When the concept of “multiculturalism” was introduced to Canadians, most assumed it meant “more pavilions at Folkfest”;
If convicted, Aqsa’s father and brother must be awarded the strictest penalty available under the law. As for the imams and clergy of Canada’s mosques, who constantly berate young women for not wearing the hijab or snub them for “violating Islam,” they need to reflect on the consequences of their sermons.
Consider, as an example, the Montreal mosque that recently posted on its Web site a warning to the effect that if young girls took off their hijab, they could end up getting raped and having “illegitimate children.” Other proferred risks included “Stresses, insecurity and suspicion in the minds of husbands” and “instigating young people to deviate towards the path of lust.”
As if the threat of rape and the fear of illegitimate children were not enough, these pre-teen girls were told that if they took off their hijab, they would cease to be Muslims: “By removing your hijab, you have destroyed your faith. Islam means submission to Allah in all our actions.” Little wonder then, that Canadian girls walk away from sports tournaments rather than remove their hijabs.
Muslims need to stand up to this sort of emotional and religious blackmail by imams who spread the competing agendas of Saudi Arabia and Iran into Canada. Young Aqsa Pervez’s death cannot be reversed. But in her memory, we can at least challenge those whose message leads to rage and madness.
Would some leftist apologist please let us know when it is OK to start seriously discussing how we can integrate/eradicate this type of barbarity into/out of our country.
Oh, and when you do so, can you please refrain from the standard moral relativism.
Not too many Christian fathers out there who strangle their daughters to death because… Well I am struggling to think of an even remotely related example. I am sure some lefy will provide one no doubt.
at least the authors recommend giving those nice but oh so rascally imams a ‘stern talking to’
Now, a publication ban on the court case. No doubt for the protection of our fragile society.
I guess we just can’t handle it.
“Outside the courtroom, the father’s lawyer said the family was “torn” by the recent events.
“You’ve got a sister that’s gone and a father and brother in jail,” said Joseph Ciraco. He said it’s likely his client will face a second degree murder charge, although that has not been finalized.
Mr. Parvez suffers from a heart condition, which dated prior to the attack, and will be seen by a doctor while in jail, Mr. Ciraco said.”
Oh, the inhumanity! This poor father has had his heart condition aggrevated by having to suffer the exertion of strangling his daughter. The spinning has begun as the muslims rally round one of their downtrodden attacked by our heartless western culture.
Careful, there! That article, though truthful and accurate, may tend to promote hatred towards an identifiable group and therefor publishers and commenters on such may find themselves next to MacLeans and Mark Steyn before various Human Rights Councils. Remember, the new standard isn’t hate speech, it is that a writing might tend to promote hatred or intolerance. And believe me, after reading those stories my tolerance for Islam and the hijab is at an all-time low.
Indeed Rat. I trust people are aware of the online petition on this matter?
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/a-free-dominion-against-the-hrcs.html
Tarek Fatah and the MCC are heroes. I just wish that the CIC would be marginalised by the MSM (too many acronyms!), because that loony-toon organisation doesn’t deserve to be legitimised by anyone.
In fact, I would compare the legitimisation of the CIC to when Ahmadinejad went to speak at the US College. I’m not at all saying that we should ignore the CIC (or Ahmadinejad), but why would we want to give anyone the perception that we think their backwards opinions count?
I think the media has blown a lot of this controrvorsy out of mind and out of sight.
I don’t beleive that the huge majority of Muslims (living in Canada) adhere to such stringent rules.
What about the whackos who belong to Opus Dei? How about the cross burners of the Southern USA? There’s religious fanatism all over the world. Those Muslims who use logic in their thinking will understand that sooner or aleter, you have to yeild to your country’s laws. And most Musilims do.
The CBC report this morning referred to the father strangling his daughter as a “family dispute”. How excellent the CBC news coverage is… nothing to see here, folks.
sarc/
I know that the same deference is shown by the CBC with regards to other religious nuts, the shooting of abortion doctors is referred to as a murder by stranger.
/sarc
Hmm, a group of “moderate” Muslims standing up and denouncing their fanatical neighbours. I fully expect The Phantom to arrive shortly to “applaud, aid and abet” the MCC. Perhaps with a generous donation of some kind.
I think our society has had enough of this trow-back superstitious absolutism. I used to say as long as these fundamentalist muzzies keep this crap to themselves ( IE; in their church and home) and out of the broader Canadian culture/society that I’m willing to leave them alone with this…but ohhhh noooo…the ritual killings and the disruptive polical lobbying and malicious law suits over this extremist mind fXXk had to be shoved down our throats.
I gotta question for the A-holes that apologize for all this radical Muzzie disruption of our society…was it worth it? Was it worth the coming social back lash and cultural animosities? Has allowing radical islam to invade our shores done one damn positive thing for this nation?
I apologise to all rational peace loving Muslims who are just trying to be good citizens of your new adopted country…my frustration is not focused at you…just the uncivil and unCanadian extremism of these radical fundamentalist mutts that use the cloak of Islam to justify intolerance, bigoted belligerence, brutality and uncivil conduct.
I want this type of person out of my country, there is no room in a civil society for uncivil people. We have to find a way to screen for this type of violent theocratic freak at the immigration office.
Before everyone thinks they have found the pot of moderate Muslim gold in the MCC, take a look at the site and read their mission statement and points of view. They are working to end “racism” in immigration (unlimited Muslim immigration?), They want to end recolonization of the third world, so they are against imperialists, (they hate America/west ) they want Canada to change its foreign policy on “palestine” (dump Israel). They say some of what we want to hear from Muslims, but no where near enough. They are proud of Islam…enough said?
MCC as a group to support? No thanks.
Once had a friend who’s dad wanted him to wear a turban and marry a Sikh girl (already chosen by parents). My friend said no way, and one day his father got so violent mother had to call the police.
Father of girl who had been picked to marry my friend got violent too, threatened to kill him.
Real story. I kid you not.
Yeah, I’ve seen and heard Tarek Fatah often enough to know that while on occasion he gets it right, on many others his positioning is diametrically opposed to mine, making him someone I’m not particularly thrilled with.
It would be nice to hear voices other than the MCC and Salim Mansur. If I see a letter in the Mississauga News condemning the murder I’ll post it, but I’m not holding my breath; one memorable one last year had a guy saying there’s no compulsion in wearing the hijab, and that it’s the same as a nun in habit.
…Hmm, a group of “moderate” Muslims standing up and denouncing their fanatical neighbours.
—Hana
…this sort of emotional and religious blackmail by imams who spread the competing agendas of Saudi Arabia and Iran into Canada.
—Muslim Canadian Congress
Why is it ok for them to do it but when we do it we are called racists, Islamophobes etc?…
I want the address of their prison, I want to send them both a bar of soap……no rope.
I want the address of their prison, I want to send them both a bar of soap……no rope.
Johnny Jesus, you make a convincing argument but I don’t entirely buy it.
To a T, every Muslim I have met in Canada has a gripe about something, rights they feel they don’t have, the behaviour of Israel, the unwillingness of Canadian society to allow them to pray when and where they want, and so on the long list goes.
I simply don’t buy this notion that the majority of Muslims want to fit in and contribute. I think it’s the minority that do, and a relatively small minority.
The rest of them range from constant complainers, to nuts like this girl’s father, to others who are very smooth and slick, pretending to fit in but ultimately trying to advance their Muslim agenda (there are lots in that third category).
The Koran basically says it: if you are not a Muslim you are dirt.
BL@KBIRD . I must check out the MCC site. I was all excited that they had sided with Macleans in this jackboot justice case. Good cop, bad cop?
One thing that people like Hana probably don’t understand is this: eschewing violence does not mean you’re moderate. If you want Canadian liberal democracy replaced by sharia law the slow non-violent way (the Muslim Brotherhood PROJECT being displayed before our very eyes) that is obviously NOT moderate. That is sedition.
So they use the “racism” meme do they — to take all controls off our sieve of a border? And “free Palestine” eh? [read: kill all the Joooos].
Thanks for the heads up. I’ll go there soon and exercise my taqiyya filter!
Friend of USA…it’s the same as blacks being permitted to refer to one another as “niggas”, but no one else can. Another case of “minorities can’t be racist”…another example of the convoluted and illogical thinking of emotional lefties.
A white person cannot “speak truth to power” when it involves someone who is not white.
I, for one, am glad to see the word “extremist” being used to describe not just those Muslims who brandish weapons and blow up buses, but also those who desire, adhere to and promote sharia law even in private.
Leftist elites will continue to support and promote Islam because they view it as an ally in their goal of erasing Canada’s Christian heritage.
This was on CTV’s site:
United Muslim Women of Canada’s Anisa Ali said the public shouldn’t assume that honour killings only happen in the Muslim community.
“It’s not an Islamic practice,” Ali told CTV’s Canada AM on Wednesday. “There’s nowhere in the Quran where it talks about honour killings. It’s more of a cultural phenomenon.”
She said honour killings are not limited to Islamic countries like Pakistan, Jordan, Syria and Afghanistan.
“There’s Latin American countries, it has taken place in Germany, in Britain,” she said. “A lot of it is under the guise of family honour or religious values.”
The last bit is laughable – it happens in Germany and in Britain. Hmmm, was it poor old “Hilda” and “Elizabeth” that were victims of honour killings in Germany and Britain? I would venture a guess that it was not.
Two Words…Latimer him
Richard —
I agree that some secularists want to erase all evidence of Christian influence in the founding and continuance of our glorious nation, but I have a hard time believing they are so blind as to the ends and ideals of Islam as to replace our “heritage” with a religious ideology that has no provision whatsoever for the separation of mosque and state.
@mark peters at December 12, 2007 12:12 PM
How can Sharia law be considered “extremist” when it is integral to the practice of Islam?
Someone should start a complaint and crime index based on the immigrants country of origin and religion. For example, I rarely here the Asian community whining about how terrible Canada and Canadians are to them. When thy did (the head tax) it was understandable.
The MCC, the CIC and that girl’s father all share the same foundationally violent, imperialist and supremacist ideology as expressed in their Quran, Hadith and Sira.
Anybody who claims that a man who was an extreme pervert, pedophile, thief and mass-murderer as a prophet of God – actually, ‘the seal of the prophets’- the founder of their faith and the ‘perfect man’ to emulate has an obvious problem. Everybody else should have a rational problem with people who claim such a perverse thing as well. Certainly with people who emulate the monster.
Moderate Muslims overlook and/or sanitize the character, actions and words of their prophet. I suppose that’s better than emulating the bastard. However, the elephant is still in the Mosque.
CBC, in their attempt to downplay what this crime says about Islam in particular and multiculturalism in general, didn’t mention the words Muslim, Islam or honour killing in their reports. Canadians will have to look to every other news source in the world to get the truth.
The mid and far left doesn’t fear Islam because they refuse to know it, they view the poor brown people who follow it as no match for their giant western leftist brains that contains the rules they constructed for a socialist Utopia. The left think they will use the Muslims to weaken their opposition and then discard the “little brown people ” when appropriate. Islam favors useful idiots like the left and then devours them.
Somewhat related:
Kathy has waded in over at Damian Penny’s and is landing haymakers. I love this beaut:
“Oh dear, now it’s the “not ALL xyz” rhetorical gasp. Yes, sweetie, and Paul Revere rode through Boston shouting “SOME of the British are coming!”
Ah, now THIS is more like it! Muslim Canadian Congress raisin’ some hell with the Imams. Way to go boys and girls, keep it up!
Friend of USA: Why is it ok for them to do it but when we do it we are called racists, Islamophobes etc?
For starters, when the MCC (and its allies) criticize the fanatics and extremists, they use specific phrases like “imam” and “radical Muslim men” and “extremism,” and not catch-all phrases like “Muslims” and “lslam.” Not only can they distinguish between the moderate Muslim majority and the violence lunatics, they actually do distinguish between them.
Relatedly, you’ll note that in the National Post article from which you quoted, Mr. Fatah and Ms. Hassan are not taking issue with the hijab itself, but with those within the Muslim community (i.e., hardline imams and the fundamentalist followers) who would force–by threat or by violence–Muslim women to wear it. Here again is the ability the distinguish between a benign aspect of Islam (women who freely–in every sense of the word–choose to wear a religious garment) and a detestable aspect of radical Islam (men who use the hijab as a tool of patriarchal dominance, oppression, and control). You can see how referring flippantly to a hijab as, say, a “Darth Vader outfit” would be hugely offensive to those former women who wear it out of choice, who may be peaceful, law-abiding, non-oppressed, etc., and who have done nothing to earn this insult to their faith (not that you ever said such a thing).
There are muslim writers that write to the editorial section of my local paper always saying they are so into Canadian culture, I dont think freedom is one of those things they are into.
If you would like to send your sympathies to this little girl, or to show your disgust to the father who slaughtered her, you can.
Here is the address.
Muhhammed Parvez
2445 Homelands
Mississauga, ON L5K 2C6
(905) 823-3002
“Radical Muslim men consider themselves ultimately responsible for the conduct of the womenfolk.”
Perhaps Tarek Fatah and Farzana Hassan aren’t noticing or prepared to admit that contol of females is a mainstream attitude in their culture. I defy them to demonstrate it isn’t.
They only thing that could reform Islam is if you ripped half of the pages out of the Koran.
This is the type of behaviour that we have sent our soldiers to Afghanistan to stop. Over there, we deal with such fanatics with lethal force. Too bad we don’t do the same here.
If this infantacide was not within a “special” group feminists would be up in arms saying that forcing any female to dress in a certain fashion is harassment and coercion used to suppress and destroy a female’s will such that she will more easily accept her role of chattel for men. In this case the disingenuous feminists will either say nothing or say that it has nothing to do with religion. But we who have trod the path of life know that if it smells like a road apple and it tastes like a road apple and it makes the roses grow pretty it is a road apple.
Yes, where are the feminists who will gather each year to light candles and march for Aqsa Pervez, demanding both media and governmnet action?
Hey, Hana, Tarek Fatah and Farzana Hassan are hardly a group, neither of them are even suggesting that the Muslim Canadian Congress endorses their statements, get real.
And, Hana, in Saudi Arabia and the more conservative Muslim places women are trapped in their shame outfits. Give us a break. It’s hard to find a nun nowdays that wears a habit. It doesn’t make them any less religious either. You really aren’t getting the hijab in it’s true context.
Most of Islam is radical, Hana. Perhaps you need to visit the Koran. Your tolerance of a religion of intolerance isn’t a virtue, more like misinformed.
Penny: They only thing that could reform Islam is if you ripped half of the pages out of the Koran.
The problem is not the text, it’s in how the text is interpreted by some. Not all–some.
neither of them are even suggesting that the Muslim Canadian Congress endorses their statements, get real.
Their National Post piece appears on the front page of the MCC website. Also, their membership in the MCC is stated clearly at the end of the article.
Richard — How can Sharia law be considered “extremist” when it is integral to the practice of Islam?
Your question assumes the answer to a more important question, one that is being asked the world over of people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Robert Spencer and Ibn Warraq, which is: Is sharia integral to Islam, or can Islam be reformed?
The answer to that question will determine if Islam can be just a religion and therefore co-exist with Western values, such as democracy, or not, which implies it must exist as a socio-political ideology that governs all aspects of Muslim life, including the state.
There are proponents for both positions, and their respective positions depend entirely on how they perceive Islam. One assumes from your question that you fall into the Hirsi Ali camp, which considers Islam and sharia inseparable, meaning Islam itself is extreme and to reform it is to be left with something that isn’t Islam.
If Hirsi Ali is correct, and she does make a strong case, then we must conclude that Islam itself is extreme.
In the meantime, it is beneficial that liberals are starting to wake up to the extremism that is sharia. That’s the first encouraging step and that’s my point. How meaningful are its ties to Islam as a whole is the next stage of understanding what we are welcoming into Canada with open arms.
Baby steps, bro.
Hana, I was wondering:
1. Do you strongly and unequivocally condemn Hamas?
2. Do you strongly and unequivocally condemn the Muslim Brotherhood?
3. Do you favour the EU and UN’s attempt to criminalize criticism of Islam?
4. Do you strongly condemn even non-violent efforts to introduce sharia law into Canada gradually?
5. Were you against the introduction of sharia for arbitration purposes in Ontario courts.
6. Do you think the complaint to HRC against Macleans and Mark Steyn have any merit?
7. Do you understand terms like taqiyya and kitman?
Usually, when an woman is killed in an act of “domestic violence” (i.e. by a male member of her family) the women’s groups (you know whom I’m talking about) issue statements denouncing the murder, demanding government and societal action, etc. etc.
Isn’t it strange how they’re keeping quiet about this? Or have I missed something?
It is not enough for feminists to just do something useless such as lighting candles. When Marc Lapine a.k.a. Gamil Gharbi slaughtered innocent female students because “they” had no right to take a male’s place in a school just because they had higher marks, the feminists morphed the situation into “white Christians males oppress and murder women.” Gamil Gharbi’s religious background was very deliberately ignored. If it was brought up it was smacked down as using the trump islamophobia and racism cards. One almost gets the impression feminists would distort the truth to get one more government paid trip to a conference on how to light candles for murdered women.
My Islamophobia meter just exploded.
Silence — or I’ll keeeeeeeellllll you !
Hana, give up the sum not all meme, that’s a fake out. Over 50% of the Hadith deals with the violent treatment of infidels. Over 93% of references to jihad clearly refer to physical war against infidels, not a spiritual struggle. Mohammed the Monster is the perfect model of humanity, to be emulated. And he was a monster not just retroactively. He was a monster THEN.
You can’t reform this. You can only tear it up and start a different religion.
Until Islam comes to see that the Koran (which was assembled decades after Mo’s death, from bits of rock, stick, leaves, dung, etc.) IS NOT THE DIRECT WORD OF ALLAH but rather composed by a man for other men (generic sense)in a historical context which no longer applies — forgeddaboutit.
And none of the 4 schools of Islamic jurisprudence are saying anything even remotely along these lines.
As I mentioned on another thread a while ago: If reformed, Islam would be Waslam.
It is a mistake to condemn ALL Muslims and ALL Islam because SOME are extremists.
As Hana has pointed out, the MCC website features the article by Tarek Fatah and Farzana Hassan.
Check out the Mission Statement of the MCC, which specifically states that their guiding principles are the Canadian Charter of Rights and the Canadian Constitution “as our guiding principles”. It states that they want “the separation of religion and state in all matters of public policy”; that they “look to the future and not the past”.
This organization represents a group of Muslims who are attempting to reject the hardline Wahhabi Islam – which is really not that old, but is a fundamentalist sect that grew in the 19th c – and move Islam and Muslims into reform and modernization.
We should be encouraging this development, rather than painting ‘any and all Muslims’ as irredemmable fanatics.
The problem with the Koran, is not the text, but, as Hana points out, its interpretation. As I’ve pointed out on this blog before, there ARE Muslim scholars who are publishing papers that open the texts to different interpretations.
I think that Islam has to be encouraged and allowed to reform. It has to reform; that goes without saying, for it is supporting a social, economic and political mode of life that can ooperate only in a 7th century peasant economy.
We, on our part, have to reject, totally, multiculturalism. We have to reform our tactics of dealing with immigrants. The Liberal ideology was to isolate them within homogeneous ‘blocs’, which rapidly became political mini-nations, glued to be replications of their former culture, and ruled by authoritarian leaders who kept their membership high and suppressed, to ensure greater funding from the provincial and federal govts.
So, the blanket condemnation of ‘all things Muslim’ by some won’t solve anything. Neither will the relativist acceptance of ‘any and all types of cultural behaviour’.
“it’s in how the text is interpreted”….
Thanks for lobbing the softball, Hana. Tell me how I’d misinterpret a book instructing it’s followers to kill the infidels?
Remember, with respect to religion, in particular Islam, there’s a big difference between kneeling down and bending over.
kate:
Suggest you combine the two threads…?