone that does not follow your beliefs.)

The new testament focuses on life after Jesus came into the world with his message of forgiveness. (Definitely no detailed instructions to go out and slay your fellow man) 

The Koran is a far different book than the Bible.  Both are words written by man and not by God himself.


----------



## Remius

Jed said:
			
		

> I am no bible thumper expert, however; To me the Bible tells an epic story in two volumes. The old and the new testament. The stories in the old testament describe the essence of the human experience. It is not meant to be a detailed code for living your life, except for maybe the 10 commandments which the Jews follow as well. (No instructions in these telling you to go to war, chop off heads, or convert or slay everyone that does not follow your beliefs.)
> 
> The new testament focuses on life after Jesus came into the world with his message of forgiveness. (Definitely no detailed instructions to go out and slay your fellow man)
> 
> The Koran is a far different book than the Bible.  Both are words written by man and not by God himself.



well here are a few instructions and guidelines

A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death.  (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)

But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house.  Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst.  (Deuteronomy  22:20-21 NAB)

Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden.  When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death.  (Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT)

 So God let them go ahead and do whatever shameful things their hearts desired.  As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other's bodies.  Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies.  So they worshiped the things God made but not the Creator himself, who is to be praised forever.  Amen.  That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires.  Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other.  And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other.  Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved.  When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done.  Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, fighting, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip.  They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful.  They are forever inventing new ways of sinning and are disobedient to their parents.  They refuse to understand, break their promises, and are heartless and unforgiving.  They are fully aware of God's death penalty for those who do these things, yet they go right ahead and do them anyway.  And, worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too.  (Romans 1:24-32 NLT)


And these are just a few things (plenty of murder, rape and genocide to go around in the bible) that have been interpretted over the centuries and followed as guidelines.  So let's not portray that book as being morally superior.  The Koran has many of the same message of peace and love and just as many messages about death and stonings as the Bible does.  Both have been litteraly and figuratively interpretted by both religions and both have been used to commit and justify unspeakable acts.  I would rather uphold our western democratic values on equality of women (something the bible and the koran do not have) and concepts of individual freedom amongst others rather than refer to any religious doctrinal document.


----------



## OldSolduer

Was the Bible not written hundreds of years after the death of Jesus?

I've noticed that in more than one religion the main character has wandered in a desert for days on end and has a "vision"....then writes about it.


----------



## GAP

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> I've noticed that in more than one religion the main character has wandered in a desert for days on end and has a "vision"....then writes about it.



Oh yeah......Trudeau!!!  :


----------



## Jed

Crantor said:
			
		

> well here are a few instructions and guidelines
> 
> A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death.  (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)
> 
> But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house.  Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst.  (Deuteronomy  22:20-21 NAB)
> 
> Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden.  When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death.  (Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT)
> 
> So God let them go ahead and do whatever shameful things their hearts desired.  As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other's bodies.  Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies.  So they worshiped the things God made but not the Creator himself, who is to be praised forever.  Amen.  That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires.  Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other.  And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other.  Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved.  When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done.  Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, fighting, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip.  They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful.  They are forever inventing new ways of sinning and are disobedient to their parents.  They refuse to understand, break their promises, and are heartless and unforgiving.  They are fully aware of God's death penalty for those who do these things, yet they go right ahead and do them anyway.  And, worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too.  (Romans 1:24-32 NLT)
> 
> 
> And these are just a few things (plenty of murder, rape and genocide to go around in the bible) that have been interpretted over the centuries and followed as guidelines.  So let's not portray that book as being morally superior.  The Koran has many of the same message of peace and love and just as many messages about death and stonings as the Bible does.  Both have been litteraly and figuratively interpretted by both religions and both have been used to commit and justify unspeakable acts.  I would rather uphold our western democratic values on equality of women (something the bible and the koran do not have) and concepts of individual freedom amongst others rather than refer to any religious doctrinal document.



Not being a Bible thumper expert; I believe most of these bible instructions are in the old testament. Also the key point I was making is both books are written by men who are not infallible. 

The New testament definitely emphasizes the Christian message of forgiveness and not that of retribution or conversion to one way of thinking about God above all other faiths to the point of slaughter by men for all non believers.

So no; don't tell me that the message delivered in a Bible is just the same as the message delivered in the Koran.


----------



## Remius

@Jed

No, you said the Bible does not tell people to kill others when it fact it does.  In fact it does a lot.  More so in the Old Testament but also in the new testament. 

I'm not saying they are the same but they both have the same messages.  Denying it does not make it any less true.

The Bible is the Christendom's holy tome.  All of it not just part of it.  I'm Christian but I certainly won't stone someone for working on the Sabbath like the bible instructs.  Just like some Muslims won't burn someone who is homosexual.

Again, don't hold up either book as paragons of love and rainbows because they are not.

Talk about our values and what not but using the Bible to say we are better is pretty Hypocritical and does nothing to denounce what they are doing.  In fact it might actually support their views.

Islam is after all an Abrahamic religion just like Christianism and Judaeism.


----------



## Kat Stevens

All three have something else in common; a "kind and loving God", at least until you step out of line, then it's all locusts and raining blood.  No thanks, you can keep all of them.


----------



## Remius

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> All three have something else in common; a "kind and loving God", at least until you step out of line, then it's all locusts and raining blood.



This ^


----------



## Good2Golf

GAP said:
			
		

> Hamish Seggie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was the Bible not written hundreds of years after the death of Jesus?
> 
> I've noticed that in more than one religion the main character has wandered in a *desert snow storm* for days on end and has a "vision"....then writes about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah......Trudeau!!!  :
Click to expand...


There, fixed that for you.


----------



## Jed

Crantor said:
			
		

> @Jed
> 
> No, you said the Bible does not tell people to kill others when it fact it does.  In fact it does a lot.  More so in the Old Testament but also in the new testament.
> 
> I'm not saying they are the same but they both have the same messages.  Denying it does not make it any less true.
> 
> The Bible is the Christendom's holy tome.  All of it not just part of it.  I'm Christian but I certainly won't stone someone for working on the Sabbath like the bible instructs.  Just like some Muslims won't burn someone who is homosexual.
> 
> Again, don't hold up either book as paragons of love and rainbows because they are not.
> 
> Talk about our values and what not but using the Bible to say we are better is pretty Hypocritical and does nothing to denounce what they are doing.  In fact it might actually support their views.
> 
> Islam is after all an Abrahamic religion just like Christianism and Judaeism.



I agree with just about everything you say here. I personally do not hold up the Bible and compare it to the Koran as you would do with some academic book report. The Bible tells a story of the Christian God, the Son of God, Jesus. The Koran tells the story of Muslim God, and the Prophet Mohammed. The life and teachings of Mohammed are exceedingly more violent  and vengeful then that of Jesus.

The general theme or message from Koran teachings concentrating on Mohammed, no matter which Imam is teaching is way different than the general theme or message from Bible teachings concentrating or the life and teachings of Jesus, the Son of God.


----------



## Jed

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> All three have something else in common; a "kind and loving God", at least until you step out of line, then it's all locusts and raining blood.  No thanks, you can keep all of them.



I really don't know  too much about the Bible or the Koran. I know even less about the Jewish books of faith.

I can relate to your simplified intake message.   I felt the same way for decades.


----------



## Remius

Jed said:
			
		

> I agree with just about everything you say here. I personally do not hold up the Bible and compare it to the Koran as you would do with some academic book report. The Bible tells a story of the Christian God, the Son of God, Jesus. The Koran tells the story of Muslim God, and the Prophet Mohammed. The life and teachings of Mohammed are exceedingly more violent  and vengeful then that of Jesus.
> 
> The general theme or message from Koran teachings concentrating on Mohammed, no matter which Imam is teaching is way different than the general theme or message from Bible teachings concentrating or the life and teachings of Jesus, the Son of God.



Except that in essence it is the same God, but differing interpretations throughout all three Abrahamic religions.  Islam recognises the Bible in its original form as one of their tomes.  It sees Jesus as one of their prophets.  How you personally see the Bible is fine.  How it really is is another matter.  It's funny how you cherry pick what you want from the Bible but won't allow Muslims the same courtesy with the Koran.

Which is why we shouldn't use the Bible to argue or compare against the Koran in relation to Islamic extremism.  They're just as likely to throw it back in your face.  Glass houses and all.  A more humanist approach is the way to go.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Here is the iffy part for Islam, the Koran is "Perfect" and "Untainted" and the direct word of Allah as given by Gabriel. Therefore if you believe this you must take the whole book or not at all. This is the argument that ISIS is using, as mentioned in the link provided, if it's in the book and the hadiths, it's the word of God.

Which is why when arguing with a Muslim you need to ask where they stand on the Quaran, is it the word of god absolute, or human interpretation of that message complete with flaws. If you get an honest answer from that question then you can decide who you are dealing with. If it's the former and anything they say contradicts the Quaran then they are lying or badly educated.

Interesting the book I am reading now is a detailed read showing how much of the Quaran was borrowed from the Zortestion, Jewish and Christian books, even going so far to say that Muhammad may have had a Jewish scholar teaching him for a period. It also points out where the stories diverge or get mixed up. Slow read but informative http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_I_Am_Not_a_Muslim


----------



## Remius

Colin P said:
			
		

> Here is the iffy part for Islam, the Koran is "Perfect" and "Untainted" and the direct word of Allah as given by Gabriel. Therefore if you believe this you must take the whole book or not at all. This is the argument that ISIS is using, as mentioned in the link provided, if it's in the book and the hadiths, it's the word of God.
> 
> Which is why when arguing with a Muslim you need to ask where they stand on the Quaran, is it the word of god absolute, or human interpretation of that message complete with flaws. If you get an honest answer from that question then you can decide who you are dealing with. If it's the former and anything they say contradicts the Quaran then they are lying or badly educated.
> 
> Interesting the book I am reading now is a detailed read showing how much of the Quaran was borrowed from the Zortestion, Jewish and Christian books, even going so far to say that Muhammad may have had a Jewish scholar teaching him for a period. It also points out where the stories diverge or get mixed up. Slow read but informative http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_I_Am_Not_a_Muslim



And Roman Catholics for example have the same problem.  The Church teaches the infallibilty of the bible.  The Catholic position is that God inspired the biblical writers so that human words express the word and will of God.  The Bible also borrows heavily fro assyryan and Egyption mysticism.  Heck even many saints are derived or inspired from Roman/Greek pagan gods. 

I might look for that book, thanks for the pointer.


----------



## Jed

Crantor said:
			
		

> And Roman Catholics for example have the same problem.  The Church teaches the infallibilty of the bible.  The Catholic position is that God inspired the biblical writers so that human words express the word and will of God.  The Bible also borrows heavily fro assyryan and Egyption mysticism.  Heck even many saints are derived or inspired from Roman/Greek pagan gods.
> 
> I might look for that book, thanks for the pointer.



I call BS on your statement about Roman Catholics. Take the whole Bible or not at all? Not in anything taught to me from grade 1 to grade 12. which included some pre vatican II education.


----------



## Kat Stevens

It just boggles my mind that we're willing to set the world on fire over something someone wrote a couple of thousand years ago because his imaginary friend told him to.  These days schizophrenics are medicated, back then they were venerated.


----------



## Jed

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> It just boggles my mind that we're willing to set the world on fire over something someone wrote a couple of thousand years ago because his imaginary friend told him to.  These days schizophrenics are medicated, back then they were venerated.



There is no logic to it. A person either believes or you don't.


----------



## Remius

Jed said:
			
		

> I call BS on your statement about Roman Catholics. Take the whole Bible or not at all? Not in anything taught to me from grade 1 to grade 12. which included some pre vatican II education.



Sorry, I used the wrong term.  They refer to it as the inerrancy of the Bible.   Meaning that to them it is without error. Other denominations of chritianity claim that it is inffalible. knowing what I know now i really don't buy into a lot of what was taught to me from grades 1-13.

You may call BS all you want but look it up.


----------



## CougarKing

A man paying the price in the kingdom for going against what the Wahhabis want...

Reuters



> *Saudi court gives death penalty to man who renounced his Muslim faith*
> Tue Feb 24, 2015 4:40am EST
> 
> RIYADH (Reuters) - An Islamic court in Saudi Arabia has sentenced a man to death for renouncing his Muslim faith, the English-language daily Saudi Gazette reported on Tuesday.
> 
> The man, in his 20s, posted an online video ripping up a copy of Islam's holy book, the Koran, and hitting it with a shoe, the newspaper reported.
> 
> Saudi Arabia, the United States' top Arab ally and birthplace of Islam, follows the strict Wahhabi Sunni Muslim school and gives the clergy control over its justice system.
> 
> Under the Wahhabi interpretation of Sharia Islamic law, apostasy demands the death penalty, as do some other religious offences like sorcery, while blasphemy and criticism of senior Muslim clerics have incurred jail terms and corporal punishment.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Jed

Crantor said:
			
		

> Sorry, I used the wrong term.  They refer to it as the inerrancy of the Bible.   Meaning that to them it is without error. Other denominations of chritianity claim that it is inffalible. knowing what I know now i really don't buy into a lot of what was taught to me from grades 1-13.
> 
> You may call BS all you want but look it up.



I guess you don't follow the line of thought "Everything I need to know I learned in Kindergarten" then?


----------



## Remius

Jed said:
			
		

> I guess you don't follow the line of thought "Everything I need to know I learned in Kindergarten" then?



I wish.  Life was some much easier and simpler back then.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Maybe not the book itself, but it's head librarian;
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Crantor said:
			
		

> Sorry, I used the wrong term.  They refer to it as the inerrancy of the Bible.   Meaning that to them it is without error. Other denominations of chritianity claim that it is inffalible. knowing what I know now i really don't buy into a lot of what was taught to me from grades 1-13.
> 
> You may call BS all you want but look it up.



In Christianity for the last 100 years at least you can say the bible is wrong, burn it, step on it, do whatever. People may not like you, turn your back on you but how often have Christians killed people or rioted over it? There is a modern Islam but it's is very quiet and afraid, because speaking out is just to damm dangerous. As long as the nutbars can frighten the average Achmed, then nothing will change. Saudi Whabbism needs to be directly challenged, they have had 2 generations to heavily influence the Sunni Islamic world and have succeeded in pushing the average Achmeds towards a more radical and much less open minded view.


----------



## Jed

Colin P said:
			
		

> In Christianity for the last 100 years at least you can say the bible is wrong, burn it, step on it, do whatever. People may not like you, turn your back on you but how often have Christians killed people or rioted over it? There is a modern Islam but it's is very quiet and afraid, because speaking out is just to damm dangerous. As long as the nutbars can frighten the average Achmed, then nothing will change. Saudi Whabbism needs to be directly challenged, they have had 2 generations to heavily influence the Sunni Islamic world and have succeeded in pushing the average Achmeds towards a more radical and much less open minded view.



Precisely the point I was attempting to bring out.


----------



## Remius

Colin P said:
			
		

> In Christianity for the last 100 years at least you can say the bible is wrong, burn it, step on it, do whatever. People may not like you, turn your back on you but how often have Christians killed people or rioted over it? There is a modern Islam but it's is very quiet and afraid, because speaking out is just to damm dangerous. As long as the nutbars can frighten the average Achmed, then nothing will change. Saudi Whabbism needs to be directly challenged, they have had 2 generations to heavily influence the Sunni Islamic world and have succeeded in pushing the average Achmeds towards a more radical and much less open minded view.



I would argue that has more to do with western values of democracy and respect for individual rights.  This happened in africa where those concepts are somewhat murky but they undersatnd their religion the way they see it:

  http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/tens-of-thousands-of-muslims-flee-christian-militias-in-central-african-republic/2014/02/07/5a1adbb2-9032-11e3-84e1-27626c5ef5fb_story.html

Western countries tend to have a more moderate way of thinking due to advances in societal norms and tolerance compared to the Middle East, Asia and Africa where cultures tend to clash way more.  Plus winter keeps us inside


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Africa is it's own morass  8) 

meanwhile back at the ranch http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/SOMNIA/article23174708/


----------



## McG

Colin P said:
			
		

> Africa is it's own morass  8)
> 
> meanwhile back at the ranch http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/SOMNIA/article23174708/


So what?  That article is of Saudi Arabia.  This thread is of western society.  The western Muslim Community is not accountable for Saudi Arabia.


----------



## McG

Getting on topic, maybe you want to note Shahina Siddiqui, a Manitoba Muslim community leader appearing at the Senate committee on national security and defence, approached the government asking for resources & help for fighting radicalization of youth.  From the Winnipeg Free Press today:



> "There is very little capability across Canada within the Muslim community to handle this," she said.
> 
> "They are not trained." She said the recruiters to radicalization are well-trained, well-funded and very savvy, and Muslim organizations don't have the resources to fight the propaganda.
> 
> "These are our kids," she said. "We don't want them to die in foreign lands. We don't want them to commit acts of violence."


----------



## Jed

MCG said:
			
		

> Getting on topic, maybe you want to note Shahina Siddiqui, a Manitoba Muslim community leader appearing at the Senate committee on national security and defence, approached the government asking for resources & help for fighting radicalization of youth.  From the Winnipeg Free Press today:



Always with a hand outstretched to receive government support. Buck up and take it on yourself as everyone else did. At least any of the pioneers that came out to relatively unsettled western lands in North America. These people of all nationalities and religions that worked together to make relatively secure and peaceful communities.


----------



## Remius

Jed said:
			
		

> Always with a hand outstretched to receive government support. Buck up and take it on yourself as everyone else did. At least any of the pioneers that came out to relatively unsettled western lands in North America. These people of all nationalities and religions that worked together to make relatively secure and peaceful communities.



North America was hardly a creation of peaceful coexistence.  War, genocide et al figure quite nicely in the picture.  Religious strife also happened in North America as did cultural clashes.  Subsidies, incentives and government help also played a part back then as well.  Especially when a community bucked up and tried to take it upon themselves.  

So what would be your solution Jed?  Let the Muslim community in Canada handle this on their own?  or can law enforcement and the community at large play a role in helping?  Is this a Canadian problem as well (I think it is).  How about working together like we've done on a lot of other things?  we have one leader who appears at comitee explaining their challenge and the answer is "figure it out for yourself?"  Yeah that'll make it better...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

MCG said:
			
		

> So what?  That article is of Saudi Arabia.  This thread is of western society.  The western Muslim Community is not accountable for Saudi Arabia.



Paid for by Saudi dollars in North Van. Guess which enlightened view they are going to preach

Carpets to cover approximately 500 square meters. This has already been taken care of by donors from Saudi, who are always in the fore-fronts donating generously. May Allah reward them. http://northvanmasjid.ca/?page_id=8

More on the subject http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/editorial/story.html?id=1b82c2bc-dfa1-46f6-954e-635a5e15c1bb


----------



## Jed

Crantor said:
			
		

> North America was hardly a creation of peaceful coexistence.  War, genocide et al figure quite nicely in the picture.  Religious strife also happened in North America as did cultural clashes.  Subsidies, incentives and government help also played a part back then as well.  Especially when a community bucked up and tried to take it upon themselves.
> 
> So what would be your solution Jed?  Let the Muslim community in Canada handle this on their own?  or can law enforcement and the community at large play a role in helping?  Is this a Canadian problem as well (I think it is).  How about working together like we've done on a lot of other things?  we have one leader who appears at comitee explaining their challenge and the answer is "figure it out for yourself?"  Yeah that'll make it better...



Oh come on. I never said it was a bed of roses and it was all singing kumbya around the campfire.  I am just on overload of every minority group in the country playing the victim and no one or no group taking personal or collective responsibility.

I fully support Canada as a Nation addressing a situation as serious as the rising tide of Muslim terrorism that is affecting us globally.

Just as if I had been living when Japan conducted the 'Rape of Nanking' or the Nazis began exterminating the Jews I would have been in the front of the line to sign up and I would have tried to drag all my buddies along as company.

We can all start addressing issues by speaking in plain language, being honest and avoiding political correctness. No doubt tact suffers, but we attempt to remain courteous and respectful while stating our opinions things will improve and solutions will be found.


----------



## cryco

It boggles the mind, such medieval thinking runs their country. He didn't have to tear up the Qur'an and record it though. That's playing with fire in SA.


----------



## CougarKing

A woman representing a Muslim community group has an argument with a senator from Ontario province:

CBC



> *The terrorism battle is not a fight with Muslims, says Shahina Siddiqui*
> 
> Emotions ran high in a Senate committee when Manitoba Muslim leader Shahina Siddiqui got into a heated discussion with an Ontario senator.
> 
> Siddiqui appeared at the Senate committee on national security and defence on Monday as part of a study on security threats facing Canada, speaking as the executive director of the Islamic Social Services Association and National Council of Canadian Muslims.
> 
> *Northwestern Ontario Conservative Senator Lynn Beyak and Siddiqui squared off after Beyak suggested Muslims were being thin skinned when it comes to the language used to describe terrorist activities.*
> 
> Here is a transcription of the exchange.
> 
> Senator Lynn Beyak:
> "I just wanted to say that comments I get from constituents all the time is that we all have to stop being offended.* Stop being thin skinned and work together. They're tired of hearing excuses. If 21 Christians were beheaded by Jews they'd be called radical extremist Jews. And if pilots were burned in cages by a Christian, they'd be called radical, violent Christians.
> "We have to work together. Stop being so thin skinned and find a solution to a world wide problem. So what would you answer to people who are legitimately concerned not about you or me or Jews or Christians but about Canadians in general who are sick of the fighting and want some action? *Everybody being offended because somebody says something they perceive as nasty or untrue even though it's documented. They're tired of us being offended and thin skinned and they want us to do something about people who are threatening to blow up malls and are burning pilots in cages and who are beheading Christians."
> 
> Shahina Siddiqui:
> "The number one targets of these groups are Muslim. Seventy thousand Pakistanis have been killed by terrorist attacks. The same numbers goes across board. So it is not about Muslim versus Canadian, or Canadian Muslims versus Muslims. It is humanity versus terrorism. When you talk about offence, offence is a very mild word to use.
> 
> "What we are dealing with is slander. We are dealing with defamation. We are dealing with accusations made. A person's reputation is all one has. So when I am called a terrorist supporter or somebody who caters to that you are attacking me at a very fundamental level, my employment. I have two Canadian grandkids. How do I tell them that your own country, your own people, are turning on you? I don't have the heart to tell them that the Canada I chose to be my home and I will defend to my last breath, is attacking my faith, my community in general. We don't do that to any other community. Three Muslim youths were killed by a self-proclaimed atheist and if you go on his Facebook you will see his anti-religious rant, nobody called it terrorism. An individual belonging to a fundamental Christian group who killed four of our Mounties, nobody called it a Christian terrorist."
> 
> "This is what we are facing. We are not saying don't call an ace an ace but what we are saying at least before you say that get your facts straight. Right? Get the information because otherwise we will tear each other apart as you were saying. We have to have the trust in our democratic values that we can overcome this evil with those values not by ignoring those values. That's my submission to all of you, is don't give into the fear. Don't give into the propaganda, just as I tell my youth, don't give in to the fear and the propaganda. They are someone who hates humanity. And all of us are human beings. But if I am made to feel as a Canadian Muslim a second class citizen I will speak up. Because if I don't I would be doing a disservice to the democratic values that I chose to be my home."
> 
> *Beyak:
> "Christians and Jews have been offended and slandered for millenia. It's got nothing to do with that. As our witness told us last week, being offended is no excuse to kill, pure and simple."
> 
> Siddiqui:
> "Do you think they are killing because they are offended? No, they are killing because they want the land. They want the money. They want to control and to govern. They want to implement their hate ideology. They're not doing it because they are offended."*
> 
> Siddiqui: (on mosques funding organizations connected to radicals)
> "That's absolutely a very good question, we've been struggling with this since the 1980s. I can tell you that my own organization [was] offered $3 million and we refused even though I had not a penny in my account at that time when I started the organization because this is a Canadian organization and we do not need funding from anywhere else. The same thing about our mosques in Manitoba. We were offered money from Libya when we made our first mosque we refused it, right? Now, are there some mosques that have accepted money from overseas because it was legal to do so. Right? So if we want to curtail them then we have to make it illegal for funding, but not only for Muslims, but all groups."


----------



## FJAG

cryco said:
			
		

> It boggles the mind, such medieval thinking runs their country. He didn't have to tear up the Qur'an and record it though. That's playing with fire in SA.



Doesn't boggle it all that much if you read their Basic Law of Governance which was proclaimed by their King in 1992 right after Gulf War 1. 

http://www.saudiembassy.net/about/country-information/laws/The_Basic_Law_Of_Governance.aspx

Note particularly articles 1, 7, 13, and 23. In 1992 this was nothing new but just a restatement of the then existing situation which was and is that the Qur'an and the Sunnah are, in effect, the constitution of the land.

One shouldn't be surprised when their position is so clearly and simply stated.

 :cheers:


----------



## Loachman

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> An example of European Muslims standing up against radicals in their communities?
> 
> Reuters



While I appreciate those who did show up, and meant what they were saying, this has since been revealed to have been a media exaggeration (at best):

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/02/22/media-hoax-20-muslims-holding-hands-become-1000-strong-ring-of-peace-at-oslo-synagogue/

The weekend’s feel-good story about a Muslim "ring of peace" formed to "protect" Jews at an Oslo synagogue turned out to be a complete fabrication by the mainstream media, according to an eyewitness report, local officials, and attendees' photos.

According to a local eyewitness, only about 20 or so Muslims formed the "ring of peace" around the Oslo synagogue. In fact, pictures from multiple angles show that there wasn’t enough people to form a ring, so the locals instead formed a horizontal line in front of the synagogue.

A local news outlet explained how the media got to its "1,300 Muslims" number. "According to police, there were 1300 persons present in the event. Very many of them ethnic Norwegians," read a translated report from Osloby.no.

Demonstrators also reportedly chanted, "No to anti-Semitism, no to Islamophobia," conflating criticism of Islam and hatred of Jews.

Photos pulled off of social media appear to corroborate the narrative that only twenty or so people formed the "peace ring."

Multiple news outlets, including wire services for hundreds of news sites, ran with the false narrative that 1,000 or more people–sometimes all of them Muslim–formed the ring of peace outside of the Oslo synagogue.

The AP incorrectly reported, "More than 1,000 people have formed a 'ring of peace' outside Oslo’s main synagogue at the initiative of a group of young Muslims."

AFP reports almost identically, "More than 1,000 people formed a 'ring of peace' Saturday outside Oslo’s main synagogue at the initiative of a group of young Muslims." The newswire agency has no excuse for the false report, as it had a photographer taking shots of the "ring" at the scene–and one shows a man who appears to be at the end of the line of hand-holders, with his left hand in his pocket.

The far-left Think Progress site published a story titled, "More Than A Thousand Muslims Form Human Shield Around Norewegian Synagogue After Copenhagen Attacks."

Reuters reported, "More than 1000 Muslims formed a human shield around Oslo's synagogue on Saturday, offering symbolic protection for the city's Jewish community and condemning an attack on a synagogue in neighboring Denmark last weekend."

Even Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty reported, "More than 1,000 Muslims formed a human shield around an Oslo synagogue on February 21, offering symbolic protection for the city's Jewish community and condemning an attack on a synagogue in neighboring Denmark the previous weekend."

In even worse news, it appears as if the organizer of the Muslim "peace ring" is a virulent anti-Semite, 9/11 truther, a gay-basher, and an Israel-hater.

Ali Chishti, who helped to organize the event, said bluntly in 2008, "I hate Jews and how they operate," reports Daniel Greenfield. Chishti added in his conspiracy-laden rant about the Jewish people, "It is a fact that during the attacks on the Twin Towers [World Trade Center] 1600 Jews were absent from work. OK, OK, what’s even more suspicious, is how unusually many Jews there were present in Mumbai on the day that Pakistani terrorists struck. How come?"

At a March, 2008 meeting in Oslo promoting his 9/11 conspiracy theory that the Jews were responsible for the World Trade Center attacks, Chishti read his speech titled, "Therefore I Hate Jews And Gays," Haaretz reports.

As it turns out, as many as 40 times more Northern European Muslims attended the funeral of a Copenhagen Muslim terrorist than those who decided to form the non-existent "ring of peace" around an Oslo synagogue.


----------



## 63 Delta

cryco said:
			
		

> It boggles the mind, such medieval thinking runs their country. He didn't have to tear up the Qur'an and record it though. That's playing with fire in SA.



Fire has a tendency to spread. Hopefully such defiance will be contagious.


----------



## cryco

FJAG said:
			
		

> Doesn't boggle it all that much if you read their Basic Law of Governance which was proclaimed by their King in 1992 right after Gulf War 1.
> 
> http://www.saudiembassy.net/about/country-information/laws/The_Basic_Law_Of_Governance.aspx
> 
> Note particularly articles 1, 7, 13, and 23. In 1992 this was nothing new but just a restatement of the then existing situation which was and is that the Qur'an and the Sunnah are, in effect, the constitution of the land.
> 
> One shouldn't be surprised when their position is so clearly and simply stated.
> 
> :cheers:



Not surprised that they follow the articles, just a little freaked out that they would create these articles to follow in the first place. It's amazing that a country would have a 'holy' book written in some pretty primitive conditions as their constitution. Complete disregard of progress, evolution, fairness and science.


----------



## Brad Sallows

What more is wanted?

When extremists in Canada have approximately the same status with respect to their co-religionists as the Westboro Baptist Church has with respect to Christians, and when people in or out of a religion may freely mock and criticize it without any practical fear of retribution, that will be enough.

It's essentially a problem of peer pressure.  Right now the peaceful factions are under pressure and fearful to provoke the angry factions.  I want that emphatically reversed.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Most people are still talking rubbish ...

When some white-trash, nominally Christian nutbar blew up an office building Texas I didn't tear my hair and run around apologising for being a white male of nominally Christian heritage ... I shook my head and went about my daily business. Equally when some white, male, nominally Christian nutbar killed a bunch of kids in Norway I didn't run out and demonstrate to "prove' that I am against such madness. No one expected me to do either.

Why, then, should my former colleague Prof Sabah Towaj "need" to apologize for something some darker skinned nutbar does in some dirty little corner of a country he left decades ago? He doesn't of course; I don't expect him to; if _*you*_ expect him to do that then I expect to see _*you*_ out demonstrating the next time some white kid attacks a black kid ... what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.


----------



## jollyjacktar

I disagree.  What is happening with Islamic Jihadist's is not a one off or isolated incident such as Brevek or McVeigh.  It is systemic, preying on it's own kind more than any other, and spreading.  These nutjobs need to find themselves ostracized by their coreligionists and their moral, economic and physical support cut off.  As many and indeed yourself have mentioned, ER, what needs to be done, needs to be done from the inside, by the Ummah.

If no one on the inside starts the ball rolling, nothing will change.  If they can get out in the millions to protest frigging cartoons, then if they disapprove of what the barbarians are doing with their religion, they can get out in the millions and show it.  

And you can be damn sure that if there was something being done by a members of group I'm a part of such as, Islam, that was systemic, barbaric, preyed on the rest of us and I thought was an abomination and needed to be stopped; I'd be out in the streets or whatever voicing my displeasure.


----------



## Jed

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I disagree.  What is happening with Islamic Jihadist's is not a one off or isolated incident such as Brevek or McVeigh.  It is systemic, preying on it's own kind more than any other, and spreading.  These nutjobs need to find themselves ostracized by their coreligionists and their moral, economic and physical support cut off.  As many and indeed yourself have mentioned, ER, what needs to be done, needs to be done from the inside, by the Ummah.
> 
> If no one on the inside starts the ball rolling, nothing will change.  If they can get out in the millions to protest frigging cartoons, then if they disapprove of what the barbarians are doing with their religion, they can get out in the millions and show it.
> 
> And you can be damn sure that if there was something being done by a members of group I'm a part of such as, Islam, that was systemic, barbaric, preyed on the rest of us and I thought was an abomination and needed to be stopped; I'd be out in the streets or whatever voicing my displeasure.



Well said.


----------



## McG

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> If no one on the inside starts the ball rolling, nothing will change.  If they can get out in the millions to protest frigging cartoons, then if they disapprove of what the barbarians are doing with their religion, they can get out in the millions and show it.


That is happening in Canada.  You are just dismissing it because some crowed in a third world nation protests to emphatically on topics you disagree with, or because Canadian Muslims don't resort to the same soccer hooiganism riots of the issues that you do support.  Every posted example of moderate Islam's prevelance in Canada, you have dismissed while pointing to Yemen or Pakistan.



			
				jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> And you can be damn sure that if there was something being done by a members of group I'm a part of such as, Islam, that was systemic, barbaric, preyed on the rest of us and I thought was an abomination and needed to be stopped; I'd be out in the streets or whatever voicing my displeasure.


I don't know what groups you self identify with but, for example, everytime the KKK does something stupid under the auspices of being white are you parading through the streets in anger?


----------



## Remius

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I disagree.  What is happening with Islamic Jihadist's is not a one off or isolated incident such as Brevek or McVeigh.  It is systemic, preying on it's own kind more than any other, and spreading.  These nutjobs need to find themselves ostracized by their coreligionists and their moral, economic and physical support cut off.  As many and indeed yourself have mentioned, ER, what needs to be done, needs to be done from the inside, by the Ummah.
> 
> If no one on the inside starts the ball rolling, nothing will change.  If they can get out in the millions to protest frigging cartoons, then if they disapprove of what the barbarians are doing with their religion, they can get out in the millions and show it.
> 
> And you can be damn sure that if there was something being done by a members of group I'm a part of such as, Islam, that was systemic, barbaric, preyed on the rest of us and I thought was an abomination and needed to be stopped; I'd be out in the streets or whatever voicing my displeasure.



So when Joseph Kony was out doing all sorts of despicable things in the name of God with his Lord's Resistance Army you were out in the streets?  How about all those other Christian Militias in Africa?  (Assuming you are christian of course).  If you were, great, but most Christians in Canada with the exception of Facebook and Twitter didn't do very much to voice their displeasure either.  And I don't blame run of the mill Canadian christians for any of that.  

I'm with ER on this.  I get it.  You're angry at Islamic terrorists therefore taking it out and blaming Canadian Muslims is your only way of doing anything.  Really, where are the millions out protesting cartoons here?  i haven't seen it.  So I'm not sure what your point is.


----------



## MJP

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Most people are still talking rubbish ...
> 
> When some white-trash, nominally Christian nutbar blew up an office building Texas I didn't tear my hair and run around apologising for being a white male of nominally Christian heritage ... I shook my head and went about my daily business. Equally when some white, male, nominally Christian nutbar killed a bunch of kids in Norway I didn't run out and demonstrate to "prove' that I am against such madness. No one expected me to do either.
> 
> Why, then, should my former colleague Prof Sabah Towaj "need" to apologize for something some darker skinned nutbar does in some dirty little corner of a country he left decades ago? He doesn't of course; I don't expect him to; if _*you*_ expect him to do that then I expect to see _*you*_ out demonstrating the next time some white kid attacks a black kid ... what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.



Mr. Campbell I am unshamelessly stealing this for reposting....Well said.


----------



## Jed

Crantor said:
			
		

> So when Joseph Kony was out doing all sorts of despicable things in the name of God with his Lord's Resistance Army you were out in the streets?  How about all those other Christian Militias in Africa?  (Assuming you are christian of course).  If you were, great, but most Christians in Canada with the exception of Facebook and Twitter didn't do very much to voice their displeasure either.  And I don't blame run of the mill Canadian christians for any of that.
> 
> I'm with ER on this.  I get it.  You're angry at Islamic terrorists therefore taking it out and blaming Canadian Muslims is your only way of doing anything.  Really, where are the millions out protesting cartoons here?  i haven't seen it.  So I'm not sure what your point is.




And also from MCG " KKK out on the streets"

And I ask you two and ERC when was the last time we even heard anything significant, especially from Canada, about KKK activity or significant Christian religious nutbars doing anything near as heinous as beheadings, murder etc. I don't think there has been much in the past decade or two.

It is a question of scale of atrocities.


----------



## Jed

What concerns me most is that we in the Western World seems to be sitting back and watching this horror unfold and not doing anything about it.  The 'We are OK Jack, it's not in our backyard, no sweat'.

My gut tells me that we are all just ignoring this unpleasantness and hoping it will sort itself out somewhere out there in the Middle East and Northern Africa and we can all just go about our business at home.

A few years ago I was of this opinion myself. Within the last year my thinking has evolved and I feel we live in a much more globally connected world now. Because of the internet and rapid communication, events have effects felt immediately in our economies and in our social norms.

There is no strong leadership in the Western world currently and we seem to be sliding into a similar stupidity that overtook Europe before the Great War.

I also feel that as a nation we have become weak, fat and happy through the plenty we have enjoyed. As a nation we need to pick up our moral and ethical game. To do that it has to start from each individual and build from our smaller communities upwards.

Just my  :2c:


----------



## Remius

Jed said:
			
		

> And also from MCG " KKK out on the streets"
> 
> And I ask you two and ERC when was the last time we even heard anything significant, especially from Canada, about KKK activity or significant Christian religious nutbars doing anything near as heinous as beheadings, murder etc. I don't think there has been much in the past decade or two.
> 
> It is a question of scale of atrocities.



I haven't heard of anyone being beheaded here yet by muslims or anyone else.  Murders happen all the time in canada for all sorts of reasons. There were three assassination attempts on abortion doctors who were shot, another was stabbed and a clinic was bombed in the last twenty years.  This type of attack is recognised generaly as Christian Terrorism.

But none of that is of any relevance. 

The fallacy of your argument Jed is that you think Canadian Muslims are accountable for things happening on the other side of the globe that are beyond their control.  Law abiding muslims are not to blame as much as you and I are are not to blame for some idiot who shoots a doctore because he is a pro-life christian.  Let's say one million Canadian Muslims rallied here in canada for a protest.  We rarely see ANY protests of that kind here for anything.  We live in a law abiding country that many Muslims have moved to because of the BS happening over there.  Because they want to live in peace.  Yes we'll get bad apples.  we have them everywhere here but a few bad apples does not equate to a full tree of bad apples.

No one disagrees with you that Islamic fundamentalism and extremism needs to be stamped out.  But so does christian extremism, jewish extremism etc etc

assigning blame on law abiding Canadians is the wrong approach.

As ER said, "Rubbish"


----------



## Remius

Jed said:
			
		

> What concerns me most is that we in the Western World seems to be sitting back and watching this horror unfold and not doing anything about it.  The 'We are OK Jack, it's not in our backyard, no sweat'.
> 
> My gut tells me that we are all just ignoring this unpleasantness and hoping it will sort itself out somewhere out there in the Middle East and Northern Africa and we can all just go about our business at home.
> 
> A few years ago I was of this opinion myself. Within the last year my thinking has evolved and I feel we live in a much more globally connected world now. Because of the internet and rapid communication, events have effects felt immediately in our economies and in our social norms.
> 
> There is no strong leadership in the Western world currently and we seem to be sliding into a similar stupidity that overtook Europe before the Great War.
> 
> I also feel that as a nation we have become weak, fat and happy through the plenty we have enjoyed. As a nation we need to pick up our moral and ethical game. To do that it has to start from each individual and build from our smaller communities upwards.
> 
> Just my  :2c:



now this I mostly agree with.  Unfortunately the world is somewhat more complicated.  We don't have the stomach to do what really needs to be done to stop these thugs.


----------



## Jed

Crantor said:
			
		

> I haven't heard of anyone being beheaded here yet by muslims or anyone else.  Murders happen all the time in canada for all sorts of reasons. There were three assassination attempts on abortion doctors who were shot, another was stabbed and a clinic was bombed in the last twenty years.  This type of attack is recognised generaly as Christian Terrorism.
> 
> But none of that is of any relevance.
> 
> The fallacy of your argument Jed is that you think Canadian Muslims are accountable for things happening on the other side of the globe that are beyond their control.  Law abiding muslims are not to blame as much as you and I are are not to blame for some idiot who shoots a doctore because he is a pro-life christian.  Let's say one million Canadian Muslims rallied here in canada for a protest.  We rarely see ANY protests of that kind here for anything.  We live in a law abiding country that many Muslims have moved to because of the BS happening over there.  Because they want to live in peace.  Yes we'll get bad apples.  we have them everywhere here but a few bad apples does not equate to a full tree of bad apples.
> 
> No one disagrees with you that Islamic fundamentalism and extremism needs to be stamped out.  But so does christian extremism, jewish extremism etc etc
> 
> assigning blame on law abiding Canadians is the wrong approach.
> 
> As ER said, "Rubbish"



As I said before I mostly agree with you. This, I think, is where our understanding differs:  I am not assigning any more blame to the Canadian Muslim community then I am to myself and other fellow Canadian Citizens.

I am merely stating the obvious that Canadian Muslims are in a far better position to affect change on the greater Muslim Extremist issue than say, Christian Canadians. I know it is a arduous and thankless task to ask of good Canadian Muslims. It sucks to be them. Somebody has to be point on patrol.


----------



## jollyjacktar

MCG said:
			
		

> That is happening in Canada.  You are just dismissing it because some crowed in a third world nation protests to emphatically on topics you disagree with, or because Canadian Muslims don't resort to the same soccer hooiganism riots of the issues that you do support.  Every posted example of moderate Islam's prevelance in Canada, you have dismissed while pointing to Yemen or Pakistan.
> 
> I hate to break it to you, but the "west" includes more than just Canada.  You bang your drum, and I'll bang mine.  The problem with radical Islam is one which affects the entire world as they've pointedly stated their aim is to be like Sherwin Williams and "cover the world".  We're fairly fortunate in that we don't have the problems at the moment which plague the UK or Europe with respect to this issue.
> 
> No, I'm not dismissing anything being done by moderates here, in fact, I applaud what little is being done.  Also, we have a community here in NS which has for their own reasons kept silent.  I realize that I am the flavour of the month for you in this issue.  C'est la vie.  You can feel free to trumpet at me as much as you like.
> 
> 
> I don't know what groups you self identify with but, for example, everytime the KKK does something stupid under the auspices of being white are you parading through the streets in anger?
> 
> I identify with such men as Richard Dawkins.  Satisfied?  If, Mr. Dawkins one day starts to foam at the mouth and call for the lopping off of heads, starting his own maniacal state where all non-RD fan club members are to be set on fire (or what have you) as I said, I will assuredly be at the forefront of any crowd (even if it is just friggin me) yelling for him to be stopped.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Most people are still talking rubbish ...
> 
> When some white-trash, nominally Christian nutbar blew up an office building Texas I didn't tear my hair and run around apologising for being a white male of nominally Christian heritage ... I shook my head and went about my daily business. Equally when some white, male, nominally Christian nutbar killed a bunch of kids in Norway I didn't run out and demonstrate to "prove' that I am against such madness. No one expected me to do either.
> 
> Why, then, should my former colleague Prof Sabah Towaj "need" to apologize for something some darker skinned nutbar does in some dirty little corner of a country he left decades ago? He doesn't of course; I don't expect him to; if _*you*_ expect him to do that then I expect to see _*you*_ out demonstrating the next time some white kid attacks a black kid ... what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.



The difference in the scale of terrorist acts and deaths is completely incomparable.

Isolated incidents are just that.

These are not isolated incidents.  

And when Islamic governments use the same violence with the same religious justifications (such as the Saudi death penalty for the heretic), it is absolutely dishonest to compare Islam to any other major religion and claim that they're the same.


M.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I'm not comparing anything ... I'm saying it's unreasonable to blame Islam - the religion, or most Canadians who just happen to be Muslims - the individuals, for the actions of a lunatic fringe.

I'm happy to see us go after IS** and, especially, their paymasters. I'm not, in any way, offended by the sight of ten, hundreds, thousands of dead IS** _militants_; I'm not even overly bothered by the "collateral damage" to "innocent civilians."

So, go ahead, boys and girls in the CF and allied forces, kill away, in my name, but don't blame my neighbour, the shopkeeper, or my friend, the professor of engineering, just because they have their own lives to live and things to do besides protesting the actions of a lunatic fringe.

I didn't hold the white race or Christendom or the Pope in Rome to blame for the IRA ~ and I really, really hated those bastards ~ and I refuse to hold ordinary people of any race or creed responsible for folks who just happen to have darker skins or wear funny hats.

If you want to blame Islam, go ahead, but you're missing the target.


Edit: typo


----------



## Jed

I will throw another log on the fire.    What about Sharia Law?  Only Islam has this issue were they almost all want to put this into effect in our western nations. The strict adherence of Sharia law is completely incompatible with our Western Laws.

For example, the western world for the most part does not tolerate the old Mormon Laws that were not compatible. Mormons had to adapt. To a lesser extent the Jehovah's Witness had to adapt as well. Why should the western world bend over for Sharia Law to appease Muslims?


----------



## Edward Campbell

Jed said:
			
		

> I will throw another log on the fire.    What about Sharia Law?  Only Islam has this issue were they almost all want to put this into effect in our western nations. The strict adherence of Sharia law is completely incompatible with our Western Laws.
> 
> For example, the western world for the most part does not tolerate the old Mormon Laws that were not compatible. Mormons had to adapt. To a lesser extent the Jehovah's Witness had to adapt as well. Why should the western world bend over for Sharia Law to appease Muslims?




That's a fair point.

Western countries should not "bend over for Sharia Law to appease Muslims;" Nor should it "bend over" for e.g. Rabbinical Law to "appease" Jews. When the provisions of a religious 'law' can be used, without violating any of the rights of our citizens, in e.g. arbitration or mediation then they should be allowed, but as an adjunct to, never a replacement for, the secular laws of the land.

I thought the Ontario Government, in 2004, acted very appropriately, in not allowing Sharia Law to be used for arbitration in Ontario and, simultaneously, removing that privilege from Christians and Jews, too. The civil law is good enough for arbitration and mediation in almost all cases ... where it is found to be lacking it can be amended. The same is not true for religious laws ... those who believe may (should?) hold them to be supreme, above the law of the land, and that is why they should not be allowed even a toehold in Canada, and where such a toehold exists, as Rabbinical Law does for divorce in some places, it should be cancelled.


----------



## McG

> *Much at stake for Muslims, Canada*
> The Winnipeg Sun
> 25 Feb 2015
> 
> All Islamist extremists are Muslims, but not all Muslims are Islamist extremists.
> 
> It's an obvious observation, perhaps embarrassingly so. So why make it? Because sometimes we need to take a breath and revisit some simple, basic truths as we are assailed by news of horrific acts carried out by terrorists such as member of ISIS and their cohorts -- things like the beheading of a group of Egyptian Coptic Christians, the killing cartoonists in Paris, the burning alive of a Jordanian military pilot, slaughtering people and enslaving girls in Africa, and the attack on our own Parliament buildings.
> 
> The shock of such atrocities makes it easy, perhaps even tempting, to paint many people with a too-wide brush. We are shaken, saddened and angered. That state of mind does not lead to the best decisions.
> 
> We believe these groups are in part using these horrific acts to terrify, subdue and scatter their opponents as they lay claim to territory, and perhaps also to draw Western powers into a fight that they hope will unite Muslims against a common enemy -- at the same time stampeding us into doing things that erode our own freedoms.
> 
> We can't stand by and allow the brutality of the first part of their strategy, but we have to be careful not to stumble into the second. Part of that is to remember who the enemy is, and it isn't Muslims.
> 
> Many in our Muslim community -- who themselves would likely be persecuted if they were in ISIS territory -- share the message of their faith to other Canadians.
> 
> "We do not condone what these Muslims are doing because we condemn it. Strongly. It's not Islam what they're doing. You feel enraged? We feel more enraged than that because they are using the name of our religion," Imam Ansar Raza recently said during a community forum.
> 
> The meeting was part of an outreach campaign by the Ahmadiyya Muslim community, one of dozens of branches of Islam. They were sharing their point of view -- based on the idea that the Qur'an allows violence only defensively.
> 
> They, of course, cannot speak for an entire faith and obviously not all Muslims, including all those in Canada, agree with them. We must be vigilant and challenge, strongly if needed, those who espouse and carry out violence, and do so without fear or favour -- but that should be true of members of any religion or creed. It's the act, not the group, that matters.
> 
> If we can take anything from the message of the Ahmadiyya group, it's to remember the Islamic world is complex, most of it stands against the extremists who dominate the news and they have as much if not more at stake in this conflict as the west.


----------



## Jed

All Islamist Extremists are Muslims, but not all Muslims are  Islamist Extremists.

However; a super majority of Muslims are Fence Sitters.

In times of great societal upheavals such as major wars and pestilence, fence sitting is an exceedingly difficult position to maintain.


----------



## a_majoor

An interesting observation in the article "What ISIS really wants" in the Atlantic is that the theology ISIS follows is very similar to Salafi theology (in that they both advocate for a very literal, fundamentalist interpretation of Islam), but the means which they interpret this is very different (Salafi's are very "inward" focused, while ISIS has settled upon recreating the Caliphate). So from an outward, superficial glance, a Salafist and a member of ISIS would seem to be very similar in outlook (or even external appearance). OTOH, many of the ultimate "goals" do seem to converge, which leads to the question of where the line can be drawn?

Certainly shutting down radical Imans and their funding from foreign nations would be a good start, but as is the case with the actions of Vladimir Putin and his cabal, understanding _their_ world view is critical to understanding what they think and why they believe and behave the way they do. If two radically different approachess to the practice of Islam are hard to pick apart, how will *we* be able to react to even more arcane interpetations? Are Druze or Salafi's potentially dangerous? Can you or anyone answer that?

And of course the danger of asking for an Islamic reformation (as much as we may wish for such a thing) is that ISIS might actually represent the end result...


----------



## jollyjacktar

Thucydides said:
			
		

> And of course the danger of asking for an Islamic reformation (as much as we may wish for such a thing) is that ISIS might actually represent the end result...



Alas, there's not much of a reform with those barbarians unless it is to prove that "the more things change the more they stay the same".


----------



## Colin Parkinson

We can help the "Moderate Modern Muslims" here by doing the following

1. Stating Publicly that Sharia law is incompatibility with our society and people feeling the need to have it, should move to countries were it's already in place. Be prepared to use the "notwithstanding clause" in any challenge of that position.

2. Bar foreign funding of new Mosques, they will still find ways around it, but your making it harder

3. face coverings are not explicit in the Islam, therefore bar them in government offices. People who don't like it can see number 1

4. Advise Iman's they can and will be charged with hate crimes for preaching hatred against Jews, Christians and Pagans

5. Targeted investigations into polygamy and welfare abuse and prosecute them

6. Have government websites with pages in Arabic and other Middle Eastern languages outlining what number 1. and require Mosque websites to provide that link

7. Hire people with language skills to visit the mosques on a regular basis to listen to the sermons

8. Monitor directly what is being taught in Islamic schools and require the kids to attend classes on Canadian society and interactions with Islam

9. tax breaks and funding for organizations that challenge hard line Islamists  

The above won't solve all your problems but it will help


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Colin:

Reference your point number four, is it your view that anyone not Jewish, Christian or Muslim is a Pagan?

Why not merely refer to preaching hatred against anyone they consider apostate?

Just a suggestion.

Oh! And on your fist point, the Charter does not enter into play with the "notwithstanding clause". That is for an Act o Parliament (or a Provincial Law), not for public statements by the Government so, making the statement might give rise to a "freedom of speech vs Freedom of religion case, but I am pretty sure that the Freedom of speech would win on this one, as saying something like that does not prevent muslims from practising their religion, even if they don't like what is being said.


----------



## Jarnhamar

I still think Islam is a crime against humanity.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Jed said:
			
		

> What concerns me most is that we in the Western World seems to be sitting back and watching this horror unfold and not doing anything about it.  The 'We are OK Jack, it's not in our backyard, no sweat'.
> 
> My gut tells me that we are all just ignoring this unpleasantness and hoping it will sort itself out somewhere out there in the Middle East and Northern Africa and we can all just go about our business at home.



Shouldn't the lead on this come from the region itself?  It seems to me that if the west is the lead and then leaves after announcing some form of success, the same kind of situation will again present itself and around the circle we go yet again.  Otherwise, defeating the enemy and then leaving a long term occupatiom/stabilization force for an unknown amount of time would be the best COA.  Seems to me the US tried this in Iraq without the desired outcome.  I think its better to teach a man to fish than to give him a basket of fish and hope he figures it out after you leave.


----------



## CougarKing

A voice against Islamic extremism is silenced:

Canadian Press



> *Attackers in Bangladesh hack to death American blogger and voice against religious extremism*
> The Canadian Press
> 
> By Julhas Alam, The Associated Press
> 
> DHAKA, Bangladesh - A prominent Bangladeshi-American blogger known for speaking out against religious extremism was hacked to death as he walked through Bangladesh's capital with his wife, police said Friday.
> 
> The attack Thursday night on *Avijit Roy, a Bangladesh-born U.S. citizen*, occurred on a crowded sidewalk as he and his wife, Rafida Ahmed, were returning from a book fair at Dhaka University. Ahmed, who is also a blogger, was seriously injured. It was the latest in a series of attacks on secular writers in Bangladesh in recent years.
> 
> *A previously unknown militant group, Ansar Bangla 7, claimed responsibility for the attack*, Assistant Police Commissioner S.M. Shibly Noman told the Prothom Alo newspaper.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Kat Stevens

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Colin:
> 
> Reference your point number four, is it your view that anyone not Jewish, Christian or Muslim is a Pagan?
> 
> Why not merely refer to preaching hatred against anyone they consider apostate?
> 
> Just a suggestion.
> 
> Oh! And on your fist point, the Charter does not enter into play with the "notwithstanding clause". That is for an Act o Parliament (or a Provincial Law), not for public statements by the Government so, making the statement might give rise to a "freedom of speech vs Freedom of religion case, but I am pretty sure that the Freedom of speech would win on this one, as saying something like that does not prevent muslims from practising their religion, even if they don't like what is being said.



Jeezuseffinchrist, really?  This is part of the problem, people looking for offence where none is meant or even implied.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Colin:
> 
> Reference your point number four, is it your view that anyone not Jewish, Christian or Muslim is a Pagan?
> 
> Why not merely refer to preaching hatred against anyone they consider apostate?
> 
> Just a suggestion.
> 
> Oh! And on your fist point, the Charter does not enter into play with the "notwithstanding clause". That is for an Act o Parliament (or a Provincial Law), not for public statements by the Government so, making the statement might give rise to a "freedom of speech vs Freedom of religion case, but I am pretty sure that the Freedom of speech would win on this one, as saying something like that does not prevent muslims from practising their religion, even if they don't like what is being said.



I don't profess to be a charter expert, my understanding is the notwithstanding clause is an out that can be used province to province

ISIS looks at every religion in the light of their teachings and treats each different. Technically submissive Jews and Christians will be tolerated as long as they pay the Zahat and remain submissive. that would last for a short time before the ISIS goads the locals into reacting and gives them an excuse to slaughter and enslave them.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

It would seem that it could, although it would take a significant majority to do so. In this particular case I think Quebec would support it. the law would have to be carefully written as to allow Islam to be practised within the confines of society norms and without Sharia law. Both are doable

  Section 33.

(1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15.
(2) An Act or a provision of an Act in respect of which a declaration made under this section is in effect shall have such operation as it would have but for the provision of this Charter referred to in the declaration.
(3) A declaration made under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect five years after it comes into force or on such earlier date as may be specified in the declaration.
(4) Parliament or the legislature of a province may re-enact a declaration made under subsection (1).
(5) Subsection (3) applies in respect of a re-enactment made under subsection (4).


----------



## jollyjacktar

Shared without comment under the fair dealings provisions of the copyright act.



> Robert Fulford: No matter how much Muslims despise it, the truth is that ISIS has grown out of their religion
> Robert Fulford | February 27, 2015 2:33 PM ET
> 
> It offends many Muslims that their religion is connected automatically to the terrorism and cold-blooded massacres that are currently creating chaos in Iraq, Syria and Libya. They believe that terms like “Islamic terrorism,” “Jihadism” and “Islamo-fascism” carry an unfair implication that all Muslims are likely to support such crimes.
> 
> “Stop saying these words, they hurt,” a Toronto imam, Hamid Slimi, urged the federal government at a recent conference. He’s the former chairman of the Canadian Council of Imams, currently at work on a global campaign, Muslim Messengers of Peace.
> 
> Everyone can sympathize with law-abiding, peace-loving Muslims when they feel accused by implication of atrocities committed far away by people with whom they have no real connection except their religion. But the connection is not as distant as they might like to think.
> 
> Recently ISIS has brought further disgrace on itself by adding vandalism to its atrocities. In Mosul, Iraq, its followers burned 8,000 books they found in libraries. “These books promote infidelity and call for disobeying Allah,” according to one ISIS soldier on the scene. “So they will be burned.”
> 
> ISIS believes in exhibiting evidence of its ability to obey passages in the Koran literally and thus purify the world. Piles of books were burned in the streets, proving to everyone the spiritually powerful work ISIS does. And Islamic State soldiers used an electric drill to attack a major archaeological site, the huge sculpture of a mythical beast at the Nergal Gate at Nineveh. Hakim al-Zamili, the head of the Iraq parliament’s security committee, said that ISIS “considers culture, civilization and science as their fierce enemies.”
> 
> How did they arrive at that belief? Their leaders are not, we should understand, crazed psychopaths. Nor has anyone the right to say (as Barack Obama did) that they are not Islamic.
> 
> “What ISIS Really Wants,” by Graeme Wood, a richly informative article in the current Atlantic, describes ISIS theorists as articulate Islamic scholars with carefully considered beliefs, one of which is that the leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, is a new caliph ruling over a new caliphate.
> 
> Interviewing several of them, Wood found that these believers are learned human beings, curious and intellectually alive. A conversation with them about their ideas felt like a graduate seminar, he reported. Rather to his horror, he was tempted to like them.
> 
> What would make such people turn against the civilization they studied in universities? Their version of Islam is clearly extreme but it is Islam nevertheless. No matter how much Muslims despise it, ISIS has grown out of their religion.
> 
> Islam demands agreement with the literal truth of its sacred writing. It insists that it is the only true faith and frowns on any divergence from its basic principles. Shariah law, used in the strictest Islamic regions, follows totalitarianism by uniting state and religion in the control of individual lives. This way of thinking provides a seedbed for dictatorship and stony ground for democracy.
> 
> “Lead by example,” the Toronto imam also said in that same speech. He meant government should change its language to avoid insulting Muslims. But in fact leading by example is the story of intellectual life in the West during recent centuries.
> 
> Christians realized that they could not live by Biblical teachings from long ago. With great difficulty, and often in defiance of authority, intellectuals sought objective truth and religion listened to science.
> 
> Christians have been revising their religion ever since Martin Luther founded the Protestant Reformation by defying the Roman Catholic church in the 16th century. Perpetual reform has become a way of life. In 2013 Pope Francis started his papacy by pushing toward still more reforms.
> 
> In the 19th century the school of thought called Higher Criticism spent decades investigating the Bible to determine when and where it was written and who might have been the authors. It treated the Bible as a text created by humans. Scholars had to face the rage of church officialdom, but in time they prevailed.
> 
> For generations Christianity has been constantly criticized by its own different branches, which in the process learned to live harmoniously. Judaism exists by constantly challenging its own beliefs; different interpretations of text exist peacefully within one faith community.
> 
> Are Christians, Jews and secularists allowed to criticize Islam, even to suggest that it open itself to free inquiry? Apparently not: A taboo running through our culture suggests that frank discussion of Islam is Islamophobia. But in a period when forms of Islam are shaking the world, honest criticism is a necessity. Good-hearted multiculturalism should not prevent us from speaking the truth.
> 
> National Post
> 
> robert.fulford@utoronto.ca
> 
> http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/02/27/robert-fulford-no-matter-how-much-muslims-despise-it-the-truth-is-that-isis-has-grown-out-of-their-religion/


----------



## CougarKing

The niqab again in the news:

Canadian Press



> Harper calls Muslim face-covering veil 'anti-women' unacceptable
> 
> OTTAWA - Stephen Harper doubled down Tuesday on his aversion to face-covering veils worn by some Muslim women, calling them the product of a culture that is "anti-women."
> 
> The prime minister ratcheted up the rhetoric against the niqab even as Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau accused him and his ministers of stoking prejudice against Muslims.
> 
> Among other things, *Trudeau pointed to Immigration Minister Chris Alexander calling the hijab — a head scarf worn by some Muslim women — a perversion of Canadian values, and New Brunswick MP John Williamson, a former Harper communications director, referring last weekend to "whities" and "brown people."
> 
> Harper ignored those examples and returned instead to his assertion last month that it's "offensive" for someone to wear a face-covering niqab while taking the oath of Canadian citizenship.*
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

What one developed nation has done to prevent Islamic-inspired terrorism:

*Reminds me of a short Youtube documentary I saw not too long ago that focused on Japan's only Muslim imam/cleric and his life...

*Source: Cherson and Molschky site*



> *ISLAMIC TERRORISM: WHY THERE IS NONE IN JAPAN*
> With all this Muslim terrorism plaguing the world, perhaps it is time to take a look at a country not suffering the same fate and analyze exactly why that is…
> 
> APRIL 13, 2015 Y.K. CHERSON
> 
> 
> *What Japan did to avoid problems related to Muslims was much simpler and cheaper; Japan is practically closed to Muslims.*
> 
> 
> *Officially, immigration to Japan is not closed to Muslims. But the number of the immigration permits given to the applicants from Islamic countries is very low. *Obtaining a working visa is not easy for adepts of Islam, even if they are physicians, engineers and managers sent by foreign companies that are active in the region.  Quite often, Japanese companies seeking foreign workers specifically note that they are not interested in Muslims. As a result, Japan is “a country without Muslims”.
> 
> Japan officially forbids exhorting people to adopt the religion of Islam (Dawah), and any Muslim who actively encourages conversion to Islam is seen as proselytizing to a foreign and undesirable culture. Too active “promoters of Islam” face deportation- and sometimes even a jail sentence.
> 
> *Importing the Koran in Arabic is practically impossible, and the only one permitted is the “adapted” version in Japanese*. And Japanese society expects Muslims to pray at home: no collective “prostrating” in the streets or squares; in Japan, for such “shows” the actors can get pretty high fines, and in those cases Japanese Police consider “serious”, the participants can be deported.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## upandatom

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> What one developed nation has done to prevent Islamic-inspired terrorism:
> 
> *Reminds me of a short Youtube documentary I saw not too long ago that focused on Japan's only Muslim imam/cleric and his life...
> 
> *Source: Cherson and Molschky site*



In my eyes, 
There is nothing wrong with this. This is their country, their successful country that they choose to rule, govern in their way. Most people in Japan are happy, Their unemployment rate is some 3.5%, #3 GDP, with only 130 million people. Good for them. 
Its their choice.

I will probably get a ban hammer thrown at me for this, but I will state this, I Am not racist at all, I work with a multitude of cultures at my employment. I have had this discussion with friends that have immigrated to Canada. 
We are an easy country to get into. to get a job and grant money in. my friends dont really understand why its that way, with everything going on we are a pretty much open country that if you do the paperwork you can get a visa and eventually citizenship, and Quebec is even easier to get into because for whatever reason they have their own immigration offices set up around the world. 
I have nothing wrong with people coming into our Country for a better life. However, in that case you should be starting to adapt your lifestyle and values to those of the Canadian masses. I dont mean abandon your religion and burn your Koran, and appropriate clothing. But, when getting your citizenship, passport photos, drivers license, you should be showing your face. Women and children are to be treated as equals, not servants. 

Too often i find we bed over backwards to suit others, yes we are free country, with our own values.

Now Back on topic- 
I can fully see the general Muslim population of the world standing up to ISIS, or terrorism after the Jordanian pilot was burned.
They have to do more on their own. We cant always be fighting their battles. *How long they will fight for? that is the question*. How much blood of their own are they willing to shed? 

Best quote I heard while serving
"If there wasn't religion, I wouldn't have job"


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Better check your facts Upandatom. Immigration to Quebec is not easier, its actually harder.

Quebec does not control, at least not fully, its immigration: Canada does, like for everybody else. However, Quebec is allowed (by the constitution BTW) to co-manage this immigration and thus, can impose supplementary requirements or, out of a list of immigrants that otherwise meet all Canadian requirements, decide which ones to let in and in what order, so as to meet provincial requirements (such as specialized workers*, etc.). The overall quotas are Canada's, the qualifying/disqualifying factors are Canada's, the security screening is Canada's.

For instance, right now there is a plan in place, with Canada's collaboration, to accelerate if possible the immigration of French (from France) trained industrial welders. Alberta may be letting some go from the oil patch, but they are mostly English Canadians and not interested in coming to work in Quebec (not a reflection on them in any way here - there are valid reasons for such choices). Meanwhile Quebec has a serious shortage of them in industry to fill US and domestic orders of manufactured products.


----------



## CougarKing

So-called "student leaders" pushing their own agenda again:

Fox News



> *University of Maryland cancels ‘American Sniper’ after Muslim students complain*
> 
> By Todd Starnes
> Published April 23, 2015
> 
> The University of Maryland announced it will postpone indefinitely an upcoming screening of “American Sniper” after Muslim students protested – calling the film Islamophobic, racist and nationalistic.
> 
> “American Sniper only perpetuates the spread of Islamophobia and is offensive to many Muslims around the world for good reason,” read a petition launched by the university’s Muslim Students Association. “This movie dehumanizes Muslim individuals, promotes the idea of senseless mass murder, and portrays negative and inaccurate stereotypes.”
> 
> The critically-acclaimed film about the life of Navy SEAL Chris Kyle was supposed to be screened May 6 and 7. It was “postponed” on April 22 by the university’s Student Entertainment Events (SEE).
> 
> [...SNIPPED]



And the cancellation has caught more than the attention of a Maryland official:

Reuters



> *'American Sniper' cancellation draws Maryland lawmaker's ire*
> By John Clarke
> 
> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A state lawmaker launched an online campaign on Friday to overturn a decision to cancel a screening of "American Sniper" at the University of Maryland after a Muslim student group objected to the film about a U.S. Navy marksman in Iraq.
> 
> *Neil Parrott, a Republican state delegate, said the decision to cancel the screening at the university's College Park campus was an exercise in political correctness and infringes on First Amendment rights to free speech.*
> 
> “The university should not let the complaints of a few students result in the cancellation of an important film honoring an American hero and accurately portraying the horrors of war,” Parrott said in a statement.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## upandatom

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Better check your facts Upandatom. Immigration to Quebec is not easier, its actually harder.
> 
> Quebec does not control, at least not fully, its immigration: Canada does, like for everybody else. However, Quebec is allowed (by the constitution BTW) to co-manage this immigration and thus, can impose supplementary requirements or, out of a list of immigrants that otherwise meet all Canadian requirements, decide which ones to let in and in what order, so as to meet provincial requirements (such as specialized workers*, etc.). The overall quotas are Canada's, the qualifying/disqualifying factors are Canada's, the security screening is Canada's.
> 
> For instance, right now there is a plan in place, with Canada's collaboration, to accelerate if possible the immigration of French (from France) trained industrial welders. Alberta may be letting some go from the oil patch, but they are mostly English Canadians and not interested in coming to work in Quebec (not a reflection on them in any way here - there are valid reasons for such choices). Meanwhile Quebec has a serious shortage of them in industry to fill US and domestic orders of manufactured products.



My facts are I lived there, had people in my building that were granted "Quebec" work visas, and were told that it would allow them to work in Quebec and not elsewhere in Canada.


----------



## Remius

upandatom said:
			
		

> My facts are I lived there, had people in my building that were granted "Quebec" work visas, and were told that it would allow them to work in Quebec and not elsewhere in Canada.



If they had Quebec work visas then they we're likely part of a temporary skilled worker program.  Not the same thing as the immigration procedure despite some similarities.


----------



## Robert0288

> ...had people in my building that were granted "Quebec" work visas


A Visa's only purpose is pre-screening to allow someone to apply for a work permit at a port of entry.  It does not confer any status, or authorize entry to Canada.

Work and Study permits have a wide variety of conditions that be applied.  Among the conditions include; province of residence, type of work, employer, what school, what program you take at the school etc...

All that Quebec does it add an additional level of bureaucracy to screen out people they don't want, for example french language testing and additional paper work, for example the CAQ (Québec Acceptance Certificate)


----------



## Edward Campbell

This is reproduced, without comment, under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_:

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/man-who-murdered-family-became-jailhouse-religious-tyrant


> Man who murdered family became jailhouse religious tyrant
> 
> IAN MACLEOD, OTTAWA CITIZEN
> 
> Published on: May 4, 2015
> 
> Kingston Penitentiary was already a very scary place the day Mohammad Shafia walked into the joint.
> 
> The Montrealer was convicted for the 2009 murders of his three daughters and first wife in a barbaric “honour killing” in which the women were incapacitated and dumped into the Rideau Canal near Kingston. In Shafia’s twisted interpretation of Islam, his daughters were too Western, had brought shame upon the family and therefore had to die.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Mohammad Shafia, left, and Hamed Shafia leave the holding cell at the Frontenac county courthouse in Kingston, Ontario on Tuesday Dec. 13, 2011._
> 
> It wasn’t long before he unleashed another reign of religious terror at the notorious slammer, a jailhouse insider revealed Monday.
> 
> Ottawa psychologist Robert Groves, testifying about prison Islamic radicalization before a Senate national security committee, described to the spellbound parliamentarians how Shafia used ultraradical Islam and old-fashioned big house bullying to control and intimidate about 25 other men.
> 
> Canada’s only Muslim prison chaplain would occasionally lead Kingston’s Muslim inmates in Friday prayers. “There would be a general atmosphere of jovial camaraderie among themselves and the non-Muslim,” said Groves, who did psychological counselling at the prison.
> 
> But when the Muslim chaplain was frequently absent, it was Shafia who apparently appointed himself spiritual leader and led Friday prayers.
> 
> “The normally pleasant atmosphere associated with Muslims gathering for prayers was absent. Inmates on the same range who came to see me expressed fear of him. (About one-third) were not Muslims but believed they dare not refuse to attend Friday prayers. They had no choice. He was an angry little man.”
> 
> One, a Christian, “felt so intimated by Shafia and some of his lieutenants that he chose to give up his relative freedom of movement on the range and in the general population for a much more restricted life on a social isolation range. He advised me that confinement was worth it to avoid the hassle of dealing with ‘the Muslims.’
> 
> “This form of intimidation is something one finds routinely with zealot extremists. In other circumstances it’s called bullying.”
> 
> Shafia, an Afghan, his second wife in the polygamist family, Tooba Mohammad Yahya, 42, and their son Hamed, 21, were convicted on four counts of first-degree murder. The bodies of his three daughters — Zainab, 19, Sahar, 17, and Geeti, 13 — were found along with that of Rona Amir Mohammad, 52, in June 2009 in their submerged Nissan Sentra in a canal lock near Kingston.
> 
> The family immigrated to Canada in 2007. Shafia believed his daughters were becoming too interested in boys and too immodest. And he believed his childless first wife, Rona Amir, was a bad influence on the girls.
> 
> While Groves described Shafia as a “radical” Islamist, his observations were anecdotal and he acknowledged having no evidence to show Shafia’s followers were radicalized by his authoritarian religious beliefs.
> 
> “There wasn’t a gang yet of radical Muslims out to conquer the whole prison population.”
> 
> He added in a later interview that he never heard Shafia promote terrorist violence or hatred — just an uncompromising adherence to hardcore Islam.
> 
> “Many of them expressed views that, although all prisoners believe they’re innocent, these people really did believe that their behaviours were acceptable … like terminating someone’s life.”
> 
> He suggested prison officials took no action against Shafia because his behaviour wasn’t considered inappropriate.
> 
> “Corrections Canada does an excellent job generally speaking in implementing policies that work well in the prison system. But we don’t know how radical ideas operate in closed populations. I observed some it, but I have no confidence that Corrections Canada has a way — and this is no criticism — to canvass that issue and so they don’t find it. You can’t find something (if) you don’t know what it looks like.”
> 
> Groves’ testimony follows the release last week of Correctional Service of Canada research that found federal prisons are not the hotbeds of radical extremism some make them out to be. Compared to other inmates, radicalized offenders are more likely to have moderate-to-high potential for rejoining society.
> 
> The preliminary findings were obtained by The Canadian Press from an ongoing, multi-year collaboration between the prison service and Defence Research and Development Canada aimed at developing a solid basis to assess and manage jailed extremists.
> 
> “Though concern over the spread of violent ideologies has been expressed, this concern is supported by limited qualitative, anecdotal evidence,” it found.
> 
> The Kingston Penitentiary closed in 2013. It’s not clear where Shafia is now serving his life sentence.
> 
> _With a file from Postmedia News archives_


----------



## jollyjacktar

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> This is reproduced, without comment, under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_:
> 
> http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/man-who-murdered-family-became-jailhouse-religious-tyrant



I'll comment.  He and his son are the type of immigrant I don't want to see let into this country.  I don't need their backwards cultural beliefs here.


----------



## ModlrMike

Here's an idea: upon release, deportation. I don't really care what Afghanistan looks like when these murdering scum get out of jail. Just get them out of the country.


----------



## George Wallace

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Here's an idea: upon release, deportation. I don't really care what Afghanistan looks like when these murdering scum get out of jail. Just get them out of the country.



100% plus on that.  As stated earlier; these are not the type of immigrants that should be allowed to come here.


----------



## CougarKing

Please note that this article below is related to the attempted terrorist attack in Dallas mentioned at the Islamic terrorism in the West thread.

Foreign Policy



> *The Self-Fulfilling Prophet Drawing Competition
> 
> Meet the odd couple who built their careers goading, offending, and demonizing Muslims -- until it all went wrong in Garland, Texas.*
> 
> He’s a silver-haired politician who warns about the threat of what he calls totalitarian Islam to Europe. She’s a preening ideologue who thinks Muslims use their daily prayers to curse Jews and Christians. Together, they organized a deliberately provocative event that ended with two gunmen — one of whom had professed sympathy for the Islamic State — being shot dead when they attacked a cartoon exhibit near Dallas devoted to depictions of the Prophet Mohammed.
> 
> *Call Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders and American blogger Pamela Geller the odd couple of the global anti-Islam movement. *They are the two most prominent agitators in Europe and the United States against what they see as the threat posed by Islam to Western civilization, and they have waged a joint campaign to demonize the religion and teamed up in 2010 against the planned construction of a mosque near New York’s Ground Zero.
> 
> They are provocateurs trading in explosive, often racist anti-Muslim rhetoric, and they are now on the front lines of a roiling debate about whether Western notions of free speech ought to take into consideration Muslim sensitivities about images of the Prophet Mohammed — a debate fueled in part by the massacre at the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, which was carried out by self-proclaimed jihadis in Paris. Geller helped organize the Dallas event, which awarded $12,500 to the top Prophet Mohammed caricature, and Wilders was its featured speaker.
> 
> *“If you wanted to conduct a science experiment to show you could elicit jihadist violence, this was the perfect setup,”* former State Department counterterrorism director Daniel Benjamin told Foreign Policy Monday. “Extremists have shown they are eager to avenge any perception of blasphemy. The Islamic State is on a roll, and any extremists not in Syria and Iraq want to show that they are part of the team.”
> 
> The attack was carried out by a pair of gunmen decked out in body armor and carrying assault rifles: Elton Simpson, who had been convicted for lying to investigators about plans to travel to and join militant groups in Somalia and who had expressed support for the Islamic State, and Nadir Soofi. The two men had reportedly been roommates in Phoenix, and authorities believe they hoped to inflict significant civilian casualties at the contest site in Garland, a suburb of Dallas. Simpson had reportedly converted to Islam in high school. An off-duty police officer hired to provide security at the event shot and killed both men.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Robert0288

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Here's an idea: upon release, deportation. I don't really care what Afghanistan looks like when these murdering scum get out of jail. Just get them out of the country.



All the wiki article says is that they immigrated to Canada in 2007.  If they are anything but Canadian citizens, I can guarantee that they will end up going to an immigration hearing.


----------



## OldSolduer

Robert0288 said:
			
		

> All the wiki article says is that they immigrated to Canada in 2007.  If they are anything but Canadian citizens, I can guarantee that they will end up going to an immigration hearing.


And the current GoC is far more aggressive with deportations than past governments.


----------



## Edward Campbell

This article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _Foreign Affairs_, may be a bit dense ~ it certainly helps if you have _some_ knowledge of banking and finance ~ but if you'll be a bit patient it offers a good view of _Islamic banking_ and it asks a couple of really important questions about the very nature of money:

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2015-05-15/nature-money


> The Nature of Money
> *Islamic Banking and Conscious Capitalism*
> 
> By Harris Irfan
> 
> May 15, 2015
> 
> At the January 2010 World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos, the erudite and prolific Sharia scholar, Muhammad Taqi Usmani, was invited to present a paper with a somewhat radical theme: reforming the world’s post-crisis financial landscape through the lens of religion. The paper generated little interest from the world’s media, which preferred instead to focus on the forum’s lack of reform plans and the predictably defensive stance taken by bankers. Had they read the 37-page document, though, they might have concluded that “caring capitalism” had the potential to be more than a mere romantic notion.
> 
> Usmani’s paper proved inspirational for introspective Islamic bankers searching for direction. It questioned the very nature of money, inviting a radical philosophical shake-up of their ordered universe. Perhaps few in the audience (if any) were moved that day to tweak their banking practices, but they nonetheless came away with the counsel that social awareness ought to be the underpinning of finance.
> 
> When newspapers announce the launch of new Sharia-compliant financial products or institutions, it is often assumed that they are only referring to products that conform with Islam’s ban on interest, as if that were the only relevant criterion and a bank’s only job to make loans. Perhaps as a direct consequence, there are even Muslims who find the modern practice of Islamic banks abhorrent and little different to the practice of conventional banks. Their reasoning is that if Islam prohibits the receipt or payment of interest, then the only business that Islamic banks should be engaging in is interest-free lending, conveniently ignoring the fact that an interest-free loan is construed as an act of charity in Islamic law, and no enterprise driven by the profit motive can be predicated on charity.
> 
> Indeed, bank profit is emotive subject for Muslims, particularly when set in the context of a world economy creaking ominously under the weight of capitalism. To what extent is the pursuit of profit acceptable in Islam, if at all? How is one allowed to make profit in a _halal_ (permissible) manner? How are Islamic financial institutions allowed to deploy and invest capital to be profitable in a manner that is compliant with Islamic law? To answer these questions, one must address the nature of money itself.
> 
> SHARIA AND THE ROLE OF MONEY
> 
> As the end of the Prophet Muhammad’s life drew near in 632, he took what he perhaps saw as his last opportunity to raise issues of the utmost importance that he didn’t want his ummah (nation) to let lapse. His final sermon covered women’s rights, the need to perform the daily prayers, to fast during the month of Ramadan, and to give to charity. He also reminded his followers that life and property are a sacred trust; that they should hurt no one by their actions, saying, “Allah has forbidden you to take _riba_ (interest), therefore all interest obligation shall henceforth be waived. Your capital, however, is yours to keep. You will neither inflict nor suffer any inequity.”
> 
> In the space of a few minutes, the prophet reminded his followers for the last time that human rights and property rights were paramount—that justice and fairness should be a driving force in their daily lives. And that they now had a complete framework from which to build a new world, irrespective of whatever the curiosity and ingenuity of the human mind would discover or create. Muhammad's companions, and the men who would come a generation after them, would turn out to be the codifiers of God’s law, particularly in the field of commercial transactions, and their legal analysis would prove to be the lubricant for the advancement of human knowledge, rather than an insurmountable barrier of dogma and intolerance that many today have come to regard as the attributes of religion.
> 
> Arab and Persian merchants went on to forge trade links to India and the Far East, becoming indispensable in the chain of trade between East and West. Arab merchants from Baghdad could travel to Cordoba, Spain, taking with them a letter of credit—a _suftaja_—to be cashed on arrival by an agent, part of a network of money transfer that came to be known as _hawala_. The_ hawala_ would go on to influence the development of the agency concept in common and civil laws throughout Europe. The _sakk_—a forerunner of our modern-day check—allowed early bankers to become indispensable to every trader as a guarantor of paper money at markets in cities throughout the Islamic world. Muslim traders would share the profits of their ventures with their sponsors through investment partnerships now referred to as _musharaka_ and _mudaraba_. An exchange economy became the framework for Islamic merchant capitalism.
> 
> While Europeans were venturing little further south and east than the islands of Greece, Arab and Persian traders were ranging across continents. By the tenth and eleventh centuries, ultra high net worth merchant families began to dominate commercial activities between the two cultures. In the major cities along the East/West trade route, the _funduq_ (trading exchange) was established and run by leading merchant families within their region. _Funduqs_ developed into commodity exchanges and warehouses, and the great wealth accumulated by the families who controlled these exchanges enabled them to finance state projects and operate an early form of banking institution, taking in deposits and advancing credit to customers. Within a few centuries, Crusaders would encounter Arabian merchants and carry their new-fangled ideas—such as the trust law encapsulated in the _Waqf_ and the agency concept intrinsic to the _hawala_—back to the Mediterranean. Not only would the techniques of commerce and finance filter through to medieval Europe, but also an entrepreneurial spirit of enterprise that had, to date, been less widespread in Europe.
> 
> Ironically, given the negative connotation that capitalism has today—with all its implications of greed and selfishness—it was the Islamic world that institutionalized capitalism and brought it to the West in the form which with we are now familiar. Somewhere along the way, though, the Islamic capitalism that afforded protection to the weak and the needy became diluted. By the time the Ottomans became the pre-eminent Muslim power at the end of the fifteenth century, their approach to financial and monetary institutions dispensed with customs, traditions, and religious guidance. Earlier banking systems such as the _hawala_ method of money transfer were still widely in use, and the 100,000 pilgrims traveling annually to Makkah continued to make use of the _suftaja_ bill of exchange in order to draw money at their journey’s end. Court records of Anatolian cities, however, show that interest-based lending was a frequent and apparently tolerated practice. As European moneylenders ascended in prominence, Ottoman practices eventually fell into line. It would not be until the mid-twentieth century that Islamic finance would reassert its identity.
> 
> IS MONEY A COMMODITY IN ITSELF?
> 
> A crucial difference between Islamic finance and Western-style banking can be found in the way each system perceives the worth—and role—of money. According to Sharia principles, money is merely a means to achieve an objective and not the objective itself. In itself, money has no intrinsic value: It cannot be eaten, processed to build a house, woven into clothes, nor provide heat or shelter. It cannot be created out of itself, and it cannot be created from thin air. It is merely a store of value.
> At a stroke, we immediately come into conflict with the modern notion of money as a commodity. Today, central banks are printing money through quantitative easing. Put simply, they create money. Financial institutions then enter into phantasmagoric trades with corporations, individuals, and each other to lend money and receive more in return. Banks enter into “contracts for differences,” also known as “swaps,” where one party swaps one cash flow for another. Financial institutions sell highly complex, intangible instruments whose values are derived from other assets and to which they may not themselves have legal title. They take speculative positions on the outcome of events over which the buyer of the instrument may not have an intrinsic interest. In all of these transactions, value has apparently been created even where a real economy transaction has not taken place.
> 
> If individuals cannot earn money from money by depositing it into an interest-bearing bank account, they will be forced to put it to work. Hoarding money would defeat its purpose. In Islamic finance, institutions must enter into trades in the real economy, investing and developing businesses so that investors’ money is to work in a tangible way. When these investments come to fruition, investors share in the spoils alongside the bank and fund manager. Money is not made simply through the banks' accrual of capital—it is made through sound investments that yield real-world value for their investors.
> 
> This is the conventional understanding of Sharia-compliant banking: banking without interest. Interest on money becomes an injustice because money is required to exist for another purpose, a purpose that the modern financial system appears to have bypassed, injecting into it anabolic steroids and juicing it up on 12,000 volts.
> 
> The twelfth-century Islamic theologian and thinker Abu Hamid Muhammad ibn Muhammad Ghazali analyzed the nature of money, stating that Allah had created dirhams and dinars “so that they may be circulated between hands and act as a fair judge between different commodities and work as a medium to acquire other things.” He concluded that “whoever effects the transactions of money is, in fact, discarding the blessings of Allah, and is committing injustice, because money is created for some other things, not for itself. So the one who has started trading in money itself has made it an objective, contrary to the original wisdom behind its creation, because it is an injustice to use money other than what it was created for.” Ghazali had not reached this view in isolation. Indeed Aristotle had argued over a millennium earlier that gold and silver had no intrinsic value, an argument that Ghazali would uphold and build upon many centuries later.
> 
> If one is prohibited from trading money, then one cannot create money out of money, and therefore cannot lend at interest. This religious injunction was not unique to Islam alone. Five thousand years ago, elaborate systems arose to enable early agrarian societies to buy and sell goods and services on credit, since coinage had not been invented. So a farmer buying clothes from a merchant might pay with an IOU. If the merchant then decides he needs to fix the door on his house, he gives the IOU to a carpenter. The carpenter accepts, on the basis that the farmer’s standing in the community is good and he’ll make good his debts. Eventually, after a series of transactions within the community, the farmer buys goods or services from a party who holds his IOU and pays it back with some crop from his harvest. The IOU doesn’t even need to come full circle. It can stay in circulation forever, acting in the same manner as modern money. Money originates as debt.
> 
> When the community becomes large and powerful it gains the ability, as anthropologist David Graeber argues, to conquer and enslave neighboring peoples. Now human beings are reduced to mere inventory, material commodities to be traded.
> 
> Early civilizations held surplus commodities in temples, and these commodities were lent out to merchants to transport for trade. Auditing the profits and losses made by merchants would have been impossible for the temples, so instead of taking a stake in the merchants’ trading activities, the temples would have demanded a fixed rate of return—in other words, interest. As loan contracts became more prevalent, they became more elaborate: merchants demanded collateral against debt, starting with grain, livestock and household goods; but if the debtor was still unable to pay and their collateral was insufficient to redeem the outstanding principal, they would then have to offer up themselves, their children, or their wives as debt peons—bonded laborers until the debt was repaid. Owning a human being became debt’s most egregious manifestation. Slaves were no longer just war booty: Now they could be anyone. Debt could be passed from generation to generation and violent coercion became the primary enforcement mechanism. In years of bad harvests in Mesopotamia, the poor became increasingly indebted to rich neighbors and would start losing title to their fields, becoming at first tenants, then sending their children to become bonded servants to creditors’ households, then finally enslaved and sold abroad. Slaves who escaped their bonds would join nomadic pastoralist tribes. Once these tribes had grown large and powerful enough, they might return to overrun the cities and conquer their existing rulers, and the cycle would repeat itself.
> 
> RELIGION AND CAPITALISM
> 
> Intellectual movements questioned the morality of materialism throughout the ages, casting doubt on the necessity of violence and conquest to uphold the economic system. Religion came to play an important role in galvanizing opinion against materialism, debt and usury.
> 
> Throughout the Bible, numerous injunctions can be found against usury, and early Christian universities debated as to why it was sinful: it was theft of material possessions, or a theft of time, or an embodiment of the sin of Sloth. Yet in time, the Church found itself looking the other way as moneylenders found they might exploit semantic differences between “interest” and “usury,” the latter being considered a severe and oppressive form of mere interest. Islamic law, meanwhile, remained unwavering on the issue of usury, treating money as a means to an end, not the end itself.
> 
> The requirement for certainty and transparency in any commercial transaction leads us to another characteristic of Sharia-compliant transactions: that one may not sell a debt or cash flow. Without full control on the goods being sold, sellers enter into trades that create uncertainty for both parties. If a seller owns debts that are payable to him from his obligors, it is not a certainty that those debts will in fact be repaid. By selling such debts to another party, the risk of default is also being transferred to that buyer. The buyer will lose a portion of the money paid to the original seller should one or more obligors fail to repay their obligations. In Islamic jurisprudence this uncertainty is considered a fundamentally unjust transaction.
> 
> Even if both parties have mutually agreed to the terms of that sale a debt, its transaction is still not _halal_. The sale of narcotics may be by mutual consent but that does not make it permissible. Bribery may be by mutual consent, but does not benefit the interests of society at large. If a transaction either fails to meet the interests of both parties, or has harmful social implications (that is, it is unethical in the secular vernacular), it may not be consummated. And in Islamic law, interest is considered harmful to society.
> 
> For ancient and contemporary scholars of Islamic finance, capital must be deployed in other ways to generate a permissible profit. According to scholars, the equitable way of utilizing the savings of depositors is to deliver to them a proportionate share in the profits—and losses—in investments undertaken on their behalf. This may be a shock to today’s depositors, accustomed as they are to unexciting and secure returns on their deposits. In the context of the modern banking system, depositors might need to make a giant leap of faith in order to consider placing their principal in an institution whose business model seems primarily equity based rather than debt based.
> 
> But that is just the point: An economic system should be based on the concept of risk sharing, equity, and with sufficient diversification and tranching of deposits so that depositors can specify the level of risk they are prepared to accept. Perhaps the Islamic banking model need not be at an economic disadvantage to the conventional model, provided that a critical mass of depositors and business enterprises participate. This is exactly what the Egyptian, Malaysian, and Pakistani experiments of the last few decades have tried to achieve with varying degrees of success. Their challenge was to deliver lasting value within the framework of the fractional reserve banking system—one that stands at odds with the concept of Islamic banking itself.
> 
> _From_ Heaven's Bankers _by Harris Irfan. Copyright ​© 2014 by Harris Irfan. Published in 2015 by The Overlook Press, Peter Mayer Publishers_




This is from _The Telegraph_ from a review of _Heaven's Bankers_:

          Harris Irfan is an insider on two fronts. He is a Muslim and also an expert in finance and commerce. He has worked as an investment banker in Europe and the Middle East and been head of Islamic finance at Barclays; he also founded
          Cordoba Capital, an Islamic finance advisory firm. Irfan is a man with a mission: to show that Islamic finance might be able to make a real contribution to our economic woes. He asks the reader to consider whether the Islamic world
          can “bring something of benefit to the Western world, and vice versa”.

A _caution_: despite what Mr Ifran and popular historians like Niall Ferguson say, the "history of money" and the nature of money are vastly more complex than either suggests. I, being quite conservative, tend towards the view (shared by _Sharia_, _I guess_) that money is a _tool_ used to regulate transactions of dissimilar natures, _*not a commodity*_ with an intrinsic value of its own. Thus, as I have said several times, I oppose the notion that central banks can _create_ money and, by so doing, create value. All they do is create inflation which is the bitter, savage, unrelenting enemy of the "common man."


----------



## Colin Parkinson

That description ignores other things such as Non-Muslims basically required to pay a Jizya (tax) so they may continue to live and practice their beliefs (in private) but are clearly 2nd class citizens. Slaves were also a major commodity of the earlier Islamic world and since they could not legally be taken from lands that had been converted, they must be taken from lands in dispute. As for non-Muslims in Islamic lands, their wealth and fortune could be easily forfeited if accused of various religious crimes, which was a excellent way for a Muslim to remove a troublesome financial burden by accusing his lender of some form a blasphemy.


----------



## fullflavor

If I am not mistaken, Saudi Arabia has incorporated her first bank after having been informed that the word 'usury' which is a prohibition in the Quran has been interpreted to be "20%" a month and after having been apprised by an American lawyer that American or Western civil law interpreted usury to be more than 3% a month. Banks impose 30% a year which is less than 2 or 3 % a month. Now Arab countries will have the opportunity to expand their economies and GDP. "Don't cloud my vision, asking me not to date"...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Seems Arabs suckering Malays is permitted

http://www.sarawakreport.org/2015/02/heist-of-the-century-how-jho-low-used-petrosaudi-as-a-front-to-siphon-billions-out-of-1mdb-world-exclusive/


----------



## Edward Campbell

Not exactly on topic, but, good for this piper who drowned out some hate spewing yahoo in Scotland.


----------



## Edward Campbell

This video, which I found online, says that the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has upheld the French ban on the _burqa_ (and the _niqab_, too, I wonder?).

This _might_ have some minor impact on Canada's election campaign.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

At work. Does it give reasons for upholding the decision?


----------



## Edward Campbell

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> At work. Does it give reasons for upholding the decision?



It's a rather old (July 2014) ruling that said, essentially, that there had been no violation of her right to _respect for private and family life_, no breach of her right to _freedom of thought, conscience and religion_, and no breach of the prohibition of _discrimination_, all of which are _protected_ in Europe.


----------



## jollyjacktar

I find that ruling surprising as the European courts seem to overturn things like this on a regular basis.


----------



## Edward Campbell

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I'm just being pedantic because it seems to me that we ought not to compare religions (outside of a classroom, anyway) when we are, really, talking culture. I think pbi is correct: the _values_ and actions that we often ascribe to Islam are, very often (most often?) really well entrenched cultural values from various regions where Islam happens to dominate ~ North Africa, the Middle East, South West Asia and so on.




More on this notion in a (CNN) interview with Prof Reza Aslan, here ... it's worth the 10 minutes.

Prof Aslan is not lacking critics, but, on a personal level I found _Zealot_, his 'biography' of Jesus interesting and well written and, I would say, a generally positive addition to the study of the origins of Christianity.

I agree with Prof Aslan that some Muslim states ~ Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc ~ are in great need of religious _reformation_ and socio-cutural _enlightenment_, not because they are Muslim, per se, but rather because they use Islam to perpetuate abhorrent, medieval social customs. Other Muslim countries, Indonesia and Malaysia, both of which are already at least as socially _enlightened_ as America, for example, just need to rid themselves of the socially retarded influence of the Middle Easterner religious fundamentalists.

The problem isn't Islam, it is some, really just, relatively, a few, Muslims who happen to have the backing of some culturally retarded governments: change those governments, through, for example, a long, bloody set of revolutions and civil wars, which may be underway, right now, and the 'problem' may (or may not) solve itself.


----------



## CougarKing

The _Sun_ seems to have a bad reputation among Brits at the other forums I frequent: that newspaper was even referred to as the " the Scum" by them:

Yahoo News



> *The Sun Front Page: Reactions To 'Muslims’ Support For Jihadis’ Poll*
> 
> Yahoo News
> 12 hours ago
> Today’s front page of The Sun claiming that one in five British Muslims sympathise with the actions of jihadis has provoked a strong reaction in both the media and on social media.
> 
> *The paper’s shock survey, taken after the Paris terror attacks, shows that 19% of those polled had ‘some’ or ‘a lot’ of sympathy towards young Muslims who eave the UK to join fighters in Syria*.
> 
> Notable figures in the Muslim community described the poll as a “wake-up call”.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)
> 
> The paper quoted Labour MP and London Mayor hopeful Sadiq Khan, who said: “It is clear that Britain needs to take its head out of the sand and act to tackle extremism and radicalisation at home.”


----------



## CougarKing

With the memory of last month's Paris attacks still fresh in people's minds, this occurs...

Al Jazeera



> *'France likely to close more than 100 mosques'*
> Anealla Safdar | 03 Dec 2015 03:43 GMT | Europe, France, Paris Attacks, Islam, Religion
> France is likely to close up to 160 mosques in the coming months as part of a nationwide police operation under the state of emergency which allows *places of worship that promote radical views* to be shut down, one of the country's chief imams has said.
> 
> Following news that three mosques have already been closed since the November 13 attacks on the capital, Hassan El Alaoui, who is in charge of nominating regional and local Muslim imams and mediating between the imams and prison officials, told Al Jazeera on Wednesday that more were set to be shut.
> 
> "According to official figures and our discussions with the interior ministry, between 100 and 160 more mosques will be closed because they are run *illegally without proper licenses, they preach hatred, or use takfiri speech,"* he said.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## jollyjacktar

As much as I absolutely fucking hate these radical Imams and their poisonous ways and would love to see V for Vendetta treatment of them, I'm afraid that shutting down these vipers nests will only drive the barbarians underground.  Then you won't have any idea of where the bastards are or what they might be up to.


----------



## CougarKing

So other airlines from Middle Eastern nations like Emirates and Qatari airways aren't considered "compliant" enough?  ???

Yahoo News



> *First Airline Compliant With Sharia Law Launched*
> [Yahoo News]
> December 23, 2015
> 
> The first airline ever to be compliant with Sharia Law has been unveiled in Malaysia.
> 
> Rayani Airlines, a new low-cost airline, says it strictly follows Sharia rules ‘based on guidelines by relevant authorities.’
> 
> *Speaking at the launch of the airline’s maiden flight, managing director Jaafar Zamhari said that hijabs would be mandatory for female cabin crew, while non-Muslims are required to wear a ‘decent uniform.’*
> 
> Prayers will also be said before the beginning of each flight, while alcohol is strictly forbidden - and any food served will be Halal.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## The Bread Guy

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> So other airlines from Middle Eastern nations like Emirates and Qatari airways aren't considered "compliant" enough?  ???


Not if they're serving _any_ kind of booze, I guess.


----------



## Good2Golf

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> So other airlines from Middle Eastern nations like Emirates and Qatari airways aren't considered "compliant" enough?  ???



...and Etihad likely fails in the "Sharia-compliant" department...


----------



## cavalryman

What I'm wondering is whether maintenance will be done on an Inch' Allah basis  :subbies:


----------



## CougarKing

How come we haven't heard of similar incidents to this happening around Euro Disney, considering the number of immigrants in France from Muslim countries?

Associated Press



> *UK's Cameron to look into report US blocked Muslim family from boarding plane to Disneyland*
> [The Canadian Press]
> Gregory Katz And Sylvia Hui, The Associated Press
> The Canadian Press
> December 23, 2015
> 
> LONDON - British Prime Minister David Cameron will look into claims that U.S. officials prevented a British Muslim family of 11 from flying to Disneyland for a planned holiday.
> 
> The issue is sensitive because U.S. Republican presidential contender Donald Trump has called for a temporary ban on Muslims visiting the U.S. due to concerns about extremist attacks.
> 
> Stella Creasy, a member of the opposition Labour Party, said Wednesday that U.S. officials gave no explanation for refusing to allow her constituents to board a flight from Gatwick Airport on Dec. 15, so she wrote Cameron seeking his intervention. She said there is "growing fear" among British Muslims that aspects of Trump's plans are coming into practice even though they have been widely condemned.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## George Wallace

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> How come we haven't heard of similar incidents to this happening around Euro Disney, considering the number of immigrants in France from Muslim countries?
> 
> Associated Press



Probably because the US Customs has NO JURISDICTION.


----------



## jollyjacktar

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> How come we haven't heard of similar incidents to this happening around Euro Disney, considering the number of immigrants in France from Muslim countries?
> 
> Associated Press



There's reports his facebook profile has links to AQ and Taliban sites.  If true, I don't blame the US from denying access to their country.


----------



## CougarKing

2 articles of note: so much for promoting acceptance/tolerance when it comes to the university in question in the first article.

CBC



> *Muslim Students' Association speaker choice sparks controversy at U of A*
> [CBC]
> 
> January 18, 2016
> 
> Muslim Students' Association speaker choice sparks controversy at U of A
> 
> *A Muslim professor from the University of Alberta is concerned some Islamic scholars invited by a student association to speak on campus this week promote what he describes as extremist views and homophobia.*
> 
> Four scholars have been invited to campus for Muslim Awareness Week, an annual event organized by the Muslim Students' Association.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)
> 
> *Jehangir said one of the speakers, Abdullah Hakim Quick, refers to homosexual people as "filthy, disgusting things" in a video posted to YouTube.*
> 
> "In that particular video … he's using those words to put down the LGBT community. That subjects vulnerable minorities to hatred," Jehangir said. "This is a main concern of all the speakers: they basically apostatize gay Muslims who believe that being gay and being Muslim is compatible.
> (...SNIPPED)




Yahoo News



> *Woman Goes On Tinder As A Muslim and A Christian - But Only One Profile Gets Blocked*
> 
> Yahoo News
> January 20, 2016
> 
> A COMEDIAN posted Tinder profiles of herself as a ‘Muslim’ and a 'Christian’ in a social experiment – with interesting results.
> 
> The Canadian comedian, who goes by the name Davison, created two almost identical Tinder profiles of a 27-year-old woman named Sara.
> 
> Both mentioned 'faith’ in the bio – but the key difference in the two came in the picture: one Sara wore a headscarf while the other had an uncovered head and modest clothing.
> 
> The 'sexperiment’ posted on YouTube channel LOLPervs was to find 'How many matches does a woman dressed as a Muslim get compared to an implied Christian woman?’
> 
> (...SNIPPED_)
> 
> As soon as the profiles went live, a number of men realised she had two profiles, with one even asking whether she was 'making an experiment’.
> 
> Davison eventually found that 'Christian Sara’ was the most popular of the two: she revealed that 'Muslim Sara’ had 214 matches out of 480 attempts, while 'Christian Sara’ had 300 matches out of 480 attempts.
> 
> *And she noted: 'Saturday night is when there started to be a wider discrepancy between the two Saras with 143 out of 240 matches for the Christian Sara versus only 100 out of 240 for the Muslim Sara.’*
> 
> 'Muslim Sara’, however, did get more 'Superlikes’ – allowing her to see that another user liked her profile before swiping either way – than 'Christian Sara’.
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

Meanwhile, here in BC...

Vancity Buzz



> *Vancouver Island teacher reprimanded for calling Muslim student "Taliban"*
> By
> Lauren Sundstrom
> 11:09 AM PST, Fri January 29, 2016
> 
> A Vancouver Island teacher is facing punishment after he admitted to repeatedly referring to a Muslim student as “Taliban,” according to a ruling from the BC Commissioner for Teacher Regulation.
> 
> *Grade 11 math teacher Matthew Pell, who’s employed by the Sooke School District, would also make comments like “don’t make her angry, otherwise she’ll bomb you” and “she’s going to blow everything up,” *the ruling says.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

They should have deported this pervert!

CBC



> *Calgary imam wanted on sex charges in U.S., to stay in Canada*
> 
> CBC
> February 13, 2016
> 
> A high-profile Calgary imam, wanted in the United States on sexual assault charges, will get another shot at keeping his refugee status in Canada.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## George Wallace

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> They should have deported this pervert!
> 
> CBC



To quote General Norman Schwarzkopf.....That is utterly "Bovine Scatology".

Deported....Extradition would be more likely and appropriate.  We do have "Legal" agreements with the US.


----------



## CougarKing

Trudeau's reaction to graffiti targeting Syrian refugees and him:

CBC



> *Trudeau reacts to anti-Syrian graffiti on southeast Calgary school*
> [CBC]
> February 15, 2016
> 
> *The Calgary Board of Education rushed to clean off hateful graffiti on Monday morning, but for far too long this weekend the words "Syrians Go Home and Die" and other slogans stained the brick walls of Wilma Hansen Junior High in southeast Calgary.
> 
> The graffiti also targeted Prime Minister Justin Trudeau*, who took to Twitter to condemn the vandalism.
> 
> "Canadians have shown the best of our country in welcoming refugees. That spirit won't be diminished by fear and hate," he tweeted on Monda
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## AbdullahD

If I may, I would like to say a few words.

First and foremost I have not read all 22 pages, but I read enough to get the tenor I think. If I am repeating what has been covered I am sorry.

A few issues people have when, contemplating Muslim integration in the west is in point form;

1-Cultural vs True Islam
2-Islamic reformation movements or lack thereof
3-Extremism and rates thereof
4-Are they loyal to the country of residence or not

Now I am not a scholar, but I have some small specific knowledge on a few of these topics.

1- This is by far, bar none Islam's biggest issue. In the early days of Islam, Muslims were raped, beat, tortured and Murdered. They had their possessions stolen etc, all this was done without repercussions during the early years. Even when fighting was made permissible, it was against the Quraiysh caravans arguably taking back what was stolen from them. Then the greater fights came and Quranic ayats came down regarding it, such as the oft quoted and misquoted one close to the meaning of "kill non-Muslims were you find them unless they convert", but those ayahs are widely accepted as only being applicable to that particular battle as any good exegesis will tell you (Google Tafsir Maariful Quran in english roughly $200 buy it, if you want for a great explanation of Quran). But now we start having issues, because Muhammad peace be upon him, took over Makkah with his army and no one died, yet alleged Muslims these days partake in wholesale slaughter. So it clearly says in our holy book to kill non-Muslims albeit out of context and yet thats not how our prophet acted.

So now enter Culture, wearing niqab/burkha is culture, slaughtering innocent people is forbidden in Islam, murdering religious priests nuns etc is forbidden, the second caliph of Islam made slavery forbidden etc... but yet you see Muslims doing all these things and more and that is culture.  the mid east has been at war for so many years, that is all they know. 

Our faith demands, patience, respect and love etc from us. But when you grow up and people claim that these cultural practices are true Islam, then you start to have issues. True Islam is not an issue, tribal and national culture can be.

2- Now my first point feeds into my second point. If Muslims are saying that Islam isnt the Issue and its just this culture crap that is, why is there not a reformation movement going on. Well there is and multiple ones at that, I will only speak to the one I personally know.

It is called the effort of dawa'h and tabligh (Calling to God and Propagating Islam). There are more then 3 million people worldwide and thousands of Islamic scholars working almost 24/7 in this effort ( ive personally spent 150 days away from my family in this effort). What we do is go house to house visiting every single Muslim, in every single community in the world. We talk to them about the importance of prayer, being conscious of god, being a good person and exhibiting a good character... but we also try to connect brothers and sisters, with scholars who teach proper Islam. which directly combats extremism in our communities. Because the majority of extremists in our views are self radicalized, via the internet or they are only nominally religious persons to begin with. So if a Muslim is learning from a proper scholar, instead of Mufti google, the chances of him wanting to Murder people is reduced to nil.

Also feeling like a part of a community is good for your mental health... and lets face it, only people who are sick to the head support daesh or whoever it may be.

3- extremism and rates thereof... well, in a Muslim.. and I support sharia law.. I must be a extremist right? No, because Sharia law does not accept extremism. A Muslim is neither an extreme left winger or right winger, he walks the middle path  (thats a very loosely translated saying of our prophet.).

But many people look at the percent of Muslims who support sharia law or dissapprove of homosexuality, as they Must be extremist.  which I think is absurd, I disagree with homosexuality and I want to implement sharia law.. but im not a machiavellian, i dont support terror, murder, kidnapping etc to achieve that goal (the machiavellian principle of the ends justiyfing the means, is clearly forbidden in Islam). So when someone supports sharia law and wishes to blow himself up (which is again forbidden in Islam) to obtain that goal... then he is an extremist and likely going to hell but that's up to God.

So yea, I supprt the sharia, but Ill lay down my life to protect yours gladly (just dont tell my wife.. she said something about killing me.. if i die on her #womenlogic).

4- A Muslim, who lives in a non-Muslim country is bound by Sharia law to follow the laws of that country. If we dont want to follow those laws, we are obligated to leave. We are only allowed to stay in a country, if we can do our obligatory acts of worship, if we cant then we must leave or try to.

We are not allowed to be... "fifth columnist" i think it's called, we have to respect the country that is offering us protection and sustenance etc. Now its not to say we are not allowed to work within the legal framework of a country, to propagate Islamic values. but the operative part of that statement is "within the legal framework". We cant go about causing riots, looting, hate crimes etc, we  need to do it properly.

To conclude my rambling, Christian, Muslim and Jews have lived together before. They still do in Many places, but we all need to follow our religions properly to do it. we cant just follow anything blindly from any random nutbar, we need to go to our scholars and holy texts. (oh and for the atheists, I dont mean to exclude you, lets pretend your god is science and your holy texts are chemistry and evolution textbooks)

I feel safe knowing my neighbors are of 'xyz' background and my neighbors should feel safe knowing Im Muslim. Because they should know Muslims believe 1 life, one single solitary life, is worth more then this entire world and Muslims have love for all life no matter whose it is. But, these dang cultural radicals have ruined the name of Islam for us and thus people dont know this and they fear or hate us.

My point I guess, is we are trying to fix our issues. We just need time, our religion is 600 years younger then Christianity... so I ask for 6 centuries 

Abdullah

p.s sorry for my grammar, always was my weak point.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Abdullah, thank you for taking the time to present your thoughts.


----------



## GAP

Good post, thank you


----------



## Cloud Cover

Can we sticky that post? Excellent!  

W601


----------



## rifleman17

Long time lurker, but rare poster here - I usually don't post much because I don't have a whole lot to say that hasn't been said ad-nauseam already.

I just wanted to say, first off, thanks for the post, Abdullah.  I've been studying terrorism and counter terrorism through academia as a hobby for the last 4 years, and as a result I am attempting to understand more and more about the true nature of Islam since these are often synonymous.  The western world NEEDS to engage in frank and open discussions on the topic for a number of reasons which might seem obvious, the least of which being that non-Muslims must be able to discern truth from fiction.  As a non-Muslim, I often advise other non-Muslims to educate themselves as much as possible on the topic, taking in opinions from all camps and coming to their own conclusions.  Islam, in and of itself, does not deserve the benefit of the doubt - no more so than anything else people see or hear - and thus what they are told by any side should not be taken at face value - what I mean by this is that people need to become more aware and informed.  Ironically, the very people who stand to lose the most, yet have the most to gain from having these sorts discussion (and working towards a reformation of Islam) is the average Muslim person, working to get through the day and who has the same problems as the rest of us.

I found a very topical article discussing such a thing.  Although it has more of an American slant to it, I thought I might share it here:

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7364/trump-ban-muslims


----------



## ArmyRick

AbdullahD,

Good insightful post. I have on my own studied the history and basic understandings of Islam. I find it interesting the strong differences between Shia and Sunni . It gets nasty when you look at the fierce fighting between the two. I also know their is an Indian sect of Islam (Ahmadiyya Islam? I think). 

Another interesting view I have is That Muslims are from Christians are from Jews. If I am not mistaken, the second book of the Quran is basically the new testament. I believe if I understand correctly that the prophet Esa (is Jesus) and that muslims do not believe he is the son of God but will in fact return some day. Correct me if I am wrong, many hours of reading translated passages of the Quran can lead me to mistakes. 

Ironic that these religions are intertwined and connected.  

The head covering thing (Niqab, Burkha, Hijab, etc) I personally believe was more of a survival thing from living in an hot arid climate. IF we had a time machine and could go back to a thousand years before Mohhamed, we would probably see people wearing similar clothes in the same environment. Thoughts?

Personally, I believe the one thing we have done correctly is the Charter of Rights and freedoms here in Canada. Religion and state must remain separate. I also believe corporation and state should also be separate but thats another story.


----------



## CougarKing

Not sure what to think about this: 

Yahoo News



> *Row As School Tells Pupils To Imagine Converting To Islam ‘For The Better’*
> [Yahoo News]
> 
> February 22, 2016
> 
> A school in Guernsey has sparked a huge row among parents after it told pupils to write them a letter explaining how their life had improved by converting to Islam.
> 
> The students - aged 12 and 13 - were asked to write the letter by their Religious Education teacher in an attempt to consider what it would be like to become a Muslim.
> 
> Pupils were told to explain their decision to their parents and to say how their life had been changed for the better as a result.
> 
> The homework, for children at Les Beauchamps High School (above), came with a clarification that stated: “Please also note this is a piece of creative writing and completely fictional YOU ARE NOT ACTUALLY CONVERTING TO ISLAM.”
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Fishbone Jones

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Not sure what to think about this: (this is in Guernsey, Saskatchewan)
> 
> Yahoo News



How did we end up with so many idiots teaching our kids? :facepalm:


----------



## GAP

It is not in Sask.



> The controversial homework was set as Guernsey announced it would not be accepting Syrian refugees on the island.


----------



## Journeyman

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Not sure what to think about this: (this is in Guernsey, Saskatchewan)
> 
> Yahoo News


All related searches say it's in the UK.  Where did you get Saskatchewan from?


----------



## AbdullahD

Thanks guys and I'll try to give another reply albeit some very in depth things were brought up, which sad to say are above my pay grade to explain.. but i will try. I actually had to bust out a notebook to jot some notes down, so i can properly reply.

I have heard of Islam and Terrorism being synonymous before and I whole heartedly disagree that they are, but that doesn't mean Islam is not used for terrorism. Now if we take a look at what terrorism means, it essentially means to use fear to obtain a goal. Which I hate to say it, but some "so called" Muslims use that ideology. But we are not alone in it, people who shoot up Planned parenthood outlets are terrorists, same with school shooters etc etc

But when you see these acts in the media (as unbiased as it is), a guy claiming to be christian who shoots up a planned parenthood clinic is labelled mentally sick. Same with churches, schools etc. I think that terrorism is perpetrated by all groups be they extremist sikhs, hindus, jews etc. but rarely are they called terrorist.

we have 1.7 to 1.8 billion Muslims in the world and there are terrorist organization's that recruit from those masses. If we look at Muslim countries, most of them are poor and what better people to recruit then poor ignorant peasants? the recruitment of disaffected westerners is a different issue all together, I also note at this time most recruits are not western citizens. Now in WW1 and WW2, the Muslim nation('s) picked the wrong side, which led to the break up of the Islamic empire which accelerated the rot, because Nationalism really set in. Muslims are not supposed to want separate countries, were supposed to want to be one Ummah (Nation).. but alas to many years of my tribe is better then your tribe have gone by, that I can't see this rot reversing in my life. oops i digress.

Anyways, back to the poor and ignorant Muslims. You get some alleged scholar come to your home, after a western bomb has blown up your home or a family members, or a friends home and tells you that the non-Muslims are waging war on Muslims around the world. they are trying to destroy Islam and then he quotes a few ayahs from the Quran, a few hadiths about it being obligatory to fight against those who are fighting Muslims and the next thing you know, that peasent is a Jihadi. Then from there they quote more Ahadiths about dying in the cause of Allah and how Mujahideen of old would press in to thick of the battle, until victorious or they died. Then he gives you nice tafsir (explanation) that makes suicide bombing permissible because thats what the Salaf did.... and you have yourself a suicide bomber.

Now if you don't know, I completely disagree with this and denounce it whole heartedly. But it is a sad fact of life, just the same as the fact that many think Islam and terrorism are synonymous. I pray that perception changes, but that is up to god. To many kids only know fighting, grew up fighting and dont know anything else... so it is hard for them to change, because killing is so easy. Which has become a vicious cycle, we need to stop the bombs, so we can rebuild these nations and yet the more we bomb, the worse it seems to get and we need to send more bombs (Not even touching on corruption etc). I am not intelligent enough to see how to break the cycle, but I agree Daesh needs to be put down like a rabid dog.

I perused the link that was offered regarding trumps comments and I disagree with quite a many things within it, but I dont have the time nor werewithal to articulate a counter arguement. I am sure google if used can do it for me, but I dont trust my google fu right now, also on my phone copy pasting etc is hard. Im currently doing this as an email draft then ill be copying it over to this site.

Now the second thing of note I saw was the Shia vs Sunni vs Ahmadiyya deal, that rabbit hole goes even deeper... you Have Shia vs Sunni vs Ahmadiyya, hanafi vs hanbali vs maliki vs shafi vs salafi, deobandi vs bralevi, tablighis vs salafis vs sufis vs takfiris... To be honest it is a right mess. To keep it simple I just go Muslim or non Muslim (even though im a Sunni Hanafi deobandi tablighi lol).

So to be a Muslim you have to accept the 5 pillars of Islam;
1-Shahada: Faith 
2 Salat: Prayer. 
3 Zakāt: Charity. 
4 Sawm: Fasting. 
5 Hajj: Pilgrimage to Mecca.

So if you dont believe those 5 things are obligatory, you are not a Muslim period. Now I'll also note, if you believe those acts are obligatory but do not do them yourself, you are still Muslim. Now that isn't to say whatever you believe isn't a nice wholesome belief system,  it just isnt an Islamic belief system. The scholars I follow say that there are alot of shias who are Muslim, but the way hatred develops we label them non-Muslim which is very bad. Because according to ahadiths (close to the meaning), if you call a Muslim a kafr and your wrong you have left the fold of Islam yourself.... so these fools running around calling Muslims kafr, are well in a very sketchy situation. Then you also have the ahadiths that roughly mean if you kill a Muslim, your going to hell, end of story. Heck, we are even told not to point weapons at our Muslim brothers just in case something goes wrong and we accidently kill them, even that is bad for us. So you can only imagine the position of those who make a career of killing innocent Muslims.

So all said and done, I would hate to be any of those people who have killed a Muslim. all in all I'm one those chaps who thinks all wars are stupid wastes of lives, but sometimes it is necessary, just like spanking the kids sometimes you have to do it to set them aright.

Now regarding the second book of the Quran, I have no clue what your talking about im sorry. I am guessing your talking about Makkan vs Madanian verses... but even that does not mean different books because they are all mixed together... are you meaning Hadith volumes? or the Quran as one books and the Hadiths as another? Sorry, im lost on this one.

The Hijab is compulsory, it was not set out for the arab climate. The hijab is a guideline on how to dress not a uniform. My wife when she wears hijab, may use a traditional hijab or she may just use a hoody or what have you. Our women are our Queens, we have to pay for their food, clothing, shelter, if we have money left over and they want jewelry we HAVE TO buy it for them, if our WOMEN want relations with us we have to give it (and if we dont satisfy them, they can divorce us over it. ouch eh?). Paradise is at our Mothers feet, we are to obey our mothers 3x, before we obey our father's. oh did i mention, our women are allowed to own businesses, property and whatever money they make we can not take from them. even if they are millionaires we still have to pay the bills (also education is fine for women to get, if any idiot says otherwise ask them about Ayesha the prophets wife... that should shut them up, she was a pretty awesome lady). 

Also something everybody forget when discussing Hijab... is men have one too. Muslim men must have beards, must always cover the knees up to the navel. It is better to cover the arms as well and keep hair abover the shoulders, we are encouraged not to wear red. encouraged to wear white etc etc etc. I find it amazing how these idiots always point out how the woman should act, but never look to the men.

That article about forcing kids to write what it would be like to convert to Islam, that was sheer stupidity. There are other ways to get the kids to think about the good parts of Islam, if my child came home with homework being for them to write about converting to Christianity... well we can just say id be pissed. So I can appreciate how others feel in this situation, it seems like the more knowledge that is out there, the less common sense we have.

Now I've been working on this for 2 hours, I just wanted to clarify a few things and got carried away. Trying to be part of the solution and not the problem, well its a lot of work some days. Usually on the internet I wouldnt waste time like this. my final thing I want to say is i worked 12 hours today and may have made some mistakes ill try to review and edit tomorrow if i see anything major.

Abdullah


----------



## Good2Golf

> Usually on the internet I wouldnt waste time like this.



Abdullah, please do not consider your time spent on the Internet to write this as a 'waste', quite the opposite, and we appreciate the time you have taken to provide your perspective and knowledge of Islam.

Regards,
G2G


----------



## The Bread Guy

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Abdullah, please do not consider your time spent on the Internet to write this as a 'waste', quite the opposite, and we appreciate the time you have taken to provide your perspective and knowledge of Islam.
> 
> Regards,
> G2G


What he said ...


----------



## jollyjacktar

Thank you again, Abdullah.  More to contemplate and muse over.


----------



## Brad Sallows

Notwithstanding the value of one person's insight, the following is true: religion is everywhere and always an artifact of culture; it does not stand alone or completely transcend the cultures in which it resides.  There is no "true" version of any particular faith except in the immediate aftermath of its conception and the mind of its conceiver(s).  Even scripture is not immune to contradiction and cultural quiffs, which is why there are always "learned" editorial comments - explanatory journalism - after the fact. 

The problem is cultures in conflict; in particular, the problem is permissive and tolerant cultures in conflict with parochial and strict cultures.

Followers of Islam are the pre-eminent problem children of the world today; it is no help whatsoever for the silent and peaceful majority to try to read them out of the religion.  There are many religions and sects younger than Islam which don't need more time to abolish violence.

No excuses are acceptable.  A problem exists, and must be dealt with because it will not suffer to simply be ignored by those who want nothing to do with it.  I do not visit responsibility on all those who claim to be Muslim nor even on those who silently agree with the supremacism of the violent fringe minority, but I despise attempts to pretend that the militants are not exactly what they claim to be.


----------



## AbdullahD

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Notwithstanding the value of one person's insight, the following is true: religion is everywhere and always an artifact of culture; it does not stand alone or completely transcend the cultures in which it resides.  There is no "true" version of any particular faith except in the immediate aftermath of its conception and the mind of its conceiver(s).  Even scripture is not immune to contradiction and cultural quiffs, which is why there are always "learned" editorial comments - explanatory journalism - after the fact.
> 
> The problem is cultures in conflict; in particular, the problem is permissive and tolerant cultures in conflict with parochial and strict cultures.
> 
> Followers of Islam are the pre-eminent problem children of the world today; it is no help whatsoever for the silent and peaceful majority to try to read them out of the religion.  There are many religions and sects younger than Islam which don't need more time to abolish violence.
> 
> No excuses are acceptable.  A problem exists, and must be dealt with because it will not suffer to simply be ignored by those who want nothing to do with it.  I do not visit responsibility on all those who claim to be Muslim nor even on those who silently agree with the supremacism of the violent fringe minority, but I despise attempts to pretend that the militants are not exactly what they claim to be.



Just to clarify, a lot of what I posted was not my opinion. It was rough translations of what our prophet said, rulings by our religious scholars and accepted traditions.

If you wish to fact check my posts please use;
 Mufti Menk (south africa)
 Mufti Ebrahim Desai(south africa)
 Shayk Yusuf badat (toronto)
 Shayk abdulraheem (uk) 
 Mufti Abdurrahman (detroit)
 Mufti Aasim (Surrey).

Websites are as follows
AskImam.org
http://www.tafseer-raheemi.com/
http://ihsan.ca
http://mathabah.org
Banglakitab.com

For the Quran tafsir download here
http://www.islamibayanaat.com/EnglishMarefulQuran.htm

Your views on how culture can not be seperated from religion, are your views and I feel no need to debate them. Following the links I supplied and searching through them will teach you about how the Quran, hadiths and Quranic teachings were preserved. 

Extremists who do actions that take them outside the fold of Islam, are not Muslim. End of story. We dont deny that a problem exists, but you Must remember for every 1 non-Muslim killed by these fools, they kill 10's or hundreds of Muslims. Muslims are on the ground fighting them, Muslims are dying because of them. So to claim were doing nothing is wrong.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Muslims+denouncing+extremists

Anywho, thanks for the reply and the good words guys 

Abdullah


----------



## Brad Sallows

>Extremists who do actions that take them outside the fold of Islam, are not Muslim. End of story.

Wrong.  You just disproved your own case.  You have your interpretation of scripture and a subset of commentary you rely on; others have equally valid interpretations of scripture and subsets of commentary they rely on.  There is no independent frame of reference which exists from which to issue a judgement; if one existed, I doubt you occupy it.

Culture can not be separated from religion; culture drives religion.  The existence of the world as it is proves my point: Roman culture drove early Christianity.  Medieval European cultures continued to drive Christianity.  Modern cultures continue to drive Christianity.  There are many different understandings of Christianity; to the extent that Christianity has moved between severe and generous interpretations, it has all been driven by culture.  Similar observations can be applied to all religions.  New religions are established from cultural foundations.


----------



## AbdullahD

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Extremists who do actions that take them outside the fold of Islam, are not Muslim. End of story.
> 
> Wrong.  You just disproved your own case.  You have your interpretation of scripture and a subset of commentary you rely on; others have equally valid interpretations of scripture and subsets of commentary they rely on.  There is no independent frame of reference which exists from which to issue a judgement; if one existed, I doubt you occupy it.
> 
> Culture can not be separated from religion; culture drives religion.  The existence of the world as it is proves my point: Roman culture drove early Christianity.  Medieval European cultures continued to drive Christianity.  Modern cultures continue to drive Christianity.  There are many different understandings of Christianity; to the extent that Christianity has moved between severe and generous interpretations, it has all been driven by culture.  Similar observations can be applied to all religions.  New religions are established from cultural foundations.



Dear Sir,

I must now remove myself from this conversation with you. I have provided links to information that debunks your allegations and I feel no need to replicate them here. especially since you do not take the time to look at the information I provide and refine your arguments.

I do thank you though, you did inspire me to list multiple sources backing up my argument. Which Is something I should have done off the bat.

Thanks for reading my replys
Abdullah


----------



## Jed

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Extremists who do actions that take them outside the fold of Islam, are not Muslim. End of story.
> 
> Wrong.  You just disproved your own case.  You have your interpretation of scripture and a subset of commentary you rely on; others have equally valid interpretations of scripture and subsets of commentary they rely on.  There is no independent frame of reference which exists from which to issue a judgement; if one existed, I doubt you occupy it.
> 
> Culture can not be separated from religion; culture drives religion.  The existence of the world as it is proves my point: Roman culture drove early Christianity.  Medieval European cultures continued to drive Christianity.  Modern cultures continue to drive Christianity.  There are many different understandings of Christianity; to the extent that Christianity has moved between severe and generous interpretations, it has all been driven by culture.  Similar observations can be applied to all religions.  New religions are established from cultural foundations.



Good post, Brad. I was going to rebut this exact point but you summed it up in a much better fashion.

AbdullahD. I really do appreciate your insight and edification for people like myself that have a sketchy knowledge of the Muslim faith. However, for you to deny that extremists that profess to be Muslim are not so or do not themselves believe this would be the same as me to deny that extremist Christian nutbars do not believe themselves to be following the Christian faith.


----------



## AbdullahD

Jed said:
			
		

> Good post, Brad. I was going to rebut this exact point but you summed it up in a much better fashion.
> 
> AbdullahD. I really do appreciate your insight and edification for people like myself that have a sketchy knowledge of the Muslim faith. However, for you to deny that extremists that profess to be Muslim are not so or do not themselves believe this would be the same as me to deny that extremist Christian nutbars do not believe themselves to be following the Christian faith.



I do understand how this looks to be a conundrum, from the outside at least. But many Ahadiths, establish what does and does not take a person outside the fold of Islam.

The extremists use the same Hadith collections non-extremist use, so the argument that they have different texts does not hold and then its just looking in those texts for proofs.

As I said, follow the links and do some research. Find out which traditional scholars they follow and then research the positions of those scholars on what takes a person out of the fold of Islam. I'll make it easy for you, the traditional scholars they claim to follow would call a lot of them non-Muslims.

So if people you claim to follow would claim your not of them, how can you claim to be? also if 99% of the Islamic world claims they are wrong, isnt that acceptable? I dont think extremist atheists, christians etc represent the respective ideologies they claim to follow. So why are extremist representative of Muslims.

Please research, learn Islam from Muslims. Follow those links, they are a great starting point.

Abdullah


----------



## Jed

AbdullahD said:
			
		

> I do understand how this looks to be a conundrum, from the outside at least. But many Ahadiths, establish what does and does not take a person outside the fold of Islam.
> 
> The extremists use the same Hadith collections non-extremist use, so the argument that they have different texts does not hold and then its just looking in those texts for proofs.
> 
> As I said, follow the links and do some research. Find out which traditional scholars they follow and then research the positions of those scholars on what takes a person out of the fold of Islam. I'll make it easy for you, the traditional scholars they claim to follow would call a lot of them non-Muslims.
> 
> So if people you claim to follow would claim your not of them, how can you claim to be? also if 99% of the Islamic world claims they are wrong, isnt that acceptable? I dont think extremist atheists, christians etc represent the respective ideologies they claim to follow. So why are extremist representative of Muslims.
> 
> Please research, learn Islam from Muslims. Follow those links, they are a great starting point.
> 
> Abdullah



I agree with you on this point.   The problem is when any particular individual looks at a cat and says no, it is a dog or the cat truly believes that it is, in fact, a dog; That does not make the being a cat. It matters not if the cat was a tiger, lion, siamese etc. It does not even matter if an individual considers itself to be a doberman, pug or a boxer.


----------



## rifleman17

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Wrong.  You just disproved your own case.  You have your interpretation of scripture and a subset of commentary you rely on; others have equally valid interpretations of scripture and subsets of commentary they rely on.  There is no independent frame of reference which exists from which to issue a judgement; if one existed, I doubt you occupy it.
> 
> Culture can not be separated from religion; culture drives religion.  The existence of the world as it is proves my point: Roman culture drove early Christianity.  Medieval European cultures continued to drive Christianity.  Modern cultures continue to drive Christianity.  There are many different understandings of Christianity; to the extent that Christianity has moved between severe and generous interpretations, it has all been driven by culture.  Similar observations can be applied to all religions.  New religions are established from cultural foundations.



Brad, I agree.  

AbdullahD, you may well declare members of such organizations as ISIL/Daesh, Jabhat al-Nusra/Al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, et al., as well as people who support what they stand for as 'outside the fold of Islam'.  Trouble is, these same people would say the same about people like yourself, or other moderate Muslim people.  So much do they believe in their own principles and convictions, that they have no compunction against killing for it.  They would happily kill people like you; for, to them, you would be an apostate; they would kill non-Muslims like myself and (I'm assuming) many of the other posters on this thread because we are non-believers.  This is why I said in a previous post that Islam and terrorism are often seen as synonymous - because members of these groups self-identify as Muslim, and to people who do not know any better, that is the same thing.  You seem to be quite intelligent, so surely you must understand this. Unfortunately, there are few counter-narratives from the moderates of Islam in the mainstream that are definitive, and therefore strong enough to destroy the credibility of 'extremists'.

As I understand it - _as it has been explained to me by many scholars on the topic_ - the basic issue with the divide between mainstream, moderate Islam and the ultra-conservative, extremist version of Islam (salafist, wahabbi, deobandi, etc.) is the interpretation of the Qu'ran and Hadiths and the proper application of what is written in these texts.  *From what I've gathered*, the prophet Mohammed is essentially a by-product of the culture prevalent in his geographical location and era, this being the 7th century Middle East region.  What he writes and taught his followers was 'the word of God/Allah' in accordance with cultural mores that were commonplace, and thus the norm, in HIS TIME.  Today, a lot of these teachings are, to say the least, incompatible with most modern societies - acts alluding to essentially rape, paedophilia, murder, theft, etc.; acts specifically outlined in the Qu'ran - as they are at the very least seen as socially unacceptable, being detrimental to the harmony of society (also, ostensibly, because they are illegal).  The divide occurs where the the mainstream moderates have decided NOT to follow these particular teachings and decided to live in harmony with everyone else, whereas the extremists believe the aforementioned teachings are still relevant today and acceptable under various cirumstances.

If I'm wrong, *please* enlighten me.  I'm sure there are many here lurking or reading this thread that would like to get the real story.

This is a good conversation, however.  Like I said, I usually don't post much here, but I'm all for stuff like this.  People should be having constructive discussion on this issue way more often.  Unfortunately, political correctness and ideological bias tends to obscure or impede this.

If any of you have a couple hours to spare, and have not seen this yet, I've posted a link below to a recent debate/discussion on this sort of topic.  Many good points brought up and articulated by both sides.  Whether you agree or disagree with any of the panelists, at the end of the day, it is good that these types of frank discussions can still be had.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rh34Xsq7D_A


----------



## AbdullahD

Punching Dummy said:
			
		

> Brad, I agree.
> 
> AbdullahD, you may well declare members of such organizations as ISIL/Daesh, Jabhat al-Nusra/Al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, et al., as well as people who support what they stand for as 'outside the fold of Islam'.  Trouble is, these same people would say the same about people like yourself, or other moderate Muslim people.  So much do they believe in their own principles and convictions, that they have no compunction against killing for it.  They would happily kill people like you; for, to them, you would be an apostate; they would kill non-Muslims like myself and (I'm assuming) many of the other posters on this thread because we are non-believers.  This is why I said in a previous post that Islam and terrorism are often seen as synonymous - because members of these groups self-identify as Muslim, and to people who do not know any better, that is the same thing.  You seem to be quite intelligent, so surely you must understand this. Unfortunately, there are few counter-narratives from the moderates of Islam in the mainstream that are definitive, and therefore strong enough to destroy the credibility of 'extremists'.
> 
> As I understand it - _as it has been explained to me by many scholars on the topic_ - the basic issue with the divide between mainstream, moderate Islam and the ultra-conservative, extremist version of Islam (salafist, wahabbi, deobandi, etc.) is the interpretation of the Qu'ran and Hadiths and the proper application of what is written in these texts.  *From what I've gathered*, the prophet Mohammed is essentially a by-product of the culture prevalent in his geographical location and era, this being the 7th century Middle East region.  What he writes and taught his followers was 'the word of God/Allah' in accordance with cultural mores that were commonplace, and thus the norm, in HIS TIME.  Today, a lot of these teachings are, to say the least, incompatible with most modern societies - acts alluding to essentially rape, paedophilia, murder, theft, etc.; acts specifically outlined in the Qu'ran - as they are at the very least seen as socially unacceptable, being detrimental to the harmony of society (also, ostensibly, because they are illegal).  The divide occurs where the the mainstream moderates have decided NOT to follow these particular teachings and decided to live in harmony with everyone else, whereas the extremists believe the aforementioned teachings are still relevant today and acceptable under various cirumstances.
> 
> If I'm wrong, *please* enlighten me.  I'm sure there are many here lurking or reading this thread that would like to get the real story.
> 
> This is a good conversation, however.  Like I said, I usually don't post much here, but I'm all for stuff like this.  People should be having constructive discussion on this issue way more often.  Unfortunately, political correctness and ideological bias tends to obscure or impede this.
> 
> If any of you have a couple hours to spare, and have not seen this yet, I've posted a link below to a recent debate/discussion on this sort of topic.  Many good points brought up and articulated by both sides.  Whether you agree or disagree with any of the panelists, at the end of the day, it is good that these types of frank discussions can still be had.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rh34Xsq7D_A



Types of Scholars
http://askimam.org/public/question_detail/4772.html

Who is allowed to be called a scholar
https://islamqa.info/en/145071

rape
https://islamqa.info/en/72338

paedophilia
http://www.askimam.org/public/question_detail/17300

murder
http://islamqa.org/hanafi/seekersguidance-hanafi/32755

 theft
http://islamqa.org/hanafi/daruliftaa/8336

Honor killings
http://askimam.org/public/question_detail/18642

I enquire as to which scholars you have talked to, that have led you to believe these things were permissible or ever practiced within Islam.

Secondarily, I guess ill adjust what I am saying. Just because someone selfs identify as something, doesnt make him that. These people may self identify as Muslims, but it does not necessarily mean they are all Muslims. So on the grounds of historical teachings that they alleged to follow, we can use that as proof against them and then just consider them another twisted group seeking power. Or adversely we can use what the vast majority say as evidence and denounce them that way. Either way I acknowledge this conundrum and dont expect resolution and I realize your points.

Oh, your definetly right about them wanting me dead. If we were all in a room together, id probably be offed first by these fools.

At work, i think i covered it. if not good using sites i use and it will likely give you my opinion.

Abdullah


----------



## Good2Golf

So was Timothy McVeigh still a Christian after he and Terry Nichols killed 168 Americans in Oklahoma City?

If the answer in one's mind is "yes," then by similarity (in one's mind, whomever's it is) a Muslim who acts I contravention to the Qu'ran or its Hadiths, would remain a remain a Muslin.  That does not, however, necessarily mean that according to a "proprietary religion's" doctrine, that someone who contravenes the religion's edicts, cannot be seen, in the eyes of THAT religion, to no longer be a true, practicing (compliant) member.  That is to say, that the court of public opinion's position on whether a Christian contravening Christian edicts, or Islam's position on a Muslin contravening Islamic edicts, may not necessarily align with the respective teligion's position. 

Abdullah, is there such a tool in Islam as, for example, Roman Catholicism has in excommunication?

Regards
G2G


----------



## opcougar

Hmmmm....same can be asked of priests that abuse kids, teachers (both male and female) that abuse students





			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> *So was Timothy McVeigh still a Christian after he and Terry Nichols killed 168 Americans in Oklahoma City?
> *
> If the answer in one's mind is "yes," then by similarity (in one's mind, whomever's it is) a Muslim who acts I contravention to the Qu'ran or its Hadiths, would remain a remain a Muslin.  That does not, however, necessarily mean that according to a "proprietary religion's" doctrine, that someone who contravenes the religion's edicts, cannot be seen, in the eyes of THAT religion, to no longer be a true, practicing (compliant) member.  That is to say, that the court of public opinion's position on whether a Christian contravening Christian edicts, or Islam's position on a Muslin contravening Islamic edicts, may not necessarily align with the respective teligion's position.
> 
> Abdullah, is there such a tool in Islam as, for example, Roman Catholicism has in excommunication?
> 
> Regards
> G2G


----------



## opcougar

My guess...it's a job that not many people are willing to get into for a myriad of reasons, yet the few bad apples in the profession give majority a bad name.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/eastern-ontario-teacher-charged-1.3457095



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> How did we end up with so many idiots teaching our kids? :facepalm:


----------



## Jarnhamar

When I heard Donald Trump said he wanted to ban Muslims coming in to the US I chalked it up as him just trying shock people.  I caught a clip of him on Jimmy Fallon, who asks him about that statement, and Trumps explination seemed pretty solid to me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GBnxfTkICs


----------



## AbdullahD

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> So was Timothy McVeigh still a Christian after he and Terry Nichols killed 168 Americans in Oklahoma City?
> 
> If the answer in one's mind is "yes," then by similarity (in one's mind, whomever's it is) a Muslim who acts I contravention to the Qu'ran or its Hadiths, would remain a remain a Muslin.  That does not, however, necessarily mean that according to a "proprietary religion's" doctrine, that someone who contravenes the religion's edicts, cannot be seen, in the eyes of THAT religion, to no longer be a true, practicing (compliant) member.  That is to say, that the court of public opinion's position on whether a Christian contravening Christian edicts, or Islam's position on a Muslin contravening Islamic edicts, may not necessarily align with the respective teligion's position.
> 
> Abdullah, is there such a tool in Islam as, for example, Roman Catholicism has in excommunication?
> 
> Regards
> G2G



Hi G2G

I remember from my days as a babtist missionary(trip during high school to Mexico), something about "thou shall not kill", which I understand to translate to "thou shall not murder or maim". So he obviously transgressed the Christian laws of God, thus rendering himself as a non-Believer. as per my knowledge, if im wrong please forgive me, I have no right to be giving Christian rulings since I left christianity.

So now in the eyes of religious people he is not a christian, but the court of public opinion will still crucify Christians for it. In an ideal world, I would love that things would be judged how they are and not used for any kinds of agenda. He obviously took himself out of the fold of Christianity so he has no right to be called a Christian. Exactly like the daesh extremists who do acts taking them out of the fold of Islam, but im afraid its a lost cause trying to realize this in the broader world.

Now you have brought up the question of excommunication, which we do not have an exact copy of. We do have a mechanism that works though, which to look at the acts that the extremist groups do and if those acts render a person a non-Muslim then we "can" label a person a kafr. I urge people to review my post about calling people kafr, because if you call someone a kafr who is not a kafr... it is very bad for you as a Muslim.

Now having said that Mufti Aasim from Surrey, did a lecture were he labelled them kafr I believe. Shayk Yusuf Badat from Toronto sent a letter  (fatawa), along with many other Ulema denouncing their actions to them etc etc etc. So yes we have denounced them as un-Islamic essentially excommunicating them... but now were back to the self identify issue. so most of the Islamic world has provided proofs for them to be Kafr's and yet they still call themselves Muslims, if only mainstream media would say "Kafr Extremists" instead of "Muslim Extremists"... but thats to much, but changing that perception could do a lot of good and potentially hinder recruitiment.

Link about Kufr and apostasy 
http://islamqa.org/hanafi/darululoomtt/52188

I hope that answers it. If we had a proper caliphate, that could properly "excommunicate" these extremist and legitimately mobilize the Muslim nation to fight them it would help a lot... but without a caliphate we lack a central governing body. A caliphate could set up binding treaties with all non-Muslims state, combat this as a unified body (thus being more effective) etc etc. Also I note, you cant just declare yourself a Caliph the majority of Scholars in the world need to accept you as the leader of the Muslim nation... which with the current state of the Islamic world, is highly unlikely.

Abdullah


----------



## Good2Golf

Abdullah, thanks for the further explanation.  I won't try to speak for the others, but I saw you being taken to task for calling the Da'esh non-muslim, so the first part of my query was not so much to you, as it was to others who seemed to perhaps place greater focus on extremism in Islam vs extremism in any religion, including Christianity, which one would have a hard time to condemn the actions of the extremist domestic terrorists.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Brad Sallows

Islam doesn't require any intermediaries between the faithful and God, so caliphs - and for that matter, imams - are beside the point.  It isn't given to any mortal to decide who is or is not a Muslim - that is God's to decide.

The template is recognizable, and has been repeatedly discredited despite overuse during the 70 Years War.  The impetus: a political system which requires people to release some (often much) of their personal autonomy, liberty, and sometimes property.  People are for the most part disinclined to accept it.  The Wise Leader is not particularly patient, so it must be established, maintained, and promulgated at swordpoint.  Some of the adherents dislike guilt by association, so the apologia and anti-defamation propaganda commence, going something like the following.

1. Those people are not true Communists Muslims.
2. Here are some selected quotations and passages from Marx the Koran to support (1).
3. Here are some more selected quotations and passages from selected scholars of Marx the Koran to lend weight to (2) and (1).

When the obviously necessary premise - that there must exist an absolute frame of reference from which to determine who should be recognized as an authority - is removed, the "four legs good, two legs bad" (aka "lalala-I-can't-hear-you") bleating ensues.

To the faithful, Islam is the true faith.  To others, it is merely a political system created to serve political purposes - essentially a Jewish heresy, spread primarily by conquest.  With respect to that latter point, the militants might be truer Muslims than contemporary reformers; the latter are more likely to be - if not by definition - diverging from the original than converging upon it.

[You could substitute Christianity for Islam in the first two sentences of the preceding paragraph.]


----------



## Kat Stevens

Not to be a Richard about this, but we live in a day and age where it's accepted, soon to be mandatory, to self declare yourself to be anything you want.  If I prefer to be called a gender fluid bisexual mongoose, then dammit, you better accept that. Why all of a sudden when it comes to religion, and whichever imaginary friend I decide I'm a devotee of, do others get to tell me what I am or am not?


----------



## a_majoor

I'm going to go back to AbdullahD's earlier post where he talks about how it is easy to essentially bamboozle people into radicalism. While this may be true (poor and ignorant people often don't have the frames of reference to see beyond the immediate arguments), the drivers and followers of many of these radical movements are _NOT_ poor and ignorant.

Osama Bin Laden was a wealthy man from a privileged family, and so are many of the other leaders of radical groups. The Saudi princes and Emirate sheiks who finance radical massadras and ISIS are, by any standard, fabulously privileged and wealthy. The suicide pilots from 9-11 were from generally "middle class" backgrounds, and self radicalizing people in the West are also often from middle class to privileged backgrounds. They most certainly proclaim and regard themselves as observant Muslims.

So my question is what in the teachings of Islam is attracting these people to the very intolerant and violent interpretations of the religion and texts?


----------



## AbdullahD

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Not to be a Richard about this, but we live in a day and age where it's accepted, soon to be mandatory, to self declare yourself to be anything you want.  If I prefer to be called a gender fluid bisexual mongoose, then dammit, you better accept that. Why all of a sudden when it comes to religion, and whichever imaginary friend I decide I'm a devotee of, do others get to tell me what I am or am not?



Dear gender fluid bisexual mongoose;

Do you have the ability to prove that you are such? would you be able to change from male to female for me, bodily? can i attach monitors to you to watch your sexual reaction to the sexes to prove that you are bisexual? can I compare your anatomy and characteristics to that of a mongoose?

The crux of my argument is that there are simple, legitimate, authenticated and accepted actions that take a person outside of the fold of Islam. So we must react to what we can observe in this world, if the person does have iman then it is up to Allah/God to sort him out. But we Must act upon what is apparent to us.

So use the links provided to understand what constitutes kufr.

Just like im sure I could prove you are a Human, that is not gender fluid. BiSexual I give you, that is fine. the others are not realistically argueable... albeit very amusing to picture.

Abdullah


----------



## AbdullahD

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I'm going to go back to AbdullahD's earlier post where he talks about how it is easy to essentially bamboozle people into radicalism. While this may be true (poor and ignorant people often don't have the frames of reference to see beyond the immediate arguments), the drivers and followers of many of these radical movements are _NOT_ poor and ignorant.
> 
> Osama Bin Laden was a wealthy man from a privileged family, and so are many of the other leaders of radical groups. The Saudi princes and Emirate sheiks who finance radical massadras and ISIS are, by any standard, fabulously privileged and wealthy. The suicide pilots from 9-11 were from generally "middle class" backgrounds, and self radicalizing people in the West are also often from middle class to privileged backgrounds. They most certainly proclaim and regard themselves as observant Muslims.
> 
> So my question is what in the teachings of Islam is attracting these people to the very intolerant and violent interpretations of the religion and texts?



Yes I complete agree, this is much more complex then just random ignorant people being radicalized. the reasons for the educated and or wealthy to do this is another discussion.

If we can find out why people radicalize and address the root issue, we can hopefully solve this horrendous issue.

Abdullah


----------



## Kat Stevens

AbdullahD said:
			
		

> Dear gender fluid bisexual mongoose;
> 
> Do you have the ability to prove that you are such? would you be able to change from male to female for me, bodily? can i attach monitors to you to watch your sexual reaction to the sexes to prove that you are bisexual? can I compare your anatomy and characteristics to that of a mongoose?
> 
> The crux of my argument is that there are simple, legitimate, authenticated and accepted actions that take a person outside of the fold of Islam. So we must react to what we can observe in this world, if the person does have iman then it is up to Allah/God to sort him out. But we Must act upon what is apparent to us.
> 
> So use the links provided to understand what constitutes kufr.
> 
> Just like im sure I could prove you are a Human, that is not gender fluid. BiSexual I give you, that is fine. the others are not realistically argueable... albeit very amusing to picture.
> 
> Abdullah



The point is that in this new modern age of political correctness, you're not supposed to be able to tell anyone what they identify themselves as.  That's the wonder of 21st century.  In a time when we are no longer able to tell people what bathroom they must use, you also can't tell them what religion they follow. The Pope may be able to kick me out of his club, but he can't tell me I'm not a Christian.  There are 27.39 kajillion offshoots and sects of all the major religions, because they don't fit the rules of your small club, doesn't mean they don't see themselves as true believers, and are willing to face their version of their deity on their final day.  That's all I'm trying to get across. There are three versions of "The Truth", yours, mine, and the one guy who isn't telling.


----------



## a_majoor

AbdullahD said:
			
		

> Dear gender fluid bisexual mongoose;
> 
> Do you have the ability to prove that you are such? would you be able to change from male to female for me, bodily? can i attach monitors to you to watch your sexual reaction to the sexes to prove that you are bisexual? can I compare your anatomy and characteristics to that of a mongoose?
> 
> The crux of my argument is that there are simple, legitimate, authenticated and accepted actions that take a person outside of the fold of Islam. So we must react to what we can observe in this world, if the person does have iman then it is up to Allah/God to sort him out. But we Must act upon what is apparent to us.
> 
> So use the links provided to understand what constitutes kufr.
> 
> Just like im sure I could prove you are a Human, that is not gender fluid. BiSexual I give you, that is fine. the others are not realistically argueable... albeit very amusing to picture.
> 
> Abdullah



Not to put too fine a point to it, but in Canada it would actually be considered a violation of the Human Rights code to question anyone's "self identification", much less attempt to rely on objective evidence, scientific observations etc. to dispute their "self identification". Despite the fact you see a penis, can demonstrate an x-y chromosome and authentic sexual responses when a picture of a naked woman is displayed, if the person in front of you declares they are a woman, by gum you will treat them as a woman, open the woman's rest room and not bat an eye or the Human Rights Kangaroo court will come down and render a very real decision against you (backed by the courts).

The same sorts of arguments are in force when trying to discuss religion, philosophy or even politics in the post modern West. In many ways I actually agree with you -you are _not_ "x" just because you _say_ you are - but that isn't going to wash in academia, the media or the courts these days.

OTOH, if you are going to loudly proclaim you are a follower of a certain belief system and that belief system compells you to do certain things, then it is difficult to dispute that you are indeed a follower of that system, particularly when you are not just "one of one". Tens of thousands of people streaming into the self proclaimed Caliphate to follow "authentic" Islamic treachings are certainly not a good argument to say "they are not Muslims". They certainly consider themselves devout Muslims, and as noted upthread, would violently attack you as an apostate (along with followers of the Shiite and Sufi branches of Islam).


----------



## AbdullahD

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Not to put too fine a point to it, but in Canada it would actually be considered a violation of the Human Rights code to question anyone's "self identification", much less attempt to rely on objective evidence, scientific observations etc. to dispute their "self identification". Despite the fact you see a penis, can demonstrate an x-y chromosome and authentic sexual responses when a picture of a naked woman is displayed, if the person in front of you declares they are a woman, by gum you will treat them as a woman, open the woman's rest room and not bat an eye or the Human Rights Kangaroo court will come down and render a very real decision against you (backed by the courts).
> 
> The same sorts of arguments are in force when trying to discuss religion, philosophy or even politics in the post modern West. In many ways I actually agree with you -you are _not_ "x" just because you _say_ you are - but that isn't going to wash in academia, the media or the courts these days.
> 
> OTOH, if you are going to loudly proclaim you are a follower of a certain belief system and that belief system compells you to do certain things, then it is difficult to dispute that you are indeed a follower of that system, particularly when you are not just "one of one". Tens of thousands of people streaming into the self proclaimed Caliphate to follow "authentic" Islamic treachings are certainly not a good argument to say "they are not Muslims". They certainly consider themselves devout Muslims, and as noted upthread, would violently attack you as an apostate (along with followers of the Shiite and Sufi branches of Islam).



Thucydides

I honestly did not know that about the human rights courts in Canada, Thank you for enlightening me. That does complicate the problem, not being able to use that tack could be problematic  (albeit ill doubt anyone will cry to loudly calling extremists kafr). Albeit it will protect shias, sufis etc nicely.

btw this hate they have for Sufi's, confounds me because the ideology Sufi's follow is actually obligatory for all Muslims to follow. They simply try to ignore their earthly desires to get closer to God and we are told to do that by our prophet to whatever extent we can.

Yea, us "normal" Muslims have an uphill battle to fight by an opponent that seemingly has us out flanked, out gunned and out manned. I'll keep banging my head against the wall and who knows maybe one day it will come down.

Thanks for your knowledge. Now im back to the drawing board I think.

Abdullah


----------



## Rick Goebel

Just a point on someone telling you that you are no longer a Christian/Muslim.

Nobody can tell a Christian he is no longer a Christian.  Even in the highly hierarchical Roman Catholic church, excommunication means that a person will be denied the sacraments.  An excommunicated Roman Catholic is still a Roman Catholic and still has a duty to attend mass but cannot receive the sacrament.  In fact, while change has recently been discussed, it at least recently was Roman Catholic policy to deny communion to divorced and civilly remarried people.  These people have always been encouraged to still attend church.

Islam may be different but I don't know.


----------



## CougarKing

Meanwhile, in Australia...

Australia Channel 7 News



> *Islamist fundamentalist group Hizb ut-Tahrir found guilty of gender discrimination*
> 
> Bryan Seymour
> March 4, 2016, 6:52 pm
> 
> *A Radical Muslim group has been found guilty of discriminating against women after making them sit at the back of public meetings.*
> 
> The landmark finding came after a Sydney woman took on the global political party Hizb ut-Tahrir.
> 
> The group will now be forced to mend their ways.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

This comes after Syrian refugees were pepper-sprayed in Vancouver late last year:

Vancity Buzz



> *Islamophobia hotline launches in Vancouver*
> BY
> VANCITY BUZZ STAFF
> 1:57 PM PST, WED MARCH 09, 2016
> 
> A free and confidential Islamophobia Legal Assistance Hotline was launched today by Vancouver’s legal community.
> 
> “Islamophobia can be experienced in many different ways,” said Sarah Khan, staff lawyer at the B.C. Public Interest Advocacy Centre in a press release. “We have heard reports of harassment, violent attacks, racial profiling, property destruction and threats from across the country. Islamophobia affects everyday Canadians as they go about their lives, their schooling and their work. As a legal community, it is our duty to pull together and ensure that people who affected by this racism are able to protect their rights.”
> 
> The hotline will be run by the Access Pro Bono Society of BC, a non-profit organization that assists individuals of limited means to obtain free legal services.
> 
> 
> “We want to help empower people to respond to this discrimination by making legal support more easily available,” said Aleem Bharmal, Executive Director of the Community Legal Assistance Society. “Many people who experience this sort of discrimination may not even know that there might be legal options available to respond… We want to make sure people can get the advice that they need.”
> 
> The hotline has been set up just months after Syrian refugees were pepper sprayed at a welcome event in Vancouver, and the team behind the hotline says that they will be documenting calls to better understand the scope of the problem in British Columbia.
> 
> The hotline number is 604-343-3828 and you can also find out more at islamophobiahotline.ca.


----------



## PuckChaser

But yet the barbaric practices hotline was silly? There's a good way to handle both incidents, call the police.


----------



## AbdullahD

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> But yet the barbaric practices hotline was silly? There's a good way to handle both incidents, call the police.



It is interesting, I disagree with both hotlines. One because it seemed to target minorites and the other because it is exclusive. 

I honestly shake my head at the short sighted views people have. This hotline MAY give benefit to Muslims, who are suffering from legitimate problems of Rascism etc. But in the long term it will create divisions between peoples, Why on earth didnt they market it for all peoples suffering from Rascism, antisemitism and Islamophobia etc... Instead they have now given ammo to people who wish to ostracize Muslims.

I wish they would have created a Harassment HotLine, something were Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians ETC could use if they were having problems. Sure, have Muslims make it, but market it to the other ethnic, religious and social groups. That way all these minorites could realize Muslims wish to help too.

If they were really wise, they could have given it a psuedo Islamic sounding name to normalize Islam within society so people dont get scared hearing Islamic sounding names. Because I hate to say it, a lot of people fear what they dont know.

But alas in my opinion this thing that does some small good for the Muslim community, may end up hurting Muslims more then it helps and I believe in my opinion only it was a wasted opportunity to do a greater good and help Islams reputation in Canada. But maybe I missed something and men wiser then I already considered and discarded this idea.

Abdullah


----------



## George Wallace

Here is an interesting video of Raheel Raza on the Bill Maher Show.  A brilliant lady.  She has authored a paper at the PEW Research Center on "The World's Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society".  

Video is full interview with the Canadian Muslim journalist Raheel Raza 'On Islam & Muslim Honour Killings' on the  Bill Maher Show of March 4th, 2016.

https://www.facebook.com/nevereveragainever/videos/573648132801385/


----------



## ArmyRick

That was a good video and I think it was spot on. It covers it from both sides,  one lets not lump all Muslims as evil terrorist (that is bigotry) but also asks tough questions of the Islamic world to acknowledge the terrorism being done in it's name and maybe time for modern reformations.


----------



## CougarKing

Even though the Sultan of Brunei has put a ban on Christmas in his country, some of Brunei's laws on women are pretty tame compared to Saudi Arabia:

Yahoo Daily Buzz



> *All-female crew makes landing in country that forbids women from driving*
> [The Daily Buzz]
> 
> March 14, 2016
> 
> An all-female flight crew recently landed a plane in Saudi Arabia — a country that forbids women from driving.
> 
> The flight took place on Feb. 23 and was operated by Royal Brunei Airlines. At the helm were Captain Sharifah Czarena, Senior First Officer Sariana and Senior First Officer Dk Nadiah.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

From last week:

Inside Edition/Yahoo News



> *Arab-American Family Outraged After Getting Kicked Off Flight*
> 
> Inside Edition
> April 2, 2016
> 
> A Muslim family from Chicago was outraged recently after they say they were forced off a United Airlines flight for "safety reasons."
> 
> Eaman-Amy Saad Shebley took her anger to social media, where she reportedly posted video of a flight attendant asking her, her husband and three kids to deplane for no apparent reason.
> 
> *The incident occurred after Shebley asked a flight attendant about five-point harnesses for the kids, WDIV reports.
> 
> The flight attendant said she had no idea what the mother was talking about and the family was soon lead off the plane*.
> 
> “Shame on you United Airlines for profiling my family for no reason than how we look," wrote Shebley, who wears a hijab. "My three kids are too young to have experienced this.”
> 
> The video can no longer be viewed on Facebook.
> 
> After getting off the plane,* the family contacted customer service, who apologized and rebooked them on a new flight to Washington, DC. *They also filed a complaint.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I'm going to go back to AbdullahD's earlier post where he talks about how it is easy to essentially bamboozle people into radicalism. While this may be true (poor and ignorant people often don't have the frames of reference to see beyond the immediate arguments), the drivers and followers of many of these radical movements are _NOT_ poor and ignorant.
> 
> Osama Bin Laden was a wealthy man from a privileged family, and so are many of the other leaders of radical groups. The Saudi princes and Emirate sheiks who finance radical massadras and ISIS are, by any standard, fabulously privileged and wealthy. The suicide pilots from 9-11 were from generally "middle class" backgrounds, and self radicalizing people in the West are also often from middle class to privileged backgrounds. They most certainly proclaim and regard themselves as observant Muslims.
> 
> So my question is what in the teachings of Islam is attracting these people to the very intolerant and violent interpretations of the religion and texts?



I came across one explanation by an ex-muslim scholar: Basically Islam creates a superiority complex, coupled with an expectation of submission (only to allah and Muslims leaders). The Koran and hadiths are quite clear that the expectation is that the Muslim is on top and any other situation is temporary and needs to be fixed. So being ruled or led by a non-Muslim automatically is considered humiliating, even more so for the educated Muslim. The Submission angle allows the tribal/political/religious leaders a large amount of control over the uneducated Muslim and the combo allows them to feel humiliated and then easily stoked into angry outbreaks, such as rioting and lynching. Basically the mob becomes the "rownshirts" of the Islamic movement, controlled through friday prayers and sermons. It's this mob that keeps anyone from speaking out against the radical Imams. The real battle for Islam has taken place in the Mosques, the radical Sunni's from the Gulf have had a 30 year and 8 billion head start on the rest of the world.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Maybe we should hire PQ insiders hacks to help develop a strategy: They know all there is to know about everything being "automatically considered a humiliation".  ;D


----------



## jollyjacktar

A survey of some of the Muslims living in the UK.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3532355/More-half-Muslims-want-gay-sex-outlawed-nearly-quarter-support-areas-UK-run-sharia-law.html?offset=300&max=100&jumpTo=comment-122192740#comment-122192740


----------



## AbdullahD

Colin P said:
			
		

> I came across one explanation by an ex-muslim scholar: Basically Islam creates a superiority complex, coupled with an expectation of submission (only to allah and Muslims leaders). The Koran and hadiths are quite clear that the expectation is that the Muslim is on top and any other situation is temporary and needs to be fixed. So being ruled or led by a non-Muslim automatically is considered humiliating, even more so for the educated Muslim. The Submission angle allows the tribal/political/religious leaders a large amount of control over the uneducated Muslim and the combo allows them to feel humiliated and then easily stoked into angry outbreaks, such as rioting and lynching. Basically the mob becomes the "rownshirts" of the Islamic movement, controlled through friday prayers and sermons. It's this mob that keeps anyone from speaking out against the radical Imams. The real battle for Islam has taken place in the Mosques, the radical Sunni's from the Gulf have had a 30 year and 8 billion head start on the rest of the world.



I was reading something from Mufti Abu Layth I think it was and he was addressing this "superiority" complex we have as a nation. Ah good found it, ill quote it below. It was him addressing saudi's forcing football players to cut there hair on the side of the field. So many Ahadiths talk about how Muslims shouldn't think they are better then everyone else, but because some talk about how great Muslims are or this or that we forget all the other ones about how the most qualified people should get the positions and how we should be humble of respectful etc.

I personally think that until Muslims start following real Islam, these problems are just going to get a lot worse. So many people leave Islam or hate it because of cultural things, not religious things and it is sad.

gotta go but here it is.
Abdullah

[quote author=MuftiAbuLayth]You couldn't make this stuff up if you tried!! 😂😂

To any who've wondered why Islam is being ridiculed the way it is...well, because those we've allowed to lead it...live in caves!! 

'Nonesense, control-obsessions, double-standards, misogyny, tribalism, culturalism, insecurities,mental-retardation'...when will such behaviour subside?... i wonder!

I guess till the #VoiceOfReason becomes loud enough...we'll just have to enjoy the circus! 

#WhenImamsHaveTheMentalAgeOf5!
#NoToControlFreakMonopoly
#WeNeedCommunitiesNotCaves![/quote]


----------



## Remius

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> A survey of some of the Muslims living in the UK.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3532355/More-half-Muslims-want-gay-sex-outlawed-nearly-quarter-support-areas-UK-run-sharia-law.html?offset=300&max=100&jumpTo=comment-122192740#comment-122192740



I find it funny when we point to things like muslims opposing gay sex.  Until the 70's you could be arrested in Canada for that.  As well many of the Bible Belt states in the US are legislating discriminatory laws against homosexuals as we speak.  Even the CPC currently has policies that are considered anti-gay. 

I don't think it is merely something that can be attributable to Muslims, rather more to those with more conservative mindsets. 

Sharia law though, no thanks.


----------



## mariomike

Remius said:
			
		

> I find it funny when we point to things like muslims opposing gay sex.  Until the 70's you could be arrested in Canada for that.



1980's,

"Operation Soap was a raid by the Metropolitan Toronto Police against four gay bathhouses in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, which took place on February 5, 1981. More than three hundred men were arrested, the largest mass arrest in Canada since the 1970 October crisis, before the record was broken during the 2006 Stanley Cup Playoffs in Edmonton, Alberta."

References:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Soap#References

Toronto Star:
https://canadianhistorycomesout.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/3000_riot.jpg
"3,000 go on rampage in Metro riot."


----------



## Colin Parkinson

AbdullahD said:
			
		

> I was reading something from Mufti Abu Layth I think it was and he was addressing this "superiority" complex we have as a nation. Ah good found it, ill quote it below. It was him addressing saudi's forcing football players to cut there hair on the side of the field. So many Ahadiths talk about how Muslims shouldn't think they are better then everyone else, but because some talk about how great Muslims are or this or that we forget all the other ones about how the most qualified people should get the positions and how we should be humble of respectful etc.
> 
> I personally think that until Muslims start following real Islam, these problems are just going to get a lot worse. So many people leave Islam or hate it because of cultural things, not religious things and it is sad.
> 
> gotta go but here it is.
> Abdullah



The painful reality is that most of what goes on is in the Koran, Hadiths and body of law. The bible is no better. However the big difference is that the majority of Christians have moved on from literal interpretations and taken up a purely personal spiritual view. That can’t happen in Islam because Islam as practiced in any majority Islamic country is all about being in control of the physical realm. Until Islam lets go of the legal and state functions, these problems will persists. Since massive infrastructure and people are involved in creating physical control of people using Islam, it’s highly unlikely they will let it go without massive bloodshed.


----------



## Loachman

Remius said:
			
		

> I find it funny when we point to things like muslims opposing gay sex.  Until the 70's you could be arrested in Canada for that.



"Sexual Deviancy" was an offence in the NDA in the 1970s and probably well beyond. I do not remember when it was removed.

I wish that "Dumb Insolence" would be returned, though - just because it's a fun-sounding charge.


----------



## jollyjacktar

SIU were still looking into that into the late 80's maybe early 90's. IIRC


----------



## AbdullahD

Colin P said:
			
		

> The painful reality is that most of what goes on is in the Koran, Hadiths and body of law. The bible is no better. However the big difference is that the majority of Christians have moved on from literal interpretations and taken up a purely personal spiritual view. That can’t happen in Islam because Islam as practiced in any majority Islamic country is all about being in control of the physical realm. Until Islam lets go of the legal and state functions, these problems will persists. Since massive infrastructure and people are involved in creating physical control of people using Islam, it’s highly unlikely they will let it go without massive bloodshed.



Well, I agree that Christianity has evolved, but Islam has regressed. If we were to practice the spirit of Islam like the sahaba did, it would be better... but instead we are literalist. I dont think Muslims need seperation of state and church, hmmm, that sounds wrong. What I mean is, Islam has a political side of it, that should be realized.. But, the way the political side is practiced today is wrong. Umar ra if I am not wrong appointed qualified politicians to lead the state side and qualified scholars to lead the religious side... Just because a person is a religious scholar doesnt mean he is an adept politician...

Anywho a cool read on how the Sahaba followed the Sharia.

http://www.myislaam.com/fiqh/istihsan/

Abdullah


----------



## Jed

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> SIU were still looking into that into the late 80's maybe early 90's. IIRC



They sure didn't think it was a thing to joke about to the south of us in the early ninrties.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Jed said:
			
		

> They sure didn't think it was a thing to joke about to the south of us in the early ninrties.


_Still_ the case in some parts south of us.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The regression of Islam can be most recently traced to the influence of the Gulf states and oil money to fund mosque building and the installation of radical Whabbis/Safi Imams. I would say that this really took off in the late 70's. Interestingly I looked carefully at my wife's family photo albums in Malaysia. Islam arrived there in the 16th century more or less and ended up with a very relaxed Malay take on the matter. the photo's from before the 70's should little or no Islamic influence, the ones through the 70-mid 80's showed mostly Malay style clothes for women (colourful sarongs with bared shoulders), but a number of headscraves, in the 90's the Hijab started to be more common. Now almost every Malay woman wears an Hijab. Non-Muslims are being pressured to conforms to "Islamic norms"    http://www.expatgo.com/my/2015/07/03/6-controversial-dress-code-incidents-in-malaysia/

another troubling incident http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2015/04/23/cross-incident-highlights-subjective-sedition-act/

and some more http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/2014/eap/238310.htm

My wife see her country being slowly boiled like a frog and fears deeply for her non-Muslim friends and for the future of her nieces and nephews.


----------



## CougarKing

The more secular/moderate leaders gaining more influence to push this through in the Saudi kingdom?

CNN



> *Saudi Arabia strips religious police of arrest powers
> 
> *
> (CNN)Saudi Arabia has stripped its religious police of the power to arrest when carrying out duties and enforcing Islamic law.
> 
> Experts say the clarification on the kingdom's religious police's abilities to arrest will affect women the most.
> Under the new directives approved on Tuesday, members of the force -- formally known as the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice -- can no longer detain people they identify as breaking the kingdom's strict standards of moral conduct.
> *Now, the so-called Haia force must report individuals' "misbehaviors" to the police or drug police, the official Saudi Press Agency reports.*
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Maybe a sign of internal power struggles? I guess you need to see who "owns" the religious police and that may indicate who is a rising and falling star.


----------



## CougarKing

French comedian who glorifies terrorism not welcome in Montreal:

CBC



> *Dieudonné isn't welcome in Montreal, Mayor Denis Coderre says*
> French comedian has several convictions for violating hate speech laws in Europe
> 
> By Benjamin Shingler, CBC News Posted: Apr 22, 2016 7:31 AM ET
> 
> Dieudonné M'bala M'bala, the controversial French comedian who routinely makes jokes about gas chambers and has publicly denied the Holocaust, isn't welcome in Montreal, Mayor Denis Coderre says.
> 
> The controversial French comedian, who performs as Dieudonné, is booked to play 10 shows in the city next month.
> 
> On Twitter on Friday, Coderre accused Dieudonné of inciting social tension and racial hatred in Europe.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## jollyjacktar

Shouldn't let him into the country,  nevermind Montreal.


----------



## AbdullahD

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Shouldn't let him into the country,  nevermind Montreal.



Amen to that, you have to be a special kind of pig to joke about gas chambers and make light of terrorism.

People like this disgust me, no matter who they are.

Abdullah


----------



## CougarKing

London's version of Calgary's Mayor Naheed Nenshi?

London's new mayor is the complete opposite of Donald Trump, or so the mainstream media says.

New York Times



> *Sadiq Khan vs. Donald Trump*
> [Roger Cohen]
> 
> Roger Cohen MAY 9, 2016
> 
> The most important political event of recent weeks was not the emergence of Donald J. Trump as the presumptive presidential nominee of the Republican Party but the election of Sadiq Khan, the Muslim son of a London bus driver, as mayor of London.
> 
> Trump has not won any kind of political office yet, but Khan, the Labour Party candidate, crushed Zac Goldsmith, a Conservative, to take charge of one of the world’s great cities, a vibrant metropolis where every tongue is heard. In his victory, a triumph over the slurs that tried to tie him to Islamist extremism, Khan stood up for openness against isolationism, integration against confrontation, opportunity for all against racism and misogyny. He was the anti-Trump.
> 
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

A controversy from last week:

CBC



> *Arabic writing on police cruisers in London, Ont., angers Americans*
> 'People are just screaming at me,' Const. Sandasha Bough says
> 
> By Alex Brockman, CBC News Posted: Jun 03, 2016 12:00 PM ET Last Updated: Jun 03, 2016 2:49 PM ET
> 
> Police in London, Ont., are being forced to defend decals on patrol cars that have the word "police" written in a number of different languages, including Arabic, which is the one that has angered some people.
> 
> Although the decals have been on London Police Service cruisers for at least nine years, a recent Facebook post about Arabic writing on patrol car has resulted in many angry phone calls from Americans upset over the apparent "Islamization of Canada." The post was picked up by a conservative American blog site that also published the phone number for London police.
> 
> "Headquarters has been getting calls like crazy," Const. Sandasha Bough said. "Some of them are being patched up to me and people are just screaming at me."
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## George Wallace

This has matter has been posted in various forums.  Police forces in Canada have been doing similar acts for years.  It was done when Vietnamese refugees arrived.  It has been done when large groups of refugees have arrived so that they can recognize, what many of us seem to recognize as an "international" word like the "STOP" sign, "POLICE" (in its' various spelling).  A totally overblown case of ignorance on the part of a few.


----------



## CougarKing

A rapist gets no jail time: 

AFP via Yahoo News



> *Qatar hands suspended sentence to Dutch woman who made rape complaint*
> By: Agence France-Presse
> June 13, 2016 5:15 PM
> 
> DOHA, Qatar - *A Doha court on Monday convicted a Dutch woman of adultery and handed her a one-year suspended sentence after she reported being raped while on holiday in Qatar.*
> 
> The 22-year-old woman, known only as Laura and who was not in court, was also fined 3,000 Qatari riyals ($800/710 euros) and will be deported once she pays the fine, court officials said.
> 
> *The male defendant, also not in court, was given a sentence of 100 lashes for adultery and 40 lashes for consuming alcohol.
> 
> He will not serve any time in jail. *The Dutch ambassador to Qatar Yvette Burghgraef-van Eechoud, who was present in court, told reporters the embassy would help Laura leave Qatar.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

Meanwhile, all the way down under, Pauline Hanson returns:

Reuters



> *Australia's Muslim migrants on edge as race relations falter with rise of the right*
> By: Reuters
> July 30, 2016 9:15 AM
> 
> Race relations in Australia have deteriorated so badly that some community leaders fear violence will erupt in a political vacuum where the new government, elected with a bare majority, must rely on the support of parties that have fomented the discord.
> 
> The potential for violence after a bitter election campaign, which featured calls for a ban on Muslim immigration, is palpable for people like Afghan-born Muhammad Taqi Haidari.
> 
> Haidari, from Afghanistan’s Shi’ite Muslim Hazara minority, no longer tells people his name is Muhammad, preferring to use Taqi.
> 
> “When there is a problem like in Paris and now in Nice they hear the name Muhammad. They include me as one of those Muhammads,” Haidari, who lives in Sydney’s less affluent western suburbs, told Reuters.
> 
> Australia, a staunch US ally with troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, has been spared the mass violence that has become commonplace among other US allies, particularly in Europe.
> 
> In barely more than a month, scores of people have been killed in Paris, in smaller French towns such as Nice, and across Germany, many of them in attacks claimed by the militant Islamic State group.
> 
> Machete-wielding attackers and suicide bombers have also struck with devastating effect in Bangladesh and Kabul.
> 
> *In Australia, once-fringe parties such as Pauline Hanson’s One Nation, which first gained international notoriety in the late 1990s, have exploited the fear such attacks have generated by saying that Muslim immigration must be stopped.*
> 
> However, community leaders such as Stepan Kerkyasharian, a veteran former head of a government anti-discrimination board, fear their rhetoric will also generate retaliatory acts against Muslim migrants.
> 
> Potential for violence
> 
> That is an even more pressing concern after the narrow win secured by Australia’s conservative coalition in July 2 elections, which also gave a stronger voice to fringe political players like Hanson.
> 
> “The intensity and feeling has been there for some time but it has now made it into the public discourse. It would be a serious mistake to underestimate the potential for violence,” Kerkyasharian told Reuters.
> 
> “Unfortunately there has been a reluctance on the part of political leadership to engage people in rational debate and discussion on this matter,” he said.
> 
> *Race relations have threatened to erupt in the barely four weeks since Hanson secured her return to the Australian parliament. Her public appearances have attracted protesters and supporters in numbers rarely seen in Australian politics.*
> 
> Outwardly easy-going and peaceful, Australia has a troubling race relations record. The White Australia Policy, which was only dismantled in the late 1960s, favored European migrants over non-whites. Australia’s Aborigines were administered under flora and fauna laws until then and remain far behind the rest of the population in literacy, health and economic standards.
> 
> There have also been racial flashpoints before. In 2005, riots broke out in the Sydney beachside suburb of Cronulla between white residents and Lebanese from other suburbs, gaining international notoriety.
> 
> Duncan Lewis, director-general of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization, told a parliamentary committee in May that as many 59 Australians had been killed fighting with Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.
> 
> So it is not entirely surprising that many ordinary Australians, and even morning TV show presenters, have come out in favor of Hanson’s Muslim immigration ban, stirring fierce debate on prime-time television and on social media.
> 
> Her unexpectedly influential position after an indecisive election -- Hanson and a small handful of others will likely form a bloc whose vote will determine the passage or rejection of legislation -- mean that mainstream politicians ignore her at their peril.
> 
> Foreshadowing that newfound influence, Hanson released a video message on Monday after meeting Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, telling her supporters they had discussed several policies and that he was “prepared to listen to me.”
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## a_majoor

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> French comedian who glorifies terrorism not welcome in Montreal:
> 
> CBC



While I certainly understand that the man is quite the piece of work, there is no way that a politician should EVER say or do anything to violate the right of free speech.

Canadians are heirs to an 800 year old tradition of free speech (ignorant or uneducated people who thing free speech is "an American concept" really need to get out of their holes and do some research), so arbitrarily attacking someone or using the powers of the State to define what can and cannot be said goes against the most fundamental right in a liberal democracy.

There are only four classes of speech which are not protected: Libel, Slander, Sedation and Treasonous speech. If the comic is not transgressing against these, then he should be free to say whatever he wants, just like the rest of us. If his speech can be arbitrarily shut down if he is not in violation of the four classes of unprotected speech, then we are all at risk of having our free speech curtailed arbitrarily as well. The use of nebulous and undefinable criteria like "hate" or "offence" simply means that anyone can twist things to bring a complaint against anyone else, for any reason whatsoever. Quite frankly, hate crime laws and "speech codes" with undefined and undefinable conditions like "giving offence" need to be dropped immediately before they damage the foundations of liberal democracy and free and open society even further than they already are. 

If you don't like his speech, don't go to hear it. If you think what he is saying is bad, then use _your_ powers of free speech to say what is good, make better arguments and (in this case) funnier jokes.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

You think glorifying terrorism should be protected speech?

So sitting in a room in Montreal glorifying the Paris attacks should be tolerated knowing full well it is inciting the same behaviour amongst te audience?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> You think glorifying terrorism should be protected speech?
> 
> So sitting in a room in Montreal glorifying the Paris attacks should be tolerated knowing full well it is inciting the same behaviour amongst te audience?



So, when do we stop saying "You can't say that." Should we arrest people that fist pumped when bin Laden was killed? Or is it ok because it was our side that won? If you're willing to have your speech curtailed, we might be able to stop our enemies from doing it too, but it has to play to both sides equally.


----------



## Edward Campbell

recceguy said:
			
		

> So, when do we stop saying "You can't say that." Should we arrest people that fist pumped when bin Laden was killed? Or is it ok because it was our side that won? If you're willing to have your speech curtailed, we might be able to stop our enemies from doing it too, but it has to play to both sides equally.



*Exactly!* My support for free speech only matters when it is something I don't want to hear ... as long as you are saying things that don't offend me, that don't make me angry, that don't challenge my core beliefs then freedom of speech is an academic exercise, at best. But when you says things that enrage me, when you say things that make me fume and sputter then I neeed to get on my high horse and defend your right to offend me and my ideals and ideas.

Of course there are some limits, and inciting violence against others is one of them, but we have laws to deal with that.


----------



## YZT580

But is it necessary to allow someone from outside our country to come in and spout off with language and topics that quite frankly offend the majority of Canadians all in the guise of entertainment or free speech?  That seems to be more like self-abuse than it is the maintenance of free speech standards.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

recceguy said:
			
		

> So, when do we stop saying "You can't say that." Should we arrest people that fist pumped when bin Laden was killed? Or is it ok because it was our side that won? If you're willing to have your speech curtailed, we might be able to stop our enemies from doing it too, but it has to play to both sides equally.



It was okay because our side won.

Our civilization is far too timid to recognize the difference between the good guys and bad guys and call them out as such.

We already have a hate speech law, which merely needs to be expanded.


----------



## Journeyman

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> We already have a hate speech law, _which merely needs to be expanded._


In what way... and why?



By the way, Canada has several "hate speech law*s*," which have provisions addressing different circumstances.


----------



## a_majoor

No, we need to _get rid of_ hate speech laws and "speech codes".

Using arbitrary, undefined and undefinable criteria simply means you have given the State an arbitrary tool to wield against those who they choose to prosecute. The most infamous example is the Human Rights Kangaroo courts, which attempted to prosecute Mark Styen and Ezra Levant for repeating what an Iman said, while refusing a complaint against another Iman who was explicitly calling for violence against Christians and Jews. Evidently someone calling for you to be killed or hurt isn't "offensive" or "hateful" if you are not in the right spot on the hierarchy of victimhood.

As Edward says, freedom of speech is only academic if it means freedom to say what I already agree with. (Political Correctness is the attempt to stifle speech that SJW's _don't_ agree with and take entire topics off the table for discussion and debate).

Like I said upthread, the best defense against bad speech is _better_ speech, and if you cannot muster arguments against bad speech them maybe you need to examine your premise (why is that "bad" speech) or exercise your God given talents more to become a proper Free Speecher and make your case. Becoming a Brownshirt and using force to stop people speaking isn't the direction we should be wanting to go.


----------



## Jarnhamar

The way we're going it feels like free speech will be whatever social media decides is allowable.

A bit off topic but regarding free speech I was reading something that stuck out to me.  Some gay conservative shit disturber recently got banned from Twitter for apparently starting a movie review of the new shitty Ghostbusters that turned racist (I don't even think he made the comments himself). What struck me is the commentary about how this guy got banned yet twitter is full of pro ISIS, death to the infidels tweets as well as a shit ton of KILL PIGS tweets from black lives matter dummies.

As far as Islam in the West it seems like countries like Germany and Sweeden are write offs.  Everything I've read leans towards the number of sexual attacks by various Muslim refugees is sky rocketing. What I find is the most disturbing (or at least right up there) is that the government in some of these EU countries are going out of their way to hide (or lie) about the nature of these attacks. Sexual assaults are being covered up. In some cases the attackers are even being apologized to by the victims or excuses made for them by the government. "It's a different culture bla bla". It's messed up.


----------



## mariomike

July 31, 2016

Pope Francis: "I don't like to talk about Islamic terrorism"
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/pope-francis-i-dont-like-to-talk-about-islamic-terrorism/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab7e&linkId=27134384
ABOARD THE PAPAL AIRCRAFT -- Pope Francis wrapped up a five day tour in Poland on Sunday, and on the flight back to Rome with reporters, the topic of terrorism in the wake of a French Catholic priest's slaying was discussed.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Thucydides said:
			
		

> No, we need to _get rid of_ hate speech laws and "speech codes".
> 
> Using arbitrary, undefined and undefinable criteria simply means you have given the State an arbitrary tool to wield against those who they choose to prosecute. The most infamous example is the Human Rights Kangaroo courts, which attempted to prosecute Mark Styen and Ezra Levant for repeating what an Iman said, while refusing a complaint against another Iman who was explicitly calling for violence against Christians and Jews. Evidently someone calling for you to be killed or hurt isn't "offensive" or "hateful" if you are not in the right spot on the hierarchy of victimhood.
> 
> As Edward says, freedom of speech is only academic if it means freedom to say what I already agree with. (Political Correctness is the attempt to stifle speech that SJW's _don't_ agree with and take entire topics off the table for discussion and debate).
> 
> Like I said upthread, the best defense against bad speech is _better_ speech, and if you cannot muster arguments against bad speech them maybe you need to examine your premise (why is that "bad" speech) or exercise your God given talents more to become a proper Free Speecher and make your case. Becoming a Brownshirt and using force to stop people speaking isn't the direction we should be wanting to go.



I disagree.  I think by allowing our enemy a pulpit from which to proselitize we are empowering them to gain followers who in turn kill us.

Where speech should be protected is anything non-violent.  As soon as you cross a line and begin promoting violence against another racial, ethnic or religious group, you're done.  

I would add that we're not talking about un-PC topics like native canadian or black crime which make people uncomfortable.  We're talking about allowing a platform for a virulent ideology responsible for the execution of thousands (and probably tens of thousands) of innocents.  Would you also provide a similar public forum for neo-nazis who would advocate a second holocaust?   The evil is the exact same.  The only difference is their potential reach.

I should add that you should look up the frightful claims of the indoctrinated mother of the Boston Marathon bomber.  Her words sound scarily like a wish to see a nuclear detination in a major US city.  Here's the crux:  Yes, we may lose some freedom of debate.  However, what if this restriction saves lives? Then how does your math look?  Ten people in a subway station?  One hundred people in a sports stadium?   Several hundred people on an aircraft?  Tens of thousands with an atomic device?  What is the price you're willing to pay to guarantee unlimited free speech?  

Caveat:  You need to state an actual number.  If it's higher than zero, then I hope the victims are not your friends, family or loved ones. If the number is zero, you have a conundrum because that's not how this ideology works.  If you allow exposure, there will be fatalities.  The only question is "How many?"


----------



## Brad Sallows

I want expression as unrestricted as possible, including those arguing for various forms of - call it what it is - war.

I want them right out in the open where they can be seen, monitored, tracked, and - when/if it becomes necessary - imprisoned/incapacitated/killed.


----------



## Remius

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> I disagree.  I think by allowing our enemy a pulpit from which to proselitize we are empowering them to gain followers who in turn kill us.
> 
> Where speech should be protected is anything non-violent.  As soon as you cross a line and begin promoting violence against another racial, ethnic or religious group, you're done.
> 
> I should add that you should look up the frightful claims of the indoctrinated mother of the Boston Marathon bomber.  Her words sound scarily like a wish to see a nuclear detination in a major US city.  Here's the crux:  Yes, we may lose some freedom of debate.  However, what if this restriction saves lives? Then how does your math look?  Ten people in a subway station?  One hundred people in a sports stadium?   Several hundred people on an aircraft?  Tens of thousands with an atomic device?  What is the price you're willing to pay to guarantee unlimited free speech?
> 
> Caveat:  You need to state an actual number.  If it's higher than zero, then I hope the victims are not your friends, family or loved ones. If the number is zero, you have a conundrum because that's not how this ideology works.  If you allow exposure, there will be fatalities.  The only question is "How many?"



You're going down a slippery slope with that line of thinking.  Freedom of expression and freedom of speech are cornerstones of our democratic way of life.  Here and in the West as a whole. This is the same line of reasoning that China, Iran etc etc use to justify imprisoning political activists, journalists et al.   Mess with it and you mess with everything.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Remius said:
			
		

> You're going down a slippery slope with that line of thinking.  Freedom of expression and freedom of speech are cornerstones of our democratic way of life.  Here and in the West as a whole. This is the same line of reasoning that China, Iran etc etc use to justify imprisoning political activists, journalists et al.   Mess with it and you mess with everything.





> I think by allowing our enemy a pulpit from which to proselitize we are empowering them to gain followers who in turn kill us.



I can see where Cdn Blackshirt is coming from and in a big way I agree with him.  We've built a pretty damn good society (including our rights and social programs) and it's being turned around and used against us (Like attacking Canadian soldiers then showing up at their hospital for treatment).  There's that saying about not agreeing with what someone says but giving their life to defend their right to say it etc.. etc...  I get the theory but the  practical leaves a lot to be desired.


----------



## YZT580

Those who live in this country deserve those rights.  Those who live elsewhere should not be invited to share their warped and twisted logic in this country.


----------



## a_majoor

I find it rather interesting that people on this board, people who's posts are some of the best examples of _better speech_ that I have come across, would want to ban speech outside of the four unprotected categories.

Really guys, you have demonstrated the ability to make powerful, subtle and impassioned defences of what you believe in, the ability to advance your opinions in the wake of counterarguments and debate everything from obscure bands to international grand strategy. Some pissant little comedian should be polished off by any one of you as a light warmup. 

We are not Brownshirts (our illustrious predecessors crushed them and their hateful ideology, then polished off the Communists as an encore), so we don't need to use or enable Brownshirt tactics to win. The pen really is far mightier than the sword, and speakers across the ages have rallied men and women to do great deeds. 



> What I would prefer is you should fix your eyes every day on the greatness of Athens as she really is, and fall in love with her. When you realize her greatness, then reflect what made her great were men with a spirit of adventure, men who knew their duty, men who were ashamed to fall below a certain standard. If they ever failed in an enterprise, they made up their minds that at any rate the city would not find their courage lacking to her, and they gave to her the best contribution that they could. They gave her their lives, to her and to all of us, and for their own selves they won praises that never grow old, the most splendid of sepulchers- not the sepulcher where their body is laid but where their glory remains eternal in men’s minds, always there on the right occasion to stir others to speech or to action.



Pericles: Funeral Oration


----------



## CougarKing

:facepalm: Any religion that does not permit a degree of secularism in its host society like these clerics won't survive till the next century.

Japan Times



> *Malaysian Islamic leaders say no to ‘Pokemon Go’*
> 
> AFP-JIJI
> AUG 6, 2016
> KUALA LUMPUR – Islamic leaders in Kuala Lumpur have said that Muslims should avoid playing “Pokemon Go” because the popular mobile game was harmful and could “lead to gambling.”
> Senior religious official Zulkifli Mohamad al-Bakri said Friday that the city’s Islamic Legal Consultative Committee had taken into consideration top scholars’ opinions on the cartoon creatures.
> ” ‘Pokemon Go’ and all the Pokemon characters should be avoided as it can bring harm,” he was quoted as saying by the national news agency Bernama.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Bass ackwards

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> :facepalm: Any religion that does not permit a degree of secularism in its host society like these clerics won't survive till the next century.
> 
> Japan Times



Given the number of reports I've read of allegedly intelligent adults wandering into traffic, onto subway tracks and off the edge of cliffs while engrossed in  this game, I'm not sure if this is the yardstick I'd use to predict whether their religion is going to outlast our society...


----------



## AbdullahD

Bass ackwards said:
			
		

> Given the number of reports I've read of allegedly intelligent adults wandering into traffic, onto subway tracks and off the edge of cliffs while engrossed in  this game, I'm not sure if this is the yardstick I'd use to predict whether their religion is going to outlast our society...



But, in all seriousness. The point is extremely valid. If everything even remotely fun becomes forbidden, the youth will become disenfranchised and leave Islam, sadly.

Now my opinion on Pokemon Go is.. quite negative to be honest. I find it a waste of time and lives, kids and adults spending so much time playing these silly games is quite worrying. They waste otherwise useful time that could be alloted into bettering themselves or the position that they currently hold in life.. (albeit I will admit I heard of a pokemon go account being sold for $10,000.. so maybe it is a good life...)

Anywho these scholars who classify games as Haram (forbidden) concern me, especially on the premises that they use which seem tenuous at best to me. Also makes me think they are salafis or followers of taymiyyah's ideas, which is basically make everything haram. 

Islam is about balance and in my humble (or arrogant) opinion I think these chaps have messed it up. The Prophet peace be upon him, used to play and have fun, make jokes and poke fun all in good taste. He allowed us all sorts of Halal (permitted) fun, but more specifically he left a lot of things un mentioned and something that is not mentioned in Islam is usually by default permitted because of the saying close to the meaning were the prophet told us not to ask so many questions that everything becomes forbidden.

Islam is "supposed" to adapt to the needs of the time, not be stuck in some archaic version of itself. I would be ok with this fatawa if they said someone who dedicates to much time to these games is crossing the line.. but to just make pokemon go haram period is a joke.

But I think S.M.A is right or at least on to something. If we dont give these scholars a reality check... we may be on troubled times...

Also as an aside... I just thought of something... this could be something radicals or semi radicals use against so called "bad" Muslims. Such as making Muslims feel sinful for playing a silly game and espousing an ignorant narrative on how it is "the west" trying to keep Muslims docile etc... the more strict Islam becomes the more polarized Muslims become, we desperately need to put a cap on silly fatawas like these.

Abdullah


----------



## jollyjacktar

But, my wife explained to me that fatwas are more or less useless drivel as they hold no force in proclamation and can be ignored at will if it's not to your tastes.  Makes them more like,  one "beard's" opinion and little else.


----------



## AbdullahD

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> But, my wife explained to me that fatwas are more or less useless drivel as they hold no force in proclamation and can be ignored at will if it's not to your tastes.  Makes them more like,  one "beard's" opinion and little else.



Yep, your wife is right... this happens often I assume?

They can be ignored at will and you can take other fatawas too. Such as these scholars say it is forbidden and others say it is permitted so I'll take the permitted ruling.

In the broader world no enforcement body exists to really do anything about it. But certain countries do have agencies that enforce the fatawas that the scholars promote... and that is where the issues arise. 

I personally feel fine taking any fatawa within the Hanafi madhab and running with it... but if I go to certain countries I would or could be forced (more correctly my wife) to follow salafi fatawas which I conpletely disagree with and consider garbage.

So for the most part it is useless drivel from out of touch scholars... but in some areas of the world.. it has a very real consequence.

Abdullah


----------



## mariomike

AbdullahD said:
			
		

> Yep, your wife is right... this happens often I assume?


----------



## Bass ackwards

AbdullahD said:
			
		

> But, in all seriousness. The point is extremely valid. If everything even remotely fun becomes forbidden, the youth will become disenfranchised and leave Islam, sadly.
> 
> Now my opinion on Pokemon Go is.. quite negative to be honest. I find it a waste of time and lives, kids and adults spending so much time playing these silly games is quite worrying. They waste otherwise useful time that could be alloted into bettering themselves or the position that they currently hold in life.. (albeit I will admit I heard of a pokemon go account being sold for $10,000.. so maybe it is a good life...)
> 
> Anywho these scholars who classify games as Haram (forbidden) concern me, especially on the premises that they use which seem tenuous at best to me. Also makes me think they are salafis or followers of taymiyyah's ideas, which is basically make everything haram.
> 
> Islam is about balance and in my humble (or arrogant) opinion I think these chaps have messed it up. The Prophet peace be upon him, used to play and have fun, make jokes and poke fun all in good taste. He allowed us all sorts of Halal (permitted) fun, but more specifically he left a lot of things un mentioned and something that is not mentioned in Islam is usually by default permitted because of the saying close to the meaning were the prophet told us not to ask so many questions that everything becomes forbidden.
> 
> Islam is "supposed" to adapt to the needs of the time, not be stuck in some archaic version of itself. I would be ok with this fatawa if they said someone who dedicates to much time to these games is crossing the line.. but to just make pokemon go haram period is a joke.
> 
> But I think S.M.A is right or at least on to something. If we dont give these scholars a reality check... we may be on troubled times...
> 
> Also as an aside... I just thought of something... this could be something radicals or semi radicals use against so called "bad" Muslims. Such as making Muslims feel sinful for playing a silly game and espousing an ignorant narrative on how it is "the west" trying to keep Muslims docile etc... the more strict Islam becomes the more polarized Muslims become, we desperately need to put a cap on silly fatawas like these.
> 
> Abdullah



I will confess to being completely ignorant about Malaysia. A quick glance through wikipedia just now suggests that they're considerably more advanced or progressive than, say, Afghanistan under the Taliban. Thus a couple of questions:

Is _everything_ even remotely fun forbidden? (you alluded to this at the top of your post)

Is this fatwa "optional" as jjt suggests? Or are there real, serious consequences to being caught chasing pikkachus or whatever the hell they're called?

All religions act as the fun police and quite often there are good practical reasons to heed what they're telling you to do or not do.

Maybe the hairy old gents in Malaysia need a better PR agent. Instead of issuing some stodgy fatwa, they should just repost pictures from this part of the world that show people doing their level best to win a Darwin award because of a ridiculous game.


----------



## AbdullahD

Bass ackwards said:
			
		

> I will confess to being completely ignorant about Malaysia. A quick glance through wikipedia just now suggests that they're considerably more advanced or progressive than, say, Afghanistan under the Taliban. Thus a couple of questions:
> 
> Is _everything_ even remotely fun forbidden? (you alluded to this at the top of your post)
> 
> Is this fatwa "optional" as jjt suggests? Or are there real, serious consequences to being caught chasing pikkachus or whatever the hell they're called?
> 
> All religions act as the fun police and quite often there are good practical reasons to heed what they're telling you to do or not do.
> 
> Maybe the hairy old gents in Malaysia need a better PR agent. Instead of issuing some stodgy fatwa, they should just repost pictures from this part of the world that show people doing their level best to win a Darwin award because of a ridiculous game.



When I brought up the point about everything fun being forbidden, I was joking and making fun of certain groups of scholars who seem to label everything forbidden. Don't get me wrong the historical "vices" are all forbidden, but outside of that, you are usually good.

I agree that what religions tell you not to do is usually for your own good, but in this case I argue it is a culture making this forbidden not the religion.

This fatawa should be considered optional.. fatawas are "supposed" to work in certain ways, but sadly no one uses them that way (even our own scholars sadly). See you have the shia vs sunni divide so sunni Muslims should only take sunni fatawas, which is not to say that they can not look at shia fatawas and discuss the merits or demerits of it, but it is not generally done.

Then you have the 4 or 5 major schools of thoughts within Sunni Islam (hanbali, hanafi, maliki, shafi'e and Salafi if you count them). Now most or almost all Sunni Muslims follow one of those schools of thought and it is encouraged to only take religious rulings from the school of thought you follow. But each school of thought has many positions within it, so you "should" be able to choose the fatawa that suits you with no consequences... but sadly that is not the case.

One example.. the beard, I keep mine a little tidier nowadays then what a lot of hanafi scholars say I should with their respected opinions. But I am following an accepted position within the hanafi madhab, so I am okay and not perverting Islam. Which is how Islam "should" be... but sadly, certain groups around the world would gladly take my head off for following a fatawa they dont approve of. Which is a complete perversion of Islam.

Certain things are ruled "Haram" to do but have absolutely no real world consequences to them.. or well they should not. A beard should not have consequences attached to the growing or not growing of it, but certain extremist groups have made it a punishable offence, which it should not be. Then on the opposite side of the spectrum, Murder, rape, thievery are also haram and have real world consequences within Islam. So just because something is Haram doesn't mean anyone should do anything about it in certain cases, it is up to the individual person and how much of Islam he wants to follow.

Anywho long story short, the fatawa is optional and their should be no consequences for ignoring it.. but sadly certain extremists groups tend to ignore these particular teachings of Islam and prefer murdering or beating etc anyone who does anything they disagree with.

Also if the respected elders and scholars consider it a waste of time, or what have you that is fine. But I think your idea of using humor to tackle the issue may be a bit wiser then just making it haram.

I hope this makes sense... if not I will try to clarify. 

Abdullah

Ps im fairly ignorant of malaysian culture too


----------



## jollyjacktar

AbdullahD said:
			
		

> Yep, your wife is right... this happens often I assume?


Oh yes, just ask her.  ;D


----------



## Bass ackwards

OK, I'm not much of a hand with computers, so please bear with my formatting here.

_When I brought up the point about everything fun being forbidden, I was joking and making fun of certain groups of scholars who seem to label everything forbidden. Don't get me wrong the historical "vices" are all forbidden, but outside of that, you are usually good._

My bad then, I should have caught the nuance since I constantly do that myself. 
I note from the Wikipedia article that sports are popular over there, so I gather their clerics are nowhere near as hard core as the ones in places where playing soccer is considered a capital offense.

_I agree that what religions tell you not to do is usually for your own good, but in this case I argue it is a culture making this forbidden not the religion_.

Religion or culture -if they're saying that playing pokemon go isn't all that good an idea, I think they're onto something there.
Frankly, when I think of things like _Keeping up with the Kardashians_ or _Jerry Springer_ or the US presidential race, I don't blame any cleric or leader who'd like to keep western entertainment and culture the hell out of _his_ culture.

_This fatawa should be considered optional.. fatawas are "supposed" to work in certain ways, but sadly no one uses them that way (even our own scholars sadly). See you have the shia vs sunni divide so sunni Muslims should only take sunni fatawas, which is not to say that they can not look at shia fatawas and discuss the merits or demerits of it, but it is not generally done.

Then you have the 4 or 5 major schools of thoughts within Sunni Islam (hanbali, hanafi, maliki, shafi'e and Salafi if you count them). Now most or almost all Sunni Muslims follow one of those schools of thought and it is encouraged to only take religious rulings from the school of thought you follow. But each school of thought has many positions within it, so you "should" be able to choose the fatawa that suits you with no consequences... but sadly that is not the case._

To put this is a western context, would this be a rough equivalent to various Christian religions having prohibitions that the others don't (such as alcohol, blood transfusions, caffeine, etc) ?

The writer Mark Steyn often points out that nice thing abut multiculturalism is that you don't actually have to know anything about the cultures you are welcoming. As long as you occasionally mindlessly chant "celebrate diversity" (it's the new Hail Mary), you're good to go. 
It was working too. People were quite happy to overlook honour killings and stonings and beheadings and the killing of gays and the slicing of sensitive parts off young women and the oppression of all women.
But then some Islamic bugger had to say "No pokemon go". 
So much for tolerating other cultures. I can hear the B-52's spooling up as I type this. 

_One example.. the beard, I keep mine a little tidier nowadays then what a lot of hanafi scholars say I should with their respected opinions. But I am following an accepted position within the hanafi madhab, so I am okay and not perverting Islam. Which is how Islam "should" be... but sadly, certain groups around the world would gladly take my head off for following a fatawa they dont approve of. Which is a complete perversion of Islam._

No arguments here, Partner. 
I'm just poking fun at westerners and our priorities. Judging from the tone of the article, I don't think the clerics in Malaysia are going to be slicing off body parts over this.
As to the violent ones elsewhere who would: we'll deal with them eventually. Or maybe they'll deal with us.


----------



## CougarKing

Haters gonna hate. As usual. 

When I was in graduate school at SFU, I had a number of classmates who were foreign students from Pakistan and Bangladesh. Whenever the Middle East was the topic, they would quickly dominate the discussion and endlessly rant about how Israel was "evil". 

The Pakistanis in particular were the most outspoken. I thought: Pakistan only has a 40% literacy rate and all you could do is vent your energy against a country that doesn't even border your own?  :

Canadian Press



> *IOC reprimands Egyptian who wouldn't shake Israeli's hand *
> Canadian Press
> 
> Stephen Wilson
> 17 hrs ago
> 
> 
> RIO DE JANEIRO - An Egyptian athlete who refused to shake his Israeli opponent's hand after their judo bout has been reprimanded and sent home from the Rio Olympics, officials said Monday.
> 
> The International Olympic Committee said Islam El Shehaby received a "severe reprimand" for his behaviour following his first-round heavyweight bout loss to Or Sasson on Friday.
> 
> *When Sasson extended his hand, El Shehaby backed away and shook his head, injecting Middle Eastern politics into the Rio Olympics. The referee called the 34-year-old El Shehaby back to the mat and obliged to him to bow; he gave a quick nod and was loudly booed as he exited.*
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> I disagree.  I think by allowing our enemy a pulpit from which to proselitize we are empowering them to gain followers who in turn kill us.
> 
> Where speech should be protected is anything non-violent.  As soon as you cross a line and begin promoting violence against another racial, ethnic or religious group, you're done.
> 
> I would add that we're not talking about un-PC topics like native canadian or black crime which make people uncomfortable.  We're talking about allowing a platform for a virulent ideology responsible for the execution of thousands (and probably tens of thousands) of innocents.  Would you also provide a similar public forum for neo-nazis who would advocate a second holocaust?   The evil is the exact same.  The only difference is their potential reach.
> 
> I should add that you should look up the frightful claims of the indoctrinated mother of the Boston Marathon bomber.  Her words sound scarily like a wish to see a nuclear detination in a major US city.  Here's the crux:  Yes, we may lose some freedom of debate.  However, what if this restriction saves lives? Then how does your math look?  Ten people in a subway station?  One hundred people in a sports stadium?   Several hundred people on an aircraft?  Tens of thousands with an atomic device?  What is the price you're willing to pay to guarantee unlimited free speech?
> 
> Caveat:  You need to state an actual number.  If it's higher than zero, then I hope the victims are not your friends, family or loved ones. If the number is zero, you have a conundrum because that's not how this ideology works.  If you allow exposure, there will be fatalities.  The only question is "How many?"



Let them say what they want. If you feel uncomfortable when someone carries a "Death to Infidels" placard, report it to the police. They will investigate and do a threat assessment. If warranted, the Crown will prefer charges for uttering threats, inciting a riot, amongst the many types of charges that can be brought.

It's not about what they say, it's about what they do. 

I've been threatened with physical violence a lot in my life. If it came I defended myself. If it didn't, I certainly lost no sleep over the verbal threat that was not a precursor to a physical confrontation.


----------



## AbdullahD

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Haters gonna hate. As usual.
> 
> When I was in graduate school at SFU, I had a number of classmates who were foreign students from Pakistan and Bangladesh. Whenever the Middle East was the topic, they would quickly dominate the discussion and endlessly rant about how Israel was "evil".
> 
> The Pakistanis in particular were the most outspoken. I thought: Pakistan only has a 40% literacy rate and all you could do is vent your energy against a country that doesn't even border your own?  :
> 
> Canadian Press



I am happy this guy got kicked out.

You can dislike Israel's politics, you can believe Jews follow an incorrect belief, but the second you start hating or disrespecting all Israelis or Jewish People as a whole you lose respect and credibility.

It seems like a lot of people can not seperate the person or people from the problem and I highly doubt this particular Israeli brother was the problem.

Stupidity knows no bounds.. so it is said.

Abdullah


----------



## Colin Parkinson

One of the issues in Islam today is the knowledge base of the believers. A significant number have very little education and are not aware the various schools of thought exist. They only know what is being taught at the local mosque. Our Abdullah is well versed in Islamic concepts, but he and people like him are often the exception than the rule, considering the countries with significant Sunni populations. So you have a large mass of fairly young, uneducated people being manipulated and stoked into reacting as required. This is the mob justice which is used to strike fear into people who may criticize or stand up to the manipulators, there is no reasoning with the mob once it gets going. They are also the pool for expendable fighters. 
While the Fatwas are technically voluntary, many will believe they are not or are being told they must comply with it. When they are linked to the word of Allah or the teaching of the Prophet, how will an uneducated villager argue with the Iman?


----------



## mariomike

August 16, 2016

Funeral Held for Queens Imam and His Assistant; Man Charged with Murder and Weapons Possession in Shooting that Killed Them
http://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/news/2016/08/15/queens-imam-shooting-death.html
Hundreds gathered Monday for the funeral of a revered Muslim imam and his assistant who were gunned down on a Queens street over the weekend. With many holding signs reading 'Muslim Lives Matter' Mayor Bill de Blasio told mourners, "An attack on one of us is an attack on all of us." 

( I like the NYPD "Perp Walks".   )


----------



## FJAG

Colin P said:
			
		

> One of the issues in Islam today is the knowledge base of the believers. A significant number have very little education and are not aware the various schools of thought exist. They only know what is being taught at the local mosque. Our Abdullah is well versed in Islamic concepts, but he and people like him are often the exception than the rule, considering the countries with significant Sunni populations. So you have a large mass of fairly young, uneducated people being manipulated and stoked into reacting as required. This is the mob justice which is used to strike fear into people who may criticize or stand up to the manipulators, there is no reasoning with the mob once it gets going. They are also the pool for expendable fighters.
> While the Fatwas are technically voluntary, many will believe they are not or are being told they must comply with it. When they are linked to the word of Allah or the teaching of the Prophet, how will an uneducated villager argue with the Iman?



I presume that rather than "one of the issues in Islam today is the knowledge base of the believers" you meant to say that this was an issue with "radicalized Islamists", and not Muslims in general. If so, here's an article that supports that position:



> Thousands of leaked Islamic State (IS) documents have revealed that most of
> its recruits from even its earliest days know little about Islam.
> 
> According to the documents, 70 per cent of recruits who were asked to rate
> their knowledge of Islam and Shariah through a series of multiple choice
> questions, were found to have just “basic” knowledge – the lowest possible
> choice.
> 
> Around 24 percent were categorised as having an “intermediate” knowledge,
> and just 5 percent were considered advanced students of Islam according to
> the completed jihadi employment forms handed to a group of applicants in a
> hangar at the Syria­ Turkey border.



http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/isis-deliberately-preys-on-recruits-ignorant-to-islam-to-impose-its-own-twisted-version_uk_57b2e5c1e4b02fb3274ba23a?utm_hp_ref=uk

 :cheers:


----------



## Lumber

FJAG said:
			
		

> I presume that rather than "one of the issues in Islam today is the knowledge base of the believers" you meant to say that this was an issue with "radicalized Islamists", and not Muslims in general. If so, here's an article that supports that position:
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/isis-deliberately-preys-on-recruits-ignorant-to-islam-to-impose-its-own-twisted-version_uk_57b2e5c1e4b02fb3274ba23a?utm_hp_ref=uk
> 
> :cheers:



Well I don't know what the exact reality is, I bet that it is far from what people in Western society asssume, myself included.

When I think of the Muslim world, I immediately assume that everyone is a devout and well-versed Muslim. I know that this isn't true, but it's the image that comes to mind. I challenge it regularly, but its difficult. 

Do they have the same false assumption about us in Western society? Do they assume that we are all devout Christians who read our bibles and say our confessions? Because I'm not close friends with a single person who goes to Church, I know only a few who go to church from among my family and acquaintances, and I know for a fact that, despite my being an Atheist, I know way more about Christianity that most of the people I know who claim to be "Christians".


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I can't recall who said this first but:

"If you're going to read only one book in your life, make sure you pick a good one."


----------



## YZT580

The folks who flew the aircraft on 9-11 were not uneducated.  The gentleman who attempted the bombing in Scotland was a medical professional as have been a number of other radicalized terrorists in England.  The argument re: education does not apply. 

 Iran during the Shaw's reign was relatively liberal with multiple faiths being permitted and a relatively permissive attitude towards women's rights etc.  During the last two decades Shariah has become the dominant movement in most Muslim states.  Even countries which welcomed those of other faiths such as the Philippines and even Pakistan have become hardened and intolerant. Read the news from Turkey, Nigeria, South Sudan, Egypt,to name but a few. All of these countries at one time supported a fairly robust Christian presence but have systematically driven them either underground or out of the country entirely.  It requires one to partake of some pretty sophisticated drugs to continue to mouth the lies that Islam is a religion of peace.  Maybe in theory but certainly not as practiced in the majority of Islamic states.


----------



## CougarKing

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Even countries which welcomed those of other faiths such as the Philippines and even Pakistan have become hardened and intolerant.



Just a slight correction to what you said about the Philippines. 

They're a predominantly Catholic country (95%) and the Muslim minority is largely confined to the southernmost island of Mindanao and nearby smaller islands. 

Roman Catholicism is firmly rooted there because it was a Spanish colony for over 300 years, though the brief US colonization from 1898-1946 also brought some Evangelicals and other Protestant missionaries who still have a following there today. Though mostly Catholic, the Philippines is quite tolerant of all faiths.

The largest Islamic separatist group, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF*), are currently having peace talks with the Philippine government. The other group called Abu Sayyaf, which beheaded 2 Canadian tourists earlier this year, are nothing more than bandits who constantly kidnap foreigners more for ransom than any real separatist cause.

*I hope people don't get any funny ideas with this acronym, especially with the last thread that mentioned this acronym in its title.    ;D



			
				uncle-midget-Oddball said:
			
		

> I couldn't help but picture a pissed off soccer-mom with a bazooka.
> Midget


----------



## Lumber

YZT580 said:
			
		

> It requires one to partake of some pretty sophisticated drugs to continue to mouth the lies that Islam is a religion of peace.  Maybe in theory but certainly not as practiced in the majority of Islamic states.



You can't argue and fight for the truth unless you accept the truth. That's incumbent upon us all.

So if you really do believe that Islam is _supposed_ to be a religion of peace, but that it is failing to be practiced at such, than please don't call it a "lie" that Islam is a religion of piece. Be honest, and help others, especially the ignorant, quick to judge types, to see that it is not the fault of the religion itself, but of human nature and people just being giant dicks.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

FJAG said:
			
		

> I presume that rather than "one of the issues in Islam today is the knowledge base of the believers" you meant to say that this was an issue with "radicalized Islamists", and not Muslims in general. If so, here's an article that supports that position:
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/isis-deliberately-preys-on-recruits-ignorant-to-islam-to-impose-its-own-twisted-version_uk_57b2e5c1e4b02fb3274ba23a?utm_hp_ref=uk
> 
> :cheers:



No I meant in general, the majority of the Sunni Muslim population is not well educated and not well versed in Islam. They generally only know that which is taught in their regional area. Both the governments and the Imams in most of those regions do not encourage people to study widely and ask pointed questions. At best it's a battle between a devout fundamentalist belief and a hardcore Salfi interpretation. Much of the non-whabbist based beliefs have been suppressed by the Gulf State/KSA funding of fundamentalist Islam, I seen that in Malaysia where the laid back Islamic practices they had have been pretty much wiped out. People I have talked to says that much the same has gone on in Indonesia, but due to the size and the government, it's not as pervasive. I hear that places in the Balkans are feeling the radical heat as well.


----------



## Kirkhill

So, if I understand Colin correctly, he seems to be suggesting that the Muslim community is at roughly the same place the West was up until the 1930s when "Hockey Night in Canada" replaced the local priest.

We went through the transition from squabbling priests (Rome vs Constantinople vs Alexandria vs Jerusalem vs Antioch) to squabbling monks (Dominican vs Franciscans) to squabbling priests (Romans vs Lutherans vs Anglicans vs Gallicans) to more squabbling monks (Jesuits vs Recollets vs Sulpiciens vs SME) to the "pox-on-all-their-houses-I'll-do-it-myself" brigade appointing their own "priests".  By the time the CN Railway started broadcasting hockey games in 1931 the "debate" was amongst people like Bill Aberhart, Amy Semple McPherson and Charles Coughlin.   All of whom were supplanted by the likes of Stanley Burke, Lloyd Robertson and Walter Cronkite.  

I suggest that the Muslims are somewhere between Coughlin and Cronkite just now with a seasoning of Facebook.   

Unlike many in the west - they are still hoping that there are people that know something.


----------



## AbdullahD

YZT580 said:
			
		

> The folks who flew the aircraft on 9-11 were not uneducated.  The gentleman who attempted the bombing in Scotland was a medical professional as have been a number of other radicalized terrorists in England.  The argument re: education does not apply.



I believe the argument that was being used was not that they were ignorant in secular studies but that they were ignorant in the religious sense.

A read on why westerners are attracted to extremism;
http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/radicalization-why-do-western-youth-join-extremist-groups

Universities breeding grounds of radicalism;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/8560409/Universities-The-breeding-grounds-of-terror.html

These two links were to show what attracts western educated and/or westerners to radical groups. I tried googling for Islamic education levels the only one I could find is this one which I think I am replicating from an above post  (thanks)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-documents-leak-reveals-profile-of-average-militant-as-young-well-educated-but-with-only-basic-a6995111.html

Aside from this I have my personal experiences, from the Scholars I know personally, or know of, they almost all say unanimously that the vast majority of radicals are not educated in Islam above a rudimentary sense. (Ill also reach back to Colin P's compliment he gave me, which I appreciated a lot, but even my understanding of Islam is not that in depth. I just have more experience with certain topics, due to dealing with them more. On a lot of other topics though im woefully ignorant)



> Iran during the Shaw's reign was relatively liberal with multiple faiths being permitted and a relatively permissive attitude towards women's rights etc.



I think any country that forces women to do something is disgusting and any person forcing women to do something is too.

Random links showing the reduction of womens rights exists outside the Islamic world.. just cause.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ban_on_face_covering

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/world/full-body-burkini-swimwear-bans-expand-in-france-1.3721370

So now I actually do think women should have equal rights. You know, after they finish cooking dinner and cleaning the house, of course... (it is a joke... or is it? 0.o)

See I am a big believer that "forcing" people to do 'xyz' is always a temporary fix because once they find a way around it, around they will go. People need to know the reason on why to do something and the benefit in it in order to want to do it. So forcing half the population to do things, seems counter intuitive, especially when establishing educational programs could obtain the same goal. But even then if a person decides not to do a certain thing, we have no right to force them.

Now I am not very well educated on Iran, at all. So I can not comment specifically on policies that were passed and I don't have time to research it. Sorry. But contraceptives are allowed, burkas and niqabs are not obligatory, women are not sex slaves etc etc I hope that covers it 

  





> During the last two decades Shariah has become the dominant movement in most Muslim states.



I would have given you a pass if you had said Salafi Islam, wahabism, Islamists etc, not sharia. If it is a Muslim state, then it is already, technically, albeit potentially loosely, a sharia state.

How the first caliph ran his state
http://www.alim.org/library/biography/khalifa/content/KAB/15/1

The second
http://www.alim.org/library/biography/khalifa/content/KUM/15/7

Then a wiki link that if you read shows that Islam and democracy are potential bedmates (pay attention the 'shura' section), also the link should show or hint at the fact the political side of Islam can evolve according to the times. Which is a neat discussion for another time.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_aspects_of_Islam

See my 'sharia' holds many western aspects and innovations in it, democracy holds a place in my 'sharia' so I am playing semantics here, but the point is 'sharia' is a boogey word used to rile up the crowd. But it should not be, if you say wahabism has been the dominate movement for the last 20 years, I likely would have agreed and moved on. I highly suspect many, most or all of you would be 'ok' or 'content' living under my version of 'sharia' (just think libertarian for the most part, or individual right to protection and the state has no rights to tell you what to do in your own home as long as you are not violating other peoples rights), so depending on what interpretations are used the sharia can be one thing or something completely else... because certain groups have twisted it to make it into something it is not.

  





> Even countries which welcomed those of other faiths such as the Philippines and even Pakistan have become hardened and intolerant.



In a specific sense, I can agree with you, the extremist brand of Islam that terrorists teach is not Islam and does not follow the even most rudimentary basics of how Muslims should be in many cases.

Treatment of non Muslims
http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/207/viewall/tolerance-of-prophet-towards-other-religions/

Non Muslim tax (take the gist here, this chap seems to believe Slavery is still allowed when it has been clearly abrogated so I don't trust him 100% but the gist of the article seems 'okay')
http://www.answering-christianity.com/jizyah.htm

Now as always my argument isn't what Muslims are doing, it is what Islam teaches. I won't deny anti semitism and other disgusting ideologies are infiltrating Islam, but it is fairly clear it is not what Islam teaches with some research. The Prophet peace be upon him suffered all kinds of injustices and didn't do what these whack jobs did, so how can we say murdering innocent people or burning down holy buildings or texts is Islamic of the prophet and the 4 righteous caliphs didn't act like that.



> Read the news from Turkey, Nigeria, South Sudan, Egypt,to name but a few. All of these countries at one time supported a fairly robust Christian presence but have systematically driven them either underground or out of the country entirely.



Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq etc. Sadly, agreed. But these respective and respectable minorities existed under previous Muslim leaders correct? So if previous Muslim leaders had a sharia that allowed them exist and prosper peacefully, then would it not be the twisted version or versions of Islam more extreme groups use be the issue not the religion itself? All extreme groups only take a small percent of the full teachings of the ideology or religious beliefs to corrupt it into a tool for brainwashing their followers. Which will lead to my next point...

  





> It requires one to partake of some pretty sophisticated drugs to continue to mouth the lies that Islam is a religion of peace.  Maybe in theory but certainly not as practiced in the majority of Islamic states.





			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> You can't argue and fight for the truth unless you accept the truth. That's incumbent upon us all.
> 
> So if you really do believe that Islam is _supposed_ to be a religion of peace, but that it is failing to be practiced at such, than please don't call it a "lie" that Islam is a religion of piece. Be honest, and help others, especially the ignorant, quick to judge types, to see that it is not the fault of the religion itself, but of human nature and people just being giant dicks.



Lets just look at the size of Islamic source texts

I believe there is over 20,000 Sahih Hadiths;
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hadith_collections

Then add in the lesser strength authenticity hadiths and fabricated hadiths you literally get hundreds of thousands of hadiths to pick and choose from... which most Muslims wont know the difference between, unless they have studied a lot.

Such as these hadiths and see if you can understand why fabricated hadiths could he used to twist Islam.

https://standup4islam.wordpress.com/2013/10/20/100-fabricated-hadiths/

Now even Sahih Hadith texts have abrogated hadiths in them that need to be taken in context and as a whole. So if a person just wants to take one piece of the puzzle, it does not make him right because that person has to look at all relevant hadiths before making judgements.

Sorry I got distracted with hadiths. Back to the point.

Islam has a insanely huge amount of Hadiths, Tafsirs and the one Quran. It becomes very easy to just pick pieces out and use those particular pieces to suit your agenda, but it does not change the religion.

You could say extremist groups are 'Piecers' ie they only use one piece of Islam, but that does not make Islam a religion of 'piece'. Any religion or ideology  can be twisted if you only take pieces of it, so to attack Islam on this specifically is interesting at best... and if we used this same rule for all religions then all religions get the same insult.

I truly believe all religions are meant to be religions of peace, not something truly unique to Islam. All religions are meant to put a person at peace with his life, with the cards he has been dealt and what he has experienced. But if we only take pieces of religions then we do not do justice to what they are meant to do.

So we must look at the whole and see if what extremists groups do reflect the whole religion. Which in almost all cases, what extremists group do never reflects the accepted versions of the religion. So we can label the extremists deviants, but not insult the religion. You can call extremists any name you wish, I'd just ask for distinction between extremists and true Muslims.

Im not sure how to tie off my rambling this time, but I hope you guys get the gist of it.

Abdullah


----------



## tomahawk6

Might as well throw the sentencing of radical preacher Anjem Choudary for supporting IS.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-37098751

One of the UK's most notorious radical clerics has been convicted of inviting others to support the so-called Islamic State, it can now be reported.

Police said Anjem Choudary, 49, had stayed "just within the law" for years, but was arrested in 2014 after pledging allegiance to the militant group.

Many people tried for serious terror offences were influenced by his lectures and speeches, police said.

Choudary was convicted alongside confidant Mohammed Mizanur Rahman.

Counter-terrorism chiefs have spent almost 20 years trying to bring Choudary, a father of five, to trial, blaming him, and the proscribed organisations which he helped to run, for radicalising young men and women.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

When you look at the Islamic terrorist, you see in general 3 levels. The bottom level (3rd) is one I have mentioned, poorly educated in both secular and Islamic education, generally foot soldiers and suicide bombers. 2nd level can have a decent-good secular education with either a good or rudimentary Islamic knowledge. These guys are generally field commanders, technical guys and used for more important suicide/terror operations and can work fairly independently. Useful as they can often travel internationally without being painfully obvious. 1st level are people generally with a secular degree, military background at the officer level and either a passable or excellent knowledge of Islam. These are the real leaders and planners and are critical to the organizations. From what I have seen, AQ was mostly interested in the upper 2 levels, where ISIS will happily recruit all 3. In some places you be likely to find a 4th level that fits into the 1st level or between 1-2 and they are people with regional importance such as tribal leaders, Mullahs, whose education can vary widely, but their power and authority comes from who they command.  

I compare the 2nd level people who are generally young and dissatisfied with the typical Liberal/progressive here looking to promote various stuff like LGBT/PETA/Safe spaces/radical environmentalism/etc. Both are upset the world is not meeting their black and white interpretations of how it should be and upset that their role in life will be minor. In the west, these people are allowed a lot of different outlets where they can blow off steam and not become a problem. However in many countries these people have no way to truly vent and it builds up become a self-perpetuating state. For these people and for some disillusioned young westerners, radical Islam present a very simple, tidy and empowering black and white explanation. It also means that if they submit to the will of Allah, then in their minds they will “win” no matter what the outcome is and they will have an effect on the world, no matter how briefly.


----------



## mariomike

August 24, 2016 

National Post

France doubles down on burkini ban as images appear to show cops forcing woman to remove swimwear
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/france-doubles-down-on-burkini-ban-as-images-appear-to-show-cops-forcing-woman-to-remove-swimwear
Photos appearing to show French police forcing a woman on a Nice beach to remove parts of her “burkini” — a body-covering swimsuit favoured by some Muslim women — have ignited outrage over social media.

People have responded by posting pics of nuns on the beach  
https://twitter.com/lizzzbrown/status/768407801295056896
"In France nuns frolic along the beach with no fear while brown, pious, religious women are under assault"


----------



## Jarnhamar

mariomike said:
			
		

> People have responded by posting pics of nuns on the beach
> https://twitter.com/lizzzbrown/status/768407801295056896
> "In France nuns frolic along the beach with no fear while brown, pious, religious women are under assault"



You gotta admit that's a great point and observation. Nuns are allowed to keep their religious attire while Muslim women aren't. Doesn't really seem fair.  

Then again when Christians start shooting up disco's in France murdering (and apparently mutilating) 130 people at a time, critically wounding close to 400 more or murdering 87 people with a truck and injuring 300 others in a single act those nuns will have to take their attire off too.


----------



## jollyjacktar

I have read comment, however, that is of the opinion folks like this woman in the burkini are not the fucking terrorist types that need to be hunted down and exterminated.  Those bastards are not likely to be sharing a beach with the infidels.  I tend to agree that the beards don't go to the beach in birkinis.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> ... when Christians start shooting up disco's in France murdering (and apparently mutilating) 130 people at a time, critically wounding close to 400 more or murdering 87 people with a truck and injuring 300 others in a single act those nuns will have to take their attire off too.


1)  <sarcasm>And once that last burkini's off the beaches of France, hearts and minds everywhere will be won, and there will be no more terrorism - _that'll_ learn 'em!</sarcasm>
2)  Do we know where the photo of the nuns was taken?  Was it at a beach with a religious clothing ban on, or was it someplace else, in which case it doesn't even make sense.  After all, the photo was posted by an Italian imam who wanted to spark some debate, and that it certainly did.  In fact, he appears to have just posted a photo on FB, and waited for the comments (and media coverage) to roooll in.  And we get those who like the idea all cranked up and hating Muslims more, and those who oppose the idea all cranked up and hating the West more -- interesting info-op case study, no?  Or are we going to read about this on globalresearch.ca as a black flag op?  

My :2c: :  Banning the burkinis is just local governments doing something _right f'n now_ because it doesn't look like anything's happening _right f'n now_ if they do the right, but longer-to-kick-in stuff (better int/policing, deradicalization, keeping a grip on internet/other ways vulnerable folk are being radicalized, taking the fight to the bad guys further afield, etc.).


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> You gotta admit that's a great point and observation. Nuns are allowed to keep their religious attire while Muslim women aren't. Doesn't really seem fair.
> 
> Then again when Christians start shooting up disco's in France murdering (and apparently mutilating) 130 people at a time, critically wounding close to 400 more or murdering 87 people with a truck and injuring 300 others in a single act those nuns will have to take their attire off too.



Timothy McVeigh was pretty Christian and white and he killed 168 and wounded another 650. The IRA were pretty christian and white and they killed people. Ditto for the Basques. 

The problem with the Burqua laws are that they just feed into what the terrorists/ISIS tell disillusioned youth to get them to commit these acts. So by implementing these laws the west simply disenfranchises more young muslims, tells them they aren't a part of their own society, and keeps the circle going. 

We, the west, are supposed to be better than this. That's perhaps what's most disappointing. If we can tell muslims they're not allowed to live the way they want than what's to stop the government from continuing down the same road?


----------



## George Wallace

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> We, the west, are supposed to be better than this. That's perhaps what's most disappointing. If we can tell muslims they're not allowed to live the way they want than what's to stop the government from continuing down the same road?



WHOA!

You can say we are supposed to better than this all you want, but there has to be an end to all of this PC BS or we give up all that we know and hold dear.  Sorry, but if they do not want to integrate into our society and culture, then why are they coming here?  Stay where you find your social and cultural practices acceptable.  Don't go to a strange and foreign culture and society and expect them to change for you.  

Your attitude on this is very generous towards a foreign culture, but does not acknowledge that the same is not reciprocated by that culture towards outsiders such as Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, and all other religions back where they came from.  

Someone has to put their foot down.  There is a saying we are all familiar with: "If you don't like it here; LEAVE."  That is addressed to those who come here and do not want to integrate and not contribute to our culture and society, but want all of us to bend to their ways.  Eventually there will be a backlash if the 'Law' (figuratively) is not set down and followed.


----------



## McG

Not forcing people to dress as you want is "generous"?



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Sorry, but if they do not want to integrate into our society and culture, then why are they coming here?


Sorry to challenge your bigoted view here but many of "they" were born Canadian.  "They" did not come here any more than you came here and imposed with your European ways.  

Should the Dene or Iroquois invite you to assimilate or leave?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

I don't care what anyone wears, so long as I can read their facial reactions when I'm talking to them.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

George Wallace said:
			
		

> WHOA!
> 
> You can say we are supposed to better than this all you want, but there has to be an end to all of this PC BS or we give up all that we know and hold dear.  Sorry, but if they do not want to integrate into our society and culture, then why are they coming here?  Stay where you find your social and cultural practices acceptable.  Don't go to a strange and foreign culture and society and expect them to change for you.
> 
> Your attitude on this is very generous towards a foreign culture, but does not acknowledge that the same is not reciprocated by that culture towards outsiders such as Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, and all other religions back where they came from.
> 
> Someone has to put their foot down.  There is a saying we are all familiar with: "If you don't like it here; LEAVE."  That is addressed to those who come here and do not want to integrate and not contribute to our culture and society, but want all of us to bend to their ways.  Eventually there will be a backlash if the 'Law' (figuratively) is not set down and followed.



So, what is "our"? French and British only? Do Ukrainians count too, as long as they're not too Ukrainian? Like, with the dancing and perogies and stuff? What about Italians? Can we loop natives into "our" too since it was their land to start with or are they too weird to be "us"?

Taking a look at our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it states:

Fundamental freedoms

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

So, our own charter says that we're supposed to be better than this (and acknowledged the event was in France, not Canada). The charter doesn't stipulate that the rights only count if they fit into someones definition of "our". 

As for your argument about reciprocation, who cares? Perhaps, just perhaps, these people, like our European ancestors (who did fun things like burned protestants/catholics/jews/etc, threw them from windows and, in the case of France, killed thousands in holy wars) came to Canada to escape such things. Perhaps, just perhaps, we shouldn't paint all muslims with the same brush more than we do any other religion or race or ethnicity. I, as a part of the "our" I suspect you speak of (white, first generation Canadian), take pride in the fact that in Canada we treat people better than, say, Iran. I take pride that we allow different views to be spoken. I take pride that we protect people's freedoms of religion where other's dont. I also take pride that we have law and order and will punish those who actually do violate our laws. 

The "Burkini" was never going to hurt anyone, but the reaction of people who are willing to look away from basic freedoms we give in the name of whatever it is they are going for (punishment? Xenophobia? fashion?) can, and does. I think Nietzsche best summed it up:


----------



## mariomike

Burkinis? What about Speedos? ( aka "Budgie Smugglers" )  

After the burkini ban, people are asking if France can outlaw fat men in Speedos too
http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/after-the-burkini-ban-people-are-asking-if-france-can-outlaw-fat-men-in-speedos-too--bJxCDWodJdb


----------



## Jarnhamar

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Timothy McVeigh was pretty Christian and white and he killed 168 and wounded another 650. The IRA were pretty christian and white and they killed people. Ditto for the Basques.



Yes Timothy McVeigh. He's the go to example of "Christians are terrorists too".  Along with Hitler.

McVeigh's attack was 21 years ago, hardly current. Religionofpeace.com is obviously biased but I took a look at some of the stats and stories they posted and found them accurate so far.   That website is tracking 1534 Islamic attacks in 51 countries, in which 13592 people were killed and 16443 injured; in 2016.   A bit more current then 1995.


Also McVeigh's on again off again religion was hardly the driving force behind his attacks. He bombed the building because of what happened in Waco, Ruby Ridge and other government actions. Here's a blurb on his "religion" from Wikipedia.



> McVeigh was raised Roman Catholic.[91] During his childhood, he and his father attended Mass regularly.[92] McVeigh was confirmed at the Good Shepherd Church in Pendleton, New York, in 1985.[93] In a 1996 interview, McVeigh professed belief in "a God", although he said he had "sort of lost touch with" Catholicism and "I never really picked it up, however I do maintain core beliefs."[91] In McVeigh's biography American Terrorist, released in 2002, he stated that he did not believe in a hell and that science is his religion.[94][95] In June 2001, a day before the execution, McVeigh wrote a letter to the Buffalo News identifying himself as agnostic. However, he took the Last Rites, administered by a priest, just before his execution








> The problem with the Burqua laws are that they just feed into what the terrorists/ISIS tell disillusioned youth to get them to commit these acts. So by implementing these laws the west simply disenfranchises more young muslims, tells them they aren't a part of their own society, and keeps the circle going.


Maybe.
I'd say the problem with the Burqua is that it's being defended as religious freedom when it's not a religious article of clothing. (I know that's a tired argument too) 
On top of that it's represents abuse to a lot of people and it's only become popular in the last little while.










Sensationalized sure but you get the picture.



> We, the west, are supposed to be better than this. That's perhaps what's most disappointing. If we can tell Muslims they're not allowed to live the way they want than what's to stop the government from continuing down the same road?



"We" are still relatively safe. The problem with me and you sitting here debating over France banning Burkins is that me and you aren't witnessing violent attacks and confrontations first hand like France is.  We can still go to the grocery story and not wonder if it's going to blow up or have to stay away from certain parts of town. We're generally not afraid someone is going to smash us with a truck on a beach as a terrorist attack.  A terrorist wanna-be murdered a Canadian soldier and paralyzed the country in fear for a few days. Our military was ordered to drive to work in civilian clothing- from one attack and one death.

Easy for us to criticize France but they're basically underseige. I guarantee if we see the number of attacks they have or the death toll they deal with we'll change our views too.


----------



## George Wallace

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> So, what is "our"? French and British only? Do Ukrainians count too, as long as they're not too Ukrainian? Like, with the dancing and perogies and stuff? What about Italians? Can we loop natives into "our" too since it was their land to start with or are they too weird to be "us"?



All your examples are of peoples who have, for the most part, integrated into a homogeneous society and culture, accepting of the differences between them all.  This all existed well before we had "Multiculturalism" forced upon us.  I have no problem with that, nor any of your following quotes from the Charter.  I do have a problem with those who DO NOT want to integrate with our culture and society, no matter whom they are.  If they don't like it, then why are they here?  



			
				Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Taking a look at our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it states:
> 
> Fundamental freedoms
> 
> 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
> 
> (a) freedom of conscience and religion;  This is not a clause stating that it is acceptable to convert, subvert or otherwise attack other's religions.
> 
> (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;  This does not, however, permit "HATE SPEECH", or such, to be transmitted against others.
> 
> (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and  NOTE the wording: "peaceful".
> 
> (d) freedom of association.  Within the LAW, of course.
> 
> So, our own charter says that we're supposed to be better than this (and acknowledged the event was in France, not Canada). The charter doesn't stipulate that the rights only count if they fit into someones definition of "our".
> 
> As for your argument about reciprocation, who cares? Perhaps, just perhaps, these people, like our European ancestors (who did fun things like burned protestants/catholics/jews/etc, threw them from windows and, in the case of France, killed thousands in holy wars) came to Canada to escape such things. Perhaps, just perhaps, we shouldn't paint all muslims with the same brush more than we do any other religion or race or ethnicity. I, as a part of the "our" I suspect you speak of (white, first generation Canadian), take pride in the fact that in Canada we treat people better than, say, Iran. I take pride that we allow different views to be spoken. I take pride that we protect people's freedoms of religion where other's dont. I also take pride that we have law and order and will punish those who actually do violate our laws.



I stand by my points.  If they have come here to escape those things, fine.  If they are bringing that hatred and barbaric beliefs here, with the intent to apply them to our culture and society, then NO.  Different views are fine.  Radicalization and the intent to destroy our culture and society are not acceptable.  



			
				Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> The "Burkini" was never going to hurt anyone, but the reaction of people who are willing to look away from basic freedoms we give in the name of whatever it is they are going for (punishment? Xenophobia? fashion?) can, and does.



Frankly, the "Burkini" is no different than the examples of Catholic Nuns, or the costumes that women wore to the beach in the year 1900.  Let's also remember that this is not a "religious garment" but a cultural one and stop pushing the "religious argument" when discussing it.  All it is, is a certain culture is catching up with the times.  It is a modernization of what they were permitted previously (to the best of my knowledge).  In another hundred years, perhaps they will be accepting of 1970's swimwear.


----------



## Remius

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Yes Timothy McVeigh. He's the go to example of "Christians are terrorists too".  Along with Hitler.
> 
> McVeigh's attack was 21 years ago, hardly current. Religionofpeace.com is obviously biased but I took a look at some of the stats and stories they posted and found them accurate so far.   That website is tracking 1534 Islamic attacks in 51 countries, in which 13592 people were killed and 16443 injured; in 2016.   A bit more current then 1995.
> 
> 
> Also McVeigh's on again off again religion was hardly the driving force behind his attacks. He bombed the building because of what happened in Waco, Ruby Ridge and other government actions. Here's a blurb on his "religion" from Wikipedia.



What about this guy then:  Robert Lewis Dear in 2015.  Pretty recent and has all the hallmarks of a religious inspired terrorist attack.   

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Springs_Planned_Parenthood_shooting


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Yes Timothy McVeigh. He's the go to example of "Christians are terrorists too".  Along with Hitler.
> 
> McVeigh's attack was 21 years ago, hardly current. Religionofpeace.com is obviously biased but I took a look at some of the stats and stories they posted and found them accurate so far.   That website is tracking 1534 Islamic attacks in 51 countries, in which 13592 people were killed and 16443 injured; in 2016.   A bit more current then 1995.
> 
> 
> Also McVeigh's on again off again religion was hardly the driving force behind his attacks. He bombed the building because of what happened in Waco, Ruby Ridge and other government actions. Here's a blurb on his "religion" from Wikipedia.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe.
> I'd say the problem with the Burqua is that it's being defended as religious freedom when it's not a religious article of clothing. (I know that's a tired argument too)
> On top of that it's represents abuse to a lot of people and it's only become popular in the last little while.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sensationalized sure but you get the picture.
> 
> "We" are still relatively safe. The problem with me and you sitting here debating over France banning Burkins is that me and you aren't witnessing violent attacks and confrontations first hand like France is.  We can still go to the grocery story and not wonder if it's going to blow up or have to stay away from certain parts of town. We're generally not afraid someone is going to smash us with a truck on a beach as a terrorist attack.  A terrorist wanna-be murdered a Canadian soldier and paralyzed the country in fear for a few days. Our military was ordered to drive to work in civilian clothing- from one attack and one death.
> 
> Easy for us to criticize France but they're basically underseige. I guarantee if we see the number of attacks they have or the death toll they deal with we'll change our views too.



Ok, so you think McVeigh is too old. How about Dylan Roof (Charleston massacre)? 

But, you are right- The Burkha is simply an article of clothing, no different than jeans, t-shirts, or ball caps. The Burkha has never killed anyone since it is an inanimate object. So what are people afraid of? How does outlawing a piece of clothing make France any safer?

I suspect that famous French citizens like Jean-Jacques Rousseau would be dismayed to see that in 2016 France was at a state where their only ability to deal with the rise of extremism in their communities wasn't to deal with "why" these people felt disenfranchised or why they could become enemies of the state- rather, to ban a piece of clothing with, as you stated, no religious value. The following quote, describes a separate situation, but I feel defines how we, the west, violate our key principles when we do things like ban pieces of cloth:

“They say that Caliph Omar, when consulted about what had to be done with the library of Alexandria, answered as follows: 'If the books of this library contain matters opposed to the Koran, they are bad and must be burned. If they contain only the doctrine of the Koran, burn them anyway, for they are superfluous.' Our learned men have cited this reasoning as the height of absurdity. However, suppose Gregory the Great was there instead of Omar and the Gospel instead of the Koran. The library would still have been burned, and that might well have been the finest moment in the life of this illustrious pontiff.” 
― Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on the Sciences and Arts (1st Discourse) and Polemics 

Finally- “Laws are always useful to those who possess and vexatious to those who have nothing.”― Jean-Jacques Rousseau 

Perhaps the social issues facing muslims in France and other parts of the west is what is leading to the radicalization? Most radicals, like the IRA, fight not because they have much, they fight because they have nothing and few options. Continually stripping them of culture and pride only exacerbates the problem. We don't need to "hug it out" with terrorists, but we sure as h@ll need to understand "why" it's happening


----------



## jollyjacktar

I just finished watching this film over the weekend.  These bastards (and the Christian fundamentalists too) are out there as well and quite frankly scare me just as much if not more than little Johnny Jihad as I think they're probably more numerous and the most definitely look like us and come from us.  I don't know if they're as prevalent north of the border as they are down south.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperium_(2016_film)


----------



## mariomike

For anyone curious about how much a Burkini ticket is, it's €11 (£9, $12).
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37183083

I believe that is $16.06 CDN.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Perhaps the social issues facing muslims in France and other parts of the west is what is leading to the radicalization? Most radicals, like the IRA, fight not because they have much, they fight because they have nothing and few options. Continually stripping them of culture and pride only exacerbates the problem. We don't need to "hug it out" with terrorists, but we sure as h@ll need to understand "why" it's happening


On that bit in yellow, what makes it complicated is that in the West, it appears that folks with not much to complain about (from the outside looking in, at least) are being radicalized.  How you deal with them might be quite different from how to deal with those more marginalized, or those who are showing some mental illness or other vulnerability.  All of this, plus the int piece plus the policing piece plus the fighting them where they grow/prosper plus deradicalization options, makes it a pretty complicated answer.  Which is why it's easy to pick on something that may not fix the problem - like falling for baiting from people like "look at these nuns on a beach that may not even ban burkinis" guy.


----------



## Journeyman

_~sigh~_



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Radicalization and the intent to destroy our culture and society are not acceptable.


Correct, and no one is arguing that it is acceptable...except you in your straw man.

The _massively overwhelming_  percentage of Muslims living here do not believe in Jihad.  They do feel that their community is under siege and already too much under a microscope.  Internal to the Islamic communities, the majority are therefore quite unhappy with their radicalized people who add to that siege.  Externally, the people who keep bringing forth this narrative of "if you're not going to be a white, anglo, Ozzie and Harriet, then you must be a terrorist-in-waiting, so go home [even if this is their home],"  simply adds to both communities' tensions..... not withstanding, as noted, being a BS straw-man.

In the end, the vast minority of people actually preaching radicalized violence are pining for the past -- the first generation of Islam -- and do not function well in modern society, because they try to replicate a society that existed 1400 years ago.  

As such, I do not believe that jihad can succeed; to paraphrase John Lennon, "if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao  Osama bin Laden, you ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow."  It will inevitably collapse of its own contradictions, but it must be an internal process.  It will probably be a lengthy fight, but the struggle will only be lengthened by ill thought out [*to be generous*], black & white statements that only feed into the radicals' narratives of "see? By their own words, they're out to oppress us."



Note:  Many of the words here I've taken from an interview with Mubin Shaikh, the CSIS/RCMP operative within the "Toronto 18."


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

George Wallace said:
			
		

> All your examples are of peoples who have, for the most part, integrated into a homogeneous society and culture, accepting of the differences between them all.  This all existed well before we had "Multiculturalism" forced upon us.  I have no problem with that, nor any of your following quotes from the Charter.  I do have a problem with those who DO NOT want to integrate with our culture and society, no matter whom they are.  If they don't like it, then why are they here?
> 
> I stand by my points.  If they have come here to escape those things, fine.  If they are bringing that hatred and barbaric beliefs here, with the intent to apply them to our culture and society, then NO.  Different views are fine.  Radicalization and the intent to destroy our culture and society are not acceptable.
> 
> Frankly, the "Burkini" is no different than the examples of Catholic Nuns, or the costumes that women wore to the beach in the year 1900.  Let's also remember that this is not a "religious garment" but a cultural one and stop pushing the "religious argument" when discussing it.  All it is, is a certain culture is catching up with the times.  It is a modernization of what they were permitted previously (to the best of my knowledge).  In another hundred years, perhaps they will be accepting of 1970's swimwear.



The point with the Burkini is, why do you care what she wants to wear to the beach? Why does it matter so deeply to you that she wants to wear a one piece swimsuit? It shouldn't, because frankly, it's none of your business what she wants to wear. Is it cultural or religious? Once again, who cares? If she wants to wear it to the beach and it's not hurting you than why do you care? 

If people can't accept that then I would suggest the problem lies with them and not her or her culture. Also, that "certain culture" you speak of should be the French culture needing to catch up with western norms of individual choice and acceptance of other cultures. The muslim ladies told to take it off were French citizens, so by default, they were acting as French people do (sort of in the same way that once you win a nobel peace prize/pullitzer, etc you by default always act like a nobel peace prize winner.

Next, as stated by journeyman, the VAST majority of muslims here in Canada have integrated, and frankly, know far more about Canada and are far better educated about the world than most of the people I grew up around in Grey County, Ontario. I'm Ukrainian/Dutch and recently attended a Ukrainian festival in Dauphin, Manitoba. Do those people, who joined Ukrainian associations to preserve Ukrainian heritage show that they've integrated into Canadian culture any more than a muslim person in Toronto who wants to wear a Burkha as part of their heritage? What about Oktoberfest in Kitchener, On? We should shut that down since the Germans (who, btw, we actually fought existential wars with) refuse to become Canadian. 

Finally, multiculturalism wasn't force on you. Canada is a multicultural country. The only people multiculturalism was forced on were the natives. Muslim's born in Canada have every right to be Canadian in their own way, same as you. If you don't like it, than, in your own words, you're free to leave.


----------



## mariomike

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I'm Ukrainian/Dutch and recently attended a Ukrainian festival in Dauphin, Manitoba. Do those people, who joined Ukrainian associations to preserve Ukrainian heritage show that they've integrated into Canadian culture any more than a muslim person in Toronto who wants to wear a Burkha as part of their heritage?



Check this one out. Neither of us are Ukrainian, but it's in our neighbourhood, so we go every year! 
http://www.ukrainianfestival.com/

Good news about the Burkini tempest, they stop ticketing in six days. Brace for the next social media sh!t storm.


----------



## George Wallace

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> The point with the Burkini is, why do you care what she wants to wear to the beach? Why does it matter so deeply to you that she wants to wear a one piece swimsuit? It shouldn't, because frankly, it's none of your business what she wants to wear. Is it cultural or religious? Once again, who cares? If she wants to wear it to the beach and it's not hurting you than why do you care?



Did I state that I cared?  I don't.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Frankly, the "Burkini" is no different than the examples of Catholic Nuns, or the costumes that women wore to the beach in the year 1900.  Let's also remember that this is not a "religious garment" but a cultural one and stop pushing the "religious argument" when discussing it.  All it is, is a certain culture is catching up with the times.  It is a modernization of what they were permitted previously (to the best of my knowledge).  In another hundred years, perhaps they will be accepting of 1970's swimwear.



So the French passed a Law?  That is their business, along with the enforcement of.  It is very objectionable, though, that in enforcing the Law, the Police had the person remove clothing instead of just the issuance of a Ticket/Fine.



			
				Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Finally, multiculturalism wasn't force on you. Canada is a multicultural country. The only people multiculturalism was forced on were the natives. Muslim's born in Canada have every right to be Canadian in their own way, same as you. If you don't like it, than, in your own words, you're free to leave.



I did not say that Canada was not a multicultural country.  I stated that "Multiculturalism", as in a Government Legislation and Institution, was forced upon us.  That is why I put it in quotes.  Decades before the Liberals under Pierre Elliott Trudeau created this whole "Multiculturalism", we had many different Cultural Festivals, perhaps even more than we do today.  The Ukrainian Festival in Dauphin and Oktoberfest in Kitchener-Waterloo are probably the largest and most known, having been in existence for ages.  Saint Patrick's Day, the Lunar New Year and other celebrations have also been popular well before "Multiculturalism" became a political buzz word.  As such, I feel "Multiculturalism" in the Government mandated sense is a failure and counter productive, sometimes even discriminatory.   

On an aside:  Events that require Government funding, may want to look at why they need that funding.  Perhaps there is no market for what they are offering.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

mariomike said:
			
		

> Check this one out. I'm not Ukrainian, but it's in my neighbourhood, so I go every year!
> http://www.ukrainianfestival.com/
> 
> Good news about the Burkini tempest, they stop ticketing in six days.



Why wont these people just assimilate and become Canadians already? My Canada does not include women wearing hats made of flowers and speaking a foreign language! I demand a ban on flower hats


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

A British comedian had this comment on fashion at last year's Just for Laughs Festival:

"In my country, we still have fox-hunts. In every hunt, there is a hound dog at the back of the pack who has a birth defect and as result - no sense of smell at all. He can't smell anything. He doesn't smell the fox. Doesn't know what the pack is after. All he is doing is following a bunch of A**holes!"


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Did I state that I cared?  I don't.
> 
> So the French passed a Law?  That is their business, along with the enforcement of.  It is very objectionable, though, that in enforcing the Law, the Police had the person remove clothing instead of just the issuance of a Ticket/Fine.
> 
> I did not say that Canada was not a multicultural country.  I stated that "Multiculturalism", as in a Government Legislation and Institution, was forced upon us.  That is why I put it in quotes.  Decades before the Liberals under Pierre Elliott Trudeau created this whole "Multiculturalism", we had many different Cultural Festivals, perhaps even more than we do today.  The Ukrainian Festival in Dauphin and Oktoberfest in Kitchener-Waterloo are probably the largest and most known, having been in existence for ages.  Saint Patrick's Day, the Lunar New Year and other celebrations have also been popular well before "Multiculturalism" became a political buzz word.  As such, I feel "Multiculturalism" in the Government mandated sense is a failure and counter productive, sometimes even discriminatory.
> 
> On an aside:  Events that require Government funding, may want to look at why they need that funding.  Perhaps there is no market for what they are offering.



You clearly care since you were able to hop up to a keyboard and put your  :2c: in. I care because I think the west is better than what France is doing and what Trump is espousing to our South. Muslims/Mexicans aren't going to destroy our way of life... we're going to destroy it by destroying what we stand for most of all- tolerance, unalienable freedoms, etc. Trump wants to build a castle society, so does France. 

Multiculturalism, whether government funded or not, is part of the reality of Canada. Oktoberfest receives government funding (http://www.oktoberfest.ca/News/Celebrating_German_Culture_and_Heritage_in_Waterloo_Region/115, https://www.oktoberfest.ca/News/Kitchener-Waterloo-Oktoberfest-Receives-Ontario-Trillium-Foundation-Funding/111). I assume that you are equally angry to know that governments (Conservative too) have been giving your hard working tax dollars to these welfare burden, lederhosen wearing, kraut eating Germans. Or are they enough like "us" to qualify to be in your Canada?


----------



## mariomike

I felt sorry for the Nice P.D. Hard to imagine a "nicer" assignment than babe beach watch on the French Riviera. Instead, they have to spend their days handing out two-bit by-law tickets.


----------



## Jed

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Did I state that I cared?  I don't.
> 
> So the French passed a Law?  That is their business, along with the enforcement of.  It is very objectionable, though, that in enforcing the Law, the Police had the person remove clothing instead of just the issuance of a Ticket/Fine.
> 
> I did not say that Canada was not a multicultural country.  I stated that "Multiculturalism", as in a Government Legislation and Institution, was forced upon us.  That is why I put it in quotes.  Decades before the Liberals under Pierre Elliott Trudeau created this whole "Multiculturalism", we had many different Cultural Festivals, perhaps even more than we do today.  The Ukrainian Festival in Dauphin and Oktoberfest in Kitchener-Waterloo are probably the largest and most known, having been in existence for ages.  Saint Patrick's Day, the Lunar New Year and other celebrations have also been popular well before "Multiculturalism" became a political buzz word.  As such, I feel "Multiculturalism" in the Government mandated sense is a failure and counter productive, sometimes even discriminatory.
> 
> On an aside:  Events that require Government funding, may want to look at why they need that funding.  Perhaps there is no market for what they are offering.



Well said. I too am not against a multicultural Canada. I am against a government Mandated multicultural Canada. It is nothing but politically correct BS that results in the end of groups of society reinforcing their own bias and inherent bigotry and racism.


----------



## George Wallace

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> You clearly care since you were able to hop up to a keyboard and put your  :2c: in. I care because I think the west is better than what France is doing and what Trump is espousing to our South. Muslims/Mexicans aren't going to destroy our way of life... we're going to destroy it by destroying what we stand for most of all- tolerance, unalienable freedoms, etc. Trump wants to build a castle society, so does France.
> 
> Multiculturalism, whether government funded or not, is part of the reality of Canada. Oktoberfest receives government funding (http://www.oktoberfest.ca/News/Celebrating_German_Culture_and_Heritage_in_Waterloo_Region/115, https://www.oktoberfest.ca/News/Kitchener-Waterloo-Oktoberfest-Receives-Ontario-Trillium-Foundation-Funding/111). I assume that you are equally angry to know that governments (Conservative too) have been giving your hard working tax dollars to these welfare burden, lederhosen wearing, kraut eating Germans. Or are they enough like "us" to qualify to be in your Canada?



I think you have a serious problem and as such are trying to put words into my mouth.  Sorry that you want to carry on this way.  I will not comment on your latest attempt.


----------



## Bass ackwards

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Why wont these people just assimilate and become Canadians already? My Canada does not include women wearing hats made of flowers and speaking a foreign language! I demand a ban on flower hats



Personally, I find your various "flower hats" a lot less offensive than the sight of some lily-white WASP with 14 pounds of jewellery stuck in her face and a tattoo on her neck. But, to each their own...
Where I have a problem with the "flower hat" is that I can't help but wonder if she's wearing it because she wants to -if so, great! -or is she wearing it because if she doesn't she's going to 'accidentally' fall down the stairs, or maybe wind up in a car at the bottom of a canal.

I like women. And I don't like the thought of them living in fear of anybody, much less their husbands or fathers or brothers. The non-white guy who's willing to do violence to a woman on religious or cultural grounds is no better than the white trailer-trash douchebag who beats his wife because he's a wife beating douchebag. The only difference is that one we're supposed to condemn and the other we're supposed to look away and keep quiet about.

We hear enough about women overseas having fingernails pulled out for the offense of wearing nail polish (to use one example) and we know that honour killings do happen in our neck of the woods. That, to me, constitutes reasonable and probable grounds for concern -at the very least.

If white liberals want to sacrifice these women on the altar of diversity that's really no skin off my nose.
And if white liberals want to jump all over my ass and call me a racist and xenophobe for being concerned -fine. I'll stop caring.
Just don't tell me that multi-culturalism isn't being forced on us. It's sure as hell being forced on every victim of an honour killing that we _let_ happen because we're too afraid of being labelled racist.

My Canada has tons of room for flower hats, burkhas, niquabs, lederhosen, face jewellery and anything else someone wants to wear. 
But it's got no room at all for any bastard who wants to force someone to wear something.


----------



## Jarnhamar

[quote author=Remius]
What about this guy then:  Robert Lewis Dear in 2015.  Pretty recent and has all the hallmarks of a religious inspired terrorist attack.   

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Springs_Planned_Parenthood_shooting
[/quote]

[quote author=Bird_Gunner45]]
Ok, so you think McVeigh is too old. How about Dylan Roof (Charleston massacre)? 
[/quote]

Robert Lewis Dear seems like a good example of a religious inspired shooter. Dylan Roof's shooting seems more race inspired.

Anything from the last couple months? In France I'm tracking; 
-a rabbi in orthodox clothing is stabbed by a man shouting praises to Allah. 
-an 84 year old priest having his throat slit
-A mother and her three young daughters are stabbed by a Muslim man during breakfast for not being sufficiently clothed. 
-86 dead from the Nice massacre.
-Police officer and his wife stabbed to death by a jihadist

What's my point? France has a very real problem with their citizens being targeted by Islamic extremists.



> But, you are right- The Burkha is simply an article of clothing, no different than jeans, t-shirts, or ball caps. The Burkha has never killed anyone since it is an inanimate object. So what are people afraid of? How does outlawing a piece of clothing make France any safer?



Good question. Maybe it's symbolic? Maybe the French see it as a step on the path towards demands that public pools be segregated by men and women liek what's happening in Germany?
Or maybe an increase in instances of their nude bathers being attacked?




> Perhaps the social issues facing muslims in France and other parts of the west is what is leading to the radicalization? Most radicals, like the IRA, fight not because they have much, they fight because they have nothing and few options. Continually stripping them of culture and pride only exacerbates the problem. We don't need to "hug it out" with terrorists, but we sure as h@ll need to understand "why" it's happening



Good point.  I think the problem in France and other places in Europe isn't _only_ because of radicalized Islamic attacks but also when cultures won't integrate. (obviously right?) When crowds of Muslim men (and women) harass women and push their religious and cultural beliefs on others ie calling them sluts and giving a shit about how they're dressed. 
And of course the opposite, when someone sees a Muslim dressed however they want and harass them calling them terrorists and the unfair harassment Muslims have to deal with.

The thing is when 130 people in your country get murdered in a couple hours in the name of religion X, being harassed by people with the same religion, because of rules/laws of that religion, the harassment probably takes on a more sinister feeling.  

Peoples feelings towards that piece of cultural symbolism isn't a surprise.


----------



## Remius

Bass ackwards said:
			
		

> Just don't tell me that multi-culturalism isn't being forced on us. It's sure as hell being forced on every victim of an honour killing that we _let_ happen because we're too afraid of being labelled racist.



I'm legitimately curious as to what exactly you think is being forced on you or us for that matter.  So we are letting honour killings happen in Canada? I'm pretty sure we have laws against that don't we?


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I think you have a serious problem and as such are trying to put words into my mouth.  Sorry that you want to carry on this way.  I will not comment on your latest attempt.



my serious problem is bigotry. Take that as you will.


----------



## Lightguns

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Timothy McVeigh was pretty Christian and white and he killed 168 and wounded another 650. The IRA were pretty christian and white and they killed people. Ditto for the Basques.
> 
> The problem with the Burqua laws are that they just feed into what the terrorists/ISIS tell disillusioned youth to get them to commit these acts. So by implementing these laws the west simply disenfranchises more young muslims, tells them they aren't a part of their own society, and keeps the circle going.
> 
> We, the west, are supposed to be better than this. That's perhaps what's most disappointing. If we can tell muslims they're not allowed to live the way they want than what's to stop the government from continuing down the same road?



Just because he was a white boy does not make him a Christian:

Religious beliefs[edit]

_"McVeigh was raised Roman Catholic.[91] During his childhood, he and his father attended Mass regularly.[92] McVeigh was confirmed at the Good Shepherd Church in Pendleton, New York, in 1985.[93] In a 1996 interview, McVeigh professed belief in "a God", although he said he had "sort of lost touch with" Catholicism and "I never really picked it up, however I do maintain core beliefs."[91] In McVeigh's biography American Terrorist, released in 2002, he stated that he did not believe in a hell and that science is his religion.[94][95] In June 2001, a day before the execution, McVeigh wrote a letter to the Buffalo News identifying himself as agnostic. However, he took the Last Rites, administered by a priest, just before his execution.[96][97][98][99][100][101]"_

Every white terrorist in the US has not been a Christian, they are either from a cult or a KKK church, none of which are recognized as Christian.


----------



## George Wallace

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> my serious problem is bigotry. Take that as you will.



Obviously you think I am one, and conversely are making yourself look like one to me.  That is my take.


----------



## Remius

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Every white terrorist in the US has not been a Christian, they are either from a cult or a KKK church, none of which are recognized as Christian.



Isn't that the same as a Muslim decrying ISIS as not truly being Islamic?

The KKK and those Cults all claim Christian virtues and values at their core.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Just because he was a white boy does not make him a Christian:
> 
> Religious beliefs[edit]
> 
> _"McVeigh was raised Roman Catholic.[91] During his childhood, he and his father attended Mass regularly.[92] McVeigh was confirmed at the Good Shepherd Church in Pendleton, New York, in 1985.[93] In a 1996 interview, McVeigh professed belief in "a God", although he said he had "sort of lost touch with" Catholicism and "I never really picked it up, however I do maintain core beliefs."[91] In McVeigh's biography American Terrorist, released in 2002, he stated that he did not believe in a hell and that science is his religion.[94][95] In June 2001, a day before the execution, McVeigh wrote a letter to the Buffalo News identifying himself as agnostic. However, he took the Last Rites, administered by a priest, just before his execution.[96][97][98][99][100][101]"_
> 
> Every white terrorist in the US has not been a Christian, they are either from a cult or a KKK church, none of which are recognized as Christian.



Ok. I guess the follow along question is why does it matter if the killings were religious based or not? The fellow who conducted the Orlando attack was stated to not be a strong muslim in the same way that McVeigh was not a strong Christian. The problem isn't "muslims" or any of their related apparel, the problem is with why people are conducting attacks (even in the case of muslims they're not always religious inspired). Banning a piece of clothing does literally nothing to stop any future attack on France, but it sure helps disenfranchise muslims and drive them further from the nation. 

Even just grouping all muslims together is counter-productive. That's why Donald Trump's call to ban muslim's is stupid- what have muslims from Malaysia done? Bosnians? Turks? 

There's a distinct cultural difference between Persians, Saudi's, Egyptians, Somalians, etc or between religious sects (Shia, Sunni, etc). We are better to determine the root individual causes that drive people towards these acts (mental illness, disenfranchisement, etc) than to focus on what god someone prays to. The VAST majority of muslims are integrated into Canadian society. Outliers exist in any religious or ethnic grouping, so what is the use in profiling or banning a piece of cloth? The west is better than this.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Obviously you think I am one, and conversely are making yourself look like one to me.  That is my take.



Yes, my stating that the west should be tolerant of other cultures, celebrate individual freedom, and not take away people's charter rights because, as you stated, they aren't "us" demonstrates my inherent bigotry. Ditto for suggesting that we not group entire religious groups together and conduct collective punishments and ban pieces of cloth because they make people uncomfortable when we literally allow any other form of clothing to be worn anywhere.


----------



## Jed

BG 45

You state this... 'Banning a piece of clothing does literally nothing to stop any future attack on France, but it sure helps disenfranchise muslims and drive them further from the nation. 

Even just grouping all muslims together is counter-productive. That's why Donald Trump's call to ban muslim's is stupid- what have muslims from Malaysia done? Bosnians? Turks? '


Some countries people and / or government disagree with your premise. They may see it as punitive action ' pour encorage les autres' or something to that effect.

I disagree with these measures but France is not my country and who am I to pontificate on what works in their part of the world.


----------



## Lumber

Jed said:
			
		

> I disagree with these measures but France is not my country and *who am I to pontificate on what works in their part of the world*.



You're a member of an online discussion forum... that pontificating is literally all you can do in this capacity...lol


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJ882QYzr-M


Sorry! This thread needed that at this point.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

Jed said:
			
		

> BG 45
> 
> You state this... 'Banning a piece of clothing does literally nothing to stop any future attack on France, but it sure helps disenfranchise muslims and drive them further from the nation.
> 
> Even just grouping all muslims together is counter-productive. That's why Donald Trump's call to ban muslim's is stupid- what have muslims from Malaysia done? Bosnians? Turks? '
> 
> 
> Some countries people and / or government disagree with your premise. They may see it as punitive action ' pour encorage les autres' or something to that effect.
> 
> I disagree with these measures but France is not my country and who am I to pontificate on what works in their part of the world.



People can disagree all they want, that's their right. Same as it's their right to wear what clothing they want, pray or not pray to whatever god they want, and associate with whoever they want.

The thread is called "Islam and Western Society" so I assume that this is the proper forum for discussing islam in France


----------



## Bass ackwards

Remius said:
			
		

> I'm legitimately curious as to what exactly you think is being forced on you or us for that matter.  So we are letting honour killings happen in Canada? I'm pretty sure we have laws against that don't we?



I think, when we are either unwilling or afraid to criticize the culture that brings honour killings to this country, then we are enabling them. Yes, they are illegal here. For now. 

I had a long Queeg-like rant detailing all the ways I think multiculturalism is being forced on us, but I blanked it all. Too much spittle. 
Maybe you don't hear the same "all whites are racist, only whites are racist, no person of colour can ever possibly be a violent criminal or just a general douchebag" mantra that I seem to get on a daily basis from the CBC.


----------



## AbdullahD

I wish to just touch on a few things;
1- punishing innocent people for the acts of terrorism
2- religious requirements of the 'burkini'
3- extremism in other religions.

*(1)* I think this has been fairly well covered by others, but I will still kick it again. By punishing and oppressing Muslim women, France is creating another avenue for extremist groups to radicalize Muslims in France and elsewhere.

http://www.voanews.com/a/radical-islamists-try-to-exploit-islamophobia-101592048/124570.html

  I think and believe from my limited understanding of extremism, the routes thereto and the social sciences.. that the sisters who want to go to a public beach and swim in Burkini's as they are called are hardly needing to be feared. I think they are exhibiting good Islamic and secular values, in the sense that "See this is my belief to cover myself and not show my body off, but your belief is that you need to show off your body and yet we can both be on the same beach together. Because what you believe doesn't affect what I believe and we can coexist"

But by banning Burkini's you are punishing sisters who for the most part peacefully share the beaches of France with others and are not creating issues.

Not to mention you also make it a powerful symbol. If you follow the link, you can hear the tone and see how this could be used..  I am personally fairly right wing politically.. but I think the left could use this to easily garner themselves more political clout.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37062354

Then you get bigoted dialogue, demonizing all Muslims by the 'right', a 'left' that does not wish to address any issues at all due to upsetting the 'Muslims' and their sympathizers and then you will see this mess get worse. If the answers you are picking from are either ban it all or let them do whatever... you will not get a good result.

Let us normal regular every day Muslims dress how we want, because.. it won't hurt you.. unless my sexy thobe distracts you and you crash your car  let us pray and fast and contribute to society...

But those Muslims (and any other religion or ideology) that want to hurt the innocent people or propagate hatred or generally just be criminal.. reign holy hell down upon them. Jail them, execute them and shut them down. But leave us normal people alone.. let our women wear burkinis if they want and niqabs etc. 

*(2)* A womens 'awrah' with evidences
https://islamqa.info/en/82994

A wiki link
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intimate_parts_in_Islam

Without evidences
http://askimam.org/public/question_detail/28533

A neat link of swim wear just cause (seriously just cause, I found it while looking for something else)
http://www.victoriana.com/library/Beach/FashionableBathingSuits.htm

Now the two fatawa links are for those who believe it is obligatory under Islam to wear Burkini's, it is an accepted part of Islam that the majority of scholars stand behind. But! That does not mean that their are not other opinions out there too, I was simply supplying evidences proving it is a part of Islam for a very many ie most Muslims.

Now something I find interesting is those that cry 'pc' all the time... a lot of them are amongst those who have allowed 'political correctness' to flourish in either the way they raised their children, voted, lobbied against the government etc (you go 60's flower power lol). So I consider them a party to the extreme political correctness movements, because they have allowed it to establish itself in the collective consciousness of north Americans and Europeans. 

But, I could definetly cry PC myself when the anti PC guys cry that Muslims are not being culturally correct (cc), that we dont dress act or behave how they like... ie the anti pc crowd wants to limit the liberty of a certain party just because they do not like it... I think the days of isolation are over, white, yellow, red, black or brown are going to be mixed. White kids will marry black or brown or what have you kids, our children or grand or great grandchildren may end up being 'mixed' blood kids. This horse is already out of the gate and it is not coming back. Extreme Political correctness is bad and extreme cultural correctness is wrong too.

The world that is coming will be vastly different then the world of a hundred years ago or more and we must, no we need to decide what our legacy will be. Will our collective legacy be of hatred and fear or of understanding and love? Can me and my Muslim friends not be considered 'western'? We love to hunt, we love our neighbors, our kids, wives etc, we vote, we contribute etc we just pray 5 times a day, cover our bodies more (generally), we fast, we give charity and we believe in one god... why can't this be western too? Why do we have to be feared because our clothing is different? These sisters swimming on the beach, are not hurting people, so let them be... otherwise after the government finishes taking liberties from Muslims/Jews/whoever you may find they come for you next.

*(3)*

A link for starters;
http://aattp.org/here-are-8-christian-terrorist-organizations-that-equal-isis/

So daesh claims to be muslim, they deal drugs and kill people...

The italian mafia claims to be catholics, they deal drugs and kill people.

Google link, because to much exists. 
https://www.google.ca/search?client=ms-android-bell-ca&ei=qFS_V9rHKI_GjwOt-6ngDw&q=the+catholic+connection+to+the+mafia&oq=the+catholic+connection+to+the+mafia&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.12..35i39k1.5980.6219.0.8387.3.3.0.0.0.0.207.368.0j1j1.2.0....0...1c.1j4.64.mobile-gws-serp..1.2.366...30i10k1.r-emj5TGqss

And other religions... so im not unfair...
https://www.google.ca/search?client=ms-android-bell-ca&ei=OZO_V93QBNHejwO4hqnYAQ&q=buddhist+extremists&oq=budhist+extrem&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.1.0.0i10k1l5.21081.24466.0.25686.16.15.1.3.3.0.167.1537.5j9.14.0....0...1c.1j4.64.mobile-gws-serp..1.15.1281.3..0j35i39k1j0i67k1j0i10i67k1.0-B_K58wpTM

https://www.google.ca/search?client=ms-android-bell-ca&ei=VJO_V6ChGZbWjwOKzJaICg&q=hindu+extremists&oq=hindu+extremists&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.3..0i67k1j0i7i30k1l3j0.51414.54027.0.54490.14.12.0.0.0.0.325.1539.2j8j0j1.11.0....0...1c.1j4.64.mobile-gws-serp..7.7.1077.rgZgRJmY68A

https://www.google.ca/search?client=ms-android-bell-ca&ei=jJO_V8adGofSjwOVhazgBg&q=sikh+extremists&oq=sikh+extremists&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.3..0i7i30k1l2j0l2j0i30k1.24583.26640.0.27004.10.9.0.0.0.0.200.1048.2j5j1.8.0....0...1c.1j4.64.mobile-gws-serp..5.5.720...0i67k1.xnpl1sRM2NQ

https://www.google.ca/search?client=ms-android-bell-ca&ei=qZO_V4PWBJPAjwPBibXQCg&q=jewish+extremists&oq=jewish+extremists&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.3..0i67k1j0i7i30k1l3j0i67k1.15975.18177.0.18589.11.11.0.0.0.0.201.1097.4j5j1.10.0....0...1c.1j4.64.mobile-gws-serp..3.8.890.ftFiMtT1R2Y

Central african 'christian' extremists mass behead people nsfw
http://heavy.com/news/2015/12/anti-balaka-christian-extremism-terrorism-central-african-republic-car-africa-mass-muslim-islam-execution-behead-murder-mass-grave-genocide-uncensored-youtube/

Now I personally believe the Mafia reflects upon christians, just about as much as AQ or Daesh do. Ie not at all. But to claim there are no Christian's out there slaughtering people is incorrect.

I think for the laymen extremists in a poor country, his economic status is a huge factor in so called radicalization. Ie he just needs money, so all these idiots in syria, Afghanistan, CAR etc are motivated more by money... if they all had comfortable lifestyles I suspect the rates of radicalization would reflect the rates that are seen in western countries. So if we can band together militarily exterminate extremists, then rebuild the infrastructure and educate the people, we can eliminate extremism. But without all three legs of this plan it will fall. Pure military power won't win, even coupled with infrastructure, we need to do all three and educate the next generation to eradicate this disease. 

Attacking Muslims is tatmount to attacking Islam to a very many people, which ticks them off and adds fuel to this problem.

So instead of making it an issue of us vs them or west vs Islam or whatever. We should just find common ground and work together, banning burqinis, niqabs, ramadan etc just makes the gap both our parties need to jump bigger.

In my humble opinion, 'the west' is not defined by the clothes we wear, the food we eat, the religions we observe. It is defined by the idea and ideals of freedom, whether it be of movement or religion, the west means that every life is sacred and no one is better then the other. It means democracy, the freedom to voice objections safely etc etc etc

These are what we should defend as the 'west' our clothes, food and religions may change over time, but we need to leave something bigger behind and I for one do not want to leave a legacy of fighting behind. So leave us alone and go after the true problem and it is not the burqini or niqab or beard.

Abdullah


----------



## Brad Sallows

If people are carrying on with habits and practices which they've indulged for years here with no prior hoopla, there isn't much practical reason to suddenly start objecting.

If people are suddenly taking an interest in atypical habits and practices to make a cultural point, then it is an exercise in cultural dick-waving / triumphalism and therefore undeserving of the usual respect and tolerance, because they are making the aggressive first step to get up someone's nose.

There is a risk to the stability of our extremely liberal (free, permissive) culture inherent in over-reacting with totalitarian instincts and responses.  But there is also a risk to the stability of our extremely liberal culture inherent in tolerating behaviours and practices which militate against liberal values and attitudes.  Ours is a liberalized, westernized culture.  Keep it that way.  Those who prefer other cultures: go where they are and live that way.

I don't know whether the women who wear garments out of fear of the men in their clan outnumber the women who wear garments because they genuinely wish to, so I don't know whether this sudden expressive modesty fad should be regarded as a problem.  I do know, with certainty, that it is unwise to always grant the benefit of doubt where a substantial undercurrent of compulsion may exist.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

I just want to see their face. If I have to deal with you, I want to look you in the eye. Other than that, I don't care if you walk around in a full wetsuit.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Abdullah what's your views on public swimming pools having their schedules changed around to male only and female only swim times in order to accommodate cultural sensitivity?  (or gym etc..)

As well what about situations where students want male or female only teachers and instructors in order to accommodate their cultural beliefs?


----------



## McG

recceguy said:
			
		

> I just want to see their face. If I have to deal with you, I want to look you in the eye. Other than that, I don't care if you walk around in a full wetsuit.


Well, I guess you will be happy to know that the burkini (unlike the burka) does not cover the face.







  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Anyway, it seems the courts in France have put an end to this ban:  http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/burkini-ban-france-overturned-1.3736823


----------



## Lightguns

Again regardless of the cloth or the court, my understanding of the issue was the muslim men throwing rocks and threatening other users of the beach because their female relatives were in these burkini on said beach and they felt that no one should use the beach when they use it.  Particularly, the rock and verbal assaults on tourists on those beaches which are the economic life blood of these towns.  I highly doubt that the issue is resolved.  Was the ban too much, maybe, but the it kept the male relatives off the beach and made the beach safer in the opinion of the other beach users.  Can't co-exist, don't come around.


----------



## AbdullahD

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Abdullah what's your views on public swimming pools having their schedules changed around to male only and female only swim times in order to accommodate cultural sensitivity?  (or gym etc..)



To my knowledge this is already happening in Canada and the USA and not because of Muslims. So I have no issues at all with it and do not see why it is an issue.



> As well what about situations where students want male or female only teachers and instructors in order to accommodate their cultural beliefs?



Well then I say that is a weird culture, I prefer Islam 

Aisha ra, the prophets wife is considered amongst one of the greatest Islamic teachers of all time and... she taught men. They are other examples too, but suffice to say I do not care what sex a teacher is and I think those that do... are interesting. I personally want the best teachers for me and my kids, no matter which sex they are.


----------



## Remius

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Again regardless of the cloth or the court, my understanding of the issue was the muslim men throwing rocks and threatening other users of the beach because their female relatives were in these burkini on said beach and they felt that no one should use the beach when they use it.  Particularly, the rock and verbal assaults on tourists on those beaches which are the economic life blood of these towns.  I highly doubt that the issue is resolved.  Was the ban too much, maybe, but the it kept the male relatives off the beach and made the beach safer in the opinion of the other beach users.  Can't co-exist, don't come around.



Then those men should get the fines and the police come remove them.  Not the women who were doing nothing wrong.  In the end some people don't like what they wear.  That's why the rule was in place.  That's why some Quebec towns banned the burka despite not having one single Muslim living there.  THEY DON'T LIKE IT.


----------



## Jarnhamar

AbdullahD said:
			
		

> To my knowledge this is already happening in Canada and the USA and not because of Muslims. So I have no issues at all with it and do not see why it is an issue.


Yea it is I find it pretty stupid myself but I was curious what you though when it's done for cultural reasons specific to Islam. 

Maybe we're going the wrong way with that and me and you can start a change.org petition and put and end to segregation.



> Well then I say that is a weird culture, I prefer Islam


But that's an issue that's popping up here and there in the news. Muslim students wanting gender specific accommodations. 

https://www.rt.com/news/350800-handshake-hamburg-muslim-teacher/   (Story from Germany rather than Canada but easy to see it happen here)

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/york-university-dean-who-granted-students-request-to-keep-from-female-classmates-says-he-wishes-he-had-another-choice

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/teen-felt-degraded-after-teacher-divided-aikido-classes-by-gender-following-male-students-religious-request



> Aisha ra, the prophets wife is considered amongst one of the greatest Islamic teachers of all time and... she taught men. They are other examples too, but suffice to say I do not care what sex a teacher is and I think those that do... are interesting. I personally want the best teachers for me and my kids, no matter which sex they are.



So safe to assume you think the accommodations made int he links above are wrong?


----------



## AbdullahD

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Yea it is I find it pretty stupid myself but I was curious what you though when it's done for cultural reasons specific to Islam.
> 
> Maybe we're going the wrong way with that and me and you can start a change.org petition and put and end to segregation.
> But that's an issue that's popping up here and there in the news. Muslim students wanting gender specific accommodations.
> 
> https://www.rt.com/news/350800-handshake-hamburg-muslim-teacher/   (Story from Germany rather than Canada but easy to see it happen here)
> 
> http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/york-university-dean-who-granted-students-request-to-keep-from-female-classmates-says-he-wishes-he-had-another-choice
> 
> http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/teen-felt-degraded-after-teacher-divided-aikido-classes-by-gender-following-male-students-religious-request
> 
> So safe to assume you think the accommodations made int he links above are wrong?



You are very safe in assuming that my friend.

But dont get me wrong I am well aware of groups claiming that 'Islam' requires this or that or the next thing... when Islam has no such requirement. So gender segregation in a very many cases is not needed and counter productive.

Regarding swimming.. I can not understand why it is needed if the awrah is covered. To be bluntly honest I am of an opinion that the awrah rules are relaxed for swimming in this day and age. If a women wears a one piece suit and say shorts or some such combo, then that is good enough. My wife knows more on this topic then I, so I personally follow her lead on it and this is how she goes to the waterpark/pools with my kids.


----------



## Remius

We already have gender segregated facilities everywhere, gyms, martial arts schools/classes, expeditions trips, races, schools etc etc. 

This is more of a gender issue than a cultural issue.  Sometimes the lines are blurred but none of this is unique to Islam.


----------



## mariomike

MCG said:
			
		

> Anyway, it seems the courts in France have put an end to this ban:  http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/burkini-ban-france-overturned-1.3736823



It was set to expire at the end of the month,

◾The ban remains in place until 31 August 2016
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37171749

For the remaining five days, Nice PD could cross out Burkini and insert "budgie smuggler" on the original. They could keep on ticketing and make up the lost municipal income. < just kidding   



			
				Remius said:
			
		

> This is more of a gender issue than a cultural issue.  Sometimes the lines are blurred but none of this is unique to Islam.



I was stationed in a predominantly Jewish district. My partner was Jewish. So is my wife.

There were Sabbath rules, Hatzalah, language, religion, cultural and gender considerations. ( On the job, not at home. )

I guess it's like you say, "None of this is unique to Islam."


----------



## Jarnhamar

Remius said:
			
		

> We already have gender segregated facilities everywhere, gyms, martial arts schools/classes, expeditions trips, races, schools etc etc.
> 
> This is more of a gender issue than a cultural issue.  Sometimes the lines are blurred but none of this is unique to Islam.


For sure, do away with all that segregation crap completely.  

Non-Binary Transgenders will just have to get along with Androgynous and gender fluid types    The context of the martial arts class was seeking gender accommodations in a mixed class.


Also to add OGBD summed up what I was tying to say in the other Islam thread about religious accommodations perfectly.


----------



## mariomike

US Muslims prep for Islamic holiday around 9/11
https://www.icna.org/us-muslims-prep-for-islamic-holiday-around-911/
NEW YORK — The lunar calendar that Muslims follow for religious holidays is creating a potential for misunderstandings or worse in a year when American Muslims are already confronting a spike in assaults on their faith and protests against new mosques.

 What important event could occur on 9/11? Eid al-Adha — the feast of sacrifice, an important holiday for Muslims. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/29/nyregion/muslim-holiday-eid-al-adha-sept-11.html?smid=tw-nytmetro&smtyp=cur&_r


----------



## Lightguns

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> For sure, do away with all that segregation crap completely.
> 
> Non-Binary Transgenders will just have to get along with Androgynous and gender fluid types    The context of the martial arts class was seeking gender accommodations in a mixed class.
> 
> 
> Also to add OGBD summed up what I was tying to say in the other Islam thread about religious accommodations perfectly.



Non-Binary,
Androgynous,
Gender Fluid,

I identify as a Homo Erectus.  You Homo Sapiens got a lot strange stuff going on, us Homo Erectus are in much better shape.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

AbdullahD said:
			
		

> To my knowledge this is already happening in Canada and the USA and not because of Muslims. So I have no issues at all with it and do not see why it is an issue.
> 
> Well then I say that is a weird culture, I prefer Islam
> 
> Aisha ra, the prophets wife is considered amongst one of the greatest Islamic teachers of all time and... she taught men. They are other examples too, but suffice to say I do not care what sex a teacher is and I think those that do... are interesting. I personally want the best teachers for me and my kids, no matter which sex they are.



Apparently she was quite critical when the Prophet received a divine blessing to marry his adopted son wife (divorced by the son so Muhammad could marry her).


----------



## AbdullahD

Colin P said:
			
		

> Apparently she was quite critical when the Prophet received a divine blessing to marry his adopted son wife (divorced by the son so Muhammad could marry her).



Zaynab was Zaid's (adopted son's) ex wife and was not divorced so that the Prophet  pbuh could marry her. Zaid and Zaynab simply did not get along, so after the divorce the prophet recieved revelation that it was permissible to marry his adopted sons ex wife, which was something that arab customs at that time considered forbidden.

Many things support the story that Zaynab and Zaid's marriage naturally fell apart and was not forced apart. A few key pieces is one that Zaynab originally refused the Marriage to Zaid supoorted by her brother I believe, another is that Zaynab was from a high class family of the qureysh and Zaid was an ex slave. Also Zaynab under the encouragement from the Prophet married Zaid and the prophet paid the dowery...

So it can hardly be said that Zaid divorced her just so the prophet could marry her. In my opinion. So the first marriage was to establish the legitimacy of adopted sons and ex slaves and the second marriage was to show it was permissible to marry your ex sons wife, if you desire.

Abdullah

Ps it is allowed to be critical of the Prophet within reason. Even Allah himself criticized him in the Quran, for ignoring a Muslim. Anywho the competition between Zaynab and Aisha is well known, no doubt she would be critical of her.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Yes, I know I read somewhere that one (can't recall which one) of the prophet's wife claimed that the prophet could somehow, amazingly and suddenly "receive revelations" to support exactly what he wanted to do, but was against the rules of the times - until the revelation changed the matter.

Sheer coincidence though!

 ;D


----------



## Jarnhamar

[quote author=AbdullahD]
Many things support the story that Zaynab and Zaid's marriage naturally fell apart and was not forced apart.[/quote]



> So it can hardly be said that Zaid divorced her just so the prophet could marry her.


Sorry dude I don't think anyone is buying that. Just doing a little bit of google research it sounds like the Prophet Muhammad had a lot of sex with pretty much anyone and everyone he wanted to.




> Ps it is allowed to be critical of the Prophet within reason.


Again I kind of doubt it.



> http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/65013/Two-Muslim-men-jailed-after-brutally-attacking-couple-because-they-ordered-a-blasphemous-ham-pizza
> Thursday, 1 September 2016
> *Two Muslim men jailed after brutally attacking couple because they ordered a ‘blasphemous’ ham pizza*
> 
> Two Muslim men have been jailed after they brutally attacked a couple for eating a “blasphemous” ham pizza. Youness Boussaid and Fatah Bouzid, both 27, approached their victims at a food vendor near Le Mix Bar in in Douai, France, and offered them cocaine. When the two Arab men noticed ham on the couple’s pizza they told them they would “go to hell” for eating it.
> 
> After being accused of eating the ham, which is forbidden in the Islamic religion, the couple suffered a brutal and humiliating ordeal from their attackers. The attackers caressed the woman’s blond hair before forcing their fingers into her nose, causing her to lose consciousness and fall to the ground. They then began to beat her male friend before security staff from Le Mix Bar intervened.



Seriously? A little cocaine is a-okay but don't eat ham.  Followers of Islam need to chill out with that shit.


----------



## Lumber

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Followers of Islam need to chill out with that crap.



This story has absolutely nothing to do with Islam. You could find a thousand similar incidents of hypocrisy involving members of every other religion.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

However when you have 1.6billion followers and 1-3% are full nutbar and another 20% will support them in one way or another to take over the world using violence and subversion, you still have a big problem. Islam currently has active conflicts which are killing people with just about every other major religion right now. I can't recall any other religion that can claim that.


----------



## Journeyman

Sorry, I've got to back the druggies on this one.  Ham doesn't go on pizza, and those cheese-eating, surrender monkeys probably _should_  go to hell for it.    :nod:


----------



## Lightguns

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Sorry dude I don't think anyone is buying that. Just doing a little bit of google research it sounds like the Prophet Muhammad had a lot of sex with pretty much anyone and everyone he wanted to.



Isn't funny how folks that go around with the prophet title seemed to get laid a lot?


----------



## McG

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Sorry, I've got to back the druggies on this one.  Ham doesn't go on pizza, and those cheese-eating, surrender monkeys probably _should_  go to hell for it.    :nod:


No.  You are thinking pineapple.  Pineapple does not go on pizza.


----------



## Lumber

MCG said:
			
		

> No.  You are thinking pineapple.  Pineapple does not go on pizza.



Thems fightin' words.  :threat:


----------



## AbdullahD

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Sorry dude I don't think anyone is buying that.



A brief bio of the prophets wife Zaynab
http://www.islamswomen.com/articles/zaynab_bint_jahsh.php

A brief bio of Zaid the prophets adopted son
http://www.imamreza.net/eng/imamreza.php?id=10821

Looks like an article refuting critics
http://www.answering-christianity.com/umar/zaynab_bint_jahsh.htm



> Just doing a little bit of google research it sounds like the Prophet Muhammad had a lot of sex with pretty much anyone and everyone he wanted to.



For you my friend, it is delightfully trollish 
http://www.answering-christianity.com/womanizer.htm

Sex etiquette in Islam (what is encouraged to do)
https://islamqa.info/en/5560

Concubines and sex slaves (im  not sure if the article notes Umar ra abolished slaves)
http://islamicresponse.blogspot.ca/2011/06/islam-on-slave-girlsconcubines.html?m=1

Rebuttal about the article on Mariya which is a common source of these allegations
http://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/rebuttaltoalisina9.htm



> Again I kind of doubt it.



Allah Reprimands the prophet
http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1394&Itemid=136

Muhammad a sinner?
http://www.answering-christianity.com/mo-sinner_rebuttal.htm

Now I can not find online the stories about the Prophet pbuh being criticized or fighting with his wives. It is in fazail'e'amaal by Maulana khandlavi. If you wish to buy the book and verify what I say.

Also I could not find online articles about the sahabah being critical or offering opinions against what the prophet thought regarding warfare and the prophet changing his opinion due to the criticism. You can find stories of this in Hayatus Sahabah by Maulana khandlavi as well.

I honestly deal with books more then the internet, it is just something delightful about sitting down with a 'real' book... also I am in a hurry today.



> Seriously? A little cocaine is a-okay but don't eat ham.  Followers of Islam need to chill out with that crap.



Now I am not going to say to eat ham because you are already doing cocaine... but you're right imho if you are doing illegal drugs you have no right to be critical verbal or physically of someone who eats haram... and to physically attack the person is utter stupidity.

Judge not, lest you be judged.

Abdullah

Ps you guys post to fast lol


----------



## Loachman

MCG said:
			
		

> No.  You are thinking pineapple.  Pineapple does not go on pizza.



But the double anchovies, double olives, and double hot peppers are not the same without pineapple.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Many years ago, during the Vietnam war, an American P-3C Orion was carrying out a standard coastal patrol off the Eastern shores of Vietnam in support of the then deployed aircraft carrier battle group.

Fairly suddenly, as happened in that area frequently, a large thunderstorm developed and, in view of their patrol line, the orion had to skirt it but go in somewhat to maintain station.

As sure as the sun rises, midway through the transit, the Orion got hit by lightning and all the on board electrical systems tripped. The flight engineer got up and, proceeding forward to aft, walked through the plane reseting all the fuses. 

As he walked through the galley, and switched the lights back on, he walked by one of the sensor operators on his break, still standing befuddled, sandwich in hand with but one bite taken out of it. The engineer grabbed the sandwich from his hand, opened it and looked at the contents, put it back together, handed it back to the operator and told him: "Don't you ever have another one of those sandwich if your flying on my plane!" The operator's name was Salomon, he was of the Jewish faith and the sandwich was a ham and cheese one.

Ham: The Gods' instrument of destruction!  [

And, MCG and Journeyman, you are both wrong (and I guess Loachman too): It's anchovies, anchovies that don't go on pizza. Snap out of it!  :facepalm:


----------



## Jarnhamar

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Isn't funny how folks that go around with the prophet title seemed to get laid a lot?



Yup. This Christian nut-bars come to mind.



			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> This story has absolutely nothing to do with Islam. You could find a thousand similar incidents of hypocrisy involving members of every other religion.



Muslim men attacking a couple because the couple had pork product on their pizza, which us forbidden under Islam, has nothing to do with Islam?

Sure it does, but I'll concede somewhat and state the obvious that of course _anyone_ attacking human beings over silly religious tenants  are morons. It seems to be pretty prevalent in Islam however and example of issues with Islam in Western Society.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Muslims are allowed to eat anything dependent on circumstance, funny there is also the "whole dog is unclean thing". There is only about 1-2 references to dogs in the Koran, one of them being the dog guarded the cave the Prophet slept in as I recall. Also the Prophet coming across a thirsty dog, took his slipper off, filled it with water for the dog to drink. Seems the Prophet was fairly ok with contact with them. 
Part of the problem with Islam as with any religion is the need for Muhammad to out do the Muhammad down the street in religious piety, so the stupidity grows. this problem by itself, would just be amusing, but other structural problems in Islam cause this effect and other to become dangerous to others (mainly other Muslims, but also non-Muslims)


----------



## Kirkhill

mariomike said:
			
		

> It was set to expire at the end of the month,
> 
> ◾The ban remains in place until 31 August 2016
> http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37171749
> 
> For the remaining five days, Nice PD could cross out Burkini and insert "budgie smuggler" on the original. They could keep on ticketing and make up the lost municipal income. < just kidding
> 
> I was stationed in a predominantly Jewish district. My partner was Jewish. So is my wife.
> 
> There were Sabbath rules, Hatzalah, language, religion, cultural and gender considerations. ( On the job, not at home. )
> 
> I guess it's like you say, "None of this is unique to Islam."





> ISLAMIC State has banned the burka in an embarrassing U-turn, declaring full-face veils are a security risk.
> 
> By KATIE MANSFIELD
> PUBLISHED: 00:00, Tue, Sep 6, 2016 | UPDATED: 00:00, Tue, Sep 6, 2016
> 
> ... ISIS has outlawed women wearing the veils in security offices in Mosul, Iraq. ...
> 
> A source revealed the reason behind the ban.
> 
> Speaking to Al Alam News Network, the insider revealed ISIS chiefs changed their minds following a series of deadly attacks on terror commanders by women wearing burkas and niqabs in recent months.
> 
> But women will still be required to cover themselves completely when out in public with ISIS expecting a dress code including gloves and gauze to cover the eyes to be observed.



http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/707468/ISIS-burka-ban-Islamic-State-full-face-veils-security-risk


----------



## Jarnhamar

LOL


----------



## AbdullahD

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> LOL



You cant really say anything else to this can we?

Another hole in daesh appears. Jarnhammer, I dont drink but could you have one for me lol, this is to good.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

AbdullahD said:
			
		

> You cant really say anything else to this can we?



Something about chickens coming home to roost, might be appropriate.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Well, it cuts down on the cross dressers.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Live by the burka ...


----------



## George Wallace

Perhaps this had something to do with it:

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> Dressed to kill! SAS heroes don BURKAS for raid on ISIS bunker to take down jihadi chief
> *BRAVE SAS heroes dressed up in BURKAS to carry out a daring raid on the Islamic State (ISIS) headquarters in Syria which led to an evil jihadi leader being vaporised, it emerged today.
> *
> By NICK GUTTERIDGE
> PUBLISHED: 02:37, Mon, Jan 18, 2016 | UPDATED: 09:54, Mon, Jan 18, 2016
> 
> Fearless special forces troops donned the full-length Islamic dress to sneak undetected through the terrorists’ de facto capital Raqqa and take down the terrorist commander.
> 
> The eight-man SAS squad also eliminated several jihadi fighters after lifting up their burkas and opening fire on the stunned militants, who had no time to hide from the hail of bullets.
> 
> The group posed as the wives of ISIS chiefs by covering themselves from head-to-toe in the traditional black robes, managing to blag their way through to the group’s headquarters.
> 
> They were driven through the town in a Toyota pick-up truck - the make favoured by jihadi murderers - with the help of local Syrians working with the secret service to help bring down ISIS.
> 
> The elite troopers even managed to hide assault weapons, grenades and ammo beneath their roomy ankle-length gowns in case they encountered armed resistance from Islamist militants.
> 
> After making their way through the town they located the house of a senior terrorist chief and used a transmitted to relay its location and coordinates to a US Air Force AWAC mission control aircraft circling thousands of feet above.
> 
> The American spy plane then passed the information onto a US Reaper drone, which seconds later fired a Hellfire missile into the building, vaporising the ISIS commander and several of his henchmen.
> 
> When jihadi militants heard the explosion they rushed onto the streets and discovered the burka-clad troopers, who took down several jihadis during a fierce gun battle as they fought their way to safety.
> 
> A source told the Daily Star on Sunday: “The SAS team were moving back to their vehicles after the missile had struck when the town went into lockdown.
> 
> “Gunmen were on the streets stopping everyone, lining people up against the walls and threatening to kill anyone who had helped the ‘spies’.
> 
> “The attack took place in the early evening, about an hour before curfew, so there were still quite a few people around.
> 
> “Just as the British soldiers were getting back into a minivan several gunmen ordered them to stop. The troopers ignored the warnings and were about to drive off when the jihadis opened fire.
> 
> They added: “The SAS jumped out of the vehicle, lifted up their burkas and opened fire. It must have been a massive shock to the gunmen.
> 
> “One was killed instantly and two others ran off. The firefight gave the SAS just enough time to break contact with the Isis gunmen and escape.
> 
> “We later heard Isis fighters were putting rumours around the town saying the ‘infidels’ had sent women in burkas to fight instead of men.”
> 
> The daring mission took place three weeks ago at the terrorist headquarters in Raqqa, where infamous British murderer Jihadi John was blown up in a drone strike.
> 
> Intelligence sources said the successful hit had taken out a prized jihadi commander and was a “severe blow” to the terrorist group.
> 
> The SAS have conducted dozens of operations in Iraq and Syria in recent months as Britain and America step up their bid to wipe out the evil Islamists.
> 
> Their top target is now said to be Siddhartha Dhar, the 32-year-old Londoner who was unmasked as the terrorists’ latest executioner in a sick video showing the murder of Syrians accused of spying for Britain.
> 
> Today sources said the elite force is likely to increase the tempo of operations further still after the disclosure that an extra 200 US special operations commandos arrived in Iraq last week.
> 
> The US troops will work closely with the SAS and SBS, the Royal Navy’s special forces regiment, to conduct missions against extremists inside both Syria and Iraq.
> 
> One source added: “The SAS will be sending more troops to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan now the Americans have increased their numbers.
> 
> “Their primary target is the individual who has been dubbed the new Jihadi John. He is at the top of the kill list.”



More on LINK.


----------



## Kirkhill

I wonder if it was them or these?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1497590/Army-reveals-secret-elite-unit-that-puts-women-on-front-line.html



> By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent12:01AM BST 04 Sep 2005
> 
> The existence of the increasing role being played by women in Britain's special forces has been publicly revealed for the first time.
> 
> The women, whose identities like all members of the special forces have to remain secret, were photographed participating in the inaugural parade of the newly formed Special Reconnaissance Regiment.
> Although women have served in parts of Britain's special forces for the past 20 years, this is the first time that their role has been publicly acknowledged.
> 
> The new unit, which has its headquarters in south Wales, has already been deployed in operations in Britain following the suicide bomb attacks in London in July.
> Men and women from the SRR are understood to have taken part in the surveillance operations that led to the capture of the four men allegedly responsible for the failed attempts to bomb the London Tube network on July 21.
> 
> Service women of all ranks, and from all three of the Armed Forces, up to the age of 32 are allowed to apply to join the regiment. To be accepted they must complete a gruelling six-month selection course and undertake exactly the same physical and mental tests as their male counterparts.
> 
> Operatives, as they are known, are trained in covert surveillance, close-quarter battle skills, self-defence and driving skills. They are also taught how to plant bugging devices, hidden cameras and covert methods of entry into buildings and cars.
> 
> The unit, formed in April last year, has existed in a different guise for more than 20 years, under the cover name of 14 Intelligence Company, a highly secret organisation that conducted undercover operations in Northern Ireland alongside the SAS and MI5.
> 
> Such was the secrecy surrounding the unit that few of its operations were made public. Members of the unit are, however, some of the most highly decorated men and women in the Services. One of its successes was providing the information for the SAS operation in 1988 which led to the shooting dead of three IRA terrorists who were planning to attack British forces in Gibraltar.
> 
> The unit also took part in an operation that thwarted an IRA plot to attack a police station at Loughgall, Co Tyrone, in 1987. Eight IRA members were killed by the SAS in a carefully planned ambush.
> Plans for the creation of a new special forces regiment were revealed by The Sunday Telegraph in July last year. The unit will conduct anti-terror operations in Britain and around the world working closely with MI5 and MI6 and foreign intelligence organisations.
> 
> The unit usually conducts its operations in plain clothes and wears uniform only in barracks or for formal parades.
> 
> John Reid, the Defence Secretary, who watched the parade accompanied by Gen Sir Mike Jackson, the chief of the General Staff, said: "The Special Reconnaissance Regiment is one of the new capabilities generated as part of the reshaping of our Armed Forces. They have greatly improved support to worldwide operations at a time when they are needed most in the ongoing fight against international terrorism."



http://yournewswire.com/women-in-special-reconnaissance-regiment-fight-isis/

http://www.eliteukforces.info/special-reconnaissance-regiment/


----------



## Jarnhamar

AbdullahD said:
			
		

> You cant really say anything else to this can we?
> 
> Another hole in daesh appears. Jarnhammer, I dont drink but could you have one for me lol, this is to good.



Yes for sure.  It's hilarious even one of the most religiously oppressive groups in the world think one of the most oppressive articles of clothing around is too much of a security risk to oppress women with. 



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/mandatory-music-classes-strike-sour-note-with-muslim-parents/article31716832/


> *Mandatory music classes hit a bad note with some Muslim parents *
> 
> When music class begins this week at Toronto’s Donwood Park elementary school, Mohammad Nouman Dasu will send a family member to collect his three young children. *They will go home for an hour rather than sing and play instruments – a mandatory part of the Ontario curriculum* he believes violates his Muslim faith.
> 
> The Scarborough school and the Toronto District School Board originally had offered an accommodation – suggesting students could just clap their hands in place of playing instruments or listen to acapella versions of O Canada – but not a full exemption from the class.
> 
> After a bitter three-year fight, however, Mr. Dasu felt he had no other opton but to bring his kids home.



Another example of ridiculous accommodations being asked. I'm sure the students will get a special pass even though the class is "mandatory".


----------



## Teager

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/mandatory-music-classes-strike-sour-note-with-muslim-parents/article31716832/
> Another example of ridiculous accommodations being asked. I'm sure the students will get a special pass even though the class is "mandatory".



Apparently multiple accommodations were made but that doesn't satisfy the father. Basically the kids aren't doing music/drama period. At least the school isn't giving them a free pass.


----------



## Lumber

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Yes for sure.  It's hilarious even one of the most religiously oppressive groups in the world think one of the most oppressive articles of clothing around is too much of a security risk to oppress women with.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/mandatory-music-classes-strike-sour-note-with-muslim-parents/article31716832/
> Another example of ridiculous accommodations being asked. I'm sure the students will get a special pass even though the class is "mandatory".



Music is "haram"? I only spent a few long weekends in the middle east, but I heard music all the time, especially tolling from the bell towers. Was that not "music" and "signing"?


----------



## Jarnhamar

Teager said:
			
		

> Apparently multiple accommodations were made but that doesn't satisfy the father. Basically the kids aren't doing music/drama period. At least the school isn't giving them a free pass.



I think not for lack of trying. The school offered to let the kids sit there and clap their hands while other students were actually playing instruments. 

Lumber I was thinking the same thing. Even ISIS propaganda videos have music backgrounds.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Lumber said:
			
		

> Music is "haram"? I only spent a few long weekends in the middle east, but I heard music all the time, especially tolling from the bell towers. Was that not "music" and "signing"?


My wife told me that there will be several things that will become prevalent prior to Allah having enough of mankind's shit and wiping the slate clean with fire.  Alcohol is one female singers becoming popular is another.  That might explain why the fun police seem to be the dicks sporting stupid looking beards and man jammies in some of "those" countries.


----------



## AbdullahD

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> My wife told me that there will be several things that will become prevalent prior to Allah having enough of mankind's crap and wiping the slate clean with fire.  Alcohol is one female singers becoming popular is another.  That might explain why the fun police seem to be the dicks sporting stupid looking beards and man jammies in some of "those" countries.



Pdf Al-Gahazali's Thoughts on the Effects of Music and Singing upon the Heart and the Body and ...
https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol_2_No_9_May_2012/11.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwj5ytfHnvzOAhVQz2MKHW9iA0EQFggbMAA&usg=AFQjCNEmPOym3zANDzidQVxrFvMZ1CqroQ&sig2=2r0ynVVo0NY2Hq_UOaSrDQ

Links for the arguement that it is allowed
http://www.islamawareness.net/Music/music_fatwa005.html

http://www.islamawareness.net/Music/prohibited.html

And then Music is haram crowd...
http://www.askimam.org/public/question_detail/21056



> Conceding that Muslims have to adjust when they send their kids to public school, he suggested that some matters, such as teaching music, are beyond debate.
> 
> “We do not compromise with anyone on the clear-cut orders and principles conveyed by the Prophet,” said Mr. Ingar, who also leads the Scarborough Muslim Association.



You know I love my religion and I love those who follow my religion, but sometimes they make it very hard to defend them. I can not state that there is no accepted opinion that states music is forbidden, but I can  definetly state there is an accepted opinion that it is allowed.

There are no Sahih and Sarih hadiths (meaning clear accepted sayings that give a ruling)that say Music is haram. There are many Sahih hadiths that can and are used to discourage Music, especially in excess. But none of them are sarih in stating that Music is forbidden.

Now I personally think these guys went over the top.. because acapella is clearly permissible in Islam by the Majority of scholars. So they should have just gave in a little and allowed the acapella to go forward... so I put these guys in the same boat as the people who refuse to allow their children to learn about Islam. 

But then again... if Music was Haram we wouldn't have justin bieber and sometimes I wonder if that is an acceptable trade....

Anywho im at the gym and I need to get my workout tunes started 

Abdullah


----------



## Lumber

AbdullahD said:
			
		

> But then again... if Music was Haram we wouldn't have justin bieber and sometimes I wonder if that is an acceptable trade....



Solid.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Islam has a long history of the fun police shutting shit down.  Coffee was at one time banned in Istanbul and other locations.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_coffee  Why can't they be like the Baptists?  They always seem to be a fun loving bunch.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I wonder how that man and his family have managed to stay alive so long in North America! They must have a big vegetable garden in their backyard, with chickens and other stuff.

Music is haram! And it's an absolute that they cannot listen to music! To make matters worse, there is no room to disobey that point!

Every single store and shopping centre I know of in N.A. has "elevator' music playing in the background (and that includes at least one halal food store I shop at - cause they have the best couscous I ever had  :nod. It's a standard marketing technique and I am pretty sure it's the same just about worldwide. So I don't know how he ever shops (or get to the top floors of office buildings for that matter ???).


----------



## mariomike

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Every single store and shopping centre I know of in N.A. has "elevator' music playing in the background (and that includes at least one halal food store I shop at - cause they have the best couscous I ever had  :nod. It's a standard marketing technique and I am pretty sure it's the same just about worldwide. So I don't know how he ever shops (or get to the top floors of office buildings for that matter ???).



Girl from Ipanema is one of my favorites.  

Tall and tan and young and lovely
The girl from Ipanema goes walking and
When she passes, each one she passes goes "ah"

Muzak, especially in its classical form, seems to have the ability to disperse loitering teenagers from public areas.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Dude needs a little bit of this kind of action.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDkWRP67Es0


----------



## Colin Parkinson

In Malaysia I was pointing out that the Taliban would consider many of them non-Muslims or poor Muslims for having musical ringtones and would beat them for the offense. Seems they had not considered this. The one good thing about the radicals getting in charge, is they very quickly make life miserable for everyone, to the point where people are willing to fight them.


----------



## Loachman

"What Is My Religion? I Feel Shame on My Self because am a Muslim"

by Hakim Haider
September 20, 2016 at 5:30 am

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/8958/what-is-my-religion

◾Mosques are a basic school where your children learn the Subject of Terrorism.

◾I ask again to Teacher (Mulla) in Mosque, Sir, there are so many Groups in Islam. One Group orders to Kill the other Group because he is a Non-Muslim. Why? He Replied Because he do not follow our Rules. Am Surprised to Listen. This means One Person who do not follow our Rules we Kill him?

◾I ask one more Question. Sir, if am a Sunni or Wahabi, I Kill the Person who belongs to an Other Sect like Shia? He reply, Yes off Course. Am shocked and say shoutly, No Sir I do not Kill Any Body whether he is Muslm or Non-Muslim or Muslim belong to an Other Sect. Am just talking. He (Mulla) slapped me hardly. Next am sit on the corner of Mosque, Quietly.

◾Every group or Sect are telling, We do this because our Prophet order us to. So what is the Prophet teaching, to kill someone just because he do not follow us?

I open my eyes in a Islamic Family in a Islamic Country but in 23 years I do not know what is Islam? What is the purpose of Islam?

Once I ask a question to my Teacher (Mulla) in the Mosque, What is the difference in the Muslim and the Non-Muslim?

He Replied One who beleaves on ALLAH and prophet MUHAMMAD P.B.U.H is a Muslim and One who does not beleave on ALLAH and MUHAMMAD P.B.U.H is a Non-Muslim.

I ask Again, So what we do? How we teach the Non-Muslim?

He replied Just Kill him.

I ask Why we Kill him? And when I Kill him?

He replied When you Grow up then you Kill him.

Am thinking from that day Why this Teacher (Mulla) telling me this? On Next Day I ask again to Teacher (Mulla) in Mosque, Sir there are so many Groups in Islam. One Group orders to Kill the other Group because he is Non-Muslim Why?

He Replied Because he do not follow our Rules.

Am Surprised to Listen. This means One Person who do not follow our Rules we Kill him? I ask One more Question, Sir if am a Sunni or Wahabi, I Kill the Person who belongs to an Other Sect like Shia.

He Replied Yes off Course.

Am shocked and reply shoutly, No Sir I do not Kill Any Body whether he is Muslim or Non-Muslim or Muslim belong to an Other Sect.

Am just talking. He (Mulla) Slapped me hardly. Next am sit on the corner of Mosque, Quietly.

Now so many Groups or Sects of Islam are killing one an Other and the most horrible thing is Muslim Countries support to these groups, Like Iran who is a Pure Shia Islamic State support to these groups who are fighting against the SUNNIS. And Saudia Arabia who is pure SUNNI or WAHABI State support to these groups who are fighting against the SHIA SECT. Even these Muslim Countries provide weapons and training to these groups.

There are more than 80 Sects in Islam now, every One trying to show he is Right and Other is Wrong. No Muslim group or Muslim country trying to keep concentration on Peace, doing welfare work for mankind. Every Muslim trying to kill an Other.

So I listen to killing lesson from the Mosque and watch this lesson practiced on the Ground. In every Terrorist Attack, Hidden Hand was a Muslim Hand. So I feel Shame on my Self that am belong to such a Religion who are running on just Terrorism Lesson, Nothing more. A Religion who are divided into more than 80 Groups or Sects then How somebody realize which Group or Sect is true? Every Group or Sect pray is differently.

And every group or Sect are telling, We do this because our Prophet order us to. So what is the Prophet teaching to kill someone for, just because he do not follow us? Muslim abusing a lot of Jew and Christian because not a follower of ALLAH and MUHAMMAD P.B.U.H. But on the Other side, these religions grow up because they all have a peace full mind, they are working on humanity. But on the Other hand, I do not see any humanity in Islam, and the few Humanity Work was done just for showment in front of world, nothing more.

Humanity is a only religion in the world who is the best Religion and am saying that Jews, Christians work on Humanity. So Now then What is the Credibility of mosques? What is the Credibility of Teachers (Mullas)? And which religion is true? On my view Muslim Religion is not True and Mosques or Madrasas are a root of terrorism. Am not a Jew or Christian am a Muslim and am saying all this being a Muslim and I feel Shame on My Self because am a Muslim.

I totally disagree with Islamic lesson, Islamic terrorist Sects, and Islamic groups. Mosques are a basic school where your children learn the Subject of Terrorism. Madrasas are a Lab where your Children practice terrorism, and the World are a place where your children do terrorism. Islam is nothing more, just simply, "One who is disagree with you, just Pick up a Gun and Shoot him".


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

That just confirms my personal view that, since every religion, sub-religion and/or religious sect out there holds the exact same position that:

1- They have the only right answer and way, and
2- Therefore every body else is going to hell.

And since there are more than one religion, sub-religion and/or sects;

Then we are indubitably led to the sole possible conclusion: we are ALL going to hell ultimately.

So, why not just forget about religions and religious practices, live happily in the here and now and extend our little lives on this planet as much as we can to delay that inevitable trip to the underworld!


----------



## AbdullahD

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> That just confirms my personal view that, since every religion, sub-religion and/or religious sect out there holds the exact same position that:
> 
> 1- They have the only right answer and way, and
> 2- Therefore every body else is going to hell.
> 
> And since there are more than one religion, sub-religion and/or sects;
> 
> Then we are indubitably led to the sole possible conclusion: we are ALL going to hell ultimately.
> 
> So, why not just forget about religions and religious practices, live happily in the here and now and extend our little lives on this planet as much as we can to delay that inevitable trip to the underworld!



You know I had this exact conversation with an Islamc scholar who was going through Mufti studies at that time  (ie someone who knew which way was up).

He told me, as best as I can remember, is that yes we hold the true path and their are many hadiths stating follow Islam or it is hell fire.

But he said those hadiths were mostly to believing sahaba and not to be taken as the final word for non-Muslims. For anyone who was not a Muslim, if they never heard of 'true' Islamic teachings then they get judged differently. If they believed in one god then either immediately or eventually they would get to heaven, because that is all Islam is to begin with, belief in one god.

Then the question of atheists came up and he said that yes, their is a 'possibility' that atheists may even get to heaven due to the nobility of their actions. He said that only Allah can judge and anyone who says these people are going to hell, may end up there themselves. 

Judgement is only for God, essentially I believe following Islam is the best chance at heaven, but only god judges, so we may all end up there. I have many non-Muslim friends who are extremely noble and honorable so I follow this particular scholars position on this issue 

Also it was Moulana Mazhar and it was a longer conversation then this, but this was the gist of it. He has also been interviewed by cbc too, he is a very soft guy.

Abdullah


----------



## AbdullahD

http://www.youthkiawaaz.com/2016/09/debate-around-burqa-hijab/#.V_BpuOti6wt.facebook



			
				Masarat Daud said:
			
		

> *Bad News: Here’s Why The Debate Around The Hijab And Burqa Can Never Be Resolved*
> _Posted on September 19, 2016 in Sexism And Patriarchy, Society, Staff Picks
> 
> By Masarat Daud:_
> 
> In 2014, when I was asked to speak at TED, I was trying to explain to my parents how great an opportunity this was. After a few minutes, my mother asks, “So what are you talking about?”
> 
> “Hijab. And well, the burqa,” I reply.
> 
> “The burqa? You are going all the way to Vancouver to speak about something so mundane?”
> 
> “Well, it’s a big deal there…”


More at link.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I bet the Burka would be a big deal if she had to wear everyday


----------



## AbdullahD

Colin P said:
			
		

> I bet the Burka would be a big deal if she had to wear everyday



Thats a question of choosing to verse being forced to. She should have her (like everyone) choice to dress how she wants, if she is being forced to wear it, I can see it being problematic. But, if she wants to, I dont see her ever having an issue with it.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

That is the tricky thing, how do you know when it's truly voluntary? From my wife experience, the mosque and the community can apply pressure in many ways, through exclusion or verbal harassment. For most Muslims, family and community are everything and are wrapped up in your daily life. So the threat of being cutoff from family or community for not conforming is very real and very powerful. Even if no hand is raised against them.


----------



## Remius

Colin P said:
			
		

> That is the tricky thing, how do you know when it's truly voluntary? From my wife experience, the mosque and the community can apply pressure in many ways, through exclusion or verbal harassment. For most Muslims, family and community are everything and are wrapped up in your daily life. So the threat of being cutoff from family or community for not conforming is very real and very powerful. Even if no hand is raised against them.



The same can be said about many religious based communities.  Orthodox Jews, Mormons, Baptists etc etc etc.  Heck you can apply that to many homogenous groups.


----------



## YZT580

But very few of those groups will slit your throat if you fail to comply.  Why is it that every one likes to jump to the defense of those who would deprive others of their rights in this country or who do not provide the same courtesies in their own.  Instead the common argument is that the Baptists do it too. The Burka is a symbol of submission and subservience.  It is not even a requirement of Islam and its significance has only been enhanced in the last few decades.


----------



## AbdullahD

Remius said:
			
		

> The same can be said about many religious based communities.  Orthodox Jews, Mormons, Baptists etc etc etc.  Heck you can apply that to many homogenous groups.



Agreed, both to you and Colin. These are tricky waters to navigate.

If someone is being forced to do 'xyz' by group 'abc' then it is wrong, but it is extremely hard to tell if they are or are not being forced. I find it is dang near impossible to find out which way the dice falls unless you talk to the person directly. Which to do on a mass interview basis is darned near impossible as well and likely not a good idea anyways. I do know women who are being forced... revert women namely and I hate it with a passion.. but on the flip side I know revert woman who will not take the niqab off.

Abdullah


----------



## Edward Campbell

Anecdotal "evidence," only, so it's not really "proof" of anything, but ...

A few of years ago I was in Malaysia visiting a friend and I stayed at a very nice hotel in Kuala Lumpur to adjust before heading up to Penang. The hotel served complimentary cocktails every afternoon in a beautiful lounge on the next to the top floor ~ the top floor was a swimming pool and very popular  "sky bar." Anyway I was seated at a nice, quiet table by the windows, looking out at the Petronas Towers when one of the pretty young hostesses approached and asked if I would mind sharing my table with (she pointed) that nice English couple. Of course I didn't mind, and after brief introductions we chatted. The lady was disappointed that my trip was only to KL and Penang; "neither is the "real" Malaysia, you know," she said, "and while the governments in the Chinese majority provinces (which KL and Penang are) are fair and efficient they, the Chinese, lack the real warmth and friendliness of the Malay people." "Why are you in KL?" I asked. Medical care for her husband, she replied and then her husband chimed in, saying something like: "And we're looking for a new home. The Malays are nice and friendly but the imported _sheiks_ and _imans_ are making life harder for us expats." "How so?" I asked. "Look," he replied, "we've lived in <name of a 'hill station' town> for _n_ years, ever since I retired. There is a small_ish_ expat community and we were always made welcome and we thought we fitted in well. There was one English style pub in the town, run by a local Malay fellow; it was, almost, everyone's 'second home' and he did a good business, so he told us. It was the expats' social centre and also very popular with the locals. Then a new _iman_ came to the big mosque. He was from somewhere in the Middle East and he, immediately, went to war with the pub. He wanted it closed and no amount of explaining that it was all legal and proper and in accordance with Malay law would change his mind: it, serving alcohol to foreigners, was a sin. First of all most of the locals stopped coming, but we expats just had more social events there ~ we, for example, stopped our regular dinner parties in our home and invited all our friends to the pub, instead. The owner was grateful but he explained that he was under intense pressure from the _iman_. Then the police, apologetically explaining that they had no choice, the _iman_ insisted, began to harass the owner with trumped up complaints. Last month he folded. I need some more, better medical attention anyway so, along with some other expats we've decided to move to 'less friendly' Kuala Lumpur ~ where the government and police are under proper control in accordance with the laws of the land ... because KL is a majority Chinese province. Maybe they aren't 'nice' and 'friendly' but, by god, they are honest and efficient." His wife, rather sadly, agreed.

In Penang I went out early one morning to go up the "mountain," actually just a big hill, but with a lovely view as the clouds lift. When I got to the cable car station there was a big crowd. Everyone was surging towards cars, lots of pushing and shoving. A middle aged lady took my arm and said, "Come with us, we have room in our car." Well, I spent a good part of a very pleasant morning with this family: Mother and father around 50, I would guess, older daughter (with a babe in arms) and husband maybe 25, and younger daughter maybe 17. I was pretty used to "dress codes" in Malaysia ... Malaysian girls look, mostly, rather like this:

     
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





          ... while Malaysian-Chines girls look more like this:

               
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




                    ... anyway this was a Muslim family and while the older daughter was dressed in trousers, a long sleeved top and a hijab, the younger, 17_ish_, girl was dressed in short shorts and at-shirt.

In due course the topic took to families and jobs. Mom and dad were both school teachers: he was vice principal of a Muslim high school and his wife taught at one of the better Chinese schools. His two daughters had both been educated in the Chinese schools. He then explained that, despite what some local _imans_ said, he, a well educated Muslim, could find nothing that said his wife or daughters had to dress in a certain way. "We are all," he said, "commanded to be modest in our lives. Anyone who knows my wife and daughters will affirm that they are good, modest women. My older daughter dresses as she does to mollify her husband's family. I accept that even though she and I know that the _Holy Quran_ says nothing about it. My youngest daughter dresses as she does because she's a teenager and she hopes it might shock me ... it doesn't," he said, with a grin, "so score one for me." I told him my KL hotel story and asked if there as any such 'pressure' in Penang. "Some _imans_ might like to apply those sorts of rules here," he relied, "but this is Penang and we respect and obey the laws and no one would dare try to pressure me or my wife. Threatening my job, for example," he said, "would be sufficient grounds for me to ask the local, provincial (Chinese) government to expel a foreign cleric, and I would do so, if pressured, and everyone who matters knows that." 

Anyway, a tale of two cities ...


----------



## Remius

YZT580 said:
			
		

> But very few of those groups will slit your throat if you fail to comply.  Why is it that every one likes to jump to the defense of those who would deprive others of their rights in this country or who do not provide the same courtesies in their own.  Instead the common argument is that the Baptists do it too. The Burka is a symbol of submission and subservience.  It is not even a requirement of Islam and its significance has only been enhanced in the last few decades.



Why is it that people like to single out the cultural group of the day (or in the news) while ignoring what's ben going on here for decades and even centuries?  How is what you claim they are doing any different than any other organisation forcing their cultural norms on others that choose to be part of that culture? Our laws protect those people.  If they choose to remain part of those groups, their choice.  We force our kids to dress certain ways, my catholic high school forced us to recite the lords prayer and take religion classes to get our diploma.  I could have switched schools at any time but didn't.  How many throat slittings are there here over this?  Now how many non muslim spouses are murdered for trying to leave their husbands?   It's more than just one culture.  It's men forcing their will on women.  Only when women get truly recognised as equals will this kind of stuff end.  And the truth is that every religion and culture has this problem.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

building on the Malay story, I just have to look at my wife's family photo album, you can see the turn to more conservative dress and suppression of Malay culture, which used to be very relaxed, women wearing sarongs that did not cover the shoulder or western style outfits. Islam has been there since the at least the 1400's, the Malays took Islam and "Malaysianized" it. Now the Saudi and gulf States are paying for the mosques and Imans , but requiring a strict interpretation based around whabbism.


----------



## Jarnhamar

AbdullahD said:
			
		

> If someone is being forced to do 'xyz' by group 'abc' then it is wrong, but it is extremely hard to tell if they are or are not being forced. I find it is dang near impossible to find out which way the dice falls unless you talk to the person directly. Which to do on a mass interview basis is darned near impossible as well and likely not a good idea anyways. I do know women who are being forced... revert women namely and I hate it with a passion.. but on the flip side I know revert woman who will not take the niqab off.



Perhaps a disorder like *Battered Woman Syndrome*  might offer some clues as to why some women "choose" to wear this stuff? 
In some cases would suggesting a woman could just take it off be the same as suggesting a woman in an abusive relationship can just leave?


----------



## jollyjacktar

Colin P said:
			
		

> building on the Malay story, I just have to look at my wife's family photo album, you can see the turn to more conservative dress and suppression of Malay culture, which used to be very relaxed, women wearing sarongs that did not cover the shoulder or western style outfits. Islam has been there since the at least the 1400's, the Malays took Islam and "Malaysianized" it. Now the Saudi and gulf States are paying for the mosques and Imans , but requiring a strict interpretation based around whabbism.



I've just about whabbied enough of their bullshit outside of the ME.  I wish the host countries in the West would deport all of their trouble making assessment back to the countries of origin.  Japan has it right.


----------



## AbdullahD

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Perhaps a disorder like *Battered Woman Syndrome*  might offer some clues as to why some women "choose" to wear this stuff?
> In some cases would suggesting a woman could just take it off be the same as suggesting a woman in an abusive relationship can just leave?



Sorry I did not get back to you sooner Jarnhamar. As a reason, not an excuse, I will tell you I worked darn near 40 hours in three days and honestly.. I did not give it any thought, nor was I sure I actually needed or wanted to reply due to the fact this is definetly rhetorical due to your use of the word 'some'.

Battered woman syndrome is something I had to google, albeit I suspected the meaning of it and now I have a name for all these people who stay in or keep finding abusive partners (thanks btw). Now in my opinion an abused woman (partner), falls under physical or psychological abuse and the psychological sometimes being far worse. So any woman who is forced to wear a burka/niqab is abused and oppressed, same with men forced to grow beards.

My issue or point I wish to bring up is; why is it when Islam or Muslims are involved the default position, seem to be the worst one? When we look at relationships in general, we assume the majority, are healthy stable ones. Yet, with Muslims it seems a very large minority or small Majority are dysfunctional, on any given issue. Now I realize you did not make that arguement directly, but since it came up (indirectly), I would guess it is an assumption held by society at large. Don't worry before anyone brings up a wackload of links, I will recognize media and then bad press Muslims and Islam get, but why can't people make a difference between the nutters and their neighbors....

But I think the vast Majority of Burka/Niqab wearing ladies are doing it voluntarily. My arguement is this essentially, Muslims are human too. If the vast majority of human men think forcing women to act or dress in a certain way is wrong, wouldn't it make sense that the vast majority of Human Muslim Men.. feel the same way? Because, at the end of the day, we are humans and we love our families too.

Abdullah


----------



## Jarnhamar

AbdullahD said:
			
		

> Sorry I did not get back to you sooner Jarnhamar. As a reason, not an excuse, I will tell you I worked darn near 40 hours in three days


Maximum effective range of an excuse is 0 meters  





> My issue or point I wish to bring up is; why is it when Islam or Muslims are involved the default position, seem to be the worst one? When we look at relationships in general, we assume the majority, are healthy stable ones. Yet, with Muslims it seems a very large minority or small Majority are dysfunctional, on any given issue. Now I realize you did not make that arguement directly, but since it came up (indirectly), I would guess it is an assumption held by society at large. Don't worry before anyone brings up a wackload of links, I will recognize media and then bad press Muslims and Islam get, but why can't people make a difference between the nutters and their neighbors....



Good questions Abdullah. I wrote a big response but deleted it as I think I would just be rehashing all my old points over and over again. In a (smaller) nutshell I think a lot of people (like myself) think Muslims are more inclined to get angry, upset or resort to violence over real or percieved insults against Islam.
It's in the media a lot because it happens a lot. Of course media outlets exasperate it and orgs like rebel media go out of their way to fan anti-Muslim flames but there IS a issue with Islam and violence.


----------



## AbdullahD

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Maximum effective range of an excuse is 0 meters
> 
> Good questions Abdullah. I wrote a big response but deleted it as I think I would just be rehashing all my old points over and over again. In a (smaller) nutshell I think a lot of people (like myself) think Muslims are more inclined to get angry, upset or resort to violence over real or percieved insults against Islam.
> It's in the media a lot because it happens a lot. Of course media outlets exasperate it and orgs like rebel media go out of their way to fan anti-Muslim flames but there IS a issue with Islam and violence.



Aye, that is fine with me. I do think I know your position, or at least understand the basic elements of it. But I am curious as to how much per capita (?) is spent on Islamic or Muslim tantrums verse Jewish, Christian, Sikh etc tantrums.

I see things such as 500 million creating pro-daesh propaganda and I wonder how that holds true for the rest of the media and other religions...

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-03/iraq-propaganda-videos

Then I look at things like 'Jewish' extremism in the USA at 7% when 'Islamic' extremism is at 6% yet the Jewish religion as respectable and honorable as it is.. is vastly smaller then Islam in the world.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/non-muslims-carried-out-more-than-90-of-all-terrorist-attacks-in-america/5333619

So wouldn't that mean 'Jewish' extremists should show up in the media roughly 10% more often then 'Islamic' extremists? Now I realize these are north American based studies, but when is the last time any of us can remember a 'Jewish' extremist? It is like all 'Jewish' extremism stopped with the advent of 'Islamic' extremism.. which seems suspicious to me at least... 

Now I also look at before and after events... like before an after 911 or the 'Iraq War'

http://truth-out.org/archive/component/k2/item/68973:the-iraq-effect-war-has-increased-terrorism-sevenfold-worldwide

Afghanistan before the wars... and we all know the after, sadly.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-3404803/Life-Taliban-Fascinating-photographs-idyllic-Afghanistan-1960s-residents-free-enjoy-outdoor-picnics-colourful-markets.html

Now all these people could reconcile their 'Islamic Identity' with their lifestyles, they were Muslim and 'normal'. Then it all went down the toilet. I am huge  believer that a persons economic standing, is an indicator of what behavior they may be susceptible to, for many reasons; 1- Geographically they may be located with other poor folks 2- many times economic standing is correlated to education ie the more wealthy have higher educations. So I don't think it is to much 'Islam' as the problem, which many pro secularization people argue, I think it is the lack of knowledge secular and religious and lack of economic mobility.

I'm not excusing the actions of extremists, I am just arguing Islam is not at fault. Look at Malaysia, since we have Colin here and he is intimately knowledgeable about Malaysian life... they were very relaxed (and most still are ie 99%), but the wahabi cultists infiltrated Malaysia, like they did in Afghanistan and have started preaching crap as the only 'true' Islam... and it makes the rest of us look like raving lunatics. But again it is not Islam or the fault of Muslims, even though Muslims propagate it. It is just like extremism in other religions, it is not the fault of that religion that people warp what was meant to be taught into an evil incarnation of a beautiful religion.

And back to my point, I like tangents when I talk, I really edit my posts hard... so if it seems a little choppy... thats why lol

Anywho, there are 'Islamic' extremists, no doubt about it in any way, shape or form. But it seems like they get way more then their fair share of Media time and thus it makes many people think, it is an issue with Islam, not an issue with some so called Muslims. Now Islam is in a war, so to speak, which I think you all are aware of, we have international funding of a certain brand of Islam that I disagree with and it does nothing to help Islam's image. Especially when these wahabi fools, show up on national television quoting such and such a verse or hadith and claiming that some extremist position is the only accepted position in Islam.

But a lot of us.. would dearly like to uh 'talk' to these people and set them straight... (by talk I mean slap them silly or send them to jail or any such interesting combination)

Abdullah

Ps I despise excuses, give me a good reason and I may excuse you... but if you give me an excuse, don't expect much.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Abdullah I put this here under Island and Western Society since I think you self-identifying as a Muslim convert opens up some interesting topics and discussions about Islam. Putting _converting_ in a positive light instead of what we often hear about in the news.  

Please don't feel I'm trying to put you on trial or anything but I also didn't think you would mind because (at least to me) it kind of feels like your primary reason for posting is to talk about Islam  where recruiting to the CF is a distant second.

You've mentioned being a convert a couple times that I remember and again perhaps it is just me but your posts often seem to come across as someone born and raised a Muslim.   So you've spoken about how people don't really understand Islam and spoken to how Muslim women are treated while growing up in a Islamic house as well as how you think most women who wear the Burka etc.. are happy to do so.   

Do you think it's possible having only converted to Islam 10 or so years ago(as an adult) you may have missed out on a lot of what happens in the formative years (if I'm saying that correctly) and perhaps you may have only been exposed to the academic and nicer (for lack of a better word) side of Islam?  How long ago did your wife convert to Islam? Was it as an adult and possibly put her in the same boat as you so to speak?


----------



## The Bread Guy

Thanks for all the explaining, AbdullahD, and adding to the meat without adding just sizzle.

One caveat for you, though ...
<Source note>


			
				AbdullahD said:
			
		

> ... Then I look at things like 'Jewish' extremism in the USA at 7% when 'Islamic' extremism is at 6% yet the Jewish religion as respectable and honorable as it is.. is vastly smaller then Islam in the world.
> 
> http://www.globalresearch.ca/non-muslims-carried-out-more-than-90-of-all-terrorist-attacks-in-america/5333619
> 
> (...)


I'd be careful quoting from this site because the organizers tend to view the world a bit ... conspiratorially ...

_*"9/11 a CIA- MOSSAD False Flag Operation"*_
_*"Orlando Shootings: Terrorism or False Flag?"*_
_*"False Flags are Part of a Military Agenda: From Pearl Harbor to 9/11"*_
</Source note>


----------



## AbdullahD

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Abdullah I put this here under Island and Western Society since I think you self-identifying as a Muslim convert opens up some interesting topics and discussions about Islam. Putting _converting_ in a positive light instead of what we often hear about in the news.
> 
> Please don't feel I'm trying to put you on trial or anything but I also didn't think you would mind because (at least to me) it kind of feels like your primary reason for posting is to talk about Islam  where recruiting to the CF is a distant second.



Actually, the primary reason I am here, by an extremely large margin is and was to learn about the CF, the application process and different trials that I will face. I am a huge believer in only talking about things you know, since regarding the Armed forces and other topics here I am woefully ignorant, it leaves me with this topic. That is likely the only reason you see me posting at all, but I am in no way, shape, or form here to discuss Islam and Muslims as my sole or primary purpose. I am sorry I came across that way, I actually read quite a few of the physical fitness threads from start to finish and they helped me a lot, I've also read every post about the trade I'm interested in etc etc. This Islam stuff is secondary.



> You've mentioned being a convert a couple times that I remember and again perhaps it is just me but your posts often seem to come across as someone born and raised a Muslim.   So you've spoken about how people don't really understand Islam and spoken to how Muslim women are treated while growing up in a Islamic house as well as how you think most women who wear the Burka etc.. are happy to do so.
> 
> Do you think it's possible having only converted to Islam 10 or so years ago(as an adult) you may have missed out on a lot of what happens in the formative years (if I'm saying that correctly) and perhaps you may have only been exposed to the academic and nicer (for lack of a better word) side of Islam?  How long ago did your wife convert to Islam? Was it as an adult and possibly put her in the same boat as you so to speak?



Aye, good thoughts and very valid. Now first off my wife did convert as an adult around 20 years of age so yes, it is so to speak the same boat.

Also, the reason I mention me converting relatively often is because converts face a very different set of issues then born Muslims. Born Muslims get inundated with culture *and* Islam from the very beginning, converts get it as adults.. which sometimes give us the skill to differentiate the culture from the religion.

Since my wife and I have been together we have now started raising our own children. We use a hybrid of Canadian Culture and the Islamic religion. So the oppression you see in certain documentaries about certain ethnic groups does not exist in our home, except maybe some flaws all Canadians have. The Islamic religion does give rights to the parents and we are to do our best to raise them properly, punishment sadly is a part of growing up.. but not beatings.

The sheer amount of hadiths that exist about treating kids nicely is astounding, so that confirms to me that is how we are supposed to treat them. I am currently on a road trip to pick up some cars so I can not really properly source them right now. but here are two hadiths close to the meaning, off the top of my head.

One states, that those who do not have respect for the elders and compassion for the youth is not from among us (ie they are not Muslim)

The other I can recall states; that a young boy who was a servant of the Prophet sws, from a tender age until he had grown up. Said upon recalling all the times he had made mistakes that the Prophet sws never once raised his voice to admonish him.

I do believe these both are sahih hadiths, they are also very well known. I take them as part of an arguement that anyone who is abusive and oppressive towards children, is not practicing Islam at all. The evil side that you see, without seeing specific examples, I chalk up to culture and not Islam. I recently had a guy take me out and let me try out his AR15's and his HK 9mm handgun.. afterwards he came to my house and when he saw how my kids interacted with me, I feel he finished forming an opinion about me.

Now this is not just my home, I have many friends from many different ethnic and cultural groups and their kids are not oppressed or abused too. I have also seen oppressed and abused Canadian kids... I feel Islam nor any other religion promotes abusing kids, but some people just need an excuse to feel powerful.. so children suffer and many times the wife too.

I also do not think I have 'missed' it, being Muslim for a while now I have friends who have had kids and I get to watch how they interact with their children.. if anything I say they are far to lenient.. my wife have higher expectations so to speak. So watching my friends with their kids and knowing these different arguements. I personally believe I have not been exposed to a separate Islam from what kids see, but I have just been exposed to the religion not the culture.

I hope that answers it

Abdullah

Ps Jarnhammer I am honestly sorry that I come across as being here to talk about Islam first. My Islam is first to me, but the reason I am here is to be the best damned recruit I can be and not let my family down.

Pss thanks Milnews, I suspect I should be more careful if I have a more critical crowd. I guess this is why I try to avoid debates, I'm bad at it lol


----------



## The Bread Guy

AbdullahD said:
			
		

> Pss thanks Milnews, I suspect I should be more careful if I have a more critical crowd. I guess this is why I try to avoid debates, I'm bad at it lol


You're not bad at debate/discussion at all - just wanted to make sure you're tapping the best support for your arguments.  Please, continue!


----------



## Jarnhamar

AbdullahD said:
			
		

> Actually, the primary reason I am here, by an extremely large margin is and was to learn about the CF, the application process and different trials that I will face. I am a huge believer in only talking about things you know, since regarding the Armed forces and other topics here I am woefully ignorant, it leaves me with this topic. That is likely the only reason you see me posting at all, but I am in no way, shape, or form here to discuss Islam and Muslims as my sole or primary purpose. I am sorry I came across that way, I actually read quite a few of the physical fitness threads from start to finish and they helped me a lot, I've also read every post about the trade I'm interested in etc etc. This Islam stuff is secondary.



Fair enough, please don't apologize though I'm just always suspicious to the point of being an asshole  

Just for context I mention it because when you joined the board you posted two quick intro posts then on your 3rd jumped into a huge post about Islam, including where you say  "I supprot the sharia"  then more large posts on your 4th, 5th, 7th etc...  
It's easy to look at your post history and form an opinion on what the meat and potatos of your posts are about so in this case I wasn't just trying to shitpost.




> Aye, good thoughts and very valid. Now first off my wife did convert as an adult around 20 years of age so yes, it is so to speak the same boat.



Roger.  



> Also, the reason I mention me converting relatively often is because converts face a very different set of issues then born Muslims. Born Muslims get inundated with culture *and* Islam from the very beginning, converts get it as adults.. which sometimes give us the skill to differentiate the culture from the religion.



You said this as well in one of your earlier posts (things got a bit heated, all good)


> See look, I spent 30 seconds on google and look at all these links i got validating my points. Must mean im right, right? Do we really need to continue this pathetic childish argument? I am saying real Islam treats women right and I have authentic texts backing it up. You are talking about cultural crap.



Taking into consideration both your wife and yourself only recently converted (or perhaps better said converted in adulthood) is it safe to suggest the both of you missed out on a whole bunch of the culture that happens behind closed doors when children are growing up or how they are taught, what they're exposed to etc.. ? So it's really easy for you to brush off a lot of the negative aspects of it?




> Since my wife and I have been together we have now started raising our own children. We use a hybrid of Canadian Culture and the Islamic religion. So the oppression you see in certain documentaries about certain ethnic groups does not exist in our home, except maybe some flaws all Canadians have. The Islamic religion does give rights to the parents and we are to do our best to raise them properly, punishment sadly is a part of growing up.. but not beatings.
> 
> The sheer amount of hadiths that exist about treating kids nicely is astounding, so that confirms to me that is how we are supposed to treat them. I am currently on a road trip to pick up some cars so I can not really properly source them right now. but here are two hadiths close to the meaning, off the top of my head.



Abdullah it sounds like you have a great family and a great house hold. I really mean that. Do you think it's possible the way you amalgamated Islam and Canadian culture so well is because you joined Islam as an educated adult and had the opportunity or ability to pick and choose what worked and what didn't? You were able to approach it from a scholastic and theoretical view? It feels like it really appealed to you on an academic level.




> afterwards he came to my house and when he saw how my kids interacted with me, I feel he finished forming an opinion about me.



Realizing now you converted to Islam and weren't raised in it I have to admit I'm even more intrigued by your views on if your kids decided they would be Catholics or atheists or just not follow Muslim beliefs.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

> Since my wife and I have been together we have now started raising our own children. We use a hybrid of Canadian Culture and the Islamic religion. So the oppression you see in certain documentaries about certain ethnic groups does not exist in our home, except maybe some flaws all Canadians have. The Islamic religion does give rights to the parents and we are to do our best to raise them properly, punishment sadly is a part of growing up.. but not beatings.



Will your children have to wear a head covering? What about being in public by themselves? Are they going to be raised with western, occidental values?

Perhaps you'd like to explain exactly what flaws all Canadian have and, given your penchant for your new lifestyle, (cause it's not just a religion ), what similar flaws exist in Islam? Will your daughters be educated in a mosque, madras or public school?


----------



## Lumber

recceguy said:
			
		

> Will your children have to wear a head covering? What about being in public by themselves? Are they going to be raised with western, occidental values?
> 
> Perhaps you'd like to explain exactly what flaws all Canadian have and, given your penchant for your new lifestyle, (cause it's not just a religion ), what similar flaws exist in Islam? Will your daughters be educated in a mosque, madras or public school?



Off the top of my head:
Materialistic
Lazy
Selfish
Alcoholic
Impatient
Sensitive


----------



## Jarnhamar

recceguy] 

Perhaps you'd like to explain exactly what flaws all Canadian have[/quote] 

[quote author=Lumber said:
			
		

> Off the top of my head:
> Materialistic
> Lazy
> Selfish
> Alcoholic
> Impatient
> Sensitive



Ya what a bunch of infidels eh?


----------



## Lumber

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Ya what a bunch of infidels eh?



I have a ball-cap given to me by a USN LCdr that says exactly that, in both English and Arabic.


----------



## AbdullahD

recceguy said:
			
		

> Will your children have to wear a head covering? What about being in public by themselves? Are they going to be raised with western, occidental values?
> 
> Perhaps you'd like to explain exactly what flaws all Canadian have and, given your penchant for your new lifestyle, (cause it's not just a religion ), what similar flaws exist in Islam? Will your daughters be educated in a mosque, madras or public school?



Recceguy, I think you took me a little to literally. All new Canadian parents, face similar trials and tribulations. We as a nation have different issues then say afghani's or Ethiopian's in their respective countries face. Please notice I said Canadians, not Muslim, Christian, Jew etc. Christian Canadians, Muslim Canadians etc, all face these issues. I made that comment in an abstract sense. But since I have ticked you off, I will, because I feel so inclined answer a couple questions. 

Now if I said I had two daughters, sorry that was a typo. I have a daughter (4)and a son (2), regarding the education I will allow them to have, I truely have not decided. To me it is not a binary question of either this way or that way, I believe I can have my kids in a blended system. Such an example could be is going to the public school for the secular education, then go to the Madrasa or Makhtab or even an online education system. Some real good ones do exist. Or I could put the kids in a private Islamic school and then put them in extra curricular activities with kids in the general public.

My family is a Muslim family *in * Canada, why on earth would we try to hide from it? Insulating our kids from the broader Canadian society, I personally think would be a idiotic idea.. because eventually they will interact with this society. Now I have heard a saying to the effect of "catholic school girls" and how wild they go, insulating my kids from the real world.. would likely just have the same effect.

Now you bring up Western Occidental values and wether I will be teaching my kids them, that also seems to me like you think it is an Islam vs the West scenario. To me, it is not. I can teach my kids the sanctity of life, love of liberty and freedom, duty to your country and fellow man etc etc and I will feel those are all Canadian and Islamic Values.

Now you bring up wether I will force my daughter to cover her head etc and if she can go out alone.. well at 4 years old, now way in hell at 15 why wouldnt I? I do not force my kids or wife to do anything, I encourage with love and wisdom as best as I can. My daughter currently enjoys getting into her "sunday best" to go to the Mosque to pray. There are certain dress code rules regarding prayer, that she should follow so I try to tech her. But I do not "force" her anymore then say a Christian parent forces their kids to dress nice to go to the church on sunday. I feel that parents who force their kids and are oppressive towards their children are displaying some very disgusting behavior and god willing I will never oppress or abuse my family.

I hope that makes amends. Jarnhamar, I am working on yours now, recce just seemed a little annoyed with my wording, so I wanted to patch it up first 

Now on to coffee number two... err reply #2.

Abdullah


----------



## AbdullahD

Thanks for fixing the quotes 



			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Fair enough, please don't apologize though I'm just always suspicious to the point of being an *******
> 
> Just for context I mention it because when you joined the board you posted two quick intro posts then on your 3rd jumped into a huge post about Islam, including where you say  "I supprot the sharia"  then more large posts on your 4th, 5th, 7th etc...
> It's easy to look at your post history and form an opinion on what the meat and potatos of your posts are about so in this case I wasn't just trying to shitpost.



Looking at it from your point of view, the suspicion was definitely warranted for you. I have actually come to really enjoy the caliber of discussion on this board, it is an extreme rarity on the Internet sadly.. so maybe because I enjoy the intelligent discussion, I post a lot.. I have missed conversation that makes you think.. having two kids, my level and type of discussion has changed dramatically. 



> Roger.
> 
> You said this as well in one of your earlier posts (things got a bit heated, all good)
> Taking into consideration both your wife and yourself only recently converted (or perhaps better said converted in adulthood) is it safe to suggest the both of you missed out on a whole bunch of the culture that happens behind closed doors when children are growing up or how they are taught, what they're exposed to etc.. ? So it's really easy for you to brush off a lot of the negative aspects of it?



This is valid. I can never know, can I? If I am not seeing it then I can believe it does not exist, even if it does. So yes, it 'could' be happening, but I am sticking to the guns and saying I highly doubt it. I have two convert male friends, one married a Pakistani lady and one Married an Egyptian lady and they have never brought anything up about this kind of stuff and they happen to be two of my closest friends with kids. My wife also has a girlfriend who reverted and married a Pakistani guy and so far we have heard nothing from that sister too. But things exist in every culture around the world, that a minority act upon that would disgust us all.. and a lot of cultures have their own specific traits that seem innocent to them, but foreign and weird to others.. so who knows, you may be right, but my guns are still blazing so to speak 



> Abdullah it sounds like you have a great family and a great house hold. I really mean that. Do you think it's possible the way you amalgamated Islam and Canadian culture so well is because you joined Islam as an educated adult and had the opportunity or ability to pick and choose what worked and what didn't? You were able to approach it from a scholastic and theoretical view? It feels like it really appealed to you on an academic level.



Thank you and I would be a bold faced liar, if I said Islam does not and did not appeal to me on an academic level. I won't spiel on about the nuanced intricacies and how interesting I find them, but suffice to say you are spot on.

Now regarding picking and choosing, we don't. Everything 'Islamic' we do, I can support with a fatwa or fatawa's from one or more Islamic scholars. But we also very heavily follow the teachings that their is no compulsion in religion and that Islam should be taught with love and wisdom. So coming to it as an adult, I was more critical of it, but that also allowed me to see the different styles of Islam that exist and choose the one that worked for us as a family.. but every Muslim has that right in Islam, any Muslim can change their school of thought and take any fatawa from any reputable scholar. But sadly, this particular right, is not very well taught... which could be argued contributes to some of the issues Islam and Muslims face.



> Realizing now you converted to Islam and weren't raised in it I have to admit I'm even more intrigued by your views on if your kids decided they would be Catholics or atheists or just not follow Muslim beliefs.



Hmm.. insert a internal debate on wether I was going to answer this publically.

God guides who he wills and takes guidance away from who he wills, regarding Islam. Now being a Muslim in no way, shape or form, implies, hints or proves that a person is a good person. It just implies that a fellow is potentially following the most correct religion (this is just my opinion, I am not trying to force it on others).

I would in no way disown them, I would investigate why or what made them feel Islam was wrong and try to overcome those objections in time with love. But having said that, I have seen many ex-Muslims/Christians/etc and seen many similar traits that lead to disbelief. Usually it was or is parents forcing kids to do religious acts, without explaining the why of it and without developing the ability to be critical of what followers of their faith do and be able to separate it from what the religion teaches.

Even if all my precautions and remedial measures did not work, I would assume to an extent I failed in this particular regard. But not completely as a parent. Mind you if my kids turn out to be drug addicted criminals who renounced Islam.. then I would have considered myself a complete failure. But absolutely everything is up to God to decide, if he decides this is my families fate, then it is my families fate. I just pray for the best for my family and all those I care about all the time. Who knows maybe they have to leave Islam and come back for some reason that only Allah knows.

Is this good enough?

Abdullah


----------



## Jarnhamar

I'll work on a reply Abdullah.


In the mean time, just came across this lovely piece of work.

*Man who raped 10-year-old boy at swimming pool in Austria has sentence overturned by Supreme Court*
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/iraqi-refugee-raped-10-year-old-boy-swimming-pool-vienna-austria-sentence-conviction-overturned-a7377491.html


> Supreme Court judges ruled that the first court should have established whether the attacker thought his victim agreed to a sexual act and intended to act against the boy’s will.


----------



## AbdullahD

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I'll work on a reply Abdullah.
> 
> 
> In the mean time, just came across this lovely piece of work.
> 
> *Man who raped 10-year-old boy at swimming pool in Austria has sentence overturned by Supreme Court*
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/iraqi-refugee-raped-10-year-old-boy-swimming-pool-vienna-austria-sentence-conviction-overturned-a7377491.html



Aye I saw that too, my understanding is they are going back and following the 'proper procedures'. Apparently they messed up along the way and my guess is they are going back to make sure he doesn't get off easy, because they accidentally messed up. From my understanding, no one is saying he is innocent either, so maybe this is sensationalism in the media over nothing? But that is a pointless discussion too, we know the msm has its agendas 

I'd argue that this is not necessarily an Islam in the west issue, but a Migrant/Refugee in the west issue. But I find no point in it, because the two are so closely connected in many cases and my opinion on what should happen to the guilty party in cases like these.. is a little 'medieval'.

Take your time, I personally am kinda busy re reading all the stuff on shin splints and how to deal with it.


----------



## Flavus101

AbdullahD said:
			
		

> Take your time, I personally am kinda busy re reading all the stuff on shin splints and how to deal with it.



Foam rolling works wonders, and if you are getting them while wearing boots try skipping the lace holes around where the ankle is. I found that helped a lot on long rucks.


----------



## AbdullahD

Since Muslims adapting and integrating is fairly often brought up by critics of Muslims and Islam. I am using that excuse to post these feel good articles and notes or statements and quotes (plus reasons I added down below).

But in truth, I am just proud of these guys and/or gals.

Turkish Muslim restaurant offers free Christmas dinner saying no one should eat alone.
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/m.mic.com/articles/amp/161230/a-muslim-owned-restaurant-is-hosting-free-christmas-dinners-for-the-homeless?client=ms-android-bell-ca

(Last year) Muslim chosen to host the Swedish Julvard.
https://www.google.ca/amp/www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/amphtml/World/Europe/2015/1223/Sweden-tries-something-new-for-annual-Christmas-TV-special-a-Muslim-host?client=ms-android-bell-ca

Now Imam Adam Kelwick, whose work includes drilling wells for people in africa and feeding the starving, encourages Mosques to follow the footsteps of Imam Abdullah Quilliam who used to host Christmas' for the poor. Ill put two links to his bio. Adam's endorsement can be found on Adam Kelwicks facebook bio.
http://imamsonline.com/blog/the-first-shaykh-of-the-british-isles-abdullah-quilliam/

http://www.baitulhikmah.com/2775-2/

Regarding saying 'merry christmas' as acceptable.


			
				MuftiAbuLayth said:
			
		

> Suffice it to say that to Allah alone belongs all priase.
> 
> Fatwa on saying 'Merry Christmas' to non-muslims.
> 
> In my understanding it is permissible to exchange such greetings based on the conventional context, demonstrating good character and maintaining good social relations.
> All of which are taught to us through the exemplary guidance of The Messenger of Allah (saw), His blessed interactions and His good ties with the non muslims around him.
> 
> This Fatwa is also the opinion of many contemporary and luminary Ulama worldwide inc:
> Sh Yusuf Qardawi
> Sh Abdullah bin Bayyah
> Sh AbdusSattar Saeed (alAzhar)
> Sh M Sayyid Dasuqi (Qatar)
> Sh Mustafa Zarqa
> Sh M Rasheed Rida
> Sh Ahmad Sharbaasi
> 
> that said, I do however recognise that there are other scholars who disagree with the above stated and have their respective evidences to do so. Such Ulama are at liberty to hold their differing views.
> 
> We understand this diversity, breadth and tolerance to be from the magnificent and legendary teachings of our Deen; Al-Islam.
> 
> & absolute knowledge belongs to Allah alone.
> 
> Duas
> Wasalam
> Mufti



Exchanging gifts and saying merry Christmas is 100% fine a more detailed look.
http://www.nairaland.com/2823222/congratulating-christians-during-christmas-permissible

Yes, yes, I know some of you may be scratching your heads and asking who cares. I just want this information to be available to people in the armed forces. Or at least to you guys, I suspect.. some more 'extreme' Muslims may be declaring some things against 'kafr's' and I just want to be proactive not reactive 

It is my attempt to share my so-called christmas spirit. My wife crocheted hats, scarfs and blankets for her niece and nephew in northern alberta, I still need to sort out what I am getting people I need to buy for. We are eating a turkey that was slaughtered by a christian for our christmas dinner (yep, its halal), all in all I am just enjoying the season.

I do have more I could add regarding Muslims and Christmas.  But I feel this suffices.. plus it gives me an excuse to say...

Merry Christmas guys and God bless ya all. 
God I like to talk

Abdullah

Ps Jarnhamar you never did reply lol


----------



## Loachman

And to you also - and you are always worth reading.


----------



## larry Strong

And a Merry Christmas to you as well Abdullah.

Your insight has been appreciated.


Cheers
Larry


----------



## Jarnhamar

AbdullahD said:
			
		

> This is valid. I can never know, can I? If I am not seeing it then I can believe it does not exist, even if it does. So yes, it 'could' be happening, but I am sticking to the guns and saying I highly doubt it. I have two convert male friends, one married a Pakistani lady and one Married an Egyptian lady and they have never brought anything up about this kind of stuff and they happen to be two of my closest friends with kids. My wife also has a girlfriend who reverted and married a Pakistani guy and so far we have heard nothing from that sister too. But things exist in every culture around the world, that a minority act upon that would disgust us all.. and a lot of cultures have their own specific traits that seem innocent to them, but foreign and weird to others.. so who knows, you may be right, but my guns are still blazing so to speak



That's fair. I will stick to my own guns and respectfully suggest you (and other converts) have been blessed with a very manicured and theoretical version of Islam. I would venture maybe a bit akin to Hollywood actors and Scientology. They get exposed to the better parts and less the bad.



> God guides who he wills and takes guidance away from who he wills, regarding Islam. Now being a Muslim in no way, shape or form, implies, hints or proves that a person is a good person. It just implies that a fellow is potentially following the most correct religion (this is just my opinion, I am not trying to force it on others).
> 
> I would in no way disown them,* I would investigate why or what made them feel Islam was wrong and try to overcome those objections* in time with love.



To me this statement reads 100% that *you* would be pushing *your* religion and what *you* feel on to your children, not taking into consideration or respect their free will or choices.


Can I put you into a very difficult position? By all means don't answer if it's uncomfortable.


> But absolutely everything is up to God to decide, if he decides this is my families fate, then it is my families fate.



What if your child is a devote follower of Islam and one day they come up to you and with complete conviction and clarity tell you that Allah spoke to them and told them it's his will that they set off a bomb at some public place.

Do you accept this as Allah's will and what he decided for your child and family?


----------



## AbdullahD

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> That's fair. I will stick to my own guns and respectfully suggest you (and other converts) have been blessed with a very manicured and theoretical version of Islam. I would venture maybe a bit akin to Hollywood actors and Scientology. They get exposed to the better parts and less the bad.



That is a fair enough position, I won't argue it aside from I feel my evidences more then support my arguement. Even then though if we could get extremists on to this style, it would be good and it is not just converts. A lot of guys from Russia/Western Europe historically follow this style I follow.



> To me this statement reads 100% that *you* would be pushing *your* religion and what *you* feel on to your children, not taking into consideration or respect their free will or choices.



I will push religion, just as much as I push the mandatory Canadian education, or other such things. But I wont oppress them.




> Can I put you into a very difficult position? By all means don't answer if it's uncomfortable.
> What if your child is a devote follower of Islam and one day they come up to you and with complete conviction and clarity tell you that Allah spoke to them and told them it's his will that they set off a bomb at some public place.
> 
> Do you accept this as Allah's will and what he decided for your child and family?



Absolutely everything in my power will be used in stopping my child from doing it and I would be making sure they are prosecuted and put into psychiatric care.

I answered for you Jarn, but honestly, I feel you should have known lol

Abdullah


----------



## Jarnhamar

[quote author=AbdullahD]
I answered for you Jarn, but honestly, I feel you should have known lol[/quote]
Thanks Abdullah, I did know, I'm going somewhere with this 


> Absolutely everything in my power will be used in stopping my child from doing it and I would be making sure they are prosecuted and put into psychiatric care.



But who are you to judge that your son didn't in fact receive a dream from Allah?  I've met a couple padres now who were NCOs or Officers who received a dream from God to become padres after years of service.  If God sends nice messages to people isn't it safe to say God can send mean ones too? (old testament is full of fire and brimstone stuff).

If your son said he received a message from Allah saying he should become a cleric I presume you would believe him and be supportive?
But when the message is a violent one [Quran 2:191-193 ] then he requires psychiatric care? Essentially whether to believe Allah's will or not depends on your own personal feelings about whats being said. So not exactly "absolutely everything is up to God to decide".


----------



## AbdullahD

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Thanks Abdullah, I did know, I'm going somewhere with this



And you took an extremely interesting direction, one I did not anticipate. 



> But who are you to judge that your son didn't in fact receive a dream from Allah?



Interpretation of dreams and some of the more esoteric things involving dreams and 'divine' direction are well and truely outside my knowledge.

But Islam does not teach murdering innocents is acceptable, so a dream claiming 'Allah' told someone to do that is suspect
http://www.answering-christianity.com/no_murder.htm

And 'seeing' Allah is suspect too
http://islamqa.org/hanafi/daruliftaa/7952

But for the sake of your arguement and to put in a more widely accepted Islamic context, lets go with he saw Muhammad or Jesus or any other Muslim prophet and that vision encouraged this.

  





> I've met a couple padres now who were NCOs or Officers who received a dream from God to become padres after years of service.  If God sends nice messages to people isn't it safe to say God can send mean ones too? (old testament is full of fire and brimstone stuff).



Now you force me to defend my Christian brethren, which I will do so to my fullest. But if I fall short a brother who is more intimately aware of Christianity can help. God/Allah/Yahwey/Creator is not full of fire and brimstone, nor is he a vindictive child like entity. Everything he did and does or allows is for a reason, it becomes difficult for us to understand his motives because our time lines of planning are vastly different and our end goals are vastly different. Then you add the length of time since these acts happened and it becomes harder to qualify wether they were good or bad acts, because we lack information those generations had.

It is like looking at WW2 and what the allied forces did to Germany, but not knowing what the Germans did to deserve our aggression. A short article talking about this subject. I think I found a christian source.. albeit the name the use for God seems to be jehovah... any rate here it is.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/gotquestions.org/amp/Old-Testament-violence.html?client=ms-android-bell-ca

Now back to your point, if we dismiss the idea that God or his Prophets are evil and vindictive, then it becomes clear that they will not encourage people to evil and vindictive actions. Now please remember before you bring up the Machiavellian idea of the ends justifying the means, the Islamic idea of God does not allow for interpretation of the idea of the ends Justifying the Means in Islam. If a person is to be executed, imprisoned etc, he has to have done something to deserve it, it can not just be done to him.



> If your son said he received a message from Allah saying he should become a cleric I presume you would believe him and be supportive?



I actually, become very.. lets say suspicious when people tell me they received 'guidance' in any way from 'Divine' beings or prophets. I find a lot of times that 'Divine' message, can be chalked up to stimuli in a persons life leading to his mind being active in that manner at night and they interpert as a divine message. When in actuality it was the brain processing the days or weeks information. 

As a side subject dreams are an extremely fascinating subject in psychology. Well worth reading up on.. so Ill post a link  non-religious.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-dreaming-and-what-does-it-tell-us-about-memory-excerpt/



> But when the message is a violent one [Quran 2:191-193 ] then he requires psychiatric care? Essentially whether to believe Allah's will or not depends on your own personal feelings about whats being said. So not exactly "absolutely everything is up to God to decide".



Well, if my child starts quoting single lines out of the Qur'an to me and trying to give me Tafsir.. my child and i will have a very hard talk.

For you a link  2:190-195 is much better to read in isolation.
 https://www.google.ca/amp/s/discover-the-truth.com/2014/08/12/quran-2191-and-kill-them-wherever-you-find-them-explained/amp/?client=ms-android-bell-ca

Now back to your point, if what is being said conforms to the established Sunnah of Allah and his prophet. Then that is one hurdle over came, but if it flies in the face of Allah and his Sunnah, then I know it is wrong out right. Nonetheless, if I ever have a conversation with my kids like this, I will be paying strict attention to everything I can.

For most things we are a product of our enviroments, but I do not discount divine encouragement per se. Because either a very long odds coincedence happened to me or it was divine encouraging, so I believe it exists. But I find a lot of cases of 'divine' encouraging can be logically explained. 

Now as a little aside, I was thinking today about why so many people are critical of Islam and so many are not. I was thinking about what you said of converts not being "exposed" to certain versions and interpertations of Islam and I found that to be incorrect, look at all the material covered here in this thread and the other one, you can hardly say I am unaware of these things.. but I choose to follow evidence that discounts them.. whereas others choose to discount those evidences. It makes me wonder why some feel Islam or any particular issue is fine, but a person exposed to the same material can hold a countrary position. Kinda had me thinking about Initial exposure to Islam and confirmation bias and all those other neat things. I am driving around BC and Alberta these days, delivering cars for a wholesaler and I find I have far to much time to think and things like this pop up. 

Any rate, I best get to bed. You take care, I honestly appreciate your conversation, I genuinely like learning your viewpoints. I feel they may help me in the future and although you are critical of Islam, I do not find you to be a bigot or rascist. I find you or at least this persona of you to be quite respectable.. amazing feat on the internet lol

Abdullah


----------



## Lumber

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Thanks Abdullah, I did know, I'm going somewhere with this
> But who are you to judge that your son didn't in fact receive a dream from Allah?  I've met a couple padres now who were NCOs or Officers who received a dream from God to become padres after years of service.  If God sends nice messages to people isn't it safe to say God can send mean ones too? (old testament is full of fire and brimstone stuff).
> 
> If your son said he received a message from Allah saying he should become a cleric I presume you would believe him and be supportive?
> But when the message is a violent one [Quran 2:191-193 ] then he requires psychiatric care? Essentially whether to believe Allah's will or not depends on your own personal feelings about whats being said. So not exactly "absolutely everything is up to God to decide".



Jarn,

I just want to make sure you're perfectly aware that your line of question has nothing to do with Abdullah's family, not Islam in general. You could be posing the same question to a person from _any_ faith.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Lumber said:
			
		

> Jarn,
> 
> I just want to make sure you're perfectly aware that your line of question has nothing to do with Abdullah's family, not Islam in general. You could be posing the same question to a person from _any_ faith.



Lumber, 

I think you made a mistake in your post. It doesn't make 100% sense to me however I think I understand the just of what you're saying and to that I would reply yes and no.
Yes I can ask that question to someone of any faith. I think Islam is somewhat different however due to the heavily influenced _Inshallah_ and that's the core of what I'm speaking to and asking about.


----------



## AbdullahD

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Lumber,
> 
> I think you made a mistake in your post. It doesn't make 100% sense to me however I think I understand the just of what you're saying and to that I would reply yes and no.
> Yes I can ask that question to someone of any faith. I think Islam is somewhat different however due to the heavily influenced _Inshallah_ and that's the core of what I'm speaking to and asking about.



Saying Inshallah worries you? Here is a little preview of were it came from.. unless, you are going to some extreme interpertations of the word, I can not fathom why anyone would be worried about Inshallah. It is simply just a arab and Muslim Cultural saying, some Arab Christians use the word Inshallah too. (Please remember Allah means God in Arabic, So in Arab Bibles, they use the Arab word Allah.)

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/trueword.wordpress.com/2008/11/28/tafsir-surah-kahf-ayah-23-26/amp/?client=ms-android-bell-ca

Any rate, extremists will use any excuse to radicalize. So excuses can be found for them. 

Abdullah


----------



## Jarnhamar

Abdullah for brevity sake I may group some of my responses together and out of order.

[quote author=AbdullahD]
I genuinely like learning your viewpoints. I feel they may help me in the future and although you are critical of Islam, I do not find you to be a bigot or rascist[/quote]

Thanks Abdullah. I've never tried to hide my bias of Islam and I'm not intimidated when people start throwing "Islamaphobia" around. I know a lot of people are quick to scream racisim when people are critical which is stupid because Muslims aren't a race. [and really all race is comes down to exposure to the environment, exposure to elevation and exposure to the sun. It's stupid to be proud of or hate a race because it's simply evolution].

I don't consider myself a bigot but I AM discusted by a number of cultural practices and norms which I feel are barbaric, savage and have no place in this century.



> And you took an extremely interesting direction, one I did not anticipate.


The ol' right turn on the march.



> Interpretation of dreams and some of the more esoteric things involving dreams and 'divine' direction are well and truely outside my knowledge.
> //
> But Islam does not teach murdering innocents is acceptable, so a dream claiming 'Allah' told someone to do that is suspect


It's really all Interpretation. I can say the bible doesn't teach killing innocents however you could take 3 minutes and quote a bunch of passages from the bible talking about 
_-Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves_
_-And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die_.

Same with the Quran. I can pull up litteral quotes about murdering people and you can counter with someone else saying "well what he _really _meant was.."
We're simply not going to agree that the Quran (and bible) doesn't promote killing.  On that note I think we see a heck of a lot more religious murders accredited to the Quran than the bible, not that it really changes much for the victim.


  


> Now you force me to defend my Christian brethren, which I will do so to my fullest. But if I fall short a brother who is more intimately aware of Christianity can help. God/Allah/Yahwey/Creator is not full of fire and brimstone, nor is he a vindictive child like entity.


Jesus was hungry 
Yahweh told Moses to murder anyone who didn't accept Israel's offer of peace.
Allah through Muhammed instructed Muslims to cut the heads and fingers off of people.
Jesus got mad at a tree for not having any fruit when he was hungry so he cursed it and the tree withered and died.

I'm sorry but regardless of your justifications and "what he really meant" webpages written by scholars in this century I can show hundreds of vindictive fire and brimstone direct quotes. Humans are trying to mitigate the fire anr brimstone stuff to make religion more 2000AD tolerant IMO.



> If a person is to be executed, imprisoned etc, he has to have done something to deserve it, it can not just be done to him.


Again this is simply interpretation. The Afghan woman who was beaten and set on fire allegedly burned a Quran which was enough justification for a crowd of every day citizens to execute her. Punishing people in any aspect in accordance with religious laws is archaic and wrong. And especially messed up because of the (lack of) burden of proof and how easy it is to make shit up.



> Everything he did and does or allows is for a reason, it becomes difficult for us to understand his motives


Which means Allah could very well order someone to go murder innocent people to prove a point. We simply don't understand his motives, and who are we to question if God wills it?



> I actually, become very.. lets say suspicious when people tell me they received 'guidance' in any way from 'Divine' beings or prophets. I find a lot of times that 'Divine' message, can be chalked up to stimuli in a persons life leading to his mind being active in that manner at night and they interpert as a divine message. When in actuality it was the brain processing the days or weeks information.


Right. I would be suspicious too. But didn't one of Muhammeds wives feel the same way? That he conveniently got all those messages like marry his brothers wife?



> Well, if my child starts quoting single lines out of the Qur'an to me and trying to give me Tafsir.. my child and i will have a very hard talk.


Imagine if they start quoting from the bible and try to convert you and your wife 



Now back to your point, if what is being said conforms to the established Sunnah of Allah and his prophet. Then that is one hurdle over came, but if it flies in the face of Allah and his Sunnah, then I know it is wrong out right. Nonetheless, if I ever have a conversation with my kids like this, I will be paying strict attention to everything I can.



> Now as a little aside, I was thinking today about why so many people are critical of Islam and so many are not. I was thinking about what you said of converts not being "exposed" to certain versions and interpertations of Islam and I found that to be incorrect, look at all the material covered here in this thread and the other one, you can hardly say I am unaware of these things.. but I choose to follow evidence that discounts them.. whereas others choose to discount those evidences.


Did you grow up in a Muslim household or grow up in a Muslim country?



> It makes me wonder why some feel Islam or any particular issue is fine, but a person exposed to the same material can hold a countrary position. Kinda had me thinking about Initial exposure to Islam and confirmation bias and all those other neat things. I am driving around BC and Alberta these days, delivering cars for a wholesaler and I find I have far to much time to think and things like this pop up.



For me it's the scale. People like you and the students I had this summer compared to what we're reading out of Europe and the middle east.


----------



## AbdullahD

Well, thank you for letting me inside your head. I completely understand, to an extent, why you feel this way about Islam. I think we could argue all day on wether Islam is to blame or culture or socioeconomic issues or etc etc. Yet, we would never win each other to the others side.

I may post a further reply in a bit, after I digested your post. But I do not want turn this into a "nuh uh" vs "Ya ah" battle, so I will try to not rebuttal the same things over and over. If you dont accept my position then that is fine. But I may quote scholars from the first few hundred years of Islam, to debunk your position that it is 20th century scholars "modernizing" the religion and then leave it at that.

Any rate, bout to hit the road again. I'll be back later.

Abdullah


----------



## Jarnhamar

You should drop one of those vehicles off at my place. Nice SUV I can set up for a zombie apocalypse vehicle eh?

And please don't feel obligated to respond to my post above, most of it's just ranting. 


Speaking of the Apocalypse though I did want to mention something which I was discussing at work today (and please don't take it as a dig).


Suppose World War 3 started tomorrow and most of humanity was wiped out including most of our 'things'. 
400 years down the road if humanity managed to  start over and someone found a book called _Harry Potter and the Philosophers Stone_      J. K. Rowling may very well be hailed as a prophet and the book proof that magic and wizards existed.


----------



## AbdullahD

Jarnhamar you did bring up a very neat point. Especially modernization of religions to fit 'contemporary' morals and ethics etc. Your point about barbaric practices having no place in this day and I agree with, but many scholars throughout time agreed with you (us) too. This is more for my fun, then anything, but here it goes...

Music. Many Muslims consider Music as forbidden and claim 'Modern' Scholars are corrupting Islam by allowing it.
Yet, Imam Ghazali born in 1058 says it is permissible! (I wont mention the companions who kept singing girls, before slavery was abolished lol)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ghazali

But Mufti Ebrahim Desai born.. not sure.. but he is in his 50's now??? Says it is forbidden..
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebrahim_Desai

Wearing hijab...
Sayyed Nabil Al-Haidari in a fatawa he gave, explained how the Prophet admonished the Companions if they looked at women not wearing hijab. Not the lady and he stated women were not forced to wear Hijab..


> In His Name the Most High
> Salaamu Alaikum Warahmat Allah Wabarakatuh
> 
> Thank you for your questions. Please refer to the answers below.
> 
> During the era of the Holy Prophet [saw] women were not forced to wear Hijab. We also have narrations of an incident where a woman came to the Holy Prophet without Hijab. In this incident, some of the companions began looking at this woman with lust and the Holy Prophet ordered them to stop looking at her.
> 
> The Holy Quran says:*edited out for brevity *
> 
> Wafaqakum Allah [swt] - May Allah bring you success.
> 
> Wasalaamu Alaikum Warahmat Allah.
> 
> Sayyed Nabil Al-Haidari



BUT! Yet, Shaykh Muhammad Nassir-ud-Deen al-Albani (Rahim Allaah)  born in 1914 says that a man is allowed to force his wife to wear a Niqab or burkah? 

Shayk Abu Abdillah says any male who leaves Islam in a Islamic country. Must be killed. He just finished mufti studies a couple years back.

But Classical scholars like Ibrahim al-Nakha'i who died in 715 said that execution was not required and wrote fatawas against it.. 

Beating your wife... the prophet says not to.. 





> Narrated Mu'awiyah al-Qushayri: "I went to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) and asked him: What do you say (command) about our wives? He replied: Give them food what you have for yourself, and clothe them by which you clothe yourself, and do not beat them, and do not revile them.  (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 11, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 2139)"



But... I believe we are all aware of those so-called scholars in Pakistan who claimed it was allowed last year. (Ignorant prigs, shayk abdul raheem has a thorough fatawa showing the prophet never allowed it)

I cant think of any other ones to compare right now. If you do let me know. Mufti Abu Layth and Shayk Atabek Shukrov are always encouraging people to re connect with the Classical Islam, that taught far more acceptance then what a lot of people see these days of Islam. Almost every single issue people critical of Islam bring up, I can show within 200 years of the prophet of not being the case. Heck even one companion enjoyed, lets say the more lewd entertainment and he was never flogged or executed. But dear god help you today if you do that in a so-called Islamic country.

One Issue I will concede, is that their is so much material on Islam when you include the Quran and hadiths that it is ridiculously easy to isolate and take anything out of context. Heck, if you went looking you can find a sahih hadith were the prophet told a group of people to drink camel urine, because it was good for them.. but no where in that hadith does it tell you how those people were acting and that the prophet was basically telling them to behave. *close to the meaning*.

I believe, you believe, that I believe what I say is truth. Which is a good start. If I can get you to concede that many Classical scholars, would fit in with us at a dinner table in this day and age. I'd be happy, because that means that you accept that throughout all of Islamic history their were a group of Muslims, like myself, that have or had half a brain.. then from there it is a small jump to admitting Islam is not the problem.

Abdullah

Ps today I drove an 08 Wrangler that was pretty doctored up.. first time driving a newer jeep, have to admit I think it will go anywhere. Debating the Merits of big vs small and suv vs truck is a different thread I think  you send me 10k cash, I am sure i can find you something 

Pss ever since you brought up how much I post about Islamic stuff here, I have been acutely aware of it. So again I will state, I try to only post when I know something.. so being this is an armed forces site, I dont know that Much.. so I seem to be posting here and lurking the Muslim pages. But I lurk all the other threads to learn how to work the system and how to be proactive in the armed forces.


----------



## Kirkhill

Abdullah:

How are the Aga Khan and the Ismaili's perceived within Islam?  They have been around for a very long while and have had an accommodation with the west, particularly the Brits.  

Similarly, where do the Jordanians and the Omanis fit on the Islamic spectrum?


----------



## AbdullahD

Hi Chris

My knowledge of different groups within Islam is actually quite limited.  I actually think Colin may be better educated to answer this, then I am, due to his in laws. He has had exposure to very formidable people, who likely know more then I ever  will. Most of the things I touch on are actually quite basic in nature. But you asked a tough, yet simple question being; 'how' they are 'Percieved'.

Ill do my best.



			
				Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Abdullah:
> 
> How are the Aga Khan and the Ismaili's perceived within Islam?  They have been around for a very long while and have had an accommodation with the west, particularly the Brits.


  

Now if I am correct Aga khan is an Ismaili.. 
http://www.askimam.org/public/question_detail/34110

And Deobandi Ulema love to call people kafr, as always. They (being Mufti Desai) do awesome research usually though, I just dont follow a lot of their fatawa that is not consistent with what I follow.

The Islamic scholars I sit with and have talked about Shia's with and my buddy who is shia and I have chatted too leads me to.. understanding the divide this way; the traditional fiqh of shia Islam is divorced from the reality on the ground, my Shia buddy has a better prayer then a lot of sunni's do too.. which is kind of funny.

So what _I _ have been taught, that until and unless you personally see a shi'ite Muslim committing Kufr in front of you. You must consider them Muslim. Even after that if the Kufr is comitted out of ignorance of shi'ite and Sunni fiqh, then you still have to consider them Muslim. 

But as far as perception within the greater Muslim world... I know shias and sunnis just love to hate eachother like ignorant fools. But my personal experience in north america has been a live and let live atmosphere over here. So I can not really talk as to that, I can only touch on the legal stuff per se.



> Similarly, where do the Jordanians and the Omanis fit on the Islamic spectrum?



Now I honestly do not know why you included Jordon and Jordanian Islam. Regarding Omanis I am guessing you are talking about Ibadi form of Islam? Now my guys I usually talk to when I do not know something are awol right now, so I started some digging myself from a deobandi site.

They do not pass a fatawa on contemporary Ibadhi Muslims, but it seems the guy who wrote this fatawa is just as ignorant as I am. So I wouldnt weight it to heavily. (They called all classical Ibadhis kafr apparently though)

http://www.askimam.org/public/question_detail/24729

Then continued with this;
http://islam.uga.edu/ibadis.html

I honestly and truely do not know anything more then this. If you wish, I can dig into it. But it seems to be a live and let live situation these days, with both sides claiming the other is wrong. Good ole religions 

I do have access to Shia scholars as well as Sunni scholars.. so I am capable, but it could take a while. I prefer to talk about Fiqh stuff, less likely I'll screw up to badly.. because perception is a very fluid thing and it changes from group to group. The scholars i sit with, sit with shia scholars and i break bread with shias too.. so I am likely wearing rose colored glasses.

Sorry for not having more, I hope Colin can answer properly.. because I didnt.

Abdullah


----------



## Jarnhamar

[quote author=AbdullahD]

Music. Many Muslims consider Music as forbidden and claim 'Modern' Scholars are corrupting Islam by allowing it.[/quote]


> Yet, Imam Ghazali born in 1058 says it is permissible!





> But Mufti Ebrahim Desai born.. not sure.. but he is in his 50's now??? Says it is forbidden..


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebrahim_Desai




> Abu Abdillah says any male who leaves Islam in a Islamic country. Must be killed. He just finished mufti studies a couple years back.





> But Classical scholars like Ibrahim al-Nakha'i who died in 715 said that execution was not required and wrote fatawas against it..





> One Issue I will concede, is that their is so much material on Islam when you include the Quran and hadiths that it is ridiculously easy to isolate and take anything out of context.



It seems like Islam is all over the place. I would agree that you could find the same with many other religions, very liberal interpretations of something someone said 2000 years ago. If I had to sum up my feelings in a sentence I would say it seems like people who prescribe to Islam are more inclined than all other religions to resort to violence.




> Pss ever since you brought up how much I post about Islamic stuff here, I have been acutely aware of it. So again I will state, I try to only post when I know something.. so being this is an armed forces site, I dont know that Much.. so I seem to be posting here and lurking the Muslim pages. But I lurk all the other threads to learn how to work the system and how to be proactive in the armed forces.


It's none of my business what you or anyone posts, please don't take what I said as a criticism against you.  I just find sometimes it can give you an insight into what someones about. Some people just post about politics and others only post about stories where CF members are featured negatively. Agendas everywhere  ;D


----------



## Jarnhamar

https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=2CMmNYNjPGs

Somali born woman (turn Dutch member of parliament)  shares her views on Islam.


----------

