The usual response to something like this is to write a letter to the editor -- not initiate a human rights complaint.

The problem with moderate Islam is that it provides the petri dish in which the more virulent and violent strains of Islam are cultivated.

Unlike Christianity, which stresses inward conversion and a voluntary response to the gospel, the message of Islam is much closer to an outward submission/political kind of dominance.

This is seen in the record of the conversion experience of Mohammed (whom I recall said he felt like a whipped dog), vs. the conversion of the apostle Peter or the apostle Paul.

And, of course, it is seen in the record of Islamic states.

Islam and Christianity simply have different characters. Canada may live to one day regret its rejection of moderate and moderating Christianity.

Someone explain the cover of Macleans where is says

"Mark Steyn has a right to be wrong"

Is Macleans implying that they thing Steyn's assessment of Islam and the world demographic trends are wrong?

Are they capitulating to the pressure with this kind of thing? I am confused.

Steyn is absolutely correct in everything he states in his book. That man does his homework. I will believe him before I will believe his detractors.

Well said Ali.

The problem with moderate Islam is that it provides the petri dish in which the more virulent and violent strains of Islam are cultivated.

Unlike Christianity, which stresses inward conversion and a voluntary response to the gospel, the message of Islam is much closer to an outward submission/political kind of dominance.

Not so well said Richard.

Christian conversions have been as forced as any other religion until fairly recently in modern times. It was only after centuries of killing each other over relatively few doctrinal differences that Europe finally realized it was better to let individuals make their own religious decisions. I'd compare much of Middle Eastern Islamiscism to European Christianity maybe 300 years or so ago. And please don't interpret that as making any equivalence between today's Christianity and today's Middle Eastern/Far Eastern Muslims. It is only to point out that moderate Christians spoke out and were slaughtered by our forefathers until enough of them spoke out and Bills of Rights and tolerance became widely accepted.

The moderate Muslims - which in my experience here in Ontario working side by side with many of them and is by far the majority in this province - are our allies.

If we truly thought they were as irreemable as the bigots around here think, then what would really be the point of staying in Afghanistan or Iraq right now?

John West:

When Macleans writes "Mark Steyn has a right to be wrong", they are advocating free speech.

They are saying, You may believe he is wrong, but he has a right to say it.

John:

"Is Macleans implying that they thing Steyn's assessment of Islam and the world demographic trends are wrong?"

I think it means, from the point of view of the magazine's relationship with Steyn, it doesn't matter whether one of their columnists is right or wrong in anything they right, i.e. it is a freedom of speech issue for them and they stand by Steyn's right to say whatever the hell he wants.

Reminds me of a light-bulb joke that is probably illegal in Canada (but I live in Texas, so I get to tell it):

Q. How many Islamofascists does it take to change a lightbulb?

A. That's NOT funny. And for that insult to my religion I *KILL* you.

Ted
I don't imagine you have ever cracked open a Qu'ran have you?

Ted ... you completely miss the point of Christian reformation... it was Christians who fought and struggled within their own societies to find a balance of freedom and justice.

There is not now nor has there ever been anything but tribal and theocratic strife within Islam or in it's dealing with the outer world. Islam is an Isolationist doctrine with only ONE solution for external influences. That being their ultimate destruction.

When and IF your precious examples of Moderation in Islam come to terms with their responsibility to mature and evolve the whole of their faith then and only then will civil societies be obliged to consider them in any way compatible. If you knew what you were talking about you'd realize that some of the most outspoken Islamic reformers have stated that the ONLY way to reform Islam is to be apostate of Islam.

With the exception of the fact that there is no comparable parallel in the Muslim world to the Church of Rome or the Church of England ....This is exactly the same thing as what happened in European sectarian wars that saw the abuses of religious doctrine in the efforts to hold on to power.

I am truly sick and tired of the half baked apologists offering revisionist theories of history to justify their weak arguments.

OMMAG said:

"I am truly sick and tired..."

I think this is why Jesus of Nazareth came...for the sick and tired.

Merry CHRISTmas....Amen and Alleluia!!

Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht BGS, PDP, CFP

Commander in Chief

Frankenstein Battalion

2nd Squadron: Ulanen-(Lancers) Regiment Großherzog Friedrich von Baden(Rheinisches) Nr.7(Saarbrucken)

Knecht Rupprecht Division

Hans Corps

1st Saint Nicolaas Army

Army Group “True North”

This belongs here.

Canada's HRC gets international fame.
Posted by: alan at December 20, 2007 2:19 PM

Confronting the Speech Police
The spectacle of Canada’s Human Rights Commission
A peculiarly Canadian institution, the Human Rights Commission attracted attention beyond Canada’s borders last week when the Canadian Islamic Congress filed several complaints against author and commentator Mark Steyn, and Maclean’s, the newsweekly that excerpted his bestselling America Alone last year....

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NWU2MzgxZGY1MDA4MWFlODJkOWRlZWIxZGE3MzI5N2Y=

When and IF your precious examples of Moderation in Islam come to terms with their responsibility to mature and evolve the whole of their faith then and only then will civil societies be obliged to consider them in any way compatible.

OMMAG, while you are 100% wrong in your revisionist interpretation of how Christianity grew in Europe, you did make the statement above which is the point I was making, so I'll forgive you for now.

Seems to me that Richard Evans' point was that we should reject moderate Islam because it just creates the space for radical Islam to invade, sort of a slippery slope or trojan horse.

I see it the other way. The radicalization of Islam has not arisen out of opposition to western values, but to modernization's own work in their own countries. The Muslim faith has undergone in many pockets a lot of modernization and moderation, just like Christianity started to 500 years ago. The civil wars and battles raging throughout Africa, the Middle East, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc. reflect this struggle. And far more Muslims have died at the hands of other Muslims than non-Muslims. We are actually a small part in their war. If we don't get that, we'll never stop them.

And unfortunately the West has been a bigger enabler of fundamentalist Muslims than opponent. And no, not because of those on the left who don't even accept that there is a problem or think that the possibility of discrimination against all Muslims is worse than doing something about radical terrorist Muslims. No we have enabled them with money and support for their governments, particularly the US backing of Wahabist Saudi Arabia. Without our money they'd be pretty much nothing.

Ted -- Of course everyone knows what you said about Christianity 300-400 years ago is substantially true but they also know that it is irrelevant to the situation Canada faces in the year 2007.

The fact that members of the Christian faith today don't force conversions and kill people who disagree with them and members of the Islamic faith do, is relevant.

If radical Muslims wanted to recruit in Canada, where do you think they would go? To a synagogue? To a church, perhaps?

What does the actual record indicate?

Ted,

Stop blaming the West for enabling the murderous mullahs.
(Though the anti-freedom and anti-American lefties and elites sure haven't helped)

Islam was radicalized from the start. You either became a Muslim, a slave (dhimmi), or you died.

They slaughter infidels (Jews and Christians) first and foremost. When they run out of infidels they slaughter the 'moderate' muslims in order to ensure they are pure and true and part of the jihad.

Stats from Germany have indicated that they have approximately 180,000 radicalized Muslims (a small percentage). Ah, the tolerance.

The Koran calls for the killing or submission of all non-Muslims. Enjoy your Dhimmitude - I'll die free.

"No we have enabled them with money and support for their governments, particularly the US backing of Wahabist Saudi Arabia. Without our money they'd be pretty much nothing."

And that is why we must continue developing the oil sands and start drilling off the West coast of BC, drill in Alaska and also build many Nuclear power plants ASAP. We need to stop buying ME oil and provide for ourselves.

I know the Global Swarming gang will go nuts at this suggestion, but unless at least four billion people are prepared to commit suicide tomorrow morning, we need energy and lots of it. I am sure they would be okay with that idea, they've already started with their unborn babies and now want to tax the ones who actually to be born.

Maybe if we tax all the Muslim babies we can get most of our oil money back and balance the books that way.

"It's the economy stupid!" - former US president Bill Clinton

The comparison, Richard, is that moderation and killing of "pagans" ended in our foreparents culture a few hundred years ago because of the spread of knowledge, science, technology and further modernization. There are islands of modernization throughout the Muslim world. Granted, some of them are led by dictators, like Egypt, Jordan and until a couple of years ago Iraq even Afghanistan has been led and may soon again be led by a woman, not to mention the large groups within other countries. But the point is that there are allies.

Like with the Cold War, sometimes we have to accept the warts of some allies in the greater fight against a greater evil. That means not turning our back on them but providing arms and aid. It is usually conservatives who like to call this struggle World War IV; but they seem never to want to really act like it is.

If you folks think Islamic extremism and the HRC is a real problem, just watch out! There is another Trudeau in the wings who is set to give his "vision" for Canada soon. No doubt it will be attractive to central Canada and he will eventually become PM. This is the calm before the next Liberal storm. Gee, I wonder where the statue of Castro will go? Probably next to the closed Christian churches....

I love Steyn.

But I continue to be perplexed why people are running to defend Maclean's magazine.

This is a magazine that for *years* rode the politically correct bandwagon, and in its own small way contributed to the lethargic, left-wing, small-minded attitude that exists in Canada today. And it is that very attitude that has now come back to bite them.

Quite honestly I hope they rot.

There are others who have been much more reliable and honest defenders of the truth (Steyn being a great example). Personally I couldn't care less if Macleans, a weak and capricious defender of the truth, gets its full comeuppance.

I wouldn't trust the rag for a minute. You wait and see. This affair will soon enough make them return to their old ways.

Dear Naseem Mithoowani, Khurrum Awan , Muneeza Sheikh and Daniel Simard.

I'm really not that stupid to swallow your ...

--- But I wish you a Merry Christmas

MacLeans has a new chief editor, Kenneth Whyte, who was previously chief editor at the National Post when it was founded. Mark Steyn, also at the original NP, is now at MacLeans, and Andrew Coyne recently moved from the NP to MacLeans. Just so you know, this isn't your father's MacLeans.

More importantly, the issue here isn't the content of what was published, it's the freedom to say it without state intervention.

Here is an excerpt from MacLeans chief editor Ken Whyte's 2007-12-05 response to the CIC allegations:

"The student lawyers in question came to us five months after the story ran. They asked for an opportunity to respond. We said that we had already run many responses to the article in our letters section, but that we would consider a reasonable request. They wanted a five-page article, written by an author of their choice, to run without any editing by us, except for spelling and grammar. They also wanted to place their response on the cover and to art direct it themselves.

"We told them we didn't consider that a reasonable request for response. When they insisted, I told them I would rather go bankrupt than let somebody from outside of our operations dictate the content of the magazine. I still feel that way."

"In fact, Maclean's published a total of 27 letters over two issues in response to Steyn's piece—more published responses than any other cover story has received over the past year."

The CIC made a tactical error by performing an op-ed in the National Post. Here's a question MacLeans lawyers may want to ask the CIC: "Why were you willing to accept a reasonable offer to comment in the National Post, but were unwilling to accept a reasonable offer to comment in MacLeans?"

Ted,are you suggesting that we should all accept islam's murderous ways for now because the christians were doing it 3 hundred years ago? That all we have to do is keep our fingers crossed and hope like hell that our society survives until the barbarians evolve into modern people? What is your point about the comparison?

Ted

The other day on Celestial Junk featured an article written by an apostate Muslim. He said that he grew up in an Islamic household in south Asia. He said that the family was very observant in its Islamic practices but that it insisted that its children not think or study Islam. The reason was simple either the student would become a fanatic or an apostate.

My question is what does 300 years ago have to do with me today......not a heck of a lot. I think 300 years ago my ancestors were farmers in scotland on one side and farmers in norway on the other.

Explain how I am responsible for any of that. Actually, I am pro choice but here is an interesting conundrum....if I as a human didnt have any rights till I was outside my mother how can I have any responsibilities before then either? Just asking?

Ted, I echo wallyj's questions to you.

If we, the modern "progressive" West are sufficiently evolved beyond the behaviours of the past, good for us...but what should we do when faced with barbarism? Cower and accept the loss of life as the hordes attack, hoping that they'll eventually tire of killing and enslaving us and eventually evolve?

We should instead, as an "evolved" and "progressive" culture, stand up and clearly announce to all barbarians that their barbarism is unacceptable and that they MUST STOP their barbarism. We must enunciate exactly what is expected of citizens of our culture...a Charter of Responsibilities to balance the Charter of Rights...and we must take action to ensure that they comply. If they cannot or will not comply, then they must be removed from our society (incarceration or deportation).

But we have lost before we've begun, because we haven't enunciated our cultural norms and mores...we haven't clearly stated what our "Canadian Values" are...we haven't adequately identified what a citizens responsibilities are to society. Herouxville made a start at this, but it was only a beginning.

As an example, women are equal members (with men) of society and MUST be treated equally (not "specially" but equally). If there are people coming to Canada that cannot or will not abide by this right, they should not be welcomed in our society and should be turned away.

Can we agree on this?

The titular subject of this thread is freedom of speech. Most of the comments have been on the speech, not the freedom of speech. Maybe that's why we have so much trouble fighting those who do not support freedom of speech per se.

I think some folks here have either had too much rum in their egg nog or are being deliberately obtuse.

Why is what happened 300-500 years ago in our own past relevant? In most ways it isn't. But there are lessons to be learned nonetheless. Then we were pre-industrial, tribal-like, fanatically religious, felt ourselves divinely justified in slaughtering apostates, forced conversion on non-believers and slaughtered or jailed them if they didn't come along. Then we only allowed the priests to read our most sacred texts, even preserved an old dead language so the people would get educated on it. Then

And how did we come to realize that we were better off not being so dogmatically and theocratically pure and that forcing citizens to be theocratically pure was not necessarily in our best interest?

Education was critical. So was the spread of science and technology. I would argue that the industrial revolution and free markets played an even bigger role because it meant a Catholic might, in their own self-interest, decide that they needed the local Jew or Protestant because of what they were selling - wasn't going to socialize with him at first, but might trade with him... and then realize he's maybe not so evil afterall.

So no, Wallyj, Eeyore, etc, when I said we need to educate, provide aid, provide support, treat the moderate countries and moderate Muslims the way we treated the non-Soviet countries... when I said that I actually did not mean we should just sit back and "keep our fingers crossed and hope like hell that our society survives until the barbarians evolve into modern people".

Nor should we just sit back an espouse empty plattitudes of anger and feel content in our self-righteousness and "stand up and clearly announce to all barbarians that their barbarism is unacceptable and that they MUST STOP their barbarism...and we must take action to ensure that they comply". That sounds a whole heck of a lot like a rightwing version of John Lennon's naive idealism.

There are over a billion Muslims out there. They aren't chopping heads off in Jordan. Women aren't forced to cover themselves up in Egypt. A former female Prime Minister is running for Prime Minister again in Afghanistan. In addition to fighting terrorists, we need to support these Muslims with aid, education, trade, even arms.

Sure Ted,lets give them arms so they can take our heads. Wow,in Eygpt women do not have to cover themselves up. Woo Hoo,the end is in sight,except that last weekend in Eygpt,a man stabbed his bride to death because he did not believe that she was a virgin. Last weekend in Eygpt,muslims went on a rampage,burning and looting christian shops because a couple of christian A-holes pulled down the veil of a woman.even though she wasn't forced to wear it. These shop-owners now face the decision of rebuilding or leaving. I would be hiking my skinny ass out of there,pronto.Would the previous gov't of Afghanistan allow a woman to run for president.Hell,they weren't even allowed to be educated. And the islamification of the world continues.

Sorry,I was straying way off-topic.

From the article in the National Post..
“If Maclean's wants to publish articles alleging that many Muslims are "hot for jihad," it has to provide an opportunity to respond.”
NO IT DOES NOT! No obligation what so ever.
Nonetheless, Maclean’s sucks for a lot of other reasons.

I agree, Lev, that MacLeans should have no obligation to provide an opportunity to respond (regardless of whether or not you think they suck). Nevertheless, they did offer a reasonable opportunity. They are in favour of supporting freedom of speech and the marketplace of ideas, as they have now done by publishing Tarek Fatah and Farzana Hassan's rebuttal of Mr. Steyn's thesis here: tinyurl.com/2fd2sh

In other words, in the matter of the complaint against MacLeans, the CIC is lying about MacLeans. Islam doesn't enter into it. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to lie, otherwise libel and slander would be legal.

Vitruvius, I always appreciate your comments.

I would argue however that because Macleans survives on money from advertising its ability to engage in free speech *even if it wanted to* (big if) is rather limited.

The best free speech I have seen in the last decade has been in the form of books by courageous authors (and publishers willing to publish them) and blogs such as this one.

Maclean's may have changed its colours, but it is still old-media (apologies for using a tired cliché), and hence I have reason to doubt that it would stick to its guns for very long when under fire by the anti-free speech crowd.

In the end the people have to *want* free speech for it to happen, and I'm pretty sure most readers of Maclean's want the watered down version of free speech that doesn't go too far in offending their politically correct sensibilities.

Said readers are perhaps prepared to undertake a little foray into territory that is uncharted for most of them, providing a small thrill, but when the action gets too hot they will run for the hills back to the comfort of their state-dictated beliefs and Maclean's will lead the way.

Perhaps, Ted, people might be more inclined to listen to your history lessons if you knew the difference between Afghanistan and Pakistan. At any rate, the idea that religions go through some sort of predictable phases of development, i.e. that Christianity became moderate in response to the spread of education and technology, and therefore Islam will do likewise, is tired nonsense. Your characterisation of pre-industrial Europeans as 'tribal-like, fanatically religious, ...slaughtering apostates' is a strained attempt to suggest parallels between the Christians of 3-400 years ago and the Muslims of today, but it's unlikely to withstand serious scrutiny. There will always be some similarities owing to the universal nature of human beings, but the underlying dissimilarities between Christianity and Islam can't just be glossed over by assuming that all religions are basically the same.
From its inception, Christianity recognized the legitimacy of the secular state ("render unto Caesar, etc."). Christianity spread by voluntary conversion under an empire that went thorough periodic fits of tolerance and persecution for several hundred years before the empire became in any sense 'Christian.' Not so with Islam. Islam has spread primarily by conquest, from the time of Mohammed on. Christianity too, has been spread partly as a result of military conquest, but there are solid theological grounds from within Christianity by which this can be critiqued. For Islam to reject conversion by the sword, they'd have to reject the example of Mohammed. How much would you wager on that happening?

Actually, lying is not necessarily contrary to the free of speech. It is unethical and low life behavior, though so far as free speech it is not contrary to. If a lie causes harm to an individual or an enterprise, there are courts to seek remedy.
We have evidence, every day in arguably every country on every continent, politicians tell lies, it is somewhat of a syllogism if one says something and another says it is not true, someone is lying.
Maclean’s does print what ever pleases those that make decisions, no one, no agency of government or enforcers of correctness have any say in the matter.
Nonetheless, being a generous person, Maclean’s sucks. Though, have to admit, have not read it in many moons. If at the doctors office, usually the last page.

Sorry about the syntax. Should read 'free speech.
Thank you for understanding.

I agree, TJ, that the commercial enterprise known as MacLeans has limited ability to pursue the boundary conditions and edge cases of free speech. Perhaps that's partly why I feel driven to stand for them in this case, because Ken Whyte et al are standing up, even at the risk of, as Ken put it, "going bankrupt". This is one of those make or break cases. If MacLeans gets punished by the state for the CIC's fradulent claims, that's a big loss for all of us.

You, TJ, are predicting that MacLeans, Whyte, Steyn, Coyne, &c will fold under the CIC's inquisition. Colour me skeptical. There's some pretty heavy hitters lined up here on the front line and behind the benches. But what do I know? Time will tell.

Lev's point on radical freedom v. the ethics of honesty is well taken. Still, in this case, I think the unethical dishonesty of the CIC is relevant to their credibility in bringing this action. Oh and, Lev, you might want to try to avoid saying "I haven't read" and "I judge" in the same sentance ;-)

I don’t judge, merely have an opinion.

Just in

Seyed Soharwardy was on talk radio 8:10/8:20 p.m. Thurs.

He and Mathew Johnston from the WS Blog have come to an understanding.

The result is that S.S. has canceled the protest that was slated to go tomorrow (Friday) in downtown Calgary.

Further he had started a filing process with the federal human rights commission (the AB HRC had no jurisdiction) and he is in the process of canceling this complaint.

Kudos to both of these people for working this issue out.

The message is loud and clear - the comments at issue were, in my opinion, over the top and they were challenged. It escalated into a major issue but as it should be - the two of them settled the issue between themselves in a manner acceptable to both.

Lets hope that the CIC/MacLeans issue and the Western Standard Magazine issue gets settled between the principals as well before it comes in front of any Human Rights Tribunal. Get the egos out of the way and just get it done.

I wonder how many tv sets Elvis would’ve gone through by now.

The issues between Maclean’s; Western Standard and the ‘victims’, should be settled only one way, HRC should disqualify itself and dismiss the complaints.

Well something that might help is to toss out the charter. PET gave us this charter, but other than judicial activism it hasn't provided us with anything we didn't have before. If anything, the Charter of Rights has diminshed your freedom, my freedom.

The real reason for this charter wasn't a need, wasn't a lack of freedom for anyone, but something that made PET important.

Not one Canadian gained anything they did not already have thanks to Common Law.

That's very good news, Calgary Clipper, thanks for alerting us. The comments in question (I still read the Shotgun comments every day) were over the top, obc is a sociopath that had to be bounced, and it's being done. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to be an arshole on somebody else's property.

Kevin Steel et al are currently undertaking a re-engineering of the Shotgun, and I've communicated with him on that matter. Rather than take up space here, you can read my comments at: tinyurl.com/2rqhmf - where I pine for the great discussions in the early weeks and months of the Shotgun almost four years ago when Kate and I and ET and EBD and other SDA regulars used to comment there before things got out of hand.

That is wrong. May as well bounce me next,and then winston and then well, whoever offends islamic sensibilities. Then once the shotgun is no longer viable,target SDA,you see where I am going with this.Writing hate is wrong and should not be tolerated,but remember this sohawardy fellow also started a lawsuit over the cartoons.

WS may find that it is difficult to ban a determined commenter. He can change his IP address and sign in as someone else. At least the comment will be less acidic if the new person knows he can be banned again and again.

This will serve to moderate comments, but not stop people from making their point. That is not actually censorship, it is refereeing and that's not a bad idea.

Kate does it very well here.

I want to add to Richard Ball's comment

"Islam and Christianity simply have different characters. Canada may live to one day regret its rejection of moderate and moderating Christianity."

Vitruvius provided a link in an earlier post to the Pope Benedict's lecture at Regensburg.
I was a very interesting read.
The Pope is describing an essential difference between the two faiths.
Here is a bit of it
"The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: "For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality." Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practice idolatry."

If the Pope is right in making this distinction then this is a pretty significant dividing point.
How could Descartes get out of the whole he dug for himself if the universe is run by a God as described by Ibn Hazn? If the universe is not open to rational investigation how does mankind progress?
Although the Pope's point makes sense to me I don't have the knowledge to decide if he is correct about Islam or not.
I particularly wonder that there could have been no effect on Islamic thinking when they were at least the keepers of western classical knowledge during the so called dark ages in Europe.
There is more to the lecture but I thought this part of it amplified on Richard's comment.
I'd take out a subscription with MacLeans if they published a rebuttal to the Pope's lecture.

I do not have a problem with someone regulating thier own website,but it seems that the WS site will be monitored by others,who if they find something offensive will respond with a HRC lawsuit,and then someone else will be banned. Maclean's may as well apologize to the outraged kids now and bend over.

You read me too broadly, Wally, or perhaps you did not read my tinyurl.com/2rqhmf comments at all. You are not a sociopath, obc is. Once again, it's not about Islam, it's about how one behaves in a private property social context.

That obc posted more than half the comments in many threads month after month is all you need to know. That he deliberately mangled the name of everyone he disagreed with is the kiss of death. Freedom of speech doesn't mean that the owner of a property has to put up with people who defile it.

Indeed, it means the opposite, for if anarchy prevails, one has no property.

Top most comment by Richard Ball solves the matter.

The CIC is welcome to the same free speech everyone enjoys at Maclean*s.

If the CIC is able to present ideas opposite in a clear and well written manner, it will likely be published.

If not, then chances are it will not be published. Fair is fair. = TG

Ted

I gather you have never looked into Islam from the way you talk about it. You are applying your western mindset to something quite different from anything you have known before. You are certainly not alone. The Qu'ran is a short book. It does not have to be studied ,analyzed and discussed to get a grasp on it. It is crystal clear in it's meaning. That is the great irony of Islam is that it condemns itself to the non Muslim reader in almost no time. Just scan the books and remember that you are the unbeliever that is constantly spoken of. You are what Islam must subdue, enslave or destroy. This is why Muslims are eager to close down discussion on Islam and dub it racism to discuss it. There are multitudes of sites offering copies of the Qu'ran all over the net.

As far as translations, there are a handfull of widely accepted translations. They really only vary in tone and expression rather than meaning.
Of course when you engage a Muslim in debate and they realise you know what your talking about, they go into obfuscation mode. They will tell you the usual "out of context" blather and go on about the inability of English to capture the pure poetry of Arabic. Well, kill, enslave and destroy mean the same thing in any language in the end. I heard one Muslim say that only 40% of Arabic is translatable and the rest was too sacred to understand for unbelievers.

I invite you to spend sometime talking to real Muslims. Ummah.com is based in Britain I believe and is run by Muslims largely for Muslims but none Muslims may join. You have to join to visit the juicier forums where every day Muslims won't hesitate to tell you what is going to happen when they overturn us. Now you have to be respectful or you get banned faster than they could behead you, so be innocuous and "dhimmified" for awhile so you get a true feeling for our muslim friends as they are in their natural surroundings. Sure they have "moderates" as well as "radicals" and it's an opprotunity to see how moderates wither before the "radical". If you stay long enough you realize there are no moderates or radicals, there is only Islam and it's slaves.

Another good site is FaithFreedom. It is run by apostate muslims as a clearing house for ex muslims to spread the truth of Islam and turn fellow muslims away from Islam. They don't pretend there is a reform capability to Islam except that Islam be cast off completely.

There are many sites with information on Muslim history and habit. I can't encourage people to know Islam enough. You will be inoculated against Islam and know how to defend yourself against it. That is the other odd thing, no opponent need lie or fabricate anything horrible about Islam you just have to state the facts. It condemns itself with it's own words and actions every day.

Exactly, TG, and MacLeans publication of Tarek Fatah and Farzana Hassan's rebuttal of Mr. Steyn's thesis - tinyurl.com/2fd2sh - is the proof in the eating of the pudding.

Thanks Kate. Said my peace, though I was probably way to diplomatic. I hope the filth reads it.

Thanks Vitruvious

Averroes and Kindi, Avicenna and Farabi,
Are you familiar with these names?
Do I owe MacLeans a subscription?

Averroes (Ibn-Rushd) 1126 - 1198
He has been described as the founding father of secular thought in Western Europe.

Al Kindi (Yaʻqūb ibn Isḥāq al-Kindī) c. 801–873 CE
he is known for his efforts to introduce Greek and Hellenistic philosophy to the Arab world

Avicenna (Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥusayn ibn) c 980
His most famous works are The Book of Healing, a vast philosophical and scientific encyclopedia, and The Canon of Medicine, which was a standard medical text at many Islamic and European universities up until the early 19th century

Farabi (Abū Nasr Muhammad ibn al-Farakh al-Fārābi)c 872
Al-Farabi had great influence on science and philosophy for several centuries, and was widely regarded to be second only to Aristotle in knowledge
he advanced the view that philosophy and revelation are two different modes of approaching the same truth.

I'm as interested in the classics as you Doug, yet perhaps in this case rather than reaching back many centuries, the opinions of these modern Muslims may be more interesting: www.reformislam.org - check out their Blog link too. Freedom of speech is about letting all the ideas in, for critical evaluation, not about ululating when one's ideas aren't favourably received, as the CIC is apparently wont to do. Notice that the MCC doesn't have this affectation. That's why the latter are commenting in MacLeans; that's why they aren't libelling MacLeans.

Nobody to blame but ourselves. It really pains me to think what this country/world will be like in 20 years.

I wish I knew what the country/world will be like in 20 years.

Well...according to Steyn, the numbers don't look great. Here's hoping he's wrong.

I wish Mark Steyn knew what the country/world will
be like in 20 years. Then at least one of us would.

The civil wars and battles raging throughout Africa, the Middle East, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc. reflect this struggle.

If you are referring to modern times, then I submit that many current, ongoing conflicts are a result of proxy "wars" fought by the main combatants of the cold war.

Thanks again Vitruvius, you are very kind.

Isn't that refreshing.
You'd almost think there might be a chance for peace on earth and goodwill toward all men.
If I believe Bl@bird however, that will be a long row to hoe.

Thank you for the reformislam.org link Vitruvius.

Listened to Steyn on Hugh Hewitt today. Transcript isn't up yet. He mentioned that no defendant has ever won a HRC
case. And, if memory serves, he recommends supporting Macleans with new or renewed subscription.

There's another limitation regarding the perspective Ted espouses, although Ted himself really can't be faulted for it as he's been a busy fellow. The trouble with imputing an inherent violence to Christianity is that it ignores what happened before Christianity came around.

From what I remember, pagan Rome had customs that were pretty brutal; many acts of violence wound up praised. The reason why this fact doesn't impact the imagination of the casual student is because no-one around then objected to it on principle. Objections of this sort became permissible once Christianity moved in after Rome crumbled. Granted that the Christian custom of peace was at times more honoured in the breach than in the observance, but before Christianity there was no such custom.

Ted is a lawyer. Lawyers are required (specifically defense lawyers), every day that they are in court, to bluster and obfuscate and exaggerate and mislead at every opportunity to push their agenda.

I'm sure that Ted just can't shake his ingrained daily habit when he comes to visit.

sarc on/ When my kids were young and they got into trouble, I opened diplomatic relations with them and traded with them and, yes, I even gave them weapons...hoping, of course, that by doing so they woould mature and stop getting into trouble. But of course, I never EVER spoke harshly to them or punished them or "laid down the law" to them...that would have been "naive" like Ted said. /sarc off

I disagree with your position and approach, Ted. I prefer the Will Rogers diplomatic approach (not a perfect quote): "Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' while you search around for a big enough rock".

ted, a danger to free people everywhere.

*
It could be worse.

"The bomber was praying in a row of worshippers
when he detonated the explosive."

*

""I bet you and the other law students who have done nothing but toe the line the entire life (and have now turned into “humanitarians!” in what I figure is the last year of law school) had grandiose visions of having your name appear in Macleans as “defenders of the weak.” To be followed by a parade led by beautiful Muslim muhajjibas (oh, but how dare I suggest that YOU might be an orientalist).""

There in lies the basic creed driving the CHRC purge of dissenting opinion.

Take a cadre of mediocre law students/lawyers ( with poor income prospects in the overly complex, overcrowded areas of pragmatic law), who have turned "human rights activists" because this area of law practice is expanding, lucretive, undefined and is argued in a eccentric tribunal where a defendent is at certain disadvantage making a win near certain,.....mix this with a trouble-making vindictive minority lobboes who seek to stifle criticism of their more uncivilized cultural practices,.....ad a media air of tolerance for this type of soviet-era poltically correct cleansing of expression, and you have set the scene of the dissolution of freedom of speech.... a free press.

As much as I'd like to defend Mcleans, and some other Canadian MSM for their current support of the media from repression by this CHRC/CIC "messaging" inquisition, I have to buffer my enthusiasm, by recalling it was McLeans and other Lib-left media that scoffed at conservatives and libertarians when we warned that the CHRC system and the hate "messaging" laws were too loose and undefined and will certainly be abused by malevolent lobby groups and profiteering lawyers.

The MSM sat idly by and actually cheered on this CHRC tyranny when it was only attacking hapless individuals....it has only been since special interest/CHRC tyranny has turned its ugly gaze on the corporate media that they are taking an interest in the abuses of the CHRC system.

@John West (12:06 AM):

You pointed out a technical issue that makes it awfully tempting to shove a certain Sir Wilfred Laurier quote right in the face of any present-day liberal.

Back in the days when the defamation precedents and libel laws were set, it was much easier to screen out libelous comments simply through refraining from publishing them. Libelous comments were easily found through the need to proofread anything that was published. Internet forums simply don't work the same way, unless they're seriously hobbled. To seriously expect an Internet forum to be bent out of its shape, so as to conform to a set of laws that were made and set in the press age, does show a certain inflexibility in the face of technological change.

Even if that change came from the private sector ;)

Let's start with this statement:

"Muslims are not a homogenous entity. Far from it. Like all other faith communities, we are divided along sectarian, ethnic, class and political lines. Even a casual tourist to the Muslim lands will vouch for these divisions.

Whether it is Acehnese fighting Javanese domination in Indonesia or the secularists lined up against Islamists in Turkey; be it the Leftists of Pakistan facing up to the Ultra-Right religious parties or the Egyptian “Enough” activists debating the Muslim Brotherhood, Muslims are as divided in their vision of the future as are Christians or Jews.

Yet despite this clear evidence of ethno-social diversity and political division, many Western observers often view all of Islamdom as if it were a monolithic Islamist mob. At times their fears are grounded in ignorance, but quite often it borders on an alarmist fear of the Muslim world."

Muslims are not a homogenous group. Obviously correct. They like to kill each other as much as killing the Kaffir.

And isn't that the problem? What is the cause of such wanton death and destruction?

As I, and many others have said before - the foundationally violent ideology of Islam is the enemy of all mankind. This ideology is expressed in the Islamic trilogy that enjoins all Muslims - whether moderate, or terrorist; whether Sunni or Shia; whether Wahabbist or Khomeniist; it matters little.

As long as the liar, pedophile, thief and mass-murderer is most offensively called a prophet - even more offensively, the 'seal of the prophets' - and his words are allowed to reverberate in our world, death will follow. As has been proven, historically.

Who cares if there are a billion of them? Multitudes celebrating evil as good, does not make evil, good. Evil begets evil. It cannot beget good.

Ted says,

"Christian conversions have been as forced as any other religion until fairly recently in modern times. It was only after centuries of killing each other over relatively few doctrinal differences that Europe finally realized it was better to let individuals make their own religious decisions. I'd compare much of Middle Eastern Islamiscism to European Christianity maybe 300 years or so ago. And please don't interpret that as making any equivalence between today's Christianity and today's Middle Eastern/Far Eastern Muslims. It is only to point out that moderate Christians spoke out and were slaughtered by our forefathers until enough of them spoke out and Bills of Rights and tolerance became widely accepted."

Ted is not rational, nor intelligent. He obscures the topic with irrelevant statements and ad hominem attacks (bigots).

In that way, Ted supports the root of Islamic ideology - evil celebrated as good.

And Ted, ignorance of Mohammad's actions and words - are not a defence.

In fact, if you are not knowledgable about Islam, as you obviously are not, your opinon is worthless.

As well, it is the ideology of Christianity, as expressed in the NT and Christ's life example, that has been misrepresented, in the former abuses you have stated.

Hell, I'd never hire you as a lawyer.

This what Dr Habira, a London professor and an ex-muslim, says in his book “God’s Tears” about moderate Islam:

“Moderate Islam is more deadly because while the terrorists are clear enemies, the moderates make inroads into `infidel’ lands, and deceive the host cultures until the terrorists could do the dirty work. Without the moderate Islamic façade, the terrorists cannot survive because they will be quickly exposed. History is replete with example after example of this typically Muslim deceitful strategy of advance”.

Sorry for all the posts. But ignorant people like Ted must be exposed.

Islamic Bloc Scores 'Defamation of Religions' Resolution at UN
By Patrick Goodenough
CNSNews.com International Editor
December 20, 2007

(CNSNews.com) - Alongside a resolution adopted by the U.N. General Assembly this week calling for a moratorium on the death penalty, the world body passed a raft of other human rights-related motions. One of them, introduced by Islamic nations, focuses on combating the "defamation of religions."

Resolutions on the human rights situation in North Korea and Iran also passed, although dozens of countries -- including human rights violators Cuba, Sudan, Syria and Zimbabwe -- voted against the motions.

An annual resolution on "the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination" also passed by an overwhelming margin, with only the United States, Israel, and three small Pacific island nations voting "no." There were four abstentions.

The motion on defamation of religions has been a priority for the 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) since 9/11. It took on new impetus following a Danish newspaper's publication in 2005 of cartoons satirizing Mohammed.

Introduced by Pakistan on behalf of the OIC, it passed on Tuesday by a 108-51 margin, with 25 abstentions. As with many of the other votes, the U.S. lined up with democracies in Europe, Asia and elsewhere against developing nations, including repressive regimes.

Although the resolution refers to defamation of "religions," Islam is the only religion named in the text, which also takes a swipe at counter-terrorism security measures.

It expresses alarm about "discrimination" and "laws that stigmatize groups of people belonging to certain religions and faiths under a variety of pretexts relating to security and illegal immigration."

Muslim minorities are subjected to "ethnic and religious profiling ... in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001," it says.

The resolution decries "the negative projection of Islam in the media" and voices "deep concern that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism."

OIC secretary-general Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu earlier this month addressed an international conference on "Islamophobia," held in Turkey, and told the gathering that freedom of expression was being used as a cover in the West to promote anti-Islam sentiment.

The OIC soon will release its first-ever annual report on "Islamophobia."

As I see it we in the west are not only not supplying enough support for moderate Muslims we are only now just beginning to realize that they must be the ones on the front lines in the war on terror.EG arm all women that dont want to wear the jihab if they so wish.

Those who spout that Islam is the religion of peace should be working harder to make it a fact instead of an oxymoron.
Every day, around the world, we see examples of the exact opposite.

With all the contradictions from within the religion it appears their Prophet handed down a lot of confusing and mixed messages. We appear to be dealing with masses of crazy, confused and dangerous people.
Attacking and killing fellow human beings in the name of a God, Prophet or religion is not a fit with the evolution of humanity in this 21st century.

Mark steyn's on radio reaction with Hugh:
Third in the list.

http://www.townhall.com/TalkRadio/Show.aspx?RadioShowId=5&ContentGuid

Re: Ted "There are over a billion Muslims out there. They aren't chopping heads off in Jordan ..."

Ted ... you can say it over and over but some people will stick to their opinions regarding Muslims notwithstanding overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It's akin to using the numerous(!) examples of Catholic clergy raping young boys (for decades) and the subsequent refusal of the church to do anything to ensure it didn't happen again as evidence Christians are child abusers. It's ridiculous.

Like you - I work with a number of moderate Muslims. If more people did, they, hopefully, would revise their opinions. To say there's no problems regarding Islam would be willfully ignorant, but most have more in common with us than we might suspect.

Irwin, my friend, you and people like you are terrorist enablers and you don't even realize it. How very very sad.

If you can't see any difference between Osama bin Laden and, say, a Karzai or a Musharraf or a Bhutto or a Mubarak or even an Ali Eteraz then you are more of problem and an enabler of the people they are fighting.

Were we to listen to you and your ilk, one might ask what the hell the point is in staying in Afghanistan or Iraq, if they are all such murderous beasts as you invent. If they are truly as irreedimable as make out, then one might think it to our advantage to leave and just them kill each other. I think Anne Coulter has said as much (although then she says the US shouldn't leave either country, so figure that one out).

If we were to follow your train of doom and gloom thoughts, your simplified black and white world, we should abandon any relationship with any moderate Muslim country. This of course only increases the likelihood of a fundamentalist take-over and concedes even more ground to the radicals.

Thank goodness the folks in charge here in Canada and the US and the UK have never shared your views, and instead see that the world is not black and white. They realize that there is a point to staying in Afghanistan and not abandoning Iraq right now, and helping them to establish peace.

We need a good hard dose of intelligence and realpolitic if we want to defeat violent radicalized religion, not the ideologically bent extremist views of the left, which buries its head in the sand, or the likes of Irwin who would see every Muslim as an enemy.

Re: irwin daisy "The OIC soon will release its first-ever annual report on "Islamophobia."

with you as the "Islamophobe" poster boy no doubt.

Thank you for your comments, Jimbo. I should point out - because some like to deliberately misconstrue - that I know a heck of a lot of readers here and conservatives generally do not share the point of view of Irwin or Wallyj or OMMAG or EEyore or Old White Guy. This all started from Kate's quoting of the kind of reasonable moderate Muslim that I know, after all.

@Ted (3:26 PM):

I believe that a better word than the phrase "gloom and doom" would be "eschatological." As far as the if-then part of your comment is concerned, I hope that things don't come to that kind of a pass. In a genuine crisis, black-and-white thinkers do come to the fore, because everyone else ends up looking like a ditherer. The 'dither' label is also slapped on those who simply counsel caution in the face of uncertainty.

"Doing something for the sake of doing something" comes to the fore too.

Two for the price of one.

"Ted ... you can say it over and over but some people will stick to their opinions regarding Muslims notwithstanding overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It's akin to using the numerous(!) examples of Catholic clergy raping young boys (for decades) and the subsequent refusal of the church to do anything to ensure it didn't happen again as evidence Christians are child abusers. It's ridiculous."

Jimbo. A leftoid who exists in a world where only feelings matter. Not facts. In his world he can arbitrarily call up extraneous, irrelevant information in order to strengthen what he believes to be an argument. To sign off on his postings - removing all doubt about potential intelligence - he chooses an embarrassing moniker he has borne since childhood.

"If you can't see any difference between Osama bin Laden and, say, a Karzai or a Musharraf or a Bhutto or a Mubarak or even an Ali Eteraz then you are more of problem and an enabler of the people they are fighting."

Ted, do you comprehend my posts? Obviously not, based on this paragraph. Go back and read what I wrote, think about it and then challenge me.

Up next - a tag team of idiots:

"Re: irwin daisy "The OIC soon will release its first-ever annual report on "Islamophobia."

with you as the "Islamophobe" poster boy no doubt."

When you can't think, fling insults. Even if you don't understand the meaning of what you fling.

Followed by Ted's heart felt appreciation:

"Thank you for your comments, Jimbo."

Comments = 0 substance, but requires bandwidth.

Merry (whatever it is you put here) to the both of you.

Jimbo: I'm guessing you wouldn't know a "moderate muslim" if one hit you over the back of the head with a 2 x 4.
Check out Walid Shoebat, who, er, knows something about this subject, being a reformed Palestinian terrorist turned Christian and fervent Israel supporter: (from "Why We Want to Kill You")

"This [a survey] by no means indicates that those who replied "no" to Al-Queda would not support other forms of Islamic fundamentalism. Let me give you an example. While having lunch at an Arab-owned restaurant, I was sitting with a pastor and a Jew. The Jewish man complimented the restarant by saying he had been dining there for years and could testify that these are peaceful people. When the Arab waiter came to the table, I spoke in Arabic and identified myself as Palestinian. I asked him for his view on eradicating Jews, to which he said he doesn't approve. I quoted the famous Hadith (tree and stones) to which be responded, "yes but the time is not yet, we much first establish the Khilafa". So, if this same question were asked in a survey, many would outwardly answer "no" but their inward answer would be 'no -- not yet'".

MND,

This is the information Ted and Jimbo can't comprehend. An Islamic belief set is based on the texts which they must obey and a prophet that they must emmulate - otherwise they are apostates in danger of a physical assassination, executed by the Ummah and sanctified by allah - and to make matters worse, they are assured of spiritual torture, forever.

Not able to comprehend Islam, and having never read the texts, Ted and Jimbo assume the default position, based on their understanding of religion, which is primarily based on Christianity. And thus their irrelevant and false comparisons.

This is what their idiot argument is based on. That, and knowing a couple of Muslims.

A rebuttal to the intellectually obscene National Post rebuttal:

"Perhaps the Maclean's article is best summed up by the following extract, in which Mr. Steyn inserts what he terms the "obligatory" of courses: "Of course, not all Muslims are terrorists -- though enough are hot for jihad to provide an impressive support network of mosques from Vienna to Stockholm to Toronto to Seattle. Of course, not all Muslims support terrorists -- though enough of them share their basic objectives."

Based on the Islamic set of beliefs - as stated clearly in the Quran, Hadith and Sira - what are the "basic objectives" of someone proclaiming to be Muslim? Most importantly, is one of these objectives to emulate Mohammad?

Overall, I reckon these Muslim authors are enraged that a Muslim can't write a world-wide best seller on his own religion, while an uppitty Kaffr can.

Perhaps they should try it.

irwin daisy: In case you missed it, check out symposium on "Moderate Muslim Brotherhood" over at frontpage.
Moderate Muslim Brotherhood

Also from Chapter 16 of Walid Shoebat's book mentioned above:

HOW TO IDENDIFY THEM
"When one questions a supposed moderate, it's always important to aks the right questions -- Did Muhammad kill the Jews of Arabia" Yes or No?"

"It's a double edged sword. If a Muslim denies it, then he denies Islamic history and much of the text written in Al-Sera Al-Babawiyeh (The Hadith) where the collection of the deeds and works of the prophet are documented. It's like rejecting the New Testamanet for a Christian. Unless his is a liberal, he is cornered with the fact. Denying it shows a liberal attitude toward his faith, yet accepting it corners the respondent to either justify it or condemn it."

"At a speaking engagement in LA on Yom Kippur in 2006, a moderate Muslim finished his speech to a Jewish audience, and I asked him the question, "Did Mummamad kill the Jews"? To which he aswered, "Yes, but they had a fair trial". [me no dhimmi note: Gawd, I laughed!]"

"This, out of the mouth of a moderate? This, in a day and age when even the Pope made mends of old holocausts? Yet from a Muslim it would be difficult. Why?"

"Because killing the Jews was committed by the founders themselves-- Muhammad, Omar his disciple, Ali his nephew, and the rest of the Caliphs whether Umayyads, Abbasids ..."

"Similarly, Dr. Khalell Muhammad the professor of San Diego University and member of the board of Centre for Islamic Pluralism, will never denounce the Khaibar massacre of Jews. No apology for the killing of the Jews of Arabia."

Pluralism? Yeah, right!

Ted,you are right. There is much that I do not understand about the moderate muslim. Enlighten me;Why are the moderate muslims not signing up in the Armed Forces to fight the extremists alongside the Canadians? Do they not want to defend their faith against the extremists?...Why is there such an outcry over a child wearing a hijab on the soccer pitch,moderates declaring it is an essential part of their faith,yet when a child is alledgely killed over not wearing it,all of a sudden it is a voluntary,small part of the religion? Why is the Western Standard put in front of a HRC for printing cartoons, by a moderate who must know that Canada has freedom of speech? And just one more,why do people flee from oppressive shithole countries and then upon arriving here try to change things so our country resembles the oppressive shithole country they just left? Thanks in advance for your wisdom.

MND,

I find arguments like the one proposed, less useful.

The heart and soul of any accepted belief are the words and actions of the founder. Emulation of the founder's actions and obeyance of his words are given objectives. The Quran, for example, makes this eminently clear.

Therefore, the Muslim must be confronted with their prophet's words and actions - as stated in the Islamic triology - and then asked a simple question: Do you consider this man's words and actions to be morally good?

It is that black and white.

The actions and crimes commited by Mohammad, as recorded in the Quran, Hadith and Sira, are opposed to; and against universally agreed upon human rights, acceptable moral behaviour and law; let alone reasonable, rational and religious points of view.

In that way, Islam is not only unredeemable, but vulnerable. It must survive or die trying.

And doesn't that sentiment ("We love death more than you love life) manifest itself as actions daily?

Truth exposes Mohammad. Reason creates apostates.

Sad that someone could be so hateful that they become blind to reality. So very sad.

Let me ask you folks this: there are over a billion Muslims in this world, hundreds of thousands here in Canada alone; if murdering those who deviate the slightest is at the core of their creed, then why are there not thousands upon thousands of dead each day?

I really do feel sorry for you and anyone who hates that much. A rightoid who exists in a world where only feelings matter. Not facts. In his world he can arbitrarily call up extraneous, information that run counter to what our eyes and experience actually tell us - that indeed there are murderous backward radical Islamists but also thousands upon thousands working hard to hold them back, like Karzai, like Bhutto, like Ali in Kate's original post... they are real people and our allies even if you would like to pretend otherwise - in order to strengthen what he believes to be an argument.

Sad. So very very sad. Fortunately, the foreign policy of the US, the UK and Canada is developed on facts and not on feelings and emotions like you would have us do.

www.religionofpeace.com

Ted,

I show the foundation of their belief, based as it is on their own texts, including the recorded actions and words of their prophet. You, on the other hand, have had ample time to state the factual evidence that supports your counter argument. And you've failed miserably. You've presented not one shred of evidence.

Yet your revised plea to the jury is:

"Let me ask you folks this: there are over a billion Muslims in this world, hundreds of thousands here in Canada alone..."

- Posted by: Ted at December 21, 2007 10:13 PM

"Who cares if there are a billion of them? Multitudes celebrating evil as good, does not make evil, good. Evil begets evil. It cannot beget good."

Posted by: irwin daisy at December 21, 2007 9:17 AM

And your ad hominem slurs - "Sad that someone could be so hateful that they become blind to reality. So very sad." and, "I really do feel sorry for you and anyone who hates that much."
are irrational and fictional.

Once again, you present your opinion without a shred of evidence to support it. Unless, of course, evidence isn't necessary in order to convict. Which is the topic of the original post.

And why you're a lousy lawyer.

You, Irwin, are the one who keeps substituting your emotional furor for facts. I've given you plenty: Karzai, Bhutto, Ali, the Afghani, Pakistani, Egyptian, Iraqi etc. police and military, the dozens I know personally and work with.

These are real people, Irwin, not just some piece of old paper and they are Muslim. They are also not out there trying to kill us or apostates. They are in fact fighting the Taliban, putting their lives at greater risk than you are by banging away at your keyboard in anger.

Here's a clue, Ted: I'm not talking about Muslims.

Oh boy - now I'm a leftoid. It may surprise you to know I've been asked by prominent Conservatives in Alberta (!) on numerous occasions to consider running as a Conservative candidate. Neither Irwin Daisy or WallyJ would be allowed anywhere near any Conservative campaign I've ever been involved with.

Irwin Daisy is clearly unhinged, and should get some professional help before it's too late. The type of loony that only comes out on boards like these. WallyJ, if you'd been paying attention to earlier posts on similar topics, you would have seen posts by members of the military who have served with Muslim Canadians, and spoke highly of them.

It's desperate losers like the two of you who need each other so badly, so they can gang up on the most vulnerable victim they can find. Unfortunately for all Conservatives, the two of you are working overtime putting the truth to the "knuckle-dragging redneck racist" tag the Libs try to hang us with at every opportunity.

The Liberals couldn't invent better bad examples of Conservatives than the two of you. Embarrassing, disgusting, sad, and truly disheartening for those of us who've worked for decades to get the Conservatives to the point where a majority government is a real possibility.

Me No Dhimmi - "Jimbo: I'm guessing you wouldn't know a "moderate muslim" if one hit you over the back of the head with a 2 x 4."

What??? A moderate Muslim (or a moderate anybody ... period) doesn't go around hitting people with 2X4's. Snap out of it! Maybe you're the one who doesn't know what he's taking about? I expected more of you, and certainly hadn't hadn't expected you to throw your hat in with that lot.

Anyone interested in commenting at "Daniel Simard is in the joint LLB and Masters of Environmental Studies at Osgoode Hall and York University, and is currently in his first year of law" new blog re: Steyn HRC http://lawiscool.com/2007/12/21/steyn-responds-to-law-is-cool/etc...

cheers
jw

Jimbo utters vacuous threats; swears by imaginary scenerios and; excels at ad hominem attacks. All in place of factual evidence to support his argument, again. I don't know. Sounds like a Liberal to me.

Read the post above yours, Jimbo. It applies.

This will be my last comment on this subject.Right now the christians and the muslims are celebrating very important moments in thier religions. The christians are celebrating the birth of Jesus,life and hope . The muslims are celebrating Abraham and his problems,blind obedience and murder. Nuff said.

Ummm... Daisy

"Jimbo utters vacuous threats" - where did I do that?

"swears by imaginary scenerios" - or that

"excels at ad hominem attacks" - or that

"in place of factual evidence to support his argument, again"

Gee - peaceful Muslims outnumbering extremists by a factor of tens of millions to one. But that's not enough for our Irwin Daisy

Muslim citizens are making many contributions in business, science and law, medicine and education, and in other fields.

Muslims worldwide have stretched out a hand of mercy to those in need.

Islam, as practiced by the vast majority of people, is a peaceful religion, a religion that respects others.

Islam is a faith that brings comfort to people. It inspires them to lead lives based on honesty, and justice, and compassion.

As for my proof, the evidence is in your posts.

As for your accusations and assertions:

Funny, the recent German statistics that just came out show that of the 3 million muslims in Germany, 180, 000 are shown to be violently extremist.

Now, you're right, that's not a large percentatge. But it is still 180,000 violent Islamic extremists. In one country.

Regardless, all of your assertions about Islam are ignorant, irrelevant or outright lies. For example, please provide examples of your assertion that, "Muslims worldwide have stretched out a hand of mercy to those in need." Let's start with the tsunami in Indonesia, and then let's progress to the black Muslims (Abeed) in the Sudan. Or should we have actually started with the Palestinians?

Based on your last two assertions, you've unveiled yourself.

My question is and always has been - what causes historically recorded Islamic extremism? The answer is the foundationally violent ideology, as expressed in the Islamic trilogy - the Quran, the Hadith and the Sira. More importantly, as expressed by their prophet's life example. The "perfect man" all Muslims are commanded to emulate.

al Jimbo: Is it the thrill of Mo being married to a nine year old wife, that turns you on? Or, is it the thrill of killing, booty, slaves, racism and unlimited, sanctified hatred that attracts you to Islam?

Irwin Daisy said "Regardless, all of your assertions about Islam are ignorant, irrelevant or outright lies." ... etc

Actually, Irwin, those aren't my assertions. They are those of that other noteworthy "Liberal", and prominent "Leftoid", George W. Bush, posted directly on the White House site, under "Policies in Focus", as in official US policy.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/ramadan/islam.html

But what do they know, being so far to the left of you.

(The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism, p. 115), By Bertrand Russell.htm written in 1920:

Among religions, Bolshevism is to be reckoned with Mohammedanism rather than with Christianity and Buddhism. Christianity and Buddhism are primarily personal religions, with mystical doctrines and a love of contemplation. Mohammedanism and Bolshevism are practical, social, unspiritual, concerned to win the empire of this world.

Source:
docstalk.blogspot.com

P.S. Bertrand Russell was no Christian, having penned a book entitled "Why I am Not a Christian".

Ted, for questioning islam,you have referred to me or slandered me with the following,Desperate loser and knuckle-dragging redneck racist. I also enbarass,disgust,dishearten and make you sad. I think I have enough for my own little HRC lawsuit. But since I am tolerant and respect the right to have an opinion I will not,unlike the leading muslim moderate in Alberta.

No WallyJ, it was me that inferred you were a desperate loser and knuckle dragging redneck racist. You owe Ted an apology. And perhaps I owe you one, for lumping you in with Irwin Daisy.

Debate is good. In fact, that's essentially the topic of this thread. We need to be able to overstep boundaries to find out what those boundaries might be for each of us. But, as you pointed out in an earlier post - hate speech is bad in that it incites hatred towards an identifiable group.

Most Muslims are peaceful. The vast majority(!!!) The greatest enemy of the moderate, peaceful Muslim is the radical extremist. The greatest enemy of the moderate Christian are the extremist nutbars. And the greatest enemy of the Conservatives are the far right extremists.

"The Islam that we know is a faith devoted to the worship of one God, as revealed through The Holy Qur'an. It teaches the value and the importance of charity, mercy, and peace."
President George W. Bush's Message for Ramadan
November 15, 2001

Merry Christmas to all.

Jimbob,

You rank right up there as the most unintelligent person to comment on this blog. I argue that the foundationally violent ideology of Islam is the root of historical and ongoing Muslim violence and attrocities. That all Muslims (whether they choose to or not) are commanded and rewarded for violence. That they are commanded to emulate their prophet, who has been proven historically, in their own texts, to be what any rational person would call - an extremely evil character. And I support the argument with irrefutable evidence, from their texts.

However, in your empty cranium, there's confusion and comprehension problems. You argue that there are nice Muslims.

So what? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? What exactly is the point that you are blathering on about?

I don't believe you are Conservative in the slightest. Conservatives are generally rational and intelligent people, of which, you are neither.

If you have read the texts and support the ideology of Islam, then it is you who is the bigot, racist, misogynist, supporter of pedophilia, mass-murder, rape, piracy and supreme hate.

But then, I reckon you're too stupid to have ever looked in the Quran, Hadith and Sira to see what it says. Rather, you've got feelings about things.

Hey, go ahead and post sanitized George Bush quotes. If you're that stupid to believe them, nobody can help.

I think I'd rather listen to these historical men and their descriptions:

Lord Tebbit

"The Muslim religion is so unreformed since it was created that nowhere in the Muslim world has there been any real advance in science, or art or literature, or technology in the last 500 years"

Vernon Richards

"The true Islamic concept of peace goes something like this: "Peace comes through submission to Muhammad and his concept of Allah" (i.e. Islam). As such the Islamic concept of peace, meaning making the whole world Muslim, is actually a mandate for war. It was inevitable and unavoidable that the conflict would eventually reach our borders, and so it has."

Andre Servier

“Islam was not a torch, as has been claimed, but an extinguisher. Conceived in a barbarous brain for the use of a barbarous people, it was - and it remains - incapable of adapting itself to civilization. Wherever it has dominated, it has broken the impulse towards progress and checked the evolution of society.”

Winston Churchill

“The religion of Islam above all others was founded upon the sword … Moreover it provides incentives to slaughter, and in three continents has produced fighting breeds of men – filled with a wild and merciless fanaticism”.

John Quincy Adams

"The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force".

John Wesley

"Ever since the religion of Islam appeared in the world, the espousers of it...have been as wolves and tigers to all other nations, rending and tearing all that fell into their merciless paws, and grinding them with their iron teeth; that numberless cities are raised from the foundation, and only their name remaining; that many countries, which were once as the garden of God, are now a desolate wilderness; and that so many once numerous and powerful nations are vanished from the earth! Such was, and is at this day, the rage, the fury, the revenge, of these destroyers of human kind".

Hilaire Belloc

"Will not perhaps the temporal power of Islam return and with it the menace of an armed Mohammedan world, which will shake off the domination of Europeans -- still nominally Christian -- and reappear as the prime enemy of our civilization? The future always comes as a surprise, but political wisdom consists in attempting at least some partial judgment of what that surprise may be. And for my part I cannot but believe that a main unexpected thing of the future is the return of Islam".

Bishop Fulton J Sheen

"Today (1950), the hatred of the Moslem countries against the West is becoming hatred against Christianity itself. Although the statesmen have not yet taken it into account, there is still grave danger that the temporal power of Islam may return and, with it, the menace that it may shake off a West which has ceased to be Christian, and affirm itself as a great anti-Christian world Power".

William Eaton, US Consul to Tunis, wrote in 1799:

"Considered as a nation, they are deplorably wretched, because they have no property in the soil to inspire an ambition to cultivate it. They are abject slaves to the despotism of their government, and they are humiliated by tyranny, the worst of all tyrannies, the despotism of priestcraft. They live in more solemn fear of the frowns of a bigot who has been dead and rotten above a thousand years, than of the living despot whose frown would cost them their lives…The ignorance, superstitious tradition and civil and religious tyranny, which depress the human mind here, exclude improvement of every kind…"

Ayatollah Khomeini

“Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled and incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world. But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world…. Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers] Islam says Kill them [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us Islam says Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean that we should surrender to the enemy Islam says Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Koranic] verses and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.”

I find it sad that opinions backed with facts and statistics such as “irwin daisy” are slammed with racial allegations and slander to silence a reasonable voice. It is indeed the intellectual stupidity fueled with delusional emotion that has endangered the promise of our civilizations security and placed our children’s future at risk. The grass roots “common sense” that built our countries and cultures to an unprecedented height of civilization now sadly remains in only a few of the founders descendants.

Defenders of the Muslim world spouting snobbish rubbish about Christianity 300 years ago as some sort of a reason to tolerate the raping of our societies should be the ones questioned, labeled and held accountable.

Look around the world today and open your eyes to the FACTS. If not for yourself do it for your children. Do it for the Muslims you care for so much, and allow them to live in their own countries and sort out their own issues. If it takes 300 years so be it.

Yes, pull all of our troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq and let them kill each other into peace, and use our troops to defend our borders and what’s left of our decaying societies before they are stripped as bare as ancient Rome.

Oh yea, before you go throwing the only weapon in your arsenal (false labels to silence) my comments are NOT racist, Islamaphobic, xenophobic or whatever else you want to falsely claim. They are companionate comments based on genuine experience and understanding having lived, worked and befriended Muslims throughout the world. Rather call it tough love, and survival instincts that all sensible westerners hold dear.

Jimbo said:
No WallyJ, it was me that inferred you were a desperate loser and knuckle dragging redneck racist.

Imply / infer = very often confused, especially among the uneducated.

Usage guidance - examples:
1) Jimbo wonders 'Is Me No Dhimmi implying that I am uneducated?'.
2) Jimbo composes reply: "Me No Dhimmi, are you implying that I am uneducated?"
OR
3) "Me No Dhimmi, do I infer from your comment that you think I'm uneducated?".

The person making a statement implies -- the person interpreting it infers.
But Jimbo you didn't infer or imply; you just made a bold, declarative, insulting statement in which you used the word "racist" incorrectly.
And as to education, I can only infer from your statements that you are uneducated on the topic of Islam.

Finally, do you not get the extreme irony of using a quote from Bush whom, I surmise from the language of your insult, you think a moron?

Daniel Simard - one of the students versus McCleans - caught falsifying comments at his site "lawiscool" !!!

from eteraz.wordpress,

David Reese said, on December 22nd, 2007 at 2:09 pm

They’re falsifying reader comments over at Simard’s blog, http://www.lawiscool.com.

Here, http://lawiscool.com/2007/12/22/steyn-fans-spam-law-is-cool/#comments,

I wrote,

“A question: given the remarks made by many in Canada’s Muslim communities toward homosexuals, when can we expect your complaints to the HRC regarding same?”

My comment was edited to read,

“A question: given the remarks made by many in Canada’s Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Sikh and Hindu communities toward homosexuals, when can we expect your complaints to the HRC regarding same?”

Despicable.

Simard, whoever is administering the comments section on your blog is a liar. Is it you?

... ... ...

I posted this but do not expect an honest answer,

Friend of USA said, on December 22nd, 2007 at 10:11 pm

As Dave as clearly demonstrated ,

Daniel Simard’s blog “Law is cool.com ” is falsifying comments,

So tell me Daniel Simard,

would you be ok with McCleans falsifying the content of your five page rebutall before publishing it?

and if not then why?

"Law is Cool" claims that the 1000 or so comments they got in 24 hours is Steyn-bots spamming them!

The only thing about this group of four law students that makes sense is a reader questioning whether or not this HRC business could be some kind of assignment.

Like I also read...you want these idiots responsible for selling your house or divorcing your spouse?

Jimbo ,you are quite right,I did mix the two of you up. Sorry Ted. Hey,this apologizing stuff is like a virus,soon everyone will be doing it.