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.
C’mon ET: No one here is condemning ALL Muslims. That’s a straw-man intellectually dishonest argument which frankly I didn’t expect you to make.
I’m pleased that the MCC is siding with Macleans, but I don’t find the following all that comforting:
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”.
The bolded phrases would need to be explored in depth. Taqiyya, ET, taqiyya, never forget taqiyya.
Does the MCC condemn strongly and unequivocally such organizations as Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood? Do they condemn suicide bombings against Jews in Israel? If not, I will NOT consider them “moderate” no matter what pretty rhetoric they put up. Just asking, I haven’t researched them enough to have made a determination. However, ET, I certainly don’t trust you to make this determination, for reasons discussed elsewhere: your lack of street-smarts in this matter and your admitted anti-Zionism which to me usually sounds like the new antisemitism — antisemitism for polite company.
BUT, there is a Muslim group in the US that does exactly this: it names names, and clearly condemns groups like Hamas, etc.
American Islamic Forum for Democracy
Islamists: “misinterpreting” the Koran consistently since 750 AD.
RFLMAO
I keep hearing this crap, “it’s not the texts, it’s the interpretation.” This is rubbish. The Quran, Hadith and Sira are quite clear about Islam. If one wants to sanitize what these texts actually say, then I suppose they will.
The Quran requires the Hadith (actions and sayings of Mo) and Sira (Bio of Mo) for context. Otherwise it has none and makes no sense at all. The five Islamic pillars are not even explained in the Quran. Islam depends on the triology, not just the Quran.
Muslims are required, in fact commanded to behave exactly like Mohammad. Mohammad was a rapist, a pedophile and a mass-murdering thief. Understanding his behaviour is not dependent on “interpretation.” It is in their books for all to see clearly.
Now, is this acceptable to us? Is this rational? Is this so-called prophet’s actions and words not foundational to Islam and therefore all Muslims?
me no dhimmi
Yes, I’m aware of the Shi’ite belief in taqiyyah.
I don’t think that’s the issue here.
As for your phrases in bold, where the MSS states that they take the Canadian Charter and Constitution as “our guiding principles” – well, I don’t know what more you want declared on that issue.
I can certainly understand and agree that specific case examples that affirm this, would be helpful. But you wouldn’t find that in a Mission Statement. And I can further understand this, because as I and others have pointed out, that Charter is deeply flawed and promotes contradictory agendas: individual freedom as well as group authority.
Equally, the separation of church and state “in all matters of public policy” – again, what more do you want declared? It surely can’t be ‘private policies’.
I find your declaration that because I am against zionism, I am anti-semitic, offensive. It is a profound error to equate the two. I simply don’t accept the linking of a specific religion with a political entity (a nation).
Furthermore, requiring adherence to all the points that you outline as ‘good ways to behave if you are a moderate Muslim’ really shouldn’t be the criterion for defining that person.
Check out the articles on the MCC website to see the diversity and openness of opinions, the rejection of extremism, their anger at the radical imams and their culture of intimidation, and their attempt to come to grips with the necessity for change.
CTV is running a bit on this. One brother was interviewed and says he is sad to see his father in court. He is also sad that his sister has ‘passed on’. CTV has announced that since they really don’t know what happened they are going to stay away from the hijab issue. The BS is flowing fast and furious.
Kate,
Your hatred for people who think differently than you is legendary, and sad. I’ll give you this, though – you don’t strangle people over your disagreements. It’s clear how much you’d like to, but your restraint is admirable and almost even humanizing.
To Ms. Hana, “the problem is not in the text, it’s in how the text is interpreted by some. Not all–some.” The problem with this kind of thinking
is that it does’t come to grips with numbers that add up to the–some. As Mr. Lewis has said somewhere in the vicinity of 3 to 4% of 1.25 billion members of the Muslim faith.You do the math Hana and get back to us with your interpretation.
ET
Did we both look at the same website?
But your wanting the Jews and Israel humbled before the lands “rightful” owners has poisoned your vision has it not?
How many ways can you interpret “kill the unbeliever” “destroy the Jews”, “make the dhimmie show humiliation”? It’s not how Imams interpret the texts, it’s whether they preach to act on the exhortations of Islam or not. I’m beginning to think your a taqiyya artist ET…;)
Do you just pretend to be ignorant of Islam?
Islam is not simply a religion, first and foremost, it is a political system. Therefore, criticism of Islam is political criticism.
Criticism of Islamic doctrine can and should be done. Anybody who cries racism or islamophobia based on this is a moron.
“Your hatred for people who think differently than you is legendary.”
This particular leftard is worse than a moron, if that’s possible while still having the ability to survive.
From Citizen Warrior:
“Where it gets tricky is immigration laws. There has to be some selection. If you have a Muslim applying for immigration, what do you do? The person himself may not be in favor of following the violent instructions in the Qur’an, but how do we know? Because he is a Muslim, and because the Qur’an contains political goals and ideas, he is more likely to be subversive and ascribe to doctrines that we would consider treasonous than the average applicant.”
Did we allow hordes of Communists to immigrate here during the cold war? And I might add that their political ideology was shared by well over a billion people as well
CTV has announced that since they really don’t know what happened they are going to stay away from the hijab issue.
What a cop out when her hijab, or lack of one rather, was the central issue. Dad murdered her because she shamed the macho cult whose permissions to authoritatively control, shame punish, beat, mame and murder the female members of their household are granted to them by the Koran and sharia laws.
This is shocking in a western country with controls in place, but, imagine the real scope of this behavior throughout the Muslim world. You can bet in rural, tribal areas it’s not reported at all.
Today’s pc journo-sheeple are just at a moral and intellectual loss in reporting stories like this. Historic events have been overtaking them for years.
No way devout person of any religion murders his daughter – that is a fraudulent representation that is an insult to millions of Muslims who obey the law (though their political culture may not match your own), as well as other religions.
Right now the hijab issue falls under motive aspect of crime. What he allegedly did was wrong under any circumstances. Don’t expect Muslims to shout from the rooftops, any more than Christians did for idiot who shot abortion doctor.
Not right, not wrong, just the way it is.
Father in Canada murders daughter because she did not wear correct religious clothes.
CTV Newsnet’s take ?
A ‘family dispute’. Motive unknown.
Canadian Women Groups ?? …… crickets…
“71% Pak males justify beating women.”
Lahore, Dec 11: A recent survey on violence against women in Pakistan has found that 71 per cent males consider slapping and beating women as justifiable.
According to the survey, 80 per cent of women are victims of domestic violence in society.
Addressing a seminar on the occasion of the International Human Rights Day at the Punjab Law College (PLC) here, participants said that sustained and collective efforts were needed to end domestic violence in Pakistan.
“Islam and the country’s legislation give equal rights to women. The only need is to implement Islamic rules and legislation, and create awareness in the society about women’s rights.”
——————-
Right. Implementing even more Islamic rules and sharia will make it better.
Now, here’s the question to the multiculti officials of immigration: On what factual basis do you believe that the Islamic immigrant will behave civilly in accordance with our constitution, laws and culture?
Mississauga Matt: Yes, where are the feminists who will gather each year to light candles and march for Aqsa Pervez, demanding both media and governmnet action?
Why aren’t you on the street, leading a candlelight vigil of your own?
***
Me No Dhimmi: Hana, I was wondering:
1. Do you strongly and unequivocally condemn Hamas? Based on their current policies and practises, yes.
2. Do you strongly and unequivocally condemn the Muslim Brotherhood? Based on their current policies and practises, yes.
3. Do you favour the EU and UN’s attempt to criminalize criticism of Islam? Depends on the specific nature and manifestation of the criticism. Verbal criticisms? OK by me. Vandalizing mosques? Clearly a criminal act.
4. Do you strongly condemn even non-violent efforts to introduce sharia law into Canada gradually? Yes.
5. Were you against the introduction of sharia for arbitration purposes in Ontario courts. Yes.
6. Do you think the complaint to HRC against Macleans and Mark Steyn have any merit? No.
7. Do you understand terms like taqiyya and kitman? Yes. And you’re using them differently than their original intent, which was that it was acceptable to hide one’s faith if under extreme duress (i.e., you’ll be killed if you admit your faith). The Jewish religion has a similar concept, because the Jews were historically persecuted too. Practising deception to save one’s skin is not only acceptable, it’s entirely rational.
Taqiyya, ET, taqiyya, never forget taqiyya.
Be careful, MND. There’s a difference between critical reading and conspiracy-mongering. By claiming that any Muslim utterance is potentially and “merely” taqiyya, you risk closing your mind off to any possibility for reason. It can also slide towards paranoia.
No one here is condemning ALL Muslims.
Not in so many words, perhaps. But when you state that “You can’t reform [Islam]. You can only tear it up and start a different religion,” you are effectively implying that Muslims can’t be Muslim without also being violent jihadists. Many of your fellow Canadians (not to mention members of the AIFD) would take issue with that. They would say, “Nonsense. I am a practising Muslim, and I see no need to ‘start a different religion.’ My interpretation of Islam is valid; it’s the interpretation of Islam by the violent fanatics that you–and we–should be condemning.”
You brought up the AIFD as a model organization. What would you say to them about the need to abolish Islam, MND?
The UN reports that there are some 5,000 Honour killings of women by men in their famililes in the world each year. I guess one in Canada represents our fair share based on our Islamic population in Canada.
Penny, I share your fustrations. You can scream from the rooftops, but the MSM will always give that murderous death cult the benifit of the doubt.
I wonder if “dear old dad” shouted “Alahu Akbar” as his daughter’s last breath of air was taken by his own hands. May God Bless and keep her soul and may God damn her cowardly father to an eternity of suffering in Hell.
The silence of the so-called “moderate Muslim” community coupled with a complacent MSM is tantamount to jihad by proxy.
So, what does a Pakistani Muslim woman think?
“Gina Khan on Breaking the Silence”
By Ophelia Benson
Last February an article by Mary Ann Sieghart in the Times (London) introduced us to Gina Khan: ‘a very brave woman. Born in Birmingham 38 years ago to Pakistani parents, she has run away from an arranged marriage, dressed herself in jeans and dared to speak out against the increasing radicalisation of her community.’ Here she tells us more and brings us up to date on her campaign.
What prompted you to start speaking out?
I had been doing my own research for a few years. After all, being a British Asian woman from a Pakistani ethnic background, a Muslim, the atrocities commited in the name of Islam effected me profoundly. Being a Pakistani had its own stigmas – being female meant being treated as sub-human in relation to the Muslim man. I can see how the ideology works – half the ideology is about oppressing Muslim women. That’s evident when you note that the first thing Islamists do is reverse the rights and freedom of Muslim women, when they do manage to create an Islamic state, as in Afganistan or Iran. I wasn’t going to participate in my own oppression!
butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=287
ET: “guiding principles”, er, well, you know Bill Clinton’s slavish following of “The Ten Suggestions”. Meaningless. And besides, one of those documents, the Charter, you’ve already torn to shreds, very skilfully, thank you very much.
No, ET, those phrases are boiler plate; they really mean absolutely nothing. “Public policy” is way way too vague. Why even insert that phrase? There’s an out there, most likely. Why not just say we are 100% behind the Canadian constituion and Charter, end of sentence. Why qualify it with weasel words like “in matters of public policy”. Maybe there’s lots of stuff they don’t consider legitimate matters of public policy. Get my drift? You know like it’s wrong to kill innocent civilians (but the Kafir aren’t innocent). And, remember Elmasry (sp?) who considered all Israelis fair game for mass murder because, you see, all will be or were soldiers at one time — conscription — so you see, it’s OK to kill them in buses and pizza joints.
Again this is what I’d ask these a**holes: Do you unequivocally condemn such groups as Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic Jihad, etc. Do you condemn the suicide bombing mass murder of Jews in Israel, Argentina, wherever? Anyone having a problem answering in the affirmative, I’ll not consider moderate and I’ll be on guard, all that pretty rhetoric notwithstanding. There’s no moderate mass murder — even of Joooos.
And as to “mission statements”, well they’re usually just vanity documents. On the commercial side, for example, how many of them say “we want to make as much money as possible legally and ethically”?. None. All bumpf, boilerplate, signifying nothing.
Metaphorically, I’m from Missouri: Show me!
Hanna,
You are wrong, as expected.
‘Taqiyya’ is of deliberate dissimulation about religious matters that may be undertaken to protect Islam, and the Believers.
An example of “Taqiyya” would be the insistence of a Muslim apologist that “of course” there is freedom of conscience in Islam, and then quoting that Qur’anic verse — “There shall be no compulsion in religion.” But the impression given will be false, for there has been no mention of the Muslim doctrine of abrogation, or naskh, whereby such an early verse as that about “no compulsion in religion” has been cancelled out by later, far more intolerant and malevolent verses.
‘Kitman’ is the practice of consciously only telling part of the truth. For example, the tired canard that jihad means spiritual struggle’ was only introduced as a concept in the last hundred years or so. They leave out the part that that’s not what it says in the Quran, Hadith or Sira.
A girl is dead, murdered by her own father. Why? Don’t we want to find out why? Shouldn’t we find out and discuss the “why” as a society and take action to ensure the “why” is neutralized and may never again cause anyone any harm? It’s the right thing to do, no matter what the politically correct extremists may claim.
The Left, we can predict with virtually 100% confidence, will not seize upon this tragedy to highlight the reality of how Islam and Islamists can and do influence Muslims (many, not all, of course) to think and behave in certain ways, including potentially the commission of violence causing grievous bodily injury or death. The Left “doesn’t want to go there”. But we DO NEED to “go there”.
The Left, including the MSM, prefers to ignore the underlying issue which needs to be adressed by society and the state apparatus. They won’t try to raise public awareness of the truth, which is that, in a nutshell, Islamic fundamentalism caused the death of this girl.
The Left would rather continue to wage their hateful war against JudeoChristianity than admit that Islamism is something that actually threatens them and needs to be neutralized in terms of its undeniable potential harm causation.
blackbird – I don’t know what you are talking about by your statement that I am “wanting the Jews and Israel humbled before the lands “rightful” owners has poisoned your vision has it not”. Sorry- but I have no idea what your sentence means.
No, I’m not ignorant of Islam, its history, its texts. Quite the opposite. In my analysis, as I’ve said on this blog before, Islam emerged as a sociopolitical reaction to the emergence and spread of settled agriculturalism in the ME. And Christianity emerged as part of this new economy of settled agriculturalism – which in turn was enabled by the spread of the Roman city infrastructure of roads, irrigation, civil law.
Christianity is obviously an ideology encouraging, not tribalism, but a collaborative economy, a collaborative society (love thy neighbour). When you have a population settling permanently, and thus enlarging its population base, you can’t be in constant war. You must develop market connections, and, a society and culture based, not on tribal kin bonds, but on the market. That’s Christianity.
Islam, if you read the texts, is obviously a development within a very different economy, based not around settlements but on a migratory economy (pastoral nomadism) which requires holding onto large tracts of often-vacant land. This economy was being threatened by the expanding market settlements – and Islam, as a warrior political and social ideology, rooted in the ideology of the tribe and loyalty to the hereditary tribe, was the result.
What to do? Since the political and economic mode has changed from the 7th century, the interpretation of these texts must change. There are quite a few Muslim scholars who are doing this right now.
Irwin daisy – you state that no change is possible. I’d like to ask you then, what is your solution to the reality of Islam in this world, since you posit that they are, basically, an evil and monstrous people (who must behave as Mohammed) and cannot change. What’s your solution? You seem to be focusing on abolishing Islam, since according to you, it cannot be reformed. How would you do that?
I also hope that you aren’t going to state something as simplistic as ‘keep them out of Canada’. That’s naive. We don’t live in the 17th c; the world is networked and people travel and move from country to country.
Islam has to reform; there are many Muslims who acknowledge that. At the same time, there are powerful extremists who are fighting to retain control of their population – political control -and are doing this by fear and intimidation.
On our side (ie, we who are non-Muslims) I think that we have to articulate our support for those Muslims who are promoting reform and we have to end multiculturalism. As I keep repeating, multiculturalism actually enables the extremists to control the people. It does this by enabling isolation, by enabling adherence to ‘Original Beliefs and Behaviour’, and providing funding to the authoritarian leaders of these Identity Groups. We must end our actions that put immigrants under the control of these Authoritarian Leaders.
For what it is worth,
Here on CFCF-12 Montreal, today on the news at noon they said the father killed his daughter because she would not wear the hijab.
I was pleasantly surprised by their courage and honesty.
Thanks Hana. No answers. You’re good to go with Hamas, then, eh? You know about the Muslim Brotherhood, and you’re telling me “The Project” is a conspiracy theory, then are you?
And please don’t finger-wag me with “not everything is taqiyya” — that’s another fake-out like “not all muslims are____”. I’ve been around, I’m a successful businessman. I’ve got a very good bullshit radar which I refined as a matter of making a living — or not.
Somewhere above I posted a link to a Muslim group in the US, which IS moderate. They name names, they reject Hamas and other groups, they reject Islamofacism — yeah, Hana, they use the term — bigots eh.
Based on the above comments, it would appear that there is a higher percentage of narrow minded people using this site than there are under the banner of Islam. By any traditional definition (meaning according to the majority of reputable Muslim scholars), Islam proper discourages narrow mindedness, and actively promotes the expansion of one’s mind. Unfortunately, there appears to be a rising tide of misinformed bigots in both the west and the east, and this is resulting in more violence and insecurity in general. To those who are truly interested in rising above the level of misinformation and yellow journalism and learning more about Islam from proper authorities, I highly recommend “The Heart of Islam” by Seyyed Hossein Nasr as a starting point. And yes, of course the man who killed his daughter over the hijab is a narrow minded and violent being who unfortunately for both his daughter and himself, resides far from the Heart of Islam.
Based on the above comments, it would appear that there is a higher percentage of narrow minded people using this site than there are under the banner of Islam. By any traditional definition (meaning according to the majority of reputable Muslim scholars), Islam proper discourages narrow mindedness, and actively promotes the expansion of one’s mind. Unfortunately, there appears to be a rising tide of misinformed bigots in both the west and the east, and this is resulting in more violence and insecurity in general. To those who are truly interested in rising above the level of misinformation and yellow journalism and learning more about Islam from proper authorities, I highly recommend “The Heart of Islam” by Seyyed Hossein Nasr as a starting point. And yes, of course the man who killed his daughter over the hijab is a narrow minded and violent being who unfortunately for both his daughter and himself, resides far from the Heart of Islam.
but, me no dhimmi, if the MCC mission statement says ‘public policy’ I don’t read this to mean ‘Only What We Mean By Public Policy’. If it’s public, then, it refers to all. So your examples of killing people – are defined as murder, because our public policy is against killing people.
You reject their mission statement because you state that all mission statements are empty. So, you don’t allow them, as a group, to have any agenda, any validity, do you? Because YOU state that a public statement of their agenda is ‘meaningless’. Where does that leave them?
I pointed you to their list of articles, which articulate further their mindset. Are you going to reject these as without meaning as well?
Again, we have to encourage and support the moderate reformists in Islam. We have to stop multiculturalism, stop funding these ‘separatist groups’ and their isolationist agendas. We have to stop the cultural relativism taught in schools such that everyone is afraid to critique and examine cultural beliefs and behaviour – and young people are thereby trapped within their own cultures.
“it would appear that there is a higher percentage of narrow minded people using this site than there are under the banner of Islam.”
Perhaps (but unlikely). But the difference being is we don’t kill our daughters nor do we sit idly by while nutcases cut off peoples heads and demean their women to the level of animals so as to not rock the boat.
Nice try, but there’s no sense in putting lipstick on a pig.
The whole point of this debate, as I see it, is the silence in the complacency that “Not all Muslims are _________” is DEAFENING.
We have been informed that a father killed his daughter because she would not wear the hijab, dander.
And we are repulsed by that.
That would make me( I can only speak for myself on this)an INFORMED decidedly upset Canadian.
Does hating murder make me a bigot?
ET: I’m thrilled that the MCC has sided with Macleans/Steyn.
I hadn’t meant to suggest that I had already made up my mind — just referred to some of the language which in and of itself didn’t impress me.
Here’s a group that looks robustly moderate:
The American Islamic Forum for Democracy
I have a couple of questions on this:
Question 1: As a few have pointed out. Where are the Feminists on this one? Maybe it just doesn’t bother them so much because white males aren’t involved.
Question 2: Does any on think that Aqsa Parvez’s father will spend the same amount of time in jail as Tracy Latimer’s father has.
“Eskimo”:
You are either being truly naive or deliberately misleading. People claiming to be secularists, as well as so-called “Judaeo-Christians” have all killed their daughters and committed much worse crimes over issues as equally petty as defying one’s father over the hijab. Read the history of the 20th century. While some rabid so-called “fundamentalists” (so-called because such people have nothing to do with the fundamentals of Islam) are cutting off heads and blowing up innocents because of their misguided interpretations of religion, much more enormous crimes have been and are being committed in the name of “liberal democracy”, communism, Christianity, etc. This does not make all of these people evil or everything they believe in wrong (although I take issue with secular humanists on many levels, and certainly communism has proven to be a grave and tragic error). The whole point is, Islam is not the problem. Narrow-mindedness, lack of true learning, ignorance such as have been displayed in some of the bigoted comments on this site: these are a truly disastrous problem – whether someone is claiming to speak on behalf of liberal democracy, Judeo-Christian heritage, or Islam.
As for anonion’s comment, I am not saying that people are misinformed about the facts of this particular case; I am saying that many people commenting here appear to be very badly informed regarding Islam, and in fact are expressing extremely bigoted (meaning narrow minded and unlearned) opinions. Of course, this man who killed his daughter is a beast. My whole point is, he is very far from being a true practicing Muslim. And, for the record, I am not a Muslim, although I have tried to educate myself on the religion to the extent possible. I suppose I am trying to be a good Christian (although most of the time I fail).
I find myself with ET on this.
We cannot “ban Islam”. Any more than we can “ban Buddhism” or “ban Christianity”.
If we push for extreme solutions such as bans and mass deportation, etc, we will foster societal division and future conflict. These things are not going to happen, and we can moan about stupid refugee and immigration policy of the past, but we cannot reverse those mistakes. We can only move forward.
If we espouse extreme solutions, we will give the “reasonable muslims”, however you want to define this, no choice but the arms of the extremists.
Look, no child is born extremist. They are a “tabula rasa” upon which their parents and their society writes. As with all immigrant waves, our hope is the next generation. Our hope is people like this poor murdered girl, who choose freedom and choice over rigidity and Darth Vader outfits. Given a choice, they will choose the Western way 99% of the time, and we will get what we want.
The solution, I believe, is to weaken the hands of the extremists by denying them a place, denying them money, denying them an organized voice, denying Saudi and other foreign money a place here, denying hateful imams a place to preach. We must discourage self – segregation into ethnic enclave. We must discourage religious schooling (but give a decent alternative), we must permit public criticism and not let the extremist hide behind human rights comission complaints.
“deport them all” is no solution, and those crying this will only prove that they are not going to be part of the solution. Our rallying cry needs to be
“co-opt them all”.
And, by the way… have you signed the Steyn / Macleans / HRC petition yet?
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/a-free-dominion-against-the-hrcs/signatures.html
If you want this to be taken seriously, we need thousands of signatures!
Kate, is it a good idea to give the petition a permanent link (for now) on your front page and keep reminding people to sign it? I think the way this issue turns out will make make a huge difference in what kind of discourse we are able to have in the future.
ET
For all your academic bafflegab, nothing you said revealed you know anything about Islam. Your fanciful creation theory of Islam has nothing to do with reality anymore than there was grazing lands in the Arabian desert. You once stated it was created in reaction to Christian agrarian pressure and incursions on Muslim land…total horse manure but a nice cut at the evil Christian Imperialists who forced Muhammed to invent his death cult to defend the gentle Arabs against the evil west. None of which happened.
It’s like you only have one template for human behavior and apply it to everything. Half the time you get things right, it’s the other half where you spread disinformation that upsets me. Please do take a weekend and read the Qu’ran, hadith, sunna etc. and actually learn about Islam.
You are deceiving people with your half truths.
Don’t like the title of antisemite? Perhaps you will identify the Zionists you don’t like. Who are they, where do they live, who are their leaders and what are their intentions? (is it true they feed off the innocent blood of Islam?). Are they just radicals who have hijacked the Jewish religion like our moderate Muslim friends like to say about Islam? Tell me about these Zionists under our beds ET, are they not Jews?
Me No Dhimmi: Thanks Hana. No answers. You’re good to go with Hamas, then, eh? You know about the Muslim Brotherhood, and you’re telling me “The Project” is a conspiracy theory, then are you?
“No answers”? Did you even read my post at 4:03 PM? You asked me whether I “strongly and unequivocally condemn” (a) Hamas and (b) the Muslim Brotherhood. Both times I replied that, “based on their current policies and practises, yes.” Please don’t put words in my mouth to the effect that I somehow support Hamas or the MB.
Somewhere above I posted a link to a Muslim group in the US, which IS moderate.
So you admit that a moderate Muslim organization can exist. So how do you reconcile that with your earlier statement that “You can’t reform [Islam]. You can only tear it up and start a different religion.” Since I went to the trouble to answer your questions, I trust you’ll find the decency to answer mine.
Better yet, why don’t you email that callous statement of yours to the American Islamic Forum on Democracy, and see what they have to say about it?
They name names, they reject Hamas and other groups, they reject Islamofacism — yeah, Hana, they use the term — bigots eh.
Again, putting words in my mouth. I don’t–and never did–consider people who criticize Hamas and Islamofascism to be bigots. My problem is with those like Penny and irwin daisy, who claim that the problem is all of Islam rather than the far more narrow issue of Islamofascism.
“Your hatred for people who think differently than you is legendary, and sad.”
And your out of hand condemnation of people you don’t know is also sad…just as presumptious leftist moralizing is legendary in it’s sophistry.
I suggest that if you can’t live with people who don’t agree with you that you join the extremist Muzzies and go hide in your bum.
CTV, CBC and Global are frankly run by liberal pantywaistes – I could take every one of them with my hand behind my back. They feel free to castigate Christians at will but are pussies when it comes to talking about Islam.
Lori: Our hope is people like this poor murdered girl, who choose freedom and choice over rigidity and Darth Vader outfits. Given a choice, they will choose the Western way 99% of the time, and we will get what we want.
Again with the offensive “Darth Vader outfit.” Would you ever refer to it as that in front of your Muslim work colleagues?
Honestly, Lori, you’re never going to win over any moderate Muslims to your side by disparaging their religion dress. Do you also have nicknames for Jewish yarmulkes? Buddhist kesas? Christian habits?
In 1981, Abol-Hassan Bani-Sadr, the first president of the Islamic Republic, announced that “scientific research had shown that women’s hair emitted rays that drove men insane.” To protect the public, the new Islamist regime passed a law in 1982 making the hijab mandatory for females aged above six, regardless of religious faith. Violating the hijab code was made punishable by 100 lashes of the cane and six months imprisonment.
It seems this a man made law based on Islamic “science” rather than something specifically demanded by the woman-hating Muhammed.
Hana,
Like I said before, last night I believe, when you raised the “Darth Vader” issue….someone wearing that outfit has made it clear to me that they want nothing to do with me and with Canada. They have opted out of participation in Canada, and these people truly are a lost cause.
That outfit is not a religious requirement. It is a social issue imposed by men, and if you tell me that these women WANT to wear this because they fear all men and having their skin seen in public, that they don’t want the sun on their skin, or the wind in their hair, I will tell you that they have a mental illness induced by lifelong indoctrination.
There is nothing in the Koran that says that Muslim women have to cover themselves in black from head to toe.
The hijab does not bother me too much, if it truly voluntary. It is a mark of separation, but not so extreme.
It is the extreme that must be blocked, because it legitimizes and enables further extremism, and weakens those who don’t want to go in that direction.
Banning the burka is exactly an example of how I would un-enable the extremists.
Dander, nice try buddy, no sale. Here’s the deal, once the secular humanist mob demands the head of someone who named a bear Darwin, or takes a creationist to the Human Rights tribunal for offending their beliefs, I am sorry to say that there is a distinction here. Being resolute about what is right and wrong isn’t narrow minded it is clear minded. There is no mind wide enough to allow room for a sociology that holds women in such contempt and cannot seem to move on with their lives and leave ancient grievances aside.
Lori @ 5:36PM and 6:13 PM – very well stated.
so how do we deal with Hutterites and Holdeman’s who also enforce a modest dress code?
blackbird, your comments are childish.
I maintain my points about the emergence of Islam as an ideology promoting a militant defence of lands for a tribal pastoral nomadic economy – a defense that resulted as a reaction to the expanding agricultural settlements of the ME, which, by then, had become Christian.
Obviously, you don’t know anything about the ecology of the ME and Arabian peninsula area, and the different economic modes that evolved. In the areas settled by the Romans, a settled market agriculturalism evolved. This is why Christianity developed and became dominant. It’s a market, an agricultural ideology that supports different peoples getting along with each other.The ideology and/or religion, rests on the economic ground.
And, you don’t know anything about the social, political and economic organization of societies. I do – and I assure you, that anyone with this knowledge can see very quickly that the Islamic writings (which I have read, despite your insistence that I haven’t)..are completely grounded within a pastoral nomadic economy.
Are you actually going to insist that the Islamic ideology emerged, out of the air and into the mind of an illiterate peasant? Would this ideology have been taken up if it hadn’t made functional sense at the time? Read the texts! They are totally, completely, describing a tribal society, operating within migratory nomadism. And, a society on the defensive against other peoples. It’s all there; read the texts.
The Arabian Peninsula and the ME did support a pastoral economy. Check out ancient history and economies. And check out the results to the ME area as a result of the Roman system.
Your nonsense about ‘death cult’ vs evil west is just that – nonsense. You obviously know nothing of the history of the Roman devt in that area, nothing of the economy, nothing of the demographics and settlements; you know nothing about the difference between settled and nomadic peasant economies. Try doing some research before you show off your lack of knowledge.
Again, ideologies don’t emerge out of thin air; they don’t become part of the mindset of a people unless they have some functionality. So, start to think and research, before you spout off nonsense.
What is happening now, with Islam, is that its axioms are dysfunctional in a modern society, and the people, who have moved these axioms into a realm that is closed to debate, are caught in a bind. The axioms must change, yet they’ve made it very difficult to change them! I bet you don’t even know why that happened!
As for zionism – I’m against it because I promote the separation of ‘church and state’, while zionism merges them. Nothing to do with individual people. Zionism is an ideology, not a person. Grow up, do some research and stop with the insults.
ltr: I believe you can look a Hutterite in the eye, and see their whole face, their smile, their expression.
Also, a Google search on “Hutterites” and “violence” reveals only that they are conscientious objectors to war and violence. That cuts them lots of slack in my book.
Last time I checked Hutterites were not an expanding religion that threatened other members of society. There are no reports of “extremist hutterites” as far as I can tell.
The choices Hutterites have made are regarded as “odd”, but people leave them alone because they leave others alone and because most of the practices in their society are not objectionable.
As a Sci-Fi fan I find the comparison to poor, misunderstood Darth Vader bothering and an offense to geeks everywhere!
My Pakistani friend refers to wearing the burkha as being “all ninja’d up”. Perhaps we can agree on this?
Johnny Jesus–my, what a respectful name (any problems with that, Hana?)– wrote: “What about the whackos who belong to Opus Dei? How about the cross burners of the Southern USA?”
Rubbish. I don’t believe members of Opus Dei KILL other members for non-compliance. The cross burners, I believe, are pretty old hat. Who supports their right to do this and carry out other atrocities?
I suggest you use parallels which actually are parallels. Otherwise, keep your sophomor[on]ic, anti-Christian illogic to your ignorant and small minded self. Your thinking isn’t even junior school level.
Hana, for Pete’s sake, get over the “Darth Vader” insult. (That was exactly the idea.) Talk about thin skinned. Have you heard of the “Piss Christ”? It was a publicly funded piece of “art” in the US, in which a crucifix was immersed in a container full of urine. What about the statue of the Virgin Mary covered in dung? I’m sure if you’d been aware of these indignities and a multitude of others aimed at Christians and Christianity, you’d have boldly spoken up.
But perhaps you’ve never heard of these “insults” (which make a Darth Vader comparison almost a compliment): not one Christian killed anyone as a result.
Grow up, Hana.
CANADA! You’ve got this prick dead-bang on a Murder One.
Fry his ass and pass around hot dogs.
If Canadian immigration policies are going to put the Canadian people into such an untenable position that they are supposed to somehow find rationalizations for homicidal maniacs, then you must institute the death penalty.
You absolutely must have recourse for heinous crimes. Your politicians force these people down your throat and then don’t offer recourse when they do what comes naturally.
You must fry their ass when they commit horrible crimes. This little girl was a Canadian citizen and should have been protected by Canadian law. The severest penalty must be bestowed so that you can force these people to understand that there are consequences.
Your politicians are putting you into an untenable situation where solutions are rationalized. If your politicians will not act, they need to have their brains electronically simplified.
Dander, I am intrigued. Please, do tell us about:
“People claiming to be secularists, as well as so-called “Judaeo-Christians” have all killed their daughters and committed much worse crimes over issues as equally petty as defying one’s father over the hijab. Read the history of the 20th century.”
How about just one example?
Remember now, the concept of honour killing is well-established amongst (at least certain) followers of Islam and there have been very many honour killings by Muslims in Canada, Britain and Europe. This murder, an honour killing over a refusal to wear the hijab, is an established pattern / cultural reality.
Please find ONE example of a judeo-christian father, who is a member of an identifiable group that promotes / encourages / permits the murder of their grown children, who murdered their child in keeping with the tradition. Just ONE. Okay?
Picking an example of a psychopath doesn’t count remember…because we aren’t upset about psychopaths…this case is an established practice of this identifiable group of people. We would like this identifiable group of people to stop doing this…at least in Canada.
Your “picked out of the thin air” cultural and religious equivalence is empty of fact.
“Many pigs, claiming to be normal barnyard animals, have picked themselves up and flew about like birds. Just read the history of pigs in the 20th century.” There…a statement with as much fact backing it up as yours.
It would be a really good idea for Christian groups to hold very public candlelight prayer services for the little girl who was mercilessly slaughtered by a homicidal father.
One could invite Muslims who conspicuously denounce honor killings if one wished.