dialamah

I understand what you are saying, and agree also with your earlier statement that the line can be hard to define. The problem I see with organizations like Combat18 or ISIS being free to post on social media is that the "public" face of the page is pretty sanitized. It draws people in, and as time goes they become either disgusted - as you say - or they become believers and go ever deeper behind the scenes, where the calls to action are. This is how recruitment works, and social media is a great tool for extremists. They certainly aren't going to draw people in by saying, right-up-front, 'we are looking for soldiers to fight and kill.'

I used to think that was possible too, and then I started participating on online forums. Very few people *sincerely* listen and even fewer are interested in being 'defused'. It seems the most effective countermeasure to hatred is for the hater to actually meet and get to know some members of the hated group. ?? This is hard to follow; sounds like you are suggesting that if I say to my White Supremacist neighbor (who pro-actively insults and threatens non-whites) that he is a White Supremacist, it will then be my fault if he goes out and kills someone. Meanwhile, his peer group, who validate and encourage his hatred, are blameless and entitled to foment hatred?

Actually, I'm not clear what we are talking about. The OP provided no cites, and I cannot find a news story from CBC about "internet legislation". The closest I could find was a story from May 21, about an 'overhaul' of digital legislation, where the focus of the story seems to be more about market disruption although this paragraph also mentions hate and extremism: Link. Assuming this is the story (perhaps the OP will provide a link), do you think it's unreasonable to keep internet platforms free from hate and violent extremism? Should ISIS and Combat18 be allowed to post freely on Facebook or Twitter?

Hate can be personal, and still be restricted from being expressed. Expressing one's personal hate in the public sphere leads to assault. If Bissonette had not had access to anti-immigrant/anti-Islam rhetoric, would he have decided to shoot up a Mosque? Doubtful, given that until he was exposed to this rhetoric, he was not particularly extreme. I agree that keeping hate 'underground' is problematic, too, but in my opinion it is less problematic than allowing it unfettered expression.

@Betsy... you and a few other Christians have, over my time here, informed me why OT laws don't apply any longer. Are you now changing your claims? No point in quoting scripture at me, btw. I pay that as much mind as I do DoP's Quranic scripture, because holy books always have scripture that can be used to support anything the quoter wants to claim.

Suspiciously good advice.

Where did I say you wrote the Quran?

What the Bible says and what Betsy tells us about what she believes aren't necesasarily related, so this verse, whatever it says, is irrelevant imo.

My question was - why do you continue to engage with me in your zeal to prove how bad Islam is, when you have a much better option in an actual believer. Are you concerned that he'll be able to decimate your anti-Islam "arguments"? Such drama! If that is such a fact, why do not all Islamic countries actively seek out and kill apostates? Why do they essentially ignore them unless they are especially public, and then usually just jail them instead of execute them?

Funny, because Betsy herself has used the argument that Jesus made the Old Testament laws irrelevant when she's been questioned on certain things she doesn't practice or support.

Perhaps I am wrong about the apostasy bit, but until I know and understand the context of that particular verse, I am not going to take your word for it. In any case my point stands: if the Quran says one thing and a Hadith adds to or changes it then how is that not an interpretation of Islam. By the way, here you have an actual supporter of Islam in your midst, which I would think a genuine "critic of Islam" would be happy to engage with. But you do not; instead you target me with your BS.

Just as you aren't a practitioner of Christianity any more, as you still refer to the Old Testament for your beliefs, even though the coming of Christ fulfilled the Old Testament and brought in a new era of acceptance, love and non-judgment?

Are you saying that if Iran repealed its laws prescribing death for homosexual behavior, Iran would fall apart in a day or two? The Quran does not prescribe any particular punishment for apostasy. Would a country such as Saudi Arabia fall apart if they failed to punish apostates? If there is no compulsion in religion and if both Jews and Christians are considered "people if the book" along with Muslims, would Egypt suddenly fall apart if they stopped requiring government ID to specify one of those three religions and making conversion between those religions a government tracked event? If that is the response when questioned, then how does a Muslim or even a potential convert** follow this expectation: And, if a Muslim individual determines that the teachings of their clerics and/or actions of their government are not Islamic, how do they reject it without putting their liberty and perhaps their life on the line? What do you mean? How are you "hearing" my tone? If we were face-to-face, my tone would be quiet, gentle and thoughtful. There would be pauses as I tried to find the right words to express myself honestly, but with respect. I understand that much of this does not come across in text, especially as I am known for being straightforward and matter-of-fact amongst my friends, which is softened by my actual tone and demeanor. So if the Quran does not mention stoning adulterers, then its perfectly fine to implement that as part of Sharia law because someone (not Muhammed, but maybe his friend) said "I know Muhammad thought stoning was acceptable.", and an expert, perhaps centuries later, included that as a Hadith? While you may not see Islam as interpretable, I think the hadiths and the stated expectation that individual Muslims determine the truth of what clerics and leaders tell them, I think this makes Islam very interpretable. I think this helps explain why there is such a variety of belief in Islam, despite the claim that it is perfect and cannot be changed. It gives me even more hope for its progression into a more humanistic and freedom-loving religion. The "extremism" Argus speaks of is no doubt the death throes of governments and fundamentalists who see their influence and legitimacy waning. He isn't referring specifically to terrorism, but to what seems to be an increase of a more conservative and oppressive interpretation of Islam in (some) Islamic countries. He and I differ very much on how civilized Muslims are generally and how well they can fit into a progressive Western country, and argue often about it. **not me.

Their are plenty of programs that help Canadians. My daughter has taken advantage of several. Anyway, what is the conservative** response whenever programs to help the disadvantaged are suggested? "Why should my tax dollars go to help people that are just too lazy to work?" Or "If people can't afford kids, they shouldn't have them. My tax dollars shouldn't be wasted helping irresponsible people." Or "If those people want more money, they should get better paying jobs or another instead if expecting my money to subsidize their lack of ambition." **Not all conservatives.

There are several new and in-construction multi-family complexes within one km of where I live. Traffic is getting worse everywhere, bus service is at capacity, and our mayor is focused on implementing a municipal police force and getting rid of the RCMP. #strangepriorities

I agree with this. Islam may be some years behind Christianity, but I think it will follow the path of Christianity and Judaism over time, though no doubt there will always be those small pockets of fundamentalists. People seem to need traditions that run the gamut from very liberal to very illiberal, with most falling somewhere in the middle of the two extremes.

I am unable to 'make decisions for nations', but I can criticize the decisions that nations make - which is what I am doing. If the Quran is the perfect expression of God's will, and Islamic nations claim to be following God's will, but then they implement laws that are not supported by anything in the Quran, then I can hardly be 'deciding on God's will'. If anything, it's Islamic nations implementing these things that are 'deciding on God's will". Yup, I would. In this particular discussion, however, I am criticizing those nations that use punishments not mentioned in the Quran and claim they are Islamic, even if those claims are based on interpretations of God's will through the Hadiths. As I understand it, Hadiths are claims made about what Muhammed said, did or intended passed down as oral traditions after the death of Muhammed, and documented some generations later. Given that the passage of time inevitably affects accuracy in regards to an initial event, and that things like human imperfection, not to mention politics and current events, will also affect records after the fact, and one has to question just how well these Hadiths actually reflect God's will as expressed in the Quran, or even Muhammed's teachings. And given that Hadiths contradict each other, I'd say that's even more evidence that Hadiths themselves are, essentially, interpretations of Islam. I'm sure there is. But my point is that when a Hadith says, for example, that a homosexual should be put to death even though the Quran may specify a different punishment - that Hadith is interpreting the Quran and God's will. A nation that chooses to use a Hadith that contradicts what the Quran actually says is also choosing to interpret Islam. Every avowed Muslim in the world believes they are following the 'perfect' religion, yet there are so many different beliefs. How could this be the result of anything but various interpretations of the Quran, of what Muhammed taught? If religious and government leaders impose different versions of Sharia law under the claim that they are following God's will, how could that be anything but different interpretations of Islam? Saying that "Islam is perfect and cannot be interpreted" does not address the fact that there are, in fact, so many interpretations and practices of Islam around the world.

That is not what I said. Try again. I do more than the average Westerner to find out "what it's all about". Does the Quran require stoning of adulterers, and jailing or execution of gay people, apostates and non-believers? I do not think it does, I believe those laws - where they are in place - rely on hadiths for justification, not.the Quran. If I am wrong, then please educate me. If I am correct, then explain how these hadiths do not "interpret" Islam.

If a government or a cleric supports or proposes a law that, for instance, victimizes women or children or gay people or non-believers, and justifies that law as "Islamic" based on something in the Quran, the Hadith or the Sunnah, then I suppose I will have to agree with Islam's detractors that Islam as a religion is barbaric, backward and ignorant. Now, personally, I don't want to do that simply because I know too many Muslims who are the opposite of barbaric, backward and ignorant. The only way I can support my Muslim family and friends is to 'decide what befits the law and what doesn't.' I have some limited understanding of the role of Sharia in Islam so I would not expect Muslims to do away with Sharia, and use our laws instead. This is exactly what I am getting at. I am more aware than most Westerners of the differences in how Sharia law is implemented in Islamic countries. I am aware that several countries have dual systems, where Sharia is only applied in family matters and criminal matters are not. Or that in most countries (not all), Sharia or portions of Sharia only apply to Muslims while people of other beliefs are under a different system. That's simply not true. For instance - stoning for adultery. This is not supported in the Quran, yet it is a legal punishment in several Islamic countries, who use the Hadith to legitimize it. How is that not interpreting Islam? If a person resides in a country that prescribes "death to apostates", a punishment based on Hadith rather than the Quran, how exactly is he supposed to "reject" that? He cannot, because his government and the religious authorities impose that on him. It is simply not possible to excuse or ignore the role of Islamic governments and clerics in 'interpreting' Islam for the people under their authority. If Islam cannot be forced on anyone, why do so many Islamic countries make adherence to Islam a requirement for freedom from legal consequences and/or persecution? Why do so few Muslims really understand their religion, if its up to them to determine the 'truth' of Islam? Why do so few Muslim leaders actually lead according to the Quran, but instead use Hadiths and other sources to impose behaviors on Muslims under their control? As long as so many of Islam's leaders rely on interpretations of the Quran through Hadiths, then people in the world will never know what Islam is. And yeah, Muslims will always be persecuted if they continue to fail to take responsibility for what their leaders practice and teach.

So which is it ... Islam doesn't allow birth control, or men don't?

Generally and with regional differences, Islam permits birth control and abortion for various reasons - including extreme poverty in some places- up to about three months. After that, an abortion is allowed if the health of the mother is at risk. So don't do it.

Yes it is, and Christianity as well. Nonetheless, it's still prevalent amongst people in the Middle East and Africa, sadly.

Easy enough ... any suggestion that you might be able to dislike the religion but still view its adherents as human and varied in their beliefs clearly means you are on the side of the violent Islamists and want to destroy Western society.