Islam and Western Society

[rifleman17]

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]

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

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.