Leaderboard

even if one out of 10 of these anti muslim stories are true, they would still out number any of the good muslim stories.....more to my point, is you've cherry picked my post to suit you...perhaps you can address the point that islamic terrorism has a larger voice than most Islamic nations have, much larger than any good muslim group has, which over shadows the good muslim message.. And yet there is no movement on this front , maybe i'm wrong and you can show me a source, where Muslim countries or nations or large groups of muslims have taken action to change that.....forget the small message of them condemning terrorist acts.....everyone does that, whether they believe it or not....This is why the so called good muslims are having problems in the west.....because we are bombarded by extremist muslims messages all the time.... I don't give a rats ass who they want to impose it upon, we have law and order in this nation already, if shia law worked out for them in their last home nation why are they here....i can tell you it's not the weather.....And where do we draw the line with laws, which laws over ride Canadian laws....it creates a dogs breakfast..... Sorry for my hysteria.....i was feeling some what wild and crazy this morning.....

Europe experienced terrorism at a higher level in the past. Majority were committed by internal groups. Even now, majority of the attacks, which are small comparatively to the past are done by citizens. The hysterical reaction fed by exaggerating the issue, ignorance of the source of the problems and the ignorance and hate of immigrants (especially if they're known as Muslim - I mean, did you see the hateful, disgusting comments by Hal 9000 in this thread before they were removed?) is a problem. Not wanting people to escape hell holes, especially when we, the West have directly contributed in creating many of the hell holes is a problem.

Consequences from the West's foreign policy. Everything from invading Iraq and creating a vacuum where terrorist groups could rise, to supporting dictators in Saudi, Iraq (at one point), Egypt, to allowing rogue states like Israel to continue their international and human rights violations against the Palestinians. Yes, you're right. We're seeing consequences.

That's not a good comparison. In fact, it's a terrible comparison. A better comparison would be for someone to stay home and not drive, because they might get in a car accident. There is a much bigger risk in getting in a car accident or getting in a car accident and dying, than experiencing a terrorist attack. This is why it's completely irrational. Of course, that's in Europe and North America. I'm sure things are much different in Syria where there is a higher risk of experiencing a terrorist attack by the Asad regime, U.S. planes, Russian planes or the Saudi backed terrorist groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda.

Your right Peter,all i have to do now is sit here waiting for the next poster to enlighten me.....and when i am not on here i watch CBC national, or CTV daily news, and almost every night i watch some Extremist islamic terrorist group do there thing, almost nightly western people are subjected to this.....when was the last time you heard any good natured muslim story....the last one was when Canadians banded together after the quebec shootings.....when have we heard from a Muslim country that they are going to step up their fight again'st terrorism....seize terrorist assets, hunt them down like the dogs they are..... when are we going to hear from western Muslims and the action they are taken to combat home grown terrorism....Before you get off your high horse, i am not saying these things don't happen....what i am say is we never hear of them, what we do hear is from the extremist .....and their message is being received loud and clear.... The fact that only 1 in 10 of dogs stories are BS is telling, i mean 9 out 10 times his stories are correct. You have said that, and yet your vision is the one clouded not mine.........My experiences in the war, have colored my view....i seen riots on a massive scale over 100,000 people in one space at one time, rioting because a American soldier mistakenly burned some qurans.....45 people died at their own hands....this happen twice in one tour.....all we did was close down our gates and watch, sad really ....we also seen the after math of stonings down by locals, for stupid stuff, all of them ended up with dead muslims with the others clinging to back ward believes, hoping that one day it is not them that has broken some rule. And while this is Afghanistan and not some of the so called moderate muslim countries.....you will still see these back ward beliefs raise their ugly heads...all of it can be tied to their interpretation of their religion. I do want Muslims to stand up and say enough is enough.....But they can't they are not allowed to close ranks to change the face of their religion....it is not permitted....and the rest of the world can not do it for them....Dialameh is going to have to let Islam fight it's own battles....

The Quran will not be "reformed". Especially at the behest of the kafir.

I "get" where you're trying to go with this. If a religion has a main teaching that says, "If you sacrifice your life to our God while engaging in jihad, you get to rape 72 virgins in the afterlife for doing it" and then that religion fails to clearly define what "jihad" is and just lets each person define it on their own according to their own interpretations, then yes....they are responsible for how their adherents behave. They don't get to just sit back and say, "Hey, not our fault." With pedophiles in the priesthood, did the entire Christian world just sit back and say, "Those priests don't represent Christianity." and do nothing about it? No, it was exposed, it was dealt with - by the religion that was responsible for it - and it was done publicly so all could see. If you can't see how Islam's teachings on jihad, the denigration of women and their attitudes towards non-Muslims have contributed to the free-for-all devastation they are wreaking upon the world right now, I can't help you. If you can't see that what's going on has been set in place by ideological dogma, which is now the vehicle used to express themselves, I can't help you. To stick by your position that Islamists have nothing whatsoever to do with Islam is just absurd. You want to stifle any conversation about the connection between Islamic ideology and Muslim intolerance and violence, in the name of political correctness. Obfuscating like you do does nothing except protect Muslims from having to grapple with this issue. When a person devotes themselves fully to the extreme versions of Islam and states his religious reasons for doing so and confesses his certainty about martyrdom on video before he blows himself up, you don't consider this as evidence that the religion's dogma is responsible. But if he said he did it because he's full of despair and revulsion for the West, you'd accept it at face value. The religion is exonerated. Any criticism of Islam is met with accusations of bigotry, Islamophobia and racism. You want to hold hands with extremists by defending medieval cultural aspects of the religion, "Because it's their culture and we have to protect it!!", then you are throwing feminist Muslims, gay Muslims and ex-Muslims under the bus. These are the very people who need us to speak up. By stifling this discussion, you think you're doing them a favour, but all you're really doing is making the idiotic right wing the loudest voice in this and No, I don't agree with their extreme views of "all Muslims are this way or that way." I've had nothing but bad experiences with Muslims and I don't even think that's the way they ALL are. But enough of them are to make the world pretty miserable right now. They are in desperate need of reform and they are fighting it tooth and nail.

You're free to make your case for the Quran being benign and peaceful. Perhaps quote the bit where if someone takes a life it is as if your killing all of humankind...lol.

Which is why I let the Quran do the talking.

There is no way to 'prove it' either way. Hamas was caught emulating the Prophet Mohammad. That's all. There's nothing un-Islamic about marrying a child as that's exactly what Mohammad did. Aisha was 6 when the Prophet took her as his wife.

Snopes has the same info as the rest of us. Only Hamas's good word and those testimonies of sympathetic reporters is used to 'debunk' this story. Only media sympathetic to Hamas are allowed to operate in Gaza. Funny that each groom has a niece of the same young age...I wonder what the odds were?

Only if you die performing Jihad against the Infidel. Otherwise you wait in line like the rest of the slobs. But, killing for Allah gets you on the fast track to the Big Table in Paradise...sitting next to Big Mo, Omar, Abu Bakr and the rest of the happy good-time bunch. So sharpen that knife.

Who is hysterical? Look at your typing. Slap me? Keep it together betsy. I never said people are not irrationally scared. I know they are. This forum is a good example of people who are irrationally hysterical. Put your energy to better use.

I agree its ridiculous that they would use children as stand-in brides, if that's what is supposed to be going on here. Snopes says its not. This is indeed a picture of a mass wedding at which the adult brides were present; however custom dictates that the brides not be the center of attention. The little girls are relatives of the wedding participants. Snopes also contains an article from the reporter who covered the event debunking the whole "child-bride/stand-in" story.

No, I pointed out that your criticism is about how our economy works. Companies market to many diverse groups and the cost of that marketing is embedded in the product. I don't buy milk, I buy Sealtest.

And you want to ban abortion based on your religious values. Both are abhorrent and go against Canadian values. Laws are secular and should remain that way... free from your religion or Altai's religion.

Christians in Middle East and Africa believe in and practice FGM, the killing of gay people, honor killings and child brides. Do you support Christianity?

NORAD is an air defence treaty. If we wind up in some kind of territorial dispute with another country, and the US decides it isn't in its best interest to back us, we are on our own. Arctic sovereignty for instance, the US in fact is one country we could find disputing our claims, in fact they already have. As for the rest, we did not join the US in its invasion of Iraq and I suppose you think what the Taliban was doing in Afghanistan was just fine. The fact is, we do need some sort of policing in the world to remind countries just what is acceptable behaviour for nations and what isn't. That is what the UN was supposed to be all about. On edit. You people are all the same, in one breath you blame the US for all the world's ills and in the next you expect them to defend this country without lifting a finger or spending a dime to do it yourself.

Jesus's message was also simple...and kinder. Go and do thou likewise. ...with a dash of... I didn't come here to change God's laws but to fulfill them. Or close to that...just to keep the old farts with their own laws nodding in agreement. The Trump of his day...

Well...yeah...read your Quran. But that's the Shahada...want to belittle it's importance?

Then why keep stifling discussion on Islam by bringing up Christianity? It doesn't matter what anyone says, you pipe up with some obscure or ancient (or sometimes applicable ) example of Christians. Why can we not discuss Islam on its own? Every time its discussed, you come in, flip the gameboard and send the peices all over the room and then act like you're the saviour of the game. I feel like Christianity has been divesting itself of many problems for quite a while. Obviously there is still work to do, but strides have been made. And as I said before, I agree they were basically forced by public opinion to change. How will Islam be motivated to change if we keep saying, "Oh well, other people did the same in the past." or "Oh, look! some obscure Christian group is doing the same right now." It doesn't move the discussion forward. If we all officially acknowledge that we believe there were problems in Christianity and that there continue to be some problems in Christianity, will we then be allowed to discuss what's going on in Islam without having the gameboard tossed across the room?

There is only one Quran. It's the same one ISIS and your sister use. https://quran.com/

There is but one Quran.

Your sister isn't the authority on Islam. Only the Quran/Hadiths count...not 'expert' opinions. https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi/22/46

Perhaps it is because ISIS and other terrorists have a much larger voice, not to mention groups of muslims in europe and the US who are actively seeking sharia law, when it comes to describing Islam to westerns...It is not enough for a few muslims to stand up and denounce them.....what is needed is for entire nations to stand up and put an end to these groups.....actions speak stronger than words.....But perhaps it is these nations that are supporting these fringe groups.....Making our fears true....

They are shaking the boat , they have grown tired of paying for everything, and ponying up the troops all of the time.....they have every reason to complain....Canada has been free loading for quite awhile now, it's time to live up to our agreements.

Just because you're not up to speed doesn't make the comment off base: Linda Sarsour made similar comments re: Sharia being the logical choice for Western women...great minds think alike, I suppose.

I couldn't agree more with Argus here. Here's an example... I think Canada and the US are the worst simply because corporate cronyism and quid pro quo politics are so pervasive. Big companies tell the government to jump and the government says "how high?" And we have signed trade deals that are written almost completely by industry representatives that tie our hands. If the government DID take meaningful steps to lower prices, they would probably be dragged in front of some international trade court and sued for damages by big pharmy.

Zoom out...

What ever happens ,keep us out of africa.

Jihad is fighting in the name of Allah. Not the PC version served-up by the Infidel. Fighting has been enjoined upon you while it is hateful to you. But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you. And Allah Knows, while you know not. They ask you about the sacred month - about fighting therein. Say, "Fighting therein is great [sin], but averting [people] from the way of Allah and disbelief in Him and [preventing access to] al-Masjid al-Haram and the expulsion of its people therefrom are greater [evil] in the sight of Allah . And fitnah is greater than killing." And they will continue to fight you until they turn you back from your religion if they are able. And whoever of you reverts from his religion [to disbelief] and dies while he is a disbeliever - for those, their deeds have become worthless in this world and the Hereafter, and those are the companions of the Fire, they will abide therein eternally. Indeed, those who have believed and those who have emigrated and fought in the cause of Allah - those expect the mercy of Allah . And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. https://quran.com/2/216-218

In order to get the 72 Houri...you need to die fighting in the name of Allah. Not something else.

Behavior of individuals are not the responsiblity of Islam. I gave you the verse which openly explains the marriage age of youth people. You claim that Aisha was married at 6 based on a story, so you believe in these stories. There are also other stories that makes Aisha impossible to be married at 6, according to these stories she was at least 17 years old. Why are you picking the cherries ?

Sorry, missed the link: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/sep/17/muhammad-aisha-truth

I don't understand why, when presented with facts and perspective that fails to present Muslims as barbaric savages, the usual suspects ignore that in favor of hyperbole, myths and outright lies. And then whine about people being unwilling to "discuss like adults". Here's a link discussing the different opinions on Aisha's age and why the age of six at marriage was extremely unlikely, and nine unlikely albeit possible. Or go ahead and believe that because someone said six or nine it must be true because everybody knows Muslims are evil and bad.

Arrest is made: http://www.630ched.com/2017/03/09/man-arrested-in-edmonton-crow-bar-road-rage-incident-that-left-woman-with-broken-arms/?sc_ref=l.facebook.com

Arranged marriages with children have been common throughout history and around the world. They were not usually consummated till the kids were in their early to mid-teens. This seems young to us, but at the time it was 'middle-age' for most people. It's generally believed that Aisha was somewhere between 14 and 19 when her marriage with Muhammed was consummated and so they were absolutely within cultural norms of the time. Its still true that there are too many child brides in the world but most countries set minimum legal age with and without parental consent. With parental consent is usually around 15 or 16, but some countries allow 12 year olds to marry, including some States and quite a few non-Muslim countries. Iran allows marriage as young as 9, with judge's consent and a few countries have no minimum age, not because they are Muslim but probably because they don't think its necessary. Muslim majority countries are generally in line with Western countries with minimum marriage set at mid-teens and some, such as Egypt, have set it at 18 or older to be in line with Child Not Bride's standard. Legal standards are one thing, but social norms are another. Poorer and less developed countries tend to have younger girls marrying or co-habitating in lieu of marriage, regardless of the dominant religion, while countries with higher education and more wealth have fewer young marriages/co-habitation. So once again, the anti-Muslim group have taken a single fact and embellished it to paint Muslims as being a cult of pedophiles. Now watch as someone drops by to accuse me of defending pedophiles and child marriage because I cited history and fact instead of buying into their hysterical and fear-driven BS.

It will be interesting to see real stats on France. Most of the official comparative ones are up to 2014 which show growth. There are certainly a lot of stories about more recent, but no official stats that I can find.

Broke down and listened to Question Period. If I had played the drinking game every time a Liberal said "middle class" I would have had to call 911 for life threatening intoxication.

Kids are not able to make true decisions most of the time. What a backward opinion this is. You are really a backward people. What kind of a mother would allow her kids to marry just because of she/he want to marry. This is disgusting. I remember you said months ago in another topic that "only few kids know what they want". Now you contradicted with yourself and you say that "we allow them to make their own decisions." This is why you are in my ignore list and you will stay there forever.

Islamic rules does not force anyone to marry too. But Islam wants everyone to marry and not stay alone all their life. There is no such a thing in Islam too. I gave the verse. 6 years old is not a puberty age nor mental mature age. The prophet cannot do such a thing. Islam is Quran, not the stories-fairy tales collected 600 years after the prophet.

Not yet. The more Islam in Canada, the more everything will reflect Islamic values...like forced marriages...child brides...multiple brides...indentured servitude...da verks.

You are confusing lowest legal age with what is practiced. The average age of marriage in Canada is almost 30 (28 for women and 31 for men).

No, I was pointing out how our economy works. I have argued many times that our economy needs drastic change, but that is a completely different issue.

When have I ever defended Islam?

As usual, the dogmatic politically opposed poles simply dig into their trenches and mindless spew pure BS on this topic. To anyone with any kind of biological education (or an ounce of common sense), it is obviously that "life" does not begin at "birth". Similarly, while the fusion of sperm and egg do indeed form a genetically unique, living creature, the concept that this is full blown "human" life is quite a stretch. What is still missing from the issues around both the beginning of "life" and the END of "life" is a very clear definition. Do that and "choice" becomes very easy to define for everyone involved. Since the largest problem the planet has is the 700% increase in population over the last century, killing off or preventing birth of the totally unsustainable numbers of homo sapiens might seem like not such a bad idea. Personally, though, I would prefer to see that accomplished by preventing birth, not terminating what is as yet well defined as a viable life. In the meantime, I have no problem with LNG-EC being used within the time of efficacy. At the other end of "life", more than half of one's lifetime medical costs usually occur during the last few months in the event of illness. Getting a humane and realistic grasp on this problem could restore some dignity and sanity to the whole business (and that's what it is all about - making $$$$ from what will do little but delay the inevitable). Sadly, I have to remark that the old school eugeneticists had some pretty good points. Our increase in general wellness and economic success means that people who would have been hard pressed to enter into reproductive union or survive to that point in their life. Worse yet, global economic conditions now mean that cultures that still practice as much reproduction as possible are now encouraged by the promise of foreign aid to continue to reproduce in economic, climatic and political situations that would otherwise limit population growth.

It's funny that in what is essentially a civil war within Islam between radical jihadists who want a clash of civilizations and moderate Muslims, you are firmly on the side of the jihadists. You are determined to discredit the moderate faction as much as possible and promote an inevitable clash alongside your ISIL brethren.

Irrational fear that makes people behave irrationally is not irrelevant. If these people were not afraid, tourism would not be reduced.

Yes and if people were rational, terrorism would have no effect on tourism because they'd understand that being injured or killed in a terrorist attack is not very likely - they're more likely to die in a non-terror related plane crash on the way to their vacation destination. You should read the link Bubber posted; it's pretty interesting. Irrational fear. Or, more precisely, politicians pandering to the irrational fear that they've also whipped up.

Trump is far better than Trudeau, he can dig a hole much faster.