Ali Eteraz replies to a party to the CIC complaint against Maclean’s in the comments section of this post;
“Please let us be heard?”
“Provide me a vehicle for debate?”
Is something wrong with you?
1 -Did you call Mark Steyn’s agent and try and set up a public debate? I bet he’d love a go; the right wing pundits do.
2 – Did you contact opposition publications to Macleans and publish stuff there? I bet they’d love a go to make Macleans look bad.
3 – Did you try and raise funds to start a new liberal magazine so you can respond to people like Mark Steyn?
4 – Did you contact the writer of Little Mosque on the Prairie, who is quite sympathetic to the CIC, and ask her to make a snide reference to the demographics issue that Steyn raises?
5 – Did you call Tarek Fateh, who and his associates seemingly have NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER getting published works critical of Steyn?
6 – Did you even think about taking me up on my offer to get you guys published in the Guardian?
7 – Did you try and contact Anar Ali, the short story writer, to use her influence to write a rebuttal?
8 – Did you try to contact Irshad Manji — who last year wrote a piece damning all those who seek to stifle immigration — to help use her influence in challenging Steyn?
9 – Did you try to contact an agent for yourself or your other equally inept legal friends so that you might write an anti-Steyn?
I’m sorry if this sounds too much like a generalization, but I’ve dealt with individuals propounding the same kind of rhetoric you are — willful victimization, complete ignorance of how the world works, wallowing in self pity — and they often love to attach themselves to Western Muslim communities after 9/11 and drag them down. I’m sure you’ve got a few Muslim enablers as well. The individuals I am describing often tended to be highly educated, driven by some kind of parochial original sin which motivates them to teach utter and total despair to the community they attach themselves to, so that they may then save said community, and feel good about themselves.
I bet you and the other law students who have done nothing but toe the line the entire life (and have now turned into “humanitarians!” in what I figure is the last year of law school) had grandiose visions of having your name appear in Macleans as “defenders of the weak.” To be followed by a parade led by beautiful Muslim muhajjibas (oh, but how dare I suggest that YOU might be an orientalist).
Again, like I said, the statement of yours that I just quoted, is one of the saddest things I’ve read; quite helpless in fact. I never respond at this length in the comments, and felt compelled to do so, because you are just so far gone its tragic.
Anyhow this has been my last and final response to you.
Best of luck.
Exactly, TG, and MacLeans publication of Tarek Fatah and Farzana Hassan’s rebuttal of Mr. Steyn’s thesis – tinyurl.com/2fd2sh – is the proof in the eating of the pudding.
Thanks Kate. Said my peace, though I was probably way to diplomatic. I hope the filth reads it.
Thanks Vitruvious
Averroes and Kindi, Avicenna and Farabi,
Are you familiar with these names?
Do I owe MacLeans a subscription?
Averroes (Ibn-Rushd) 1126 – 1198
He has been described as the founding father of secular thought in Western Europe.
Al Kindi (Yaʻqūb ibn Isḥāq al-Kindī) c. 801–873 CE
he is known for his efforts to introduce Greek and Hellenistic philosophy to the Arab world
Avicenna (Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥusayn ibn) c 980
His most famous works are The Book of Healing, a vast philosophical and scientific encyclopedia, and The Canon of Medicine, which was a standard medical text at many Islamic and European universities up until the early 19th century
Farabi (Abū Nasr Muhammad ibn al-Farakh al-Fārābi)c 872
Al-Farabi had great influence on science and philosophy for several centuries, and was widely regarded to be second only to Aristotle in knowledge
he advanced the view that philosophy and revelation are two different modes of approaching the same truth.
I’m as interested in the classics as you Doug, yet perhaps in this case rather than reaching back many centuries, the opinions of these modern Muslims may be more interesting: http://www.reformislam.org – check out their Blog link too. Freedom of speech is about letting all the ideas in, for critical evaluation, not about ululating when one’s ideas aren’t favourably received, as the CIC is apparently wont to do. Notice that the MCC doesn’t have this affectation. That’s why the latter are commenting in MacLeans; that’s why they aren’t libelling MacLeans.
Nobody to blame but ourselves. It really pains me to think what this country/world will be like in 20 years.
I wish I knew what the country/world will be like in 20 years.
Well…according to Steyn, the numbers don’t look great. Here’s hoping he’s wrong.
I wish Mark Steyn knew what the country/world will
be like in 20 years. Then at least one of us would.
The civil wars and battles raging throughout Africa, the Middle East, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc. reflect this struggle.
If you are referring to modern times, then I submit that many current, ongoing conflicts are a result of proxy “wars” fought by the main combatants of the cold war.
Thanks again Vitruvius, you are very kind.
Isn’t that refreshing.
You’d almost think there might be a chance for peace on earth and goodwill toward all men.
If I believe Bl@bird however, that will be a long row to hoe.
Thank you for the reformislam.org link Vitruvius.
Listened to Steyn on Hugh Hewitt today. Transcript isn’t up yet. He mentioned that no defendant has ever won a HRC
case. And, if memory serves, he recommends supporting Macleans with new or renewed subscription.
There’s another limitation regarding the perspective Ted espouses, although Ted himself really can’t be faulted for it as he’s been a busy fellow. The trouble with imputing an inherent violence to Christianity is that it ignores what happened before Christianity came around.
From what I remember, pagan Rome had customs that were pretty brutal; many acts of violence wound up praised. The reason why this fact doesn’t impact the imagination of the casual student is because no-one around then objected to it on principle. Objections of this sort became permissible once Christianity moved in after Rome crumbled. Granted that the Christian custom of peace was at times more honoured in the breach than in the observance, but before Christianity there was no such custom.
Ted is a lawyer. Lawyers are required (specifically defense lawyers), every day that they are in court, to bluster and obfuscate and exaggerate and mislead at every opportunity to push their agenda.
I’m sure that Ted just can’t shake his ingrained daily habit when he comes to visit.
sarc on/ When my kids were young and they got into trouble, I opened diplomatic relations with them and traded with them and, yes, I even gave them weapons…hoping, of course, that by doing so they woould mature and stop getting into trouble. But of course, I never EVER spoke harshly to them or punished them or “laid down the law” to them…that would have been “naive” like Ted said. /sarc off
I disagree with your position and approach, Ted. I prefer the Will Rogers diplomatic approach (not a perfect quote): “Diplomacy is the art of saying ‘Nice doggie’ while you search around for a big enough rock”.
ted, a danger to free people everywhere.
*
It could be worse.
“The bomber was praying in a row of worshippers
when he detonated the explosive.”
*
“”I bet you and the other law students who have done nothing but toe the line the entire life (and have now turned into “humanitarians!” in what I figure is the last year of law school) had grandiose visions of having your name appear in Macleans as “defenders of the weak.” To be followed by a parade led by beautiful Muslim muhajjibas (oh, but how dare I suggest that YOU might be an orientalist).””
There in lies the basic creed driving the CHRC purge of dissenting opinion.
Take a cadre of mediocre law students/lawyers ( with poor income prospects in the overly complex, overcrowded areas of pragmatic law), who have turned “human rights activists” because this area of law practice is expanding, lucretive, undefined and is argued in a eccentric tribunal where a defendent is at certain disadvantage making a win near certain,…..mix this with a trouble-making vindictive minority lobboes who seek to stifle criticism of their more uncivilized cultural practices,…..ad a media air of tolerance for this type of soviet-era poltically correct cleansing of expression, and you have set the scene of the dissolution of freedom of speech…. a free press.
As much as I’d like to defend Mcleans, and some other Canadian MSM for their current support of the media from repression by this CHRC/CIC “messaging” inquisition, I have to buffer my enthusiasm, by recalling it was McLeans and other Lib-left media that scoffed at conservatives and libertarians when we warned that the CHRC system and the hate “messaging” laws were too loose and undefined and will certainly be abused by malevolent lobby groups and profiteering lawyers.
The MSM sat idly by and actually cheered on this CHRC tyranny when it was only attacking hapless individuals….it has only been since special interest/CHRC tyranny has turned its ugly gaze on the corporate media that they are taking an interest in the abuses of the CHRC system.
@John West (12:06 AM):
You pointed out a technical issue that makes it awfully tempting to shove a certain Sir Wilfred Laurier quote right in the face of any present-day liberal.
Back in the days when the defamation precedents and libel laws were set, it was much easier to screen out libelous comments simply through refraining from publishing them. Libelous comments were easily found through the need to proofread anything that was published. Internet forums simply don’t work the same way, unless they’re seriously hobbled. To seriously expect an Internet forum to be bent out of its shape, so as to conform to a set of laws that were made and set in the press age, does show a certain inflexibility in the face of technological change.
Even if that change came from the private sector 😉
Let’s start with this statement:
“Muslims are not a homogenous entity. Far from it. Like all other faith communities, we are divided along sectarian, ethnic, class and political lines. Even a casual tourist to the Muslim lands will vouch for these divisions.
Whether it is Acehnese fighting Javanese domination in Indonesia or the secularists lined up against Islamists in Turkey; be it the Leftists of Pakistan facing up to the Ultra-Right religious parties or the Egyptian “Enough” activists debating the Muslim Brotherhood, Muslims are as divided in their vision of the future as are Christians or Jews.
Yet despite this clear evidence of ethno-social diversity and political division, many Western observers often view all of Islamdom as if it were a monolithic Islamist mob. At times their fears are grounded in ignorance, but quite often it borders on an alarmist fear of the Muslim world.”
Muslims are not a homogenous group. Obviously correct. They like to kill each other as much as killing the Kaffir.
And isn’t that the problem? What is the cause of such wanton death and destruction?
As I, and many others have said before – the foundationally violent ideology of Islam is the enemy of all mankind. This ideology is expressed in the Islamic trilogy that enjoins all Muslims – whether moderate, or terrorist; whether Sunni or Shia; whether Wahabbist or Khomeniist; it matters little.
As long as the liar, pedophile, thief and mass-murderer is most offensively called a prophet – even more offensively, the ‘seal of the prophets’ – and his words are allowed to reverberate in our world, death will follow. As has been proven, historically.
Who cares if there are a billion of them? Multitudes celebrating evil as good, does not make evil, good. Evil begets evil. It cannot beget good.
Ted says,
“Christian conversions have been as forced as any other religion until fairly recently in modern times. It was only after centuries of killing each other over relatively few doctrinal differences that Europe finally realized it was better to let individuals make their own religious decisions. I’d compare much of Middle Eastern Islamiscism to European Christianity maybe 300 years or so ago. And please don’t interpret that as making any equivalence between today’s Christianity and today’s Middle Eastern/Far Eastern Muslims. It is only to point out that moderate Christians spoke out and were slaughtered by our forefathers until enough of them spoke out and Bills of Rights and tolerance became widely accepted.”
Ted is not rational, nor intelligent. He obscures the topic with irrelevant statements and ad hominem attacks (bigots).
In that way, Ted supports the root of Islamic ideology – evil celebrated as good.
And Ted, ignorance of Mohammad’s actions and words – are not a defence.
In fact, if you are not knowledgable about Islam, as you obviously are not, your opinon is worthless.
As well, it is the ideology of Christianity, as expressed in the NT and Christ’s life example, that has been misrepresented, in the former abuses you have stated.
Hell, I’d never hire you as a lawyer.
This what Dr Habira, a London professor and an ex-muslim, says in his book “God’s Tears” about moderate Islam:
“Moderate Islam is more deadly because while the terrorists are clear enemies, the moderates make inroads into `infidel’ lands, and deceive the host cultures until the terrorists could do the dirty work. Without the moderate Islamic façade, the terrorists cannot survive because they will be quickly exposed. History is replete with example after example of this typically Muslim deceitful strategy of advance”.
Sorry for all the posts. But ignorant people like Ted must be exposed.
Islamic Bloc Scores ‘Defamation of Religions’ Resolution at UN
By Patrick Goodenough
CNSNews.com International Editor
December 20, 2007
(CNSNews.com) – Alongside a resolution adopted by the U.N. General Assembly this week calling for a moratorium on the death penalty, the world body passed a raft of other human rights-related motions. One of them, introduced by Islamic nations, focuses on combating the “defamation of religions.”
Resolutions on the human rights situation in North Korea and Iran also passed, although dozens of countries — including human rights violators Cuba, Sudan, Syria and Zimbabwe — voted against the motions.
An annual resolution on “the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination” also passed by an overwhelming margin, with only the United States, Israel, and three small Pacific island nations voting “no.” There were four abstentions.
The motion on defamation of religions has been a priority for the 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) since 9/11. It took on new impetus following a Danish newspaper’s publication in 2005 of cartoons satirizing Mohammed.
Introduced by Pakistan on behalf of the OIC, it passed on Tuesday by a 108-51 margin, with 25 abstentions. As with many of the other votes, the U.S. lined up with democracies in Europe, Asia and elsewhere against developing nations, including repressive regimes.
Although the resolution refers to defamation of “religions,” Islam is the only religion named in the text, which also takes a swipe at counter-terrorism security measures.
It expresses alarm about “discrimination” and “laws that stigmatize groups of people belonging to certain religions and faiths under a variety of pretexts relating to security and illegal immigration.”
Muslim minorities are subjected to “ethnic and religious profiling … in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001,” it says.
The resolution decries “the negative projection of Islam in the media” and voices “deep concern that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism.”
OIC secretary-general Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu earlier this month addressed an international conference on “Islamophobia,” held in Turkey, and told the gathering that freedom of expression was being used as a cover in the West to promote anti-Islam sentiment.
The OIC soon will release its first-ever annual report on “Islamophobia.”
As I see it we in the west are not only not supplying enough support for moderate Muslims we are only now just beginning to realize that they must be the ones on the front lines in the war on terror.EG arm all women that dont want to wear the jihab if they so wish.
Those who spout that Islam is the religion of peace should be working harder to make it a fact instead of an oxymoron.
Every day, around the world, we see examples of the exact opposite.
With all the contradictions from within the religion it appears their Prophet handed down a lot of confusing and mixed messages. We appear to be dealing with masses of crazy, confused and dangerous people.
Attacking and killing fellow human beings in the name of a God, Prophet or religion is not a fit with the evolution of humanity in this 21st century.
Mark steyn’s on radio reaction with Hugh:
Third in the list.
http://www.townhall.com/TalkRadio/Show.aspx?RadioShowId=5&ContentGuid
Re: Ted “There are over a billion Muslims out there. They aren’t chopping heads off in Jordan …”
Ted … you can say it over and over but some people will stick to their opinions regarding Muslims notwithstanding overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It’s akin to using the numerous(!) examples of Catholic clergy raping young boys (for decades) and the subsequent refusal of the church to do anything to ensure it didn’t happen again as evidence Christians are child abusers. It’s ridiculous.
Like you – I work with a number of moderate Muslims. If more people did, they, hopefully, would revise their opinions. To say there’s no problems regarding Islam would be willfully ignorant, but most have more in common with us than we might suspect.
Irwin, my friend, you and people like you are terrorist enablers and you don’t even realize it. How very very sad.
If you can’t see any difference between Osama bin Laden and, say, a Karzai or a Musharraf or a Bhutto or a Mubarak or even an Ali Eteraz then you are more of problem and an enabler of the people they are fighting.
Were we to listen to you and your ilk, one might ask what the hell the point is in staying in Afghanistan or Iraq, if they are all such murderous beasts as you invent. If they are truly as irreedimable as make out, then one might think it to our advantage to leave and just them kill each other. I think Anne Coulter has said as much (although then she says the US shouldn’t leave either country, so figure that one out).
If we were to follow your train of doom and gloom thoughts, your simplified black and white world, we should abandon any relationship with any moderate Muslim country. This of course only increases the likelihood of a fundamentalist take-over and concedes even more ground to the radicals.
Thank goodness the folks in charge here in Canada and the US and the UK have never shared your views, and instead see that the world is not black and white. They realize that there is a point to staying in Afghanistan and not abandoning Iraq right now, and helping them to establish peace.
We need a good hard dose of intelligence and realpolitic if we want to defeat violent radicalized religion, not the ideologically bent extremist views of the left, which buries its head in the sand, or the likes of Irwin who would see every Muslim as an enemy.
Re: irwin daisy “The OIC soon will release its first-ever annual report on “Islamophobia.”
with you as the “Islamophobe” poster boy no doubt.
Thank you for your comments, Jimbo. I should point out – because some like to deliberately misconstrue – that I know a heck of a lot of readers here and conservatives generally do not share the point of view of Irwin or Wallyj or OMMAG or EEyore or Old White Guy. This all started from Kate’s quoting of the kind of reasonable moderate Muslim that I know, after all.
@Ted (3:26 PM):
I believe that a better word than the phrase “gloom and doom” would be “eschatological.” As far as the if-then part of your comment is concerned, I hope that things don’t come to that kind of a pass. In a genuine crisis, black-and-white thinkers do come to the fore, because everyone else ends up looking like a ditherer. The ‘dither’ label is also slapped on those who simply counsel caution in the face of uncertainty.
“Doing something for the sake of doing something” comes to the fore too.
Two for the price of one.
“Ted … you can say it over and over but some people will stick to their opinions regarding Muslims notwithstanding overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It’s akin to using the numerous(!) examples of Catholic clergy raping young boys (for decades) and the subsequent refusal of the church to do anything to ensure it didn’t happen again as evidence Christians are child abusers. It’s ridiculous.”
Jimbo. A leftoid who exists in a world where only feelings matter. Not facts. In his world he can arbitrarily call up extraneous, irrelevant information in order to strengthen what he believes to be an argument. To sign off on his postings – removing all doubt about potential intelligence – he chooses an embarrassing moniker he has borne since childhood.
“If you can’t see any difference between Osama bin Laden and, say, a Karzai or a Musharraf or a Bhutto or a Mubarak or even an Ali Eteraz then you are more of problem and an enabler of the people they are fighting.”
Ted, do you comprehend my posts? Obviously not, based on this paragraph. Go back and read what I wrote, think about it and then challenge me.
Up next – a tag team of idiots:
“Re: irwin daisy “The OIC soon will release its first-ever annual report on “Islamophobia.”
with you as the “Islamophobe” poster boy no doubt.”
When you can’t think, fling insults. Even if you don’t understand the meaning of what you fling.
Followed by Ted’s heart felt appreciation:
“Thank you for your comments, Jimbo.”
Comments = 0 substance, but requires bandwidth.
Merry (whatever it is you put here) to the both of you.
Jimbo: I’m guessing you wouldn’t know a “moderate muslim” if one hit you over the back of the head with a 2 x 4.
Check out Walid Shoebat, who, er, knows something about this subject, being a reformed Palestinian terrorist turned Christian and fervent Israel supporter: (from “Why We Want to Kill You”)
“This [a survey] by no means indicates that those who replied “no” to Al-Queda would not support other forms of Islamic fundamentalism. Let me give you an example. While having lunch at an Arab-owned restaurant, I was sitting with a pastor and a Jew. The Jewish man complimented the restarant by saying he had been dining there for years and could testify that these are peaceful people. When the Arab waiter came to the table, I spoke in Arabic and identified myself as Palestinian. I asked him for his view on eradicating Jews, to which he said he doesn’t approve. I quoted the famous Hadith (tree and stones) to which be responded, “yes but the time is not yet, we much first establish the Khilafa”. So, if this same question were asked in a survey, many would outwardly answer “no” but their inward answer would be ‘no — not yet'”.
MND,
This is the information Ted and Jimbo can’t comprehend. An Islamic belief set is based on the texts which they must obey and a prophet that they must emmulate – otherwise they are apostates in danger of a physical assassination, executed by the Ummah and sanctified by allah – and to make matters worse, they are assured of spiritual torture, forever.
Not able to comprehend Islam, and having never read the texts, Ted and Jimbo assume the default position, based on their understanding of religion, which is primarily based on Christianity. And thus their irrelevant and false comparisons.
This is what their idiot argument is based on. That, and knowing a couple of Muslims.
A rebuttal to the intellectually obscene National Post rebuttal:
“Perhaps the Maclean’s article is best summed up by the following extract, in which Mr. Steyn inserts what he terms the “obligatory” of courses: “Of course, not all Muslims are terrorists — though enough are hot for jihad to provide an impressive support network of mosques from Vienna to Stockholm to Toronto to Seattle. Of course, not all Muslims support terrorists — though enough of them share their basic objectives.”
Based on the Islamic set of beliefs – as stated clearly in the Quran, Hadith and Sira – what are the “basic objectives” of someone proclaiming to be Muslim? Most importantly, is one of these objectives to emulate Mohammad?
Overall, I reckon these Muslim authors are enraged that a Muslim can’t write a world-wide best seller on his own religion, while an uppitty Kaffr can.
Perhaps they should try it.
irwin daisy: In case you missed it, check out symposium on “Moderate Muslim Brotherhood” over at frontpage.
Moderate Muslim Brotherhood
Also from Chapter 16 of Walid Shoebat’s book mentioned above:
HOW TO IDENDIFY THEM
“When one questions a supposed moderate, it’s always important to aks the right questions — Did Muhammad kill the Jews of Arabia” Yes or No?”
“It’s a double edged sword. If a Muslim denies it, then he denies Islamic history and much of the text written in Al-Sera Al-Babawiyeh (The Hadith) where the collection of the deeds and works of the prophet are documented. It’s like rejecting the New Testamanet for a Christian. Unless his is a liberal, he is cornered with the fact. Denying it shows a liberal attitude toward his faith, yet accepting it corners the respondent to either justify it or condemn it.”
“At a speaking engagement in LA on Yom Kippur in 2006, a moderate Muslim finished his speech to a Jewish audience, and I asked him the question, “Did Mummamad kill the Jews”? To which he aswered, “Yes, but they had a fair trial”. [me no dhimmi note: Gawd, I laughed!]”
“This, out of the mouth of a moderate? This, in a day and age when even the Pope made mends of old holocausts? Yet from a Muslim it would be difficult. Why?”
“Because killing the Jews was committed by the founders themselves– Muhammad, Omar his disciple, Ali his nephew, and the rest of the Caliphs whether Umayyads, Abbasids …”
“Similarly, Dr. Khalell Muhammad the professor of San Diego University and member of the board of Centre for Islamic Pluralism, will never denounce the Khaibar massacre of Jews. No apology for the killing of the Jews of Arabia.”
Pluralism? Yeah, right!
Ted,you are right. There is much that I do not understand about the moderate muslim. Enlighten me;Why are the moderate muslims not signing up in the Armed Forces to fight the extremists alongside the Canadians? Do they not want to defend their faith against the extremists?…Why is there such an outcry over a child wearing a hijab on the soccer pitch,moderates declaring it is an essential part of their faith,yet when a child is alledgely killed over not wearing it,all of a sudden it is a voluntary,small part of the religion? Why is the Western Standard put in front of a HRC for printing cartoons, by a moderate who must know that Canada has freedom of speech? And just one more,why do people flee from oppressive shithole countries and then upon arriving here try to change things so our country resembles the oppressive shithole country they just left? Thanks in advance for your wisdom.
MND,
I find arguments like the one proposed, less useful.
The heart and soul of any accepted belief are the words and actions of the founder. Emulation of the founder’s actions and obeyance of his words are given objectives. The Quran, for example, makes this eminently clear.
Therefore, the Muslim must be confronted with their prophet’s words and actions – as stated in the Islamic triology – and then asked a simple question: Do you consider this man’s words and actions to be morally good?
It is that black and white.
The actions and crimes commited by Mohammad, as recorded in the Quran, Hadith and Sira, are opposed to; and against universally agreed upon human rights, acceptable moral behaviour and law; let alone reasonable, rational and religious points of view.
In that way, Islam is not only unredeemable, but vulnerable. It must survive or die trying.
And doesn’t that sentiment (“We love death more than you love life) manifest itself as actions daily?
Truth exposes Mohammad. Reason creates apostates.
Sad that someone could be so hateful that they become blind to reality. So very sad.
Let me ask you folks this: there are over a billion Muslims in this world, hundreds of thousands here in Canada alone; if murdering those who deviate the slightest is at the core of their creed, then why are there not thousands upon thousands of dead each day?
I really do feel sorry for you and anyone who hates that much. A rightoid who exists in a world where only feelings matter. Not facts. In his world he can arbitrarily call up extraneous, information that run counter to what our eyes and experience actually tell us – that indeed there are murderous backward radical Islamists but also thousands upon thousands working hard to hold them back, like Karzai, like Bhutto, like Ali in Kate’s original post… they are real people and our allies even if you would like to pretend otherwise – in order to strengthen what he believes to be an argument.
Sad. So very very sad. Fortunately, the foreign policy of the US, the UK and Canada is developed on facts and not on feelings and emotions like you would have us do.
http://www.religionofpeace.com
Ted,
I show the foundation of their belief, based as it is on their own texts, including the recorded actions and words of their prophet. You, on the other hand, have had ample time to state the factual evidence that supports your counter argument. And you’ve failed miserably. You’ve presented not one shred of evidence.
Yet your revised plea to the jury is:
“Let me ask you folks this: there are over a billion Muslims in this world, hundreds of thousands here in Canada alone…”
– Posted by: Ted at December 21, 2007 10:13 PM
“Who cares if there are a billion of them? Multitudes celebrating evil as good, does not make evil, good. Evil begets evil. It cannot beget good.”
Posted by: irwin daisy at December 21, 2007 9:17 AM
And your ad hominem slurs – “Sad that someone could be so hateful that they become blind to reality. So very sad.” and, “I really do feel sorry for you and anyone who hates that much.”
are irrational and fictional.
Once again, you present your opinion without a shred of evidence to support it. Unless, of course, evidence isn’t necessary in order to convict. Which is the topic of the original post.
And why you’re a lousy lawyer.
You, Irwin, are the one who keeps substituting your emotional furor for facts. I’ve given you plenty: Karzai, Bhutto, Ali, the Afghani, Pakistani, Egyptian, Iraqi etc. police and military, the dozens I know personally and work with.
These are real people, Irwin, not just some piece of old paper and they are Muslim. They are also not out there trying to kill us or apostates. They are in fact fighting the Taliban, putting their lives at greater risk than you are by banging away at your keyboard in anger.
Here’s a clue, Ted: I’m not talking about Muslims.
Oh boy – now I’m a leftoid. It may surprise you to know I’ve been asked by prominent Conservatives in Alberta (!) on numerous occasions to consider running as a Conservative candidate. Neither Irwin Daisy or WallyJ would be allowed anywhere near any Conservative campaign I’ve ever been involved with.
Irwin Daisy is clearly unhinged, and should get some professional help before it’s too late. The type of loony that only comes out on boards like these. WallyJ, if you’d been paying attention to earlier posts on similar topics, you would have seen posts by members of the military who have served with Muslim Canadians, and spoke highly of them.
It’s desperate losers like the two of you who need each other so badly, so they can gang up on the most vulnerable victim they can find. Unfortunately for all Conservatives, the two of you are working overtime putting the truth to the “knuckle-dragging redneck racist” tag the Libs try to hang us with at every opportunity.
The Liberals couldn’t invent better bad examples of Conservatives than the two of you. Embarrassing, disgusting, sad, and truly disheartening for those of us who’ve worked for decades to get the Conservatives to the point where a majority government is a real possibility.
Me No Dhimmi – “Jimbo: I’m guessing you wouldn’t know a “moderate muslim” if one hit you over the back of the head with a 2 x 4.”
What??? A moderate Muslim (or a moderate anybody … period) doesn’t go around hitting people with 2X4’s. Snap out of it! Maybe you’re the one who doesn’t know what he’s taking about? I expected more of you, and certainly hadn’t hadn’t expected you to throw your hat in with that lot.
Anyone interested in commenting at “Daniel Simard is in the joint LLB and Masters of Environmental Studies at Osgoode Hall and York University, and is currently in his first year of law” new blog re: Steyn HRC http://lawiscool.com/2007/12/21/steyn-responds-to-law-is-cool/etc…
cheers
jw
Jimbo utters vacuous threats; swears by imaginary scenerios and; excels at ad hominem attacks. All in place of factual evidence to support his argument, again. I don’t know. Sounds like a Liberal to me.
Read the post above yours, Jimbo. It applies.
This will be my last comment on this subject.Right now the christians and the muslims are celebrating very important moments in thier religions. The christians are celebrating the birth of Jesus,life and hope . The muslims are celebrating Abraham and his problems,blind obedience and murder. Nuff said.
Ummm… Daisy
“Jimbo utters vacuous threats” – where did I do that?
“swears by imaginary scenerios” – or that
“excels at ad hominem attacks” – or that
“in place of factual evidence to support his argument, again”
Gee – peaceful Muslims outnumbering extremists by a factor of tens of millions to one. But that’s not enough for our Irwin Daisy
Muslim citizens are making many contributions in business, science and law, medicine and education, and in other fields.
Muslims worldwide have stretched out a hand of mercy to those in need.
Islam, as practiced by the vast majority of people, is a peaceful religion, a religion that respects others.
Islam is a faith that brings comfort to people. It inspires them to lead lives based on honesty, and justice, and compassion.
As for my proof, the evidence is in your posts.
As for your accusations and assertions:
Funny, the recent German statistics that just came out show that of the 3 million muslims in Germany, 180, 000 are shown to be violently extremist.
Now, you’re right, that’s not a large percentatge. But it is still 180,000 violent Islamic extremists. In one country.
Regardless, all of your assertions about Islam are ignorant, irrelevant or outright lies. For example, please provide examples of your assertion that, “Muslims worldwide have stretched out a hand of mercy to those in need.” Let’s start with the tsunami in Indonesia, and then let’s progress to the black Muslims (Abeed) in the Sudan. Or should we have actually started with the Palestinians?
Based on your last two assertions, you’ve unveiled yourself.
My question is and always has been – what causes historically recorded Islamic extremism? The answer is the foundationally violent ideology, as expressed in the Islamic trilogy – the Quran, the Hadith and the Sira. More importantly, as expressed by their prophet’s life example. The “perfect man” all Muslims are commanded to emulate.
al Jimbo: Is it the thrill of Mo being married to a nine year old wife, that turns you on? Or, is it the thrill of killing, booty, slaves, racism and unlimited, sanctified hatred that attracts you to Islam?
Irwin Daisy said “Regardless, all of your assertions about Islam are ignorant, irrelevant or outright lies.” … etc
Actually, Irwin, those aren’t my assertions. They are those of that other noteworthy “Liberal”, and prominent “Leftoid”, George W. Bush, posted directly on the White House site, under “Policies in Focus”, as in official US policy.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/ramadan/islam.html
But what do they know, being so far to the left of you.