dialamah

Yes, she posts just as much false news as Scribblet. Good you called her out on it; does she still have you on ignore? Although, people who post false news rarely are impressed with the facts, so it hardly matters if she's ignoring you or not.

Uhhh .... that's you with your "No true Muslim is peaceful" BS.

The majority of Muslims remain in Muslim majority countries. The ones moving here - they'd be the minority who do want to live in a Western society. So your question is either remarkably stupid or deliberately provocative; I'm assuming the latter.

Maybe they are moving to a culture they prefer, one which offers them freedom of religion, among other things. Did'ja ever think of that? Or were you too busy assuming that the Muslims who move here hate Western culture and only tolerate it so they can live on welfare.

I have in the past, and you rejected and dismissed them, so why would I waste time on that again? Anyway, you consider yourself the expert on Islam, so I'm sure you are aware of them, despite you pretending such teachings don't exist.

And not naming those who have extreme views as separate from those who do not would be better how, exactly? Christianity has different sects, some of whom believe in polygamy. If one is limited to referring to these people as "Christians who practice polygamy," people unfamiliar with the various belief systems of Christianity might be inclined to think that polygamy is an acceptable part of mainstream Christianity, but it's not. Unless you support increasing Islamophobic rhetoric and actions among ignorant Westerners, perhaps you could see that it's to the benefit of Muslims to have the more extreme among them clearly identified, rather than seen as a single monolithic group.

You ignore, dismiss and deny any part of the Koran that teaches something other than killing others. You are fanatical in your insistence that Muslims are required to murder because of what the Koran says. You have even gone so far as to claim that anyone calling themselves Muslims who is not willing to kill is not really Muslim. That's extremism. No idea what you mean by my "Islam is peace" fantasy, unless it's my tendency to judge by evidence - out of billions of Muslims, only a tiny fraction engage in terror activities or random murders. This is in line with what the majority of actual Muslims say they believe - terrorism and murder of innocents is wrong. It seems to me it's your insistence that Muslims are primed and ready to kill that is the "fantasy".

You only "use" those parts of what Islam teaches that supports what you choose to believe. That is what fanatics and extremists do. (Non-fanatical believers do too, but they're not as dogmatic as fanatics are, they don't deliberately spread lies and dehumanize people and they don't engage in violence.)

Adherents of Wahabism prefer to be called Salafists; perhaps that's a term you will accept for the ultra-conservative, "purist" version of Islam as taught by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab. Anyway, denying that there is a widely- followed version of Islam commonly known as Wahabism isn't really helpful. It makes you seem as dogmatic as DoP.

1. The passages you refer to deal with "wartime" behavior. 2. The wartime practices described in the Koran were also practiced by every other group, before and after them, during "wartime" - including modern Western countries. 3. There are many passages in the Koran detailing how to treat others during "peacetime", which is much different than the "wartime" behavior. 4. In the OT, God's chosen people, Isrealites or whatever they were called, while they were small in number, moved on when they were threatened by other groups. Once they got some power, they began fighting back and God encouraged them to murder, rape and enslave other peoples. 5. When Mohammed initially began his "ministry", he moved on when threatened by other groups. Once they got some power, they began fighting back, and Allah encouraged them to murder and enslave other people (seems to me rape wasn't one of the things encouraged by Allah). 6. Just because you and others like to lean on the New Testament to "prove" how different Christianity is (and always will be) from Islam, the truth is that as soon as Christianity gains power, it reverts to it's roots - and looks almost exactly like Islam does today - and in some places in the world, it does still look almost exactly like Islam. 7. Have to say this - I would be happier in a world where there was no religion - all religions think they have "God" on their side, giving them leave to impose cruel, inhuman and barbaric practices "for the good" of the individual or group. In the West, it's only progressive secularism that keeps them at bay; just consider the way the religious right is chipping away at women/gay rights in the States. In Canada, the religious right is boasting about how they now have 45 MPs who'll vote for pro-life policies. If anyone thinks they'd stop there if they succeeded, they'd be very surprised to see how far they'll push. 8. That doesn't mean all Christians are "evil", or support what the religious right is doing. 9. Conservative Muslims are the natural allies of the religious right, so lucky for us the religious right is anti-Muslim. People who worry about Muslims imposing Sharia law should pay as much attention to the fundamentalist Christians who would love to make us into a "Christian" nation and eliminating or reducing many of the progressive policies we've implemented over the last few decades.

Yes, they are a terror group and their methods of instilling terror are especially horrific. I think it's arguable whether or not Islam "offers" ISIS. They can certainly claim Islam as their rational for their political desire to have an Islamic State, but they are not supported by the majority of the followers of Islam. To me, personally, considering ISIS a representative example of what Islam offers is about the same as considering pedophiliac priests as representative of what Catholicism offers. Yes, and they are succeeding - you'd think all of us would be smart enough not to paint all Muslims with the ISIS brush, but as so many people amply demonstrate, their strategy is working. Unfortunately, it's not making Westerners any safer - the more Muslims are marginalized, accused and attacked, the more likely it is their unstable members will act out. Kinda like most White Supremacists aren't actually violent, but they do have their folks who think it's up to them to "do something" for the White folks - so off they go to their target with their guns.

Yes, it is hard to tell if the countries in question would be any different if they didn't have Islam as their "State" religion. In countries that claim Christianity as it's State religion (not many), rights of women and minorities run the gamut from pretty poor to pretty good. The Kingdom of Tonga is an interesting situation: traditionally, women held high status, but as Christianity has become more firmly entrenched in their society, women's rights and statuses have declined. This is probably not the case for all countries where Christianity has taken over, but I do believe that the more secular a country is, the more likely it is that gender equality and human rights will be supported. That is ISIS, and not Muslims. The majority of Muslims disapprove of ISIS and say they do not represent Islamic teachings.

I have no sympathy for Islamic terrorists. I have sympathy for the innocent, non-violent Muslims people like you, Goddess, Argus, DoP etc., want to lump in with the Islamic terrorists.

Christianity predates Islam; much of Islam was taken from Christian and Jewish practices of the time. My personal opinion is that it doesn't matter if a region is Christian, Muslim or one of the indigenuous religions that pre-date both Christianity and Islam - many (if not all) of these practices are cultural and 'infect' everybody to some degree. The only reason these practices look strictly "Muslim" to you is because that's how it's been presented to us by the media we have here in the West. Plus you suffer from xenophobia, so your biases are not just against Muslims but anyone who doesn't look "Canadian" enough.

And if a Christian village launches an attack against the nearest Fulani herders, and the Fulani respond in kind - does the Christian attack get mentioned? Nope; it's portrayed in Western media and especially in places like Jihad Watch as an example of more "Muslim terrorism". If a South African Christian group plans an attack against malls, does that make Western media? Nope - we in Western land have to go looking for it, if we're interested. If it was a Muslim terrorist planning an attack in a mall, anywhere in the world, it'd be in Western media and in Jihad Watch. Do you know who Christopher Paul Hasson is? Without clicking on the link, I mean. Have you heard of Elizabeth Vincent or Vincent Armstrong? It's pretty easy to conclude that a group is a particular threat when you are only exposed to the crimes that group has committed, when there are multiple sources detailing those crimes that you can easily access, and the same crimes committed by other groups are barely mentioned, or even not mentioned at all beyond the local papers. So, what about the fact that law enforcement in Western countries considers right-wing hate groups to be of equal, or even more danger than Islamic terror groups in Western countries? It seems likely that law enforcement would have a handle on who poses the most threat to citizens in our country, yet people such as yourself dismiss that info, in favor of a site like Jihad Watch - which you admit is biased. Why is that? Could it be that its ok, in your mind, to frame Muslims as dangerous to Westerners, regardless of facts?

Are they? If the Christians in the MENA area, whether a minority in a Muslim country or a majority in their own country, are treating women about the same as Muslims, and carrying out terror attacks on other people in their area, how can Muslims be "worse" while doing the same? Is it because Muslims are also targetting Western nations in terror attacks?

Sure they are. I thought you were just claiming that the links provided by Jihad Watch were from the worldwide, mainstream media. So which is it - accurate stores taken from credible media, or stuff found that the MSM media doesn't cover? And, why would anyone want to compile evidence of crimes from only a single group? Especially when the people carrying out the crimes are a minority of that group? Why wouldn't they, at least, compile evidence of both crimes and -- I dunno -- "normal" behavior?". That other one, "Clarion" is quite anti-Muslim, but at least they regularly provide evidence of the "other side If a site is only 'compiling' the crimes of Musims, then that is a frame-up. If you want to frame Muslims as criminals, then Jihad Watch is the place to go. If you want to even pretend to have an unbiased POV, then Jihad Watch shouldn't be on your list of sources.

Missed that, thought you were on about the London Bridge attack. Treatment of women, yes - bad in Muslim majority countries. Also, bad in Christian majority countries in the same region. Bad in India, too - neither Muslim nor Christian majority. There's a documentary series on Netlflix hosted by Christiane Amanpour; one of the episodes is about the City of Accra, in the Christian nation of Ghana. Because it's "tradition", Christian Ghanian men can have more than one wife (supported by the Christian church), arranged marriages are not uncommon; in 2011, 6% of girls married were under 15 and an additional 7% were between 15 and 19; currently Unicef says 25% of girls are married before they are 18. Honor killings and selling girls into slavery to atone for a family's offenses are "traditions" still practiced. Traditionally, education and positions of power have not been considered appropriate for women, but steps have been taken to address that, and more girls are getting educated, and more women are taking part in politics. The situation for women is slowly improving in this Christian-majority country, but they still have a ways to go, especially in rural areas. We read about these kinds of things in Muslim-majority countries all the time, but rarely about Christian-majority countries. This is why I object to the "Muslims/Islam" is the worst narrative - given that most people are completely unaware of all the breadth and width of Christian behavior, sanctioned and supported by Christian leaders, around the world. Islam/Muslim might be the largest populations in these areas of the world, but the Christian populations aren't as different as people assume. Islam and Christianity are cut from the same cloth, and where they can get away with it, Christians are every bit as misogynistic, violent and "backward" as the most fundamentalist Muslim.

The media rarely reports on crimes carried out by Christians - especially terror related ones, because they happen in other countries. Western media does cover many of the attacks carried out by Muslims in other countries, while making simplistic assumptions about the situation - most often blaming Muslims. In Nigeria, Muslim and Christian groups attack each other, but we only hear about Muslims attacking Christians, feeding the idea that Muslims are always the aggressor and want to eliminate other groups. In fact, these groups aren't even fighting over religion, they're fighting over resources. I, personally, can't say if the terror engaged in by Muslims worldwide is significantly greater than that carried out by Christians worldwide, because there are too many unknowns. I can say, thanks to reports provided by governments in the West, that right-wing terror attacks occur at a higher rate than Islamic terror attacks, but the Islamic terror attacks are the ones who get the eyeballs and media attention.

When you say that certain news media in Canada is "Liberal", what do you mean exactly? That it doesn't post real news stories? No, you mean that the content they choose, the wording they choose, the viewpoint expressed is biased toward liberal ideologies. Same with Jihad Watch - the news stories they focus on, the wording they use, their viewpoint is extremely anti-Muslim. That is why it is not a credible source. It's no more credible than Breitbart for 'unbiased' reporting of mainstream media, or of any information about Islam.

Jihad Watch is not a credible source. Without a credible source, you can't make a credible argument. Without a credible argument, you just look Islamophobic.

I did google "machete attacks" --- the first hit was about a non-Muslim criminal who killed a senior using a machete and a hammer. The next two were from within Canada, neither of which identified the attacker as Muslim, or the attack as terror - one is a meth user, and the other wanted a cigarette.. There were other hits around the theatre attack (a gang thing, nothing about Muslims or terror), one in Athlone which does not identify anything but the gender and ages of the attackers. Another from Toronto which was domestic violence; if the country of origin is any indication, they would be Buddhists. I had to click into each story because not one of them included "Muslim" in the headline. Of course, once I added the word "Muslim" to the search query, I got a list much more like the one you so nicely screenshot for us. So, how amazed are we that you'd do a google search for "Muslim machete attacks", post it, and then claim that all you had to do was google "machete attacks"? Just for fun, I googled "Alberta machete attacks" - cause you live there, and maybe you'd be interested. First hit: attacker was Greg Fox, from Little Pine First Nation. Second hit was a road-rage incident, no personal details provided. Third hit was a good old-stock Canadian, judging by his name, Dillon Richard Runions - he's to undergo psychiatric assessment. Two more incidents listed are also clearly not Muslim or terror related. Not a Muslim machete wielder in sight. Your attempt to spread the idea that Muslims are instigating machete attacks around the world fails miserably. Maybe you'd be more persuasive if you didn't resort to hyperbole, misinformation and outright lies. ETA: I just noticed - your "google search" was actually just a bunch of links from "Jihad Watch" - even more of a lie than I thought! You are such a propagandist; no better than DoP, or the Islamic extremists the two of you pretend all Muslims are. How sad I am about that, cause up till now I believed you were well-intentioned, merely wrong.

I knew, as soon as I heard this news report that you'd be all over it, now that you've decided knife attack = Muslim attack. You might have waited till the assailant was identified before throwing this out here as Islam-inspired. Even the police involved have asked that people wait for facts before spreading misinformation. "We are aware of reports circulating on social media. We will release facts when we can - our info must be accurate." Goddess, just think of how your credibility could improve if you weren't so eager to prove the evil of Muslims through twisting news stories and jumping to conclusions.

Yeah, I tend to think that how we're doing is less about the regime we're under than what's happening in the rest of the world. I'm sure tax policies have some effect, but I've never experienced anything that's made my life significantly better or worse, and things seem to truck along more or less the same regardless of the claims, promises or accusations of politicians. I think climate change fallout will result in considerable change, but how much can be controlled by Liberal or Conservative leadership is the question I think.

Neither of the news stories you posted had anything to do with Islam or Muslims. They are both about gangs and criminals. You are twisting the truth to suit your agenda.