dialamah

I don't much care if Muslims consider her an apostate; I too am considered an apostate by J W, as are you. Do you suppose the JWs have a different reaction if we criticize them? It's irrelevant. I don't know why you think his words prove anything for or against Ms Hirsi. Again, your reading comprehension. My sister wouldn't come here to discuss it, because of people like you and Argus and DoP.

I have often mentioned my concern over Islamic terrorism. I have also mentioned my concern over right-wing terrorism. I have offered, more than once, to discuss how radicalization might be addressed, regardless of its source or object. Instead of engaging in good faith, you accuse me of saying that Islamic terrorism is "nothing to be concerned about".

So if someone said, in Hirsi Ali's hearing, that Muslims and Jews were being attacked by White Supremacists in Western countries, would she immediately say "Muslims are driving Jews out of France"? If Ms Ali, upon hearing that a refugee boy was arrested and charged with rape and murder, immediately opine that this is just what we can expect from Muslim men? My sister, in our private conversations, talks about issues in Egypt and in Islam, and with Muslims. But she would never come here and talk about them, because people like you and DoP and Argus will use it as fodder to demonize Muslims. So does Ms Hirsi ever mention how Muslims might be disinclined to talk about the issues they face because of Islamophobic attitudes and statements about how the people they know and love are just are brutal murderers and rapists and will never change? And is the deal that I must 100% agree with someone you agree with before I can say anything worthwhile hearing?

How would you know what I think Muslims believe? You've never bothered to ask me, or listen. Instead, you keep telling me what I think.

@Goddess and @DogOnPorch You both need to learn to read. I said My knowing that billions of Muslims .. I did not say I know billions of Muslims. Perhaps it's a lack of reading comprehension that results in the BS you two post.

You are blind to the good and seek to deny it, while postulating that every action you dislike "proves" Muslims are evil. A Muslim refugee family does well in Canada? "They are too rare to consider representative of any Muslim refugee". A Muslim refugee family has an unemployed father looking for work, a daughter working while she attends college and plans for a career in healthcare "He is lazy and taking advantage of Canada's social safety net, teaching his sons to oppress women and take advantage of the system and the daughter will never amount to anything because she's just going to be forced to marry." Every terror event, we see Muslims help victims of terror and their leaders condemn terrorism. "Muslims don't do enough to condemn terrorism." A Muslim refugee is arrested for the murder of a young girl; Muslims show up at the courthouse condemning him and offering comfort to the girl's community. "Muslims think it's acceptable to rape and kill women". Muslims are physically attacked and killed by White supremacist types. "Look at what the Muslims are doing to Jews in France." The Bradford Literary Festival is a Muslim led event, with 500 events over 10 days. The Muslim organizers accept money from a government sponsored anti-extremist group. Six Muslins object to this and leave. 494 events will still move ahead, other Muslims' included. But "Muslims don't want to do anything about extremism and don't want anyone else to do anything either." This pattern of denying anything positive, and insisting only negative stories can be true about a group ( even if the stories are exaggerated or untrue) is known as demonization. You should stop it.

You have me confused with a figment of your overheated imaginings. I am actually the person who, when someone says "Why aren't Muslims protesting/doing something about terrorism", says "They are" and then posts examples, of which there are thousands to choose, if you cared to look. My knowing that billions of Muslims condemn terrorism; that many of them combat it and giving you examples of that isn't what makes you Islamophobic. It's that you reject any "good" done by Muslims as "not enough" and continue to demonize them any chance you get.

They're boycotting because they believe the counter-terrorism initiative of the government focuses exclusively on Muslims, as if no other group could have radicals or indulge in terror. Meanwhile alt-right groups continue to increase and terror attacks against minorities become more common. Six Muslims withdrew, the rest did not. But trust a "critic of Islam" to criticize and condemn "Muslims and Leftists" because they "don't want to do anything about terrorism" based on the actions of six people. I don't know if these six people are correct in their assessment of the government's actions, but it might have been a legitimate discussion in a broader discussion of how to best address radicalization. Instead, someone who styles themselves a "critic of Islam" uses it to claim Muslims (and leftists) don't care about terrorism, completely ignoring the Muslims (and leftists) who condemn terrorism and who actively work to ensure young people do not become radicalized. You also ignore Muslims who work with law enforcement to identify suspects and activities in their communities. Nope, here's an opportunity to demonize Muslims and you are all over it like white on rice. #alt-rightusefulidiot

Earlier today I was on reddit, reading a story about a right-wing terror attack. In the ensuing discussion several Europeans discussed the stupidity of Americans who believe Europe is filled with no-go zones, and that there has been an Muslim-inspired crime wave, even though in fact the crime rates have dropped. So yeah, some people are sheep - especially those people who are eager to demonize immigrants and Muslims. This is only me; I do not represent "people on the Left".

Because of groups such as Pegida, 3%ers and others spreading bullshit about immigrants and Muslims. They post anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim tropes, with little regard for truth and accuracy, well-meaning people who lack critical thinking skills believe and repost. Over time ... a couple or three years ... people become 'more concerned' about immigrants and Muslims, never realizing how easily they've been manipulated. In any case, you performed exactly as I said you would: dismiss any suggestion that racist white people exist in Canada and that some of them are violent, that these groups are growing.

Neither is anti-Semitism "against the law", but we do not find acceptable. At least, not most of us. Numbers are clearly not available because they don't keep rosters, or publicize them. And these groups all post very similar stuff, the difference between an anti-Islam group and a neo nazi group may be simply a change of name and stated purpose to avoid being booted from social media. And what they have on their public facing page is a very sanitized version of what they actually hope to accomplish, as any moderately diligent investigation will reveal. The point of noting the FB numbers is that is how word gets around. I have some Alberta relatives who follow Pegida; they post quite a few alt-right memes and false information. These people are not mean or probably even very racist; still, they are adding to the disinformation, fomenting hate and ultimately are part of the process that leads to someone like Bissonnette "taking action". Nope. Things like 'Canadian culture will disappear because of immigration'; "Immigrants are just here to take advantage of our economy, welfare, education, citizenship perks, unless they are of European origins"; "We are here to save Canada because otherwise our kids will grow up in a Canada that's unrecognizable". I disagree; I think they'll be able to get more supporters because they've succeeded at making their hatred 'legal'; the government has confirmed their bias. People don't give up after success. I think hate crimes will continue to increase in Quebec, faster than in the rest of the country, or even if hate crimes decreased elsewhere.

I don't agree that you can simply draw a line between Islam and the choices made by authorities imposing Sharia law, whether government or clerics. They are the representatives and interpreters of Islam for billions of people world wide, Muslim and non-Muslim. If death for apostasy or homosexuality is "not" Islamic, then Muslims should object vehemently to it being included as part of Sharia wherever it is. Do they? If they do not, or if they excuse its "wrongness" because Islam is perfect and Sharia administered by people is not, then they too misrepresent Islam. If these things are Islamic and accurately represented in Sharia, then those who believe Islam promotes brutal punishment are not wrong. Either Sharia represents Islam accurately or it does not. If it does not, then Muslims should not be following it, imo. I understand that it's not really Islam's concern if we non-Muslims don't "get it". And that may have worked if Muslims were not dispersing around the world in the shadow of extremist attacks in Western countries. I know there are efforts around the world to change the perception of Islam as stuck in the 14th century, remaining backward and ignorant. If that is to be successful, if Muslims want to change that perception, they and their leaders will have to do more than say "Islam is perfect, Sharia law isn't but we support it because the Quran and Hadiths say stuff." Without that extra effort, too many Muslim people in Western countries will feel the pain of hatred and persecution that they do not deserve, imo.

We can agree to disagree on the "perfection of Islam". I think the distinction you are trying to make between Islam itself and man-made Sharia law fails when supporters of Sharia law point to the teachings of the Quran and hadiths as justification. But it's also true that there is widespread misunderstanding of Sharia law among non-Muslims, especially its variability and who is subject to it. Executions for apostasy, blasphemy, homosexuality, stoning for adultery etc, or limb removals for stealing in some Muslim majority countries. They do happen, albeit probably not as often as Western media might have us believe.

Isn't that kind of the issue though? Sharia derives from Islam and some versions of Sharia do call for some pretty brutal punishments. I get that in some cases, these may be more symbolic than real and rarely, if ever, carried out - but in other cases those punishments are all too real.

An interesting explanation of why people "believe" Trump: (hint, they don't). It's like these people have already given up on their society, or maybe humanity in general, and are thrilled to sow divisiveness.

Pegida Canada - far right, nationalistic, anti-Islam, anti-immigrant. Their FB page has 39,000 followers. The 3%ers, a nationalist, anti-Islam militia group has 4000 FB followers, and is considered by some Canadian experts to be the most dangerous group. ID Canada - nationalistic, far-right, anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, several hundred members across Canada, according to their website. Combat18 - and as their page so kindly explained - "With no official members, supporters of Combat 18 come in a wide variety of shapes and sizes, some with ties to the greater Blood and Honour movement, others holding alegiance elsewhere, and even some without ties to any club whatsoever. Regardless of which banner supporters of Combat 18 stand beneath, they will always have the support of the Blood and Honour movement for their courage and unwavering loyalty to the bottom line." This doesn't look a lot different than ISIS' message "We call on believers everywhere to take action" does it. The interesting thing is that these groups all have the same shtick, regardless of whether they are classified as "militia", "White Supremacists" or "Anti-Islam". They are "protecting Canada" (read White Canada) from "threats" - almost entirely brown and/or Islamic. And sure, you can disregard them because 'there aren't very many of them', but their ideas are being embraced and expressed by you and others, here, on this forum, daily - as well as on FB posts and on Twitter and no doubt around kitchen tables and water coolers. The hatred they spread, the violence they are preparing for is not in Canada's best interest.

I think he's saying whether they did it or not, they'll say they did not and point fingers. Kinda like any country.

So, having no clue what was said or what MH was referring to, you jumped in with this: "Islam needs no help to look bad. That's part of the problem with the left's view (except me). They have blinkers (as with Argus's most recent cartoon) and therefore have to describe legitimate criticism of Islam as Islamophobia because to not do so is to acknowledge it, and they cannot do that. For some reason they are afraid." You assumed that whatever was said was "legitimate criticism", because you "didn't read back" and that objections to what was said was therefore illegitimate and should be challenged, all the while declaring yourself unbiased and fairminded. Do I have that right?

Except that isn't what you are doing. You say "I only blame the bad ones" while simultaneously supporting and defending people who lump all Muslims into the group of the "bad ones", and criticizing people who keep pointing out that Muslims cannot be defined by the worst of them.

I am a critic of Patriarchy and I want to point out to you that Robert Pickton is a white guy who raped and killed quite a few women. David Jennings is a convicted pedophile, deemed a dangerous offender. Also a White Male. Christopher Neil, another white Canadian Male, serving 5 years for child-sex crimes. I have now made a watertight case that the group known as White Males are generally rapists and murderers. Sure, not all of them rape and kill, but there are cases daily on the news where some white guy has raped and/or murdered a woman or girl so clearly this is something that is normal and common in this group. And even if a white man hasn't yet followed his nature, he may at any moment. So we must be wary of White men, perhaps limit their access to public spaces, or figure out some way to contain them to protect our society. Clearly, the above reasoning is ridiculous - unless it's a Muslim person doing the crime, in which case this "reasoning" is supposed to be accepted as "criticism of Islam".

Kinda like Germany a couple of years ago, at the height of the Syrian exodus. Millions at our borders. I expect it'll be chaotic, violent, barbaric and brutal. Makes me hope the climate deniers are right, even as the local news announces third straight year of record breaking heat and massive forest fires anticipated.

"Condemning acts of violence and depravity carried out under the Islamic banner." One can do that without also saying "This is who Muslims are." For example: the Syrian refugee who is accused of killing a girl here in Vancouver. Our local "critics of Islam" said things suggesting this boy committed this crime because Muslims think pedophilia is acceptable and that women have no value. They also said that this is the danger of letting Muslims into our country, implying that their religious beliefs means they'll start attacking women/children at will. This is a clear case of using a single event to "prove" how bad Muslins are. In the meantime, there are around 500,000 Muslim men who have not murdered or raped anyone, but these daily non-events are ignored or dismissed as proof that Muslim men aren't generally depraved animals about to rape and murder little girls. A genuine critic of Islam would have no problem in condemning the actions of the refugee, while not also implying that this is a "norm" in Muslim society. Murder and rape is illegal in Muslim countries, just as it is here. A genuine "critic of Islam" can criticize the patriarchal attitudes of Islam, without portraying Muslim men as misogynistic monsters. A genuine "critic of Islam" understands that Muslims are individuals and that defining all of them by their most extreme individuals is not helpful nor even reality.

You said "people who are pointing out how awful Islam is are merely trying to make them look bad, as opposed to simply showing how bad they actually are." Islam is a thing, referred to as it. Muslims are people, referred to as 'them' or 'they'. In effect, you said "people who are pointing out how bad Islam is are merely trying to make Muslims look bad, as opposed to simply showing how bad Muslims are." Which is exactly the issue. Criticizing Islam should not include 'showing how bad Muslims are'. Any genuine critic of Islam will condemn acts of violence or depravity carried out under the Islamic banner, but they will not lump all Muslims under that same banner as a matter of course, even as they criticize Islamic teachings.

Saying that Black Panthers were a terrorist organization doesn't accuse all Black people of being terrorists. Calling out White Supremacists as assholes or racists does not accuse all White people of being assholes or racists. I can't believe you needed this explained.