The MSM still isn't doing its job with this serious issue. They'd rather try to take down the Conservative government by giving the Leftist Opposition a 24-hour-a-day soapbox to fabricate false "scandals" and so on than tell the People that the out of control arms'-length bureaucratic state apparatus is taking peoples' rights away just for exercising them in the first place.

It's starting!

I agree with Canadian Sentinel and the HRC looks rather inept by taking on these cases. Their decisions also allow for our right of freedom of expression, speech and association to be slowly, bit by bit, taken away from us. Do people in central Canada pay much attention to HRC cases?

Ezra rocks! So these Muslims that have had their feelings hurt, shopped around to find the best province to file this human rights complaint. What does this say about my province BC? It just stinks. That fact that the Muslims have been allow to file three complaints, BC, Ontario and federal is triple jeopardy. This case is going to cause nothing but hate to Muslims, this is just so sick.
Only in Canada, what a joke.

The People in Central Canada are only concerned with how to maintain control of the countries purse strings. That is why Ont/Que are signing accords that will save us from AGW, and send money from the west to them. Just think by taxing us they can take credit for the earths plummeting temperatures. Who needs free speech when you can freeload.

"Do people in central Canada pay much attention to HRC cases?"
Dear concerned; people in Canada don't pay much attention to anything, unless of course, it's about hockey or beer or their cable bill. If they did, there would not be an NDP Party and the Liberals would be unrecognizable by current standards.
The BCHRC has survived near two successive Gordon Campbell BC Liberal governments. The BC Liberals, who passed themselves off as conservative to get the BC Reform Party out of the way and beat-up the NDP, promised to disband the BCHRT but wimped out. This is one conservative who won't be voting for these dingbats next election.

What do you expect from the MSM, they put their burqas on and hid under their desks when the Danish cartoon controversy surfaced. They couldn't self-censor themselves fast enough being the sheep-like pc prigs that they are. How ridiculous was it that only the narrative could be shared with readers as if we were small children, well, they certainly feel Muslims are infantile with the protective zone they've created for them. Thanks to this whole Maclean's/Steyn/CHRC travesty Muslims emerge looking very infantile as well as misfits in a modern democratic society. They brought that on themselves. Ditto for the majority of the MSM.

Only slightly off topic:
A commenter at Levant's Blog posted the item below. Can PMSH's handlers be this tone deaf?! This is a frontal attack on the CPC's voter base! I'm neither RC nor religious but even I'M shocked at the boldness of this HRC tactic.

"Just sent off e-mail to my MP, Mr. Glen Pearson.

Just came across this Canadian "Human Rights" case on an American news website.
Wonder if you are are aware of this one, Mr. Levant.

"
Pete Vere, a canon lawyer and Catholic journalist, has reported on the prosecution of Father Alphonse de Valk, a pro-life activist known across Canada, by the Canadian Human Rights Commission – "a quasi-judicial investigative body with the power of the Canadian government behind it" – at CatholicExchange.com.

"What was Father de Valk's alleged 'hate act'?" Vere wrote.

"Father defended the [Catholic] Church's teaching on marriage during Canada's same-sex 'marriage' debate, quoting extensively from the Bible, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and Pope John Paul II's encyclicals. Each of these documents contains official Catholic teaching."

full article at

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/ind...ew& pageId=66247
K. Stamos | 06.05.08 - 10:36 am | # "

Cool it on the 'Central Canadians' thing.

The real problem, IMO, is the 'Central Canadian Media'.

"The People in Central Canada"

Like Andrew Coyne, who's blogging the trial? Or Kathy Shaidle who's being sued? Or perhaps Free Dominion? Save your stereotypes, pal, it's a big country.

If memory serves moi - a few years back, I remember WK praising AC, wanting Andrew to get his blog up and running again.

Well it sure is now !

Unlike sda, cannot check mussing's archives. Just one of the reasons Kate kicks butt !? Put up or shut up ?

Sorta like the reason for the amazing success of Richie Bros !? The biggest Auction company in the world - by far !! Started here in Kelowna :)

The key to their success - a 'No-Reserve-Bid' policy. You want to sell something - put up or shut up.

Not sure who's "listening" but the case is being heard in centr... er uh ...Western Canada.

Habib acknowledges that 'the publisher is responsible for the content of the magazine'. That means, and I'm sure he doesn't realize this, that the publisher can reject Elmasry's insistence that he and his puppets insert an article of their own in the magazine.

Also, the Muslims take no responsibility for their own image. That is, the fact that people may sneer at them, view them with contempt, is deemed to be caused by and only by - Us. We who are not Muslims. The fact that they, their behaviour, their actions - have a result; ie, our non-acceptance of their beliefs and behaviour - it just doesn't occur to them.

So, the fact that they committed a number of heinous crimes (9/11, London, Madrid, Bali bombings..all in the name of Islam); the beheadings. The imams preaching that the Koran insists on their taking over the world. The imams preaching hatred and violence. The open rejection by their imams (Hindy, for example) of our rule of law and insisting that Sharia must dominate; the insistence on polygamy, etc, etc.

They themselves present this enormous set of images of belief and behaviour to us. Yet, the CIC, Elmasry, Habib and others, all blame any of our rejection of these expressed beliefs and behaviour - not on our reaction to them. But they seem to think that IF we didn't have people in the MSM against these beliefs/behaviour..THEN, we'd accept it. Insane.

My favourite comment today comes from Jay Currie:

"Porter has objected and been overrooed."

"Save your stereotypes, pal, it's a big country."

You're not my pal, buddie!

The HRC is not capable of functioning in Canada - because Canada is a Democracy. I say bundle up all the people who work for this Totalitarian outfit and send them to the Middle East or China. The PEOPLE (who are the boss in this nation) must Fire. Them. All. No payouts, no pensions, no repeal - they are violating the Right of Free Speech and attempting to censure thought - this is a KGB tactic; not tolerated here. The people employed by Canadians are attempting to undermine their employer. They are persona non grata (hope that is spelled correctly), no need to compensate them in any way except to give them 24 hrs. to clear out of the country.

All their bank accounts and property must be seized and distributed to the people they have harmed financially.

Look - if Muslims are concerned that they are being 'exposed to hatred and contempt' then they should, themselves, stop doing things that create hatred and contempt of them.

That means: Stop the suicide attacks in the name of 'jihad' against the West. Stop bombing civilians of all religions - in the name of their religion. Stop preaching that their religion says that they must take over the world.

Stop 'honour' killings. Stop killing anyone who attempts to leave their religion; stop killing anyone who converts to Christianity. Stop preaching hatred from their mosques.

When they see a cartoon of their political ideology, don't go out and kill Christians and burn embassies.

Stop murdering people in the Sudan; Stop trying to prevent the Iraqi people from developing a democracy.

Stop insisting on special rooms for prayers for them. Stop refusing to handle pork or bacon in the supermarket checkout. Stop refusing to accept people with dogs in their taxis. Stop complaining to the govt if a bank has a piggy bank in its window..and on and on.

If Muslims object to people's reactions to them, and view these reactions as one of contempt or hatred - they ought to look to their own behaviour as the cause of such emotions.

Instead, they are insisting that their religion is one of peace and kindness and tolerance - and that our feelings towards them are totally irrational and caused by - us. By our writers. By us, who are 'racist and Islamophobic'.

But we remember those bombs. We know about the suicide killings. We hear the imams preach hatred. And we are aware of the fact that the majority of Muslims, rather than standing up and rejecting their own racism and hatred of us - are silent.

This whole trial is a complete farce!

McLean’s can’t win regardless of the outcome, and has already lost in some public opinion, the costs of this sham and the fear of ever publishing “controversial truth” material again. Islam wins, all aces across the table, instilling fear in the Canadian public and business and have at the very least enjoyed a paid for captive Canadian audience to grandstand their agenda of fear, as they rub their power of the HRC in our faces.

"The HRC is not capable of functioning in Canada - because Canada is a Democracy. I say bundle up all the people who work for this Totalitarian outfit and send them to the Middle East or China. The PEOPLE (who are the boss in this nation) must Fire. Them. All. No payouts, no pensions, no repeal - they are violating the Right of Free Speech and attempting to censure thought - this is a KGB tactic; not tolerated here. The people employed by Canadians are attempting to undermine their employer. They are persona non grata (hope that is spelled correctly), no need to compensate them in any way except to give them 24 hrs. to clear out of the country."

I read this morning that the CHRC first opened shop in 1977. WHO WAS PRIME MINISTER BACK THEN?...'Nuff said.

So now when Macleans is convicted on lop sided evidence, on hearsay, on feelings, on foreign blogs, on articles written before the Macleans one, on this and that and on and on, the Canadian media will have to have Islamic editors on board scrutinizing every written or televised line to ensure the 2008 definition of "hate" and "contempt" is not befallen upon Muslims, or anyone else who might be offended, in any way, and even the lefty CBC will caught in this same trap, from the story they have practically ignored, but benefiting from the "human rights" laws of Trudeauopia, more cost, lawyers, experts, timidity and delay and Muslims will be seen as the architects of this blanketing chill on the Canadian landscape. Thanks for the boat anchor, job well done. It will surely reduce hate and contempt in the land.

ET - you stated the facts and common sense, but the people to whom you refer firmly believe that Islam is the superior religion and no criticism is to be allowed. That is their goal to ensure dhimmitude on all non believers just as their goal is to impose their beliefs on the whole world. Little by little they are actually succeeding especially in the EU. They have also made progress in the United States (re State Department decision to ban the use of the term jihad) and more so in Canada.

Most Canadians across the country remain ignorant of what is happening, in particular the assaults on our freedom of expression and of the press due to a virtual blackout by MSM and silence of government, federal and provincial. For example how can one explain the lack of coverage in BC newspapers, radio and television of the BCHRC sham now in day four? Instead the headlines remain obsessed with the "homeless", free shoot up clinics, global warming and whatever. I have yet to find anyone who is even slightly aware of what is going on other than those who consult the various blogs for information. As long as the decision to deport an illegal Sikh gets more coverage - day after day - with demonstrators turning out to block the deportation, while the shams and scandals of all the HRCs are ignored, I fear things will only get worse.

Habib says that Bin Laden was not jihad. Bin Laden was a problem for Muslims, he maligned us.

WHAT!!!! Excuse me but didn't OBL use that very word "jihad" in his raving videos. That he was a bigger "problem" for the 3000 of my fellow countrymen that were innocently evaporated that awful morning by his top tier thugs I guess gets a lower ranking, if any, below Muslim's PR problems.

The article, he says, makes things “dangerous for us.” His wife, who wears the hijab, has been “taunted, told to go back home.” The article “puts fuel on the fire” of a volatile situation, post Sept. 11, although he concedes he knows of no physical attacks resulting from it.

No surprise.

The perfect follow-up to this little weasel's disingenuous fear for his safety is just what group at every airport in the western world are governments protecting their citizens from and why?

When this little briefcase jihadi group, and that's the word I'm sticking by, started this CHRC complaint they no idea how repulsive they've come across.

Most Canadians are ignorant of just about everything that goes on outside there own little worlds of hockey, beer, running the kids to whatever.

good afternoon

do not send your statment of defence soon if you recieve letter from human right commison if you
then you must go to trial but if you settle before send statment of defense or strike it out
then you do not go to trial if you go to trial you wil defintly will loose waht we see in most blogs

go to help desk ceter in 393 universtiy and aske free counstling
some laywer also may not direct you in corect path
you wasit you time going to court and fiht this
too much money and time you must spend for that

you cna find differne way to talk not go too much headache chage your voice less harrass Muslim then
when you receive human right claim or complain do not fight it or send statment of defence try to have lawyer and settle it because this is costly most blogger are act and tlak illegal by law of Canada act and discrimination act
you have free and but freedom has limit and most bloger went above limit to enter in other law broken

in most likely Mark Steyen are not going to win it for this time but get small charge but next time they will arest him if he continue
for rest of blogs change or delet yoru bad comment
in your settlemtn tell your lawyer to talk to human right that you agree to cut bad comment out
or not talk about Muslim for 1 to 2 years and they may drop hte charges

going to court is constlymost lawyer arenot expert or expensive and not worth to fight it
you will loose
-------------

fighting Islam law you p ut yourself in treat of out side Canada some eextremest may give treat warning then before thsi go worth stop write bad about Islam but follow rules we adviceing you to do so

you can ask or critize so many Islam law in right direction with no insult but if you insult of say offence you are or will get arrested
therefor human right paln to prevent the bad not go to worste

Muslim belive certain thing non Muslim do not value it
that is fine
but if nonMuslim force to change law of Islamthe problemw will arise and hate cirme go to top
like
you can not say Mohamad say this and change his law
you cna say Isalm plan to let adulty let it go
just search see hom many teenager who are innocent are victim of use of pronography and porn movie people look are chilrende ponography
look how many film go to web this is destroy
young brain by increse adulty and druges illegaly
wheh canda yought are drunk or under usage of drges and not study and not work then country become corrupted

goverment must fight illegal adultry in this coutnry and prevent corruption in this countries

this is only few clue
thisis very danger to canadian blogs do not understand this is risk their security if continue slaner Muslim adn law of Islam
but they can say it in some how sound like it but less offensie to readers such as:

get yourslef euducated in how to talk with Muslim without get charged by human right without get arrested for hate crime and without hearing Muslim compalin aobut your blogs to know the some skilles

how to talk to start talk about Muslim when you are nonMulsim and not familr with Islam but have disagreement and like to know their view or only you plan to show your disagreement:

do not talk about Mohammad prophet of Muslim in any shape in any cartoon to start any communication

do not make fun of Quaran or holly book of Muslim

do not belittle the wolrd Muslim or Islam in any way
===

then start indirectly to start to talk such
as
you read the book of al-meezan which is tafseer of Quran and you have a question

you only critize Muslim writer and say your opinion indirectly
then Muslim pay attention and listen to you

if you start from the words we told Muslim get mad and never listen to you

----

do not forget Mr. harper has power and can say let attack all Ifganistan
while he could do increase school and eucation incrase job and built city and let Afganstan cut druge growing such as Taryak and instead use their famr ot made Canadian pharmecutical her used in druges in pharmecuticals since whether of Afganstne able to grow so many herb well for trade by Canada
increase p olice in Afgansten taht major problems in Afganstan today is poor econmic theft and killing each other and lack of education

do not say Candaian are in Afganstian to fight Muslim change this wording to not made Canada not safe place and caue redcuce security in city

====

-----------

via Steynonline..."An observation from Mark's seat in court: Faisal Joseph seems very confident today - as well he might, after the "judges" ruled that the Canadian Islamic Congress is not relevant to this case. The California-based Free Republic is relevant; the Brussels Journal is relevant - but not the Canadian Islamic Congress."

Mike, I totally agree, the vast majority of people don't really care about this issue. Whenever I raise this vital potential loss of our basic freedom eyes roll and the conversation moves on to Sex in the City or how the Leafs are doing. So many people are socialist or liberal and just read the headlines and as the MSM ignores the whole HRC debacle they don't read about this controversy.

The whole attitude seems to be that it doesn't affect me so I don't care.

Quote: do not talk about Mohammad prophet of Muslim in any shape in any cartoon to start any communication

do not make fun of Quaran or holly book of Muslim

do not belittle the wolrd Muslim or Islam in any way
===

then start indirectly to start to talk such
as
you read the book of al-meezan which is tafseer of Quran and you have a question

you only critize Muslim writer and say your opinion indirectly
then Muslim pay attention and listen to you

Son Canada is an open and free society based on Democracy not Theocracy, your terms and conditions are not acceptable to me. I will speak of your holy book and your prophet as I see fit and if that hurts your feelings that's not my problem. Asking Canadians to cower and pander to Islam isn't an option I'm willing to consider. EVER. He's your god not mine.

Hey, welcome to Canuckistan, where beer, popcorn, and hockey are the most vital issues on the agenda, thanks to the brainwashing of at least three generations of Canucks by the "educational" (sic) system and our MSM.

I'm used to rolled eyeballs and people changing the subject. I don't care! 'Ancestors are from Yorkshire--plain-spoken and all that--and I figure if I just keep speaking truth into lies, that's my job, and whatever others do with it, that's their job--and responsibility (or irresponsibility).

We're all accountable...

Kelly

I just got out of the kangaroo court a few hours ago and had a brief chat with Maclean’s counsel Roger McConchie. He says has been in front of courts and tribunals at all levels and even in Mexico and has never experienced rulings as bizarre as what he is witnessing here. He says they do not even follow their own precedent.

Naiyer Habib is the complainant but was presented to the court as witness representing the Canadian Islam Congress and the effect the article had on the community. When Macleans council pointed this out to chief Roo Heather Macnaughten she ruled he was only speaking for himself.

Throught out the trial many Muslim witnesses have protested that it was unfair for Steyn to quote Libya's Colonel Khadafy because he did not represent Muslims and was an extremeist. Macleans council wanted to show that many members of the CIC including someone on the witness list of this trial had visited with Khadafy. Of course pointing out these facts is not allowed.

As a so-called "Central Canadian" I resent the impliction that we don't care about this issue.
While it's true that many people care for nothing more than their popcorn, beer and kids soccer games, that can be applied all across the Canadian spectrum. Many people in my neck of the woods care deeply about this issue. To my mind it is petty and juvenile to try and divide this issue along demographic lines.
As a 62 year-old Canadian, born and bred, you can best your ass I'm concerned. Don't let petty regional issues cloud your view on this.

howtotalktomulsim - you've been here before, your moniker gets tweeked each time and the stupid faux english-as-a-second-language shtick, please, it's not working for you. Again.

Give it up. Go back to stamping ants for amusement.

Yea right, our resident Muslim can't spell Islam correcty with his ppor englhs? Idiot.

then when you facing charged by human right commision and charged for pay claim and recieved the treat from extermest

as you are not listen to my advice
then I will back to you penny and knight99

going to all courts and procecutore asking you why you said that and you wast your time
for change law of Islam
then we back to you
you do not know what danger some extermest are!!
why you risk your life and country security
and you do not know their power still for 25 years
hiding Soman Rashdy with security

sometimes you better take advice from freindly Muslim before it is too late for you
you english perfect talker
just listen or take the consequences free country

that you are idiooot
we told you that to stop it

Islamic hegemony must be stopped.

Mark Steyn was just interviewed on Mike Duffy Live; good, concise discussion reitterating for the masses what is general knowledge to anyone reading 'internet'.

A subsequent program segment where the party pundits were featured had one interesting highlight: The NDP rep, Ms. McFail (?), was asked directly by Duffy, she being B.C. savvy, what she thought of her province's Human Rights trial. It was discouraging to hear her say, in effect, that it wasn't an issue at all; barely a blip in the local media, and that the general coverage was of more important things (!) (global warming?)

First educate yourself with Islam laws:

Frequencly asking question in islam:
http://al-islam.org/static.php?content=faq
----
learn about isalm in simple way for beginners:
http://al-islam.org/index.php?sid=489855789&t=80&cat=80
------------------------
Learn about: how the holy book of QURAN wrote and Tafseer means explanation of bit by bit of Quran like allah means what? Etc.: almizan is one the best book explain quaran and Mr. Tabatabi wrote this book: this is advance books
http://www.almizan.org/
http://www.almizan.org/new/Tafseer/volume1.asp
http://www.almizan.org/Tafseer/Volume1/fateha1.asp
------------------------
what is shia wrote: learn more about islam
http://www.shia.org/islamicwww.html
http://www.al-shia.com/html/eng/books/ahlulbayt/index.htm
what Iranian are saying find it in shia web page
----
if you look for specific information use search engine go to this web page:
http://al-islam.org/dilpprojects.php
type your wording in search engine
=====

if you look for specific information use search engine go to this web page:
http://al-islam.org/dilpprojects.php
type your wording in search engine

if you like to know what the meaning of adultery in Islam is or prevent AIDS how to wash your body in correct way and cleaning and banking in islam try search engine

this is good book:
Marriage and Morals in Islam
Sayyid Muhammad Rizvi

ISBN: 0-920675-10-7
Published by the
Islamic Education & Information Centre,
P. O. Box 92190, 2900 Warden Avenue,
Scarborough, Ontario, Canada M1W3Y9

An effort of the Ahlul Bayt Digital Islamic Library Project team

=============
if you have more question to ask scholare in Isalm:
use this web page:
http://al-islam.org/static.php?content=contact

---------
for chat go to www.soundvision.com for more your detail questions and argue with Muslim

howtotalktoamuslim. is that satire, sarcasm,or what? or are you, how to be polite, just stupid.

I tell the law you can handle the truth is up to you to :

do not talk about Mohamad prophet of Islam
do not talk about Quran book of holy Islam
and/or even sorah of quran ( means bit by bit of each part of quran book)

do not talk about Muslim and Islam is bad

three above sentences if you do
by law of Islam some sheikh if they see go above limit can order you get kill

you saw in past order for Solmon Rushadi
and order to Sadam Hussain must die

it does not matter who can kill them
======
therefore do not risk your life do not risk security of country and do not risk get treat notes

next you can talk about Mohamad by respenct while you are not plan to talk with respect

on other hand you are not Muslim and not your relgion your plan it to say your opinion becasue you can free to say every thing you write to say

then say it indirectly

read book of writer of book about Quran and say this writer said this and I am disagree or say it to not directly hit three sentences I said you can not say it

see how many treat and how many live in hidden

====
next you can not change the law of islam
even

old white guy can not change the law of Caanda
not all Muslim may like or obey the law of Islam but not say it becaue they may arrested

if you come and say to police in Canada I like to do sell druge you can get arrested but if you say in Austriala in some area is free to sell or buy

===
law is law do not interfer to change you waste your time

==

what you can change is matter of
not base of Islam
such as you do not like cut the hand for person who do bank rubery yes can debate taht since this isnot done in most countries

not all countreis do drop stone to woman do adultry you can debate that

some area of Islam can change by today life style some can not change

such Muslim can not eat pork and alcohol at all
you can not debate that
=====

some group of Chrisitna and Muslim are debate about islam and christinay in round table but they keep the nice lanuage but you can not
then don't stop talk about differneced Muslim can not chang it
====
Muslim must cover hair you can not debate that

but Muslim do not need to cover eyes and mouth you can debate that

====

in some area you are not allow to force the chnange in some you can debate that again this is optional

===

you can debate muslim marry more than wife but this is only 2% of Muslim does in world
they can have up to 4 wifes
but muslim men also debate thre is too many afair in Canadian men while they are married too
jsut not pay the children like Less man never paid his second wife in hiddena child support

====

you need to know the Islam before debate
it

plus what you want from islam and Muslim when we are two different
stay like mongolian not talk to each otehr in diffenrce

talk about whether is nice and talk about econimic
do not talk when you know you wast your time

nobody going to change law of Islam
even human right cna not change law of Islam
tehn why you put energy to that you only waste your time

plus you will get law sue and even in worst senior you may get treat and need to live in hidden place like Solomon Rashdi

I repear do not talk in bad in three area
do not talk bad about Mohamad and second Quarn and Sorahe of Quran and third is Muslim and Islam are bad poeople

but seat in thing you can debate it

this is only freindly advice
if you do not trust above continue and face delima as we hear every day in news

I know sound rough and may barbarien for all of you that is law in Islam
you cna not talk or write cartoon about prophet

I've just posted this at Ezra Levant's blog (probably not posted yet):

Ezra, I watched the whole thing [Canadian Association of Journalists debate, with Ezra, MP Keith Martin, and Ian Fine of the CHRC]—and posted, with kudos for you—a few days ago.

This 8-minute summary was super: you too! (I loved the "Chariots of Fire" music!) And, I actually didn’t find you angry—keep that smile on your face! Indignant, gobsmacked? Yes, but always responding with inconvenient FACTS, right on the tip of your tongue. The depth and breadth of your knowledge and your ability to call it up on the spur of the moment are prodigious. BRAVO!

I understand the wish not to alienate people. However, I'm quite sick and tired of acquiescing to idiots—even very smart, nice ones, like many people I know: I’m very fond of and even love many of them. However, if they don’t know about this issue—which most of my very smart, well educated, nice, and complacent friends don’t—it’s usually because of their smug, tidy, comfortable lives. And, if they’re offended—and, yes, many are—by “unpleasant” truths, which make them feel not as in control of their privileged existence as they’d like to be, I’m just not willing to back pedal all the time to spare their self-serving feelings. (When the house of cards falls, they’ll be saying, “How could this have happened?” And they’re the very ones who might have influenced events to procure a different ending.)

It’s important not to be overtly and intrusively offensive—which, unfortunately, telling the truth usually is in these politically correct days—however, on a public, televised DEBATE, telling it like it is, with wit and brio, is just fine. (Hey, I like the pun!)

Speaking of Fine: what, as I said a few days ago, a WEASEL. Yes, it’s ad hominem, but he looks sallow and grey, like a rat: a perfect metaphor for the sorry facsimile of a man he is. (Yes, I, too, noticed his repetition that his employees didn’t hack from the HRC. Ezra can’t shoot back a zinger 100% of the time—I think he does it 96% of the time!—but the riposte, “Maybe not from the HRC, but from another venue, like a car,” crossed my mind.)

Ezra, “You ‘da man!” What a blessing you are to all of us in these troubling and dangerous times. THANK YOU! And just keep on being your ebullient, crackerjack self!

that sounds vaguely threatening dono and I suggest you put up or shut up. DO NOT threaten me or back me into a corner dono bin laden, because I will fight you tooth and nail with words. English words in proper English sentences that I will type v e r y slowly so you can understand it. kay?

hey wannabe a muzzy, you're causing my scroll botton to wear out

I'ma gonna soo yoo!!!!

Donotslander>

“do not talk about Mohamad prophet of Islam
do not talk about Quran book of holy Islam
and/or even sorah of quran ( means bit by bit of each part of quran book)
do not talk about Muslim and Islam is bad”

Although you’re a phony hoaxing, retarded non-Muslim thinking you are somehow funny and convincing while pretending to be some illiterate sheep shagging Arab Muslim, let me entertain you for a moment.

Nobody gives a F*ck Muslim or not!

Yeah Right, you're a recent immigrant that doesn't have a solid grip of our language, you just found the site and don't want any trouble.
Friendly multiculturalism advice at its best, east meets west and surely some right wing neo-con knuckle dragger will rise to take your bait, and spew forth hatred and intolerance.

Anything, this lowdown dumb, has to be gubmint.

You're fired!

As a Canadian in Vancouver, I'm ECSTATIC that people away from Canada's Left Coast are paying attention to the fiasco going on here this week. It's a disgrace.

I had the great pleasure to personally meet Mark Steyn today, one-on-one for several minutes.

You may be interested to view two posts I've added this afternoon:

* Khurrum Awan and your appearance on CKNW: http://pelalusa.blogspot.com/2008/06/khurrum-awan-was-he-lying-in-court-or.html
* A video of Julian Porter outside of the Kangaroo Court: http://pelalusa.blogspot.com/2008/06/visit-to-ground-zero-of-kangaroo-court.html

Robert W.

mike in Ontario at 4:50 PM, and

Dave at June 5, 2008 5:24 PM, says,

** Mike, I totally agree, the vast majority of people don't really care about this issue. **
=========

Well I thought they could care if they ever saw a *short blurb* that explains it. . .

Pressed for time? Not really interested? Well here in short form, I ask, is this OK with you?

Freedom quietly ebbs away in Canada via [amateur paralegal] Human Rights Commissions.

In a nutshell then, here is why the Human Rights Commission related trials in Vancouver are so important.

Some Provincial Human Rights *police* have been abusing their powers.

In the beginning they protected rights of the minority from unfair discrimination. A good thing.

Recently they have been unfairly leveling charges and penalties upon authors who express opinions about things like the influence of immigrant groups. Not the same as malicious slander at all.

Authors have made observations about fund raising for terrorist groups, risk prone religious practice, and dress that conceals a person*s identity.

A free society should be able to talk about things that affect our security and freedom even if it does relate to one religious or ethnic group, so long as the debate contains no slur or disrespect.

The discussion of policy and security is not * hate speech*, yet the HRC can charge an author who writes about *sensitive* issues with a crime.

The government backed HRC people can lay charges and prosecute the author while attending their own employment five days a week without any cost or penalty, except for some overtime if desired.

The author must be absent from employment and pay for lawyers, assuming debt from day one and then certainly pay financial penalties as the HRC has never lost a case so far. [ Fishy?]

The freedom to express opinions or report on the dangers of some religious customs or deceptive fund raising is squashed by the HRC. Clearly un-Canadian , deceptive and dangerous.

Keep Canada free. Do not allow the HRC to stifle opinion and debate in magazines like Macleans, the National Post or the bogosphere. = TG

My attempt to *encapsulate*. You could shorten it more using point form, no doubt.

I*m sure Steyn could tighten it to two paragraphs.

Just when you think newspaper journalists couldn't be stupider:

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=87da6e59-1c34-4125-9766-d018a1f2984c

"referred to a line in which Steyn compared the growing Muslim population in Europe to mosquitoes"

NO, Steyn quoted a Muslim cleric who "compared the growing Muslim population in Europe to mosquitoes".

Gross incompetence.

One can only hope that free speech loses. Who doesn't love a kangaroo court?

Lets vote on what color hoods should be worn by our PC HRC "judges" ... I suggest baby shit yellow.

Why doesn't Steyn just come out and announce to the BCHRC that he is a Muslim? Hell, have the entire editorial staff of MacLeans come out and do it. Attorney Joseph and his entire charade parade went to great lengths to paint Muslims with a many faceted brushstroke.

The respondents should just say that they are the contemporary, thick skinned, freedom loving, not down with that facist BS version of a Muslim.

Asalam with Bacon... ;D

JR

Dialogue among Civilizations and the World of Islam

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the name of Allah

The year 2001, which has been confirmed and approved by the world as the 'Year of Dialogue among Civilizations', has certain important and noteworthy messages. Perhaps there are few topics that are accepted and embraced by the world as this has been. What follows, therefore, is a brief summary of the debate over this topic:

1. The eager approval of this suggestion indicates humanity's pressing need for dialogue and understanding.

2. This idea, its delineation and approval, are presented at a time when we have put behind us a century of war, turmoil, usurpation, discrimination and terror. Fortunately, in these entanglements and wars, not only has the world of Islam not played any role, but rather in many instances it has itself been a victim of wars and aggressions. The two world wars have been the bloodiest of the present grievous state. These two wars occurred in the West, at the hands of Westerners. The infringements on the rights of human beings throughout the world have occurred outside the world of Islam. The rights of the peoples of the continents of Asia, Africa and South America, especially the oppressed people of Palestine, have been trampled upon. This inequality has been imposed even upon non-Muslim countries which were not among industrial nations. With this description, at the end of a century full of blood, war and turmoil, the onset of the third Christian millennium, under the umbrella of 'Dialogue and Understanding', augurs a brighter and more promising future for the mankind.

3. Most important of all, this idea, which has been embraced by the world, was outlined by Muslims. This is testimony to the self-confidence and self-belief of the Islamic world and Muslim nations, especially in the second half of the twentieth century. The proponent of 'Dialogue among Civilizations' is himself an heir to a strong civilization and culture. He understands relations between human beings to be comprised not of might and imposition, but of rationality and dialogue. 'Dialogue among Civilizations' is spoken by one who values wisdom and has founded his own life on the basis of rationality, which is the origin of wisdom. We believe in rationality and dialogue. Religion and history have taught us this lesson. It was Muslims who familiarized Westerners with their history of philosophy and civics. The transfer of Greek science, philosophy and wisdom first occurred as a result of Europeans' familiarity with Muslims. Europeans learned tolerance from us. It is now ironic that they suggest the moral value of tolerance to us. The great Western civilization is strongly indebted to Islamic civilization. The world of Islam is endowed with a great civilization. Most assuredly, however, there exists a great distance between our civilization and our present state.

4. 'Dialogue among Civilizations' means equality between peoples and nations. In other words, one conducts a dialogue only when one respects the other party and considers the other party as equal to oneself. The colonial relationship which has ruled over certain parts of the world in the past two or three centuries has been the result of the phenomenon of dividing peoples and nations into first- and second-class citizens: that is, nations which have an inherent right to be masters, and nations which are inferior and have no choice but to be followers. War arises from the phenomenon of one party giving itself a greater right and, because he has power, he is entitled to serve his own interests at any cost, even at the cost, of war. Such a war is the fruit of discrimination and injustice. However, as soon as one proposes 'Dialogue among Civilizations', and it is accepted, it means that equality between nations has been accepted, and this is a great achievement for humanity.

5. Presently, by relying on many common elements, we Muslims must make a sincere effort to reduce differences, because a notable portion of our existing differences arises from differences in religious jurisprudence, culture, and the meaning of words, which can be eliminated. Other difficulties have been imposed by people who have not wanted the unity of the world of Islam or, if the plan did not originate with them, they have at least taken advantage of already existing differences by aggravating them. Thus, it is possible to eliminate differences, except for those which are natural, for people are by nature different; we do not all think alike, and we do not have identical interpretations. Therefore, in light of agreements and numerous common elements, we can minimize differences and render them a means to perfection and progress. Similar thoughts never confront each other. To have two ways of thinking set against each other is not only problem-free, but they ought to confront each other, for this causes the evolution and perfection of the thought. What is important is that the dichotomy of thoughts not turn into disagreements, contradiction, aggression and war. In order to achieve this, we must first return to the roots of unity, and, secondly, we must understand that if we wish to hold a dialogue, we must be inclined to wisdom and rationality.

6. One of the plagues which can be found in religious societies, and unfortunately the world of Islam has at times been plagued by it, is the misconception that, with the existence of religion, man does not require reason. That is, to believe that one can have either reason or religion, oblivious to the fact that one can understand even religion through reason. Does any mental tool exist other than reason? The difference between having faith and not having faith is not that a man without faith uses his reason, while a religious person is not in need of reason-they equally require the power of reason and must use it. The difference lies in the fact that a man of faith possesses two books while a man without faith, one book. The source of the religious man's knowledge is greater, and thus his achievements are richer. But a man who does not believe in God and inspiration possesses only the Book of Nature, to which he refers with the aid of his reason. A religious maxi also has this book and, as a natural human being, through the aid of his reason, he studies nature, acquires knowledge, comprehends science and philosophy, while, in addition, he benefits from yet another Book, the Book of Divine Law and Inspiration. People who set religion against reason understand their flawed interpretations to be 'religion'. It is true that inspiration lies beyond time and space, however, we exist in time and space. Our understanding, therefore, belongs to the realm of time and space. Thus, our understanding of the Book of Creation and Divine Laws is also limited to time and space. In this way, knowledge evolves. At one time, men of knowledge have one understanding, while at another time their understanding evolves, or perhaps the former understanding is even negated and replaced by our present understanding. Although man is endowed with a divine spirit and it benefits from dimensions that are beyond nature, beyond time and space, a large portion of his love, feelings and thoughts are nevertheless subject to time and space. Thus a great portion of our understanding of the Book of God is limited to time and space. Those who consider their understanding of God, the Book of God, and religion to be identical with 'religion', with the passage of time they are still not prepared to change their view. As a result, they sacrifice reason to their own understanding, which is limited to time and space. If we Muslims wish to have a better future and build a prosperous life for ourselves and a model for humanity that is proportional to the Greatness of God and the message of the Prophet, we must rely on God's great blessing-reason.

7. Our identity is rooted in the past; however, this does not mean that we should return to the past. The revelation of God descended on us in the past, but it does not belong to only one time. We must refer to the past, because the roots of our identity lie in the past, but we must not remain in the past, for this would be a retreat. A reverting to the past is to find a springboard from which we may forge ahead to the future.

8. In order to move ahead to the future we must understand the world and benefit from all positive achievements of human thought and civilization, wherever they may be. It is only under such circumstances that we can renew the greatness and grandeur of the past and, proportional to our present and future, shape a life which is blessed with God-like attributes and inspiration, a life in which at the same time human reason and human rights are held in respect.

9. One of the other blights is a situation where religion and freedom oppose one another. In the Middle Ages, religion was held against reason and freedom-and both suffered. Today, in liberal systems, freedom exists, but a freedom devoid of spirituality, and apart from the spiritual dimension of human life. As a consequence, their contemporary life faces many difficulties which are admitted by Westerners themselves.

Religion without freedom is tantamount to a life of enslavement, a life in which man is devoid of honor. Religion must not be set against reason and freedom. Rather, religion is a cradle and support for the growth of reason, freedom and liberality. God's religion has taught us this lesson. By relying on these standards and many other factors, we must become prepared for a 'Dialogue among Civilizations' and convey to the world the latent grandeur of the foundations of our religion and civilization.

10. With an open embrace, we must benefit from the positive aspects of other civilizations and cultures. This is in the sense of adopting, and adopting is a human art. This is adopting where man has understood his past and his identity, has founded his life on wisdom and reason, and puts to good use what others have already achieved. This is quite different from mere unseemly imitation.

http://al-islam.org/civilsociety/
http://al-islam.org/dilpprojects.php

Al-Serat

Islam and the Question of Violence

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seyyed Hossein Nasr
Vol. XIII, No. 2
Despite the presence of violence in many regions of the world ranging from Ireland to Lebanon to the Pacific Basin and involving many religions from Christianity to Hinduism, the Western world associates Islam more than any other religion with violence. The Muslim conquest of Spain, the Crusades - which were not begun by Muslims -, and the Ottoman domination of eastern Europe have provided a historical memory of Islam as being related to force and power. Moreover, the upheavals of the past few decades in the Middle East and especially movements using the name of Islam and seeking to solve problems of the Muslim world created by conditions and causes beyond the control of Muslims have only reinforced the idea prevalent in the West that in some special way Islam is related to violence.
To understand the nature of Islam and the truth about the assertion often made of Islam's espousal of violence. it is important to analyze this question clearly remembering that the word islam itself means peace and that the history of Islam has certainly not been witness to any more violence than one finds in other civilizations, particularly that of the West. In what follows. however, it is the Islamic religion in its principles and ideals with which we are especially concerned and not particular events or facts relating to the domain of historical contingency belonging to the unfolding of Islam in the plane of human history

First of all, it is necessary to define what we mean by violence. There are several dictionary definitions that can be taken into account such as 'swift and intense force', 'rough or injurious physical force or action', 'unjust or unwarranted exertion of force especially against the rights of others', rough or immediate vehemence' and finally 'injury resulting from the distortion of meaning or fact'. If these definitions are accepted for violence, then the question can be asked as to how Islam is related to these definitions. As far as 'force' is concerned, Islam is not completely opposed to its use but rather seeks to control it in the light of the divine Law (al-shari'a). This world is one in which force is to be found everywhere, in nature as well as in human society, among men as well as within the human soul. The goal of Islam is to establish equilibrium amidst this field of tension of various forces. The Islamic concept of justice itself is related to equilibrium, the word for justice (al-'adl) in Arabic being related in its etymology to the word for equilibrium (ta'adul). All force used under the guidance of the divine Law with the aim of re-establishing an equilibrium that is destroyed is accepted and in fact necessary, for it means to carry out and establish justice. Moreover, not to use force in such a way is to fall prey to other forces which cannot but increase disequilibrium and disorder and result in greater injustice. Whether the use of force in this manner is swift and intense or gentle and mild depends upon the circumstances, but in all cases force can only be used with the aim of establishing equilibrium and harmony and not for personal or sectarian reasons identified with the interests of a person or a particular group and not the whole.

By embracing the 'world' and not shunning the 'kingdom of Caesar', Islam took upon itself responsibility for the world in which force is present. But by virtue of the same fact it limited the use of force and despite all the wars, invasions, and attacks which it experienced. it was able to create an ambiance of peace and tranquillity which can still be felt whenever something of the traditional Islamic world survives. The peace that dominates the courtyard of a mosque or a garden whether it be in Marrakesh or Lahore is not accidental but the result of the control of force with the aim of establishing that harmony which results from equilibrium of forces, whether those forces be natural, social or psychological.

As for the meaning of violence as 'rough or injurious physical force or action', Islamic Law opposes all uses of force in this sense except in the case of war or for punishment of criminals in accordance with the shari'a. Even in war, however, the inflicting of any injury to women and children is forbidden as is the use of force against civilians. Only fighters in the field of battle must be confronted with force and it is only against them that injurious physical force can be used. Inflicting injuries outside of this context or in the punishment of criminals according to the dictum of the shari'a and the view of a judge is completely forbidden by Islamic Law.

As far as violence in the sense of the use of unjust force against the rights of others and laws is concerned, Islam stands totally opposed to it. Rights of human beings are defined by Islamic Law and are protected by this Law which embraces not only Muslims but also followers of other religions who are considered as 'People of the Book (ahl al-kitab)'. If there is nevertheless violation in Islamic society, it is due not to the teachings of Islam but the imperfection of the human recipients of the Divine Message. Man 15 man wherever he might be and no religion can neutralize completely the imperfections inherent in the nature of fallen man. What is remarkable, however, is not that some violence in this sense of the word does exist in Muslim societies, but that despite so many negative social and economic factors aggravated by the advent of colonialism, overpopulation, industrialization, modernization resulting in cultural dislocation, and so many other elements, there is less violence as unjust exertion of force against others in most Islamic countries than in the industrialized West.

If one understands by violence 'rough or immoderate vehemence'. then Islam is totally opposed to it. The perspective of Islam is based upon moderation and its morality is grounded upon the principle of avoiding extremes and keeping to the golden mean. Nothing is more alien to the Islamic perspective than vehemence, not to say immoderate vehemence. Even if force is to be used, it must be on the basis of moderation.

Finally, if by violence is meant 'distortion of meaning or fact resulting in injury to others', Islam is completely opposed to it. Islam is based on the Truth which saves and which finds its supreme expression in the testimony of the faith, la ilaha illa 'Llah (there is no divinity but the Divine). Any distortion of truth is against the basic teachings of the religion even if no one were to be affected by it. How much more would distortion resulting in injury be against the teachings of the Qur'an and the tradition of the Prophet!

In conclusion it must be emphasized that since Islam embraces the whole of life and does not distinguish between the sacred and the secular, it concerns itself with force and power which characterize this world as such. But Islam, in controlling the use of force in the direction of creating equilibrium and harmony, limits it and opposes violence as aggression to the rights of both God and His creatures as defined by the divine Law. The goal of Islam is the attainment of peace but this peace can only be experienced through that exertion (jihad) and the use of force which begins with the disciplining of ourselves and leads to living in the world in accordance with the dicta of the shar'ia. Islam seeks to enable man to live according to his theomorphic nature and not to violate that nature. Islam condones the use of force only to the extent of opposing that centripetal tendency which turns man against what he is in his inner reality. The use of force can only be condoned in the sense of undoing the violation of our own nature and the chaos which has resulted from the loss of equilibrium. But such a use of force is not in reality violence as usually understood. It is the exertion of human will and effort in the direction of conforming to the Will of God and in surrendering the human will to the divine Will. From this surrender (taslim) comes peace (salam), hence islam, and only through this islam can the violence inbred within the nature of fallen man be controlled and the beast within subdued so that man lives at peace with himself and the world because he lives at peace with God.

http://al-islam.org/al-serat/default.asp?url=IslamAndViolence.htm

2001 was the "Year of Dialogue among Civilizations"? How ironic.

Al-Serat

Islam and the Question of Violence

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seyyed Hossein Nasr
Vol. XIII, No. 2
Despite the presence of violence in many regions of the world ranging from Ireland to Lebanon to the Pacific Basin and involving many religions from Christianity to Hinduism, the Western world associates Islam more than any other religion with violence. The Muslim conquest of Spain, the Crusades - which were not begun by Muslims -, and the Ottoman domination of eastern Europe have provided a historical memory of Islam as being related to force and power. Moreover, the upheavals of the past few decades in the Middle East and especially movements using the name of Islam and seeking to solve problems of the Muslim world created by conditions and causes beyond the control of Muslims have only reinforced the idea prevalent in the West that in some special way Islam is related to violence.
To understand the nature of Islam and the truth about the assertion often made of Islam's espousal of violence. it is important to analyze this question clearly remembering that the word islam itself means peace and that the history of Islam has certainly not been witness to any more violence than one finds in other civilizations, particularly that of the West. In what follows. however, it is the Islamic religion in its principles and ideals with which we are especially concerned and not particular events or facts relating to the domain of historical contingency belonging to the unfolding of Islam in the plane of human history

First of all, it is necessary to define what we mean by violence. There are several dictionary definitions that can be taken into account such as 'swift and intense force', 'rough or injurious physical force or action', 'unjust or unwarranted exertion of force especially against the rights of others', rough or immediate vehemence' and finally 'injury resulting from the distortion of meaning or fact'. If these definitions are accepted for violence, then the question can be asked as to how Islam is related to these definitions. As far as 'force' is concerned, Islam is not completely opposed to its use but rather seeks to control it in the light of the divine Law (al-shari'a). This world is one in which force is to be found everywhere, in nature as well as in human society, among men as well as within the human soul. The goal of Islam is to establish equilibrium amidst this field of tension of various forces. The Islamic concept of justice itself is related to equilibrium, the word for justice (al-'adl) in Arabic being related in its etymology to the word for equilibrium (ta'adul). All force used under the guidance of the divine Law with the aim of re-establishing an equilibrium that is destroyed is accepted and in fact necessary, for it means to carry out and establish justice. Moreover, not to use force in such a way is to fall prey to other forces which cannot but increase disequilibrium and disorder and result in greater injustice. Whether the use of force in this manner is swift and intense or gentle and mild depends upon the circumstances, but in all cases force can only be used with the aim of establishing equilibrium and harmony and not for personal or sectarian reasons identified with the interests of a person or a particular group and not the whole.

By embracing the 'world' and not shunning the 'kingdom of Caesar', Islam took upon itself responsibility for the world in which force is present. But by virtue of the same fact it limited the use of force and despite all the wars, invasions, and attacks which it experienced. it was able to create an ambiance of peace and tranquillity which can still be felt whenever something of the traditional Islamic world survives. The peace that dominates the courtyard of a mosque or a garden whether it be in Marrakesh or Lahore is not accidental but the result of the control of force with the aim of establishing that harmony which results from equilibrium of forces, whether those forces be natural, social or psychological.

As for the meaning of violence as 'rough or injurious physical force or action', Islamic Law opposes all uses of force in this sense except in the case of war or for punishment of criminals in accordance with the shari'a. Even in war, however, the inflicting of any injury to women and children is forbidden as is the use of force against civilians. Only fighters in the field of battle must be confronted with force and it is only against them that injurious physical force can be used. Inflicting injuries outside of this context or in the punishment of criminals according to the dictum of the shari'a and the view of a judge is completely forbidden by Islamic Law.

As far as violence in the sense of the use of unjust force against the rights of others and laws is concerned, Islam stands totally opposed to it. Rights of human beings are defined by Islamic Law and are protected by this Law which embraces not only Muslims but also followers of other religions who are considered as 'People of the Book (ahl al-kitab)'. If there is nevertheless violation in Islamic society, it is due not to the teachings of Islam but the imperfection of the human recipients of the Divine Message. Man 15 man wherever he might be and no religion can neutralize completely the imperfections inherent in the nature of fallen man. What is remarkable, however, is not that some violence in this sense of the word does exist in Muslim societies, but that despite so many negative social and economic factors aggravated by the advent of colonialism, overpopulation, industrialization, modernization resulting in cultural dislocation, and so many other elements, there is less violence as unjust exertion of force against others in most Islamic countries than in the industrialized West.

If one understands by violence 'rough or immoderate vehemence'. then Islam is totally opposed to it. The perspective of Islam is based upon moderation and its morality is grounded upon the principle of avoiding extremes and keeping to the golden mean. Nothing is more alien to the Islamic perspective than vehemence, not to say immoderate vehemence. Even if force is to be used, it must be on the basis of moderation.

Finally, if by violence is meant 'distortion of meaning or fact resulting in injury to others', Islam is completely opposed to it. Islam is based on the Truth which saves and which finds its supreme expression in the testimony of the faith, la ilaha illa 'Llah (there is no divinity but the Divine). Any distortion of truth is against the basic teachings of the religion even if no one were to be affected by it. How much more would distortion resulting in injury be against the teachings of the Qur'an and the tradition of the Prophet!

In conclusion it must be emphasized that since Islam embraces the whole of life and does not distinguish between the sacred and the secular, it concerns itself with force and power which characterize this world as such. But Islam, in controlling the use of force in the direction of creating equilibrium and harmony, limits it and opposes violence as aggression to the rights of both God and His creatures as defined by the divine Law. The goal of Islam is the attainment of peace but this peace can only be experienced through that exertion (jihad) and the use of force which begins with the disciplining of ourselves and leads to living in the world in accordance with the dicta of the shar'ia. Islam seeks to enable man to live according to his theomorphic nature and not to violate that nature. Islam condones the use of force only to the extent of opposing that centripetal tendency which turns man against what he is in his inner reality. The use of force can only be condoned in the sense of undoing the violation of our own nature and the chaos which has resulted from the loss of equilibrium. But such a use of force is not in reality violence as usually understood. It is the exertion of human will and effort in the direction of conforming to the Will of God and in surrendering the human will to the divine Will. From this surrender (taslim) comes peace (salam), hence islam, and only through this islam can the violence inbred within the nature of fallen man be controlled and the beast within subdued so that man lives at peace with himself and the world because he lives at peace with God.

http://al-islam.org/al-serat/default.asp?url=IslamAndViolence.htm

http://al-islam.org/alpha.php?sid=948061381&cat=195&alpha_id=129&t=alpha

Wow thread killer or what!

I love the "first of all, it is necessary to define what we mean by violence" quote from above, sounds similar to Bill Clinton's "I did not have sexual relations with that woman".

I guess everything is relative, even violence in the name of religion.

Who cares about all of this Islamic mumbo jumbo. Take it somewhere else.

Oh dear me I just wonder why the West associates Islam with violence. Could it be the lack of Christian, Jewish, Buddhist or Hindu terrorists?

There are plenty of Peace loving Canadian Muslims who could debate here in fluent English.

They dare not because of a heavy breathing phone call from a local mosque reminding them , ** we know where your kids go to school. ** Iranian mullah influence has a long reach.

The three looong posts above are no substitute for friendly discussion and logical debate. = TG

knowislam,

You wrote,

"Man is man wherever he might be and no religion can neutralize completely the imperfections inherent in the nature of fallen man."

That is the crux of the problem isn't it? The fallen man.

The question is, how does the fallen man redeem himself?

Through works or through grace?

"Oh dear me I just wonder why the West associates Islam with violence"

I don't know. Could it be the the ultimatums with the violent threats attached made by the supposed Muslim posting on this thread, for example?

Here's a question for him: If Allah is one, with no equal - then why does he speak in the plural "We" in the Quran?

Rather than posting your rubbish, go contemplate that for a long while, then come back with an explanation.

Oh, and just to keep your irrational mind even more busy: Since the Quran claims that Mohammad was the first Muslim and the Quran is the uncreated word of allah, is it not blasphemy to claim that anybody before gentile Mo (the Jewish prophets) were Muslim? Or, does the Quran contain lies and mistakes?

Anybody know how to view Steyn on Duffy today? CTV's website is the worst in the world - you can't find anything.

Try this . . .

http://www.ctv.ca/politics

Mike Duffy video choices on the right column. = TG

It*s the third item in Thursday*s [June 5th] Duffy program here . . .

http://watch.ctv.ca/news/mike-duffy-live/friday-june-6-2008/#clip57878

= TG