dialamah

Right, and here are some experts who take the same verses and explain them, agreeing with me. http://islamicsupremecouncil.org/understanding-islam/legal-rulings/5-jihad-a-misunderstood-concept-from-islam.html?start=9 http://www.iiie.net/18-jihad-explained/ We could play duelling experts all day long. But only one of us allows for both interpretations as being equally "valid", meaning that people will choose which form of Jihad they'll follow, the violent or the peaceful. DoP and now you apparerently now seem to want to take the stand that only violent Jihad is "acceptable" for Muslims. Muslim reformers subscribe to promoting violent jihadism, killing of Jews and unbelievers as the only valid expression of Islam, and that anyone who fails in this is not Muslim? I don't think so. I also don't believe reformers support comments implying or outright stating that if a Muslim man injures or kills a woman, its "because they're Muslim men and can't handle women saying no". Or that if a woman wears an hijab or a niqab, she is an extremist and wants to kill gays and unbelievers. I think reformers want Muslims and non-Muslims alike to promote peaceful and progressive teachings and behaviors and to condemn violent and backward ones. I, personally, am more than happy to condemn patriarchal culture prevalent in Muslim countries and supported by the Koran, or human rights violations carried out by governments claiming to be Islamic. This does not mean condemning all Muslim men and women because of news stories about Muslim criminals or murderers.

Thats because you seem to think posting a news story and then saying "Muslim men can't bear to have a woman say no to them" isn't broadbrushing an entire religion. Or DoP claiming that only the violent and hateful bits of the koran are "valid" doesn't demonize Muslims.

And just to be clear, the Koran also says Jews are people of the book and are to be treated with respect and allowed to practice their religion in peace. The koran also says that murder is wrong, terroism is wrong, that jihad is an internal struggle of faith. This is what moderate Muslims, such as the guy in the cite I provided this morning, use to guide their lives to live peacefully with others. That you prefer the terrorist's and extremist's interpretation of the Koran and use that to demonize Muslims says a lot about you, none of it good.

My goodness. I can condemn patriarchy, homophobia, human rights abuses practiced in Muslim countries till the cows come home, but if I object to people who say things like "Muslims are instructed to kill non-believers; its in the Koran and if they aren't killing non-believers, they aren't Muslim", you claim I "don't want anything bad about Islam discussed." Geez. Women in Alberta can be dumb as rocks sometimes.

Now I'm wondering what you've "figured out" and if it really has anything to do with what "I'm trying to do".

I ignore Altai, Taxme, DoP, Betsy for the most part. They are so divorced from reality that its pointless to engage with them; not to mention Altai has me on ignore so whats the point of trying to discuss with her? Scribblet, Capricorn are sometimes interesting. What you and Argus have going for you is that you are articulate, smart, and outside of the Muslim issue, reasonably on-target. So I mostly respond to you two.

@Goddess. I would probably have more faith in your claims of objectivity and fairmindedness if I had noticed you chastising DoP when he posts about how Muslims are all incipient terrorists, or all lying if they express anything but hatred of Jews or how they must kill unbelievers. Like the two posts preceeding yours. But you don't: you only chastise those who say positive things about Muslims, even when they condemn the same behaviors you condemn. By the way, its nice to know authorities are going to take some action on anti-Semitism on al-quds day. I support that, just as I support action being taken against Imams preaching violence or death to Jews. Or anyone else.

OMG. Of course you should object to practices that are inhuman and barbaric, or merely unkind and stupid. FGM, terrorism, honor killings, wife beating, inequities in law, homophobic laws and policies all deserve to be harshly criticized. Where you and your merry band make your mistake is in presenting every misdeed by a Muslim as representative of all Muslims, while claiming acceptable behavior as unusual, out of the norm - or in DoPs case, un-Islamic. This type of rhetoric is the same type of rhetoric Trump uses to demonize Mexicans. Like this comment: They're sending people that have a lot of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." That statement could be changed to "Muslims have a lot of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing wife beaters. They're bringing religious extremism. They're rapists and killers. And some, I assume, are good people." and it would be exactly the message of the anti-Muslim posters on here.

Canadian Muslims organize "Rings of Peace" around Synagogues. It's about the sanctity of life," Khadim told HuffPost Canada by phone. "For everyone on earth, whether you are part of a certain religion or do not practice religion at all, a right to safety is paramount. It could be a mosque or a synagogue or a nightclub. It doesn't matter. Life is sacred."

Sadly, the gov in Pakistan has caved to pressure and now she isn't allowed to leave the country at all. But Canada isn't actually ignoring the situation after all:

Yes, and I thought Ms Weiss was articulate and sensible. I did not hear her say "Criticism of Isreal is antisemistism." Perhaps I am just missing your point.

Excuse me that I failed to tailor my words to your exact specification: apparently a specification requiring complete condemnation of Islam and Muslims. Excuse me that I find all religious extremists similarly hateful and for using a Canadian example of that. Excuse me that I highlighted a major difference between Pakistan and Canada, in that Canada currently has a government that isn't cowed by extremists and that does its best to protect minorities. Even minorities that a nearly half of Canadians consider culturally and/or religiously unacceptable.

Nice. I bemoan the hatred that comes with religious extremists, while appreciating that in Canada, our government seeks to protect minorities and you declare that I am "defending Islam". I said not one word about Islam and specifically condemned the protestors, calling them ridiculous and despicable. Here: And here: Perhaps you will explain why you've twisted this into "defending Islam".

Criticing Isreal for its government sanctioned policies toward Palestine is no more anti-semitic than crticizing Islam for its Koran-inspired patriarchy is Islamophobic.

I do agree that in this case, it would be their religious belief that has them reacting in such a despicable manner. I didn't think you were.

Just curious if you read the link, since you so rarely do. I did, and agree the reaction of the protesters is ridiculous. Sadly, threatening death because you don't like someone isn't limited to religious extremists in Pakistan. Canadian transgensder Stefonknee Wolscht went into hiding after recieving thousands of death threats; I bet a lot of these people were Christians. I am really glad that in Canada, our laws and government is strong enough and liberal enough to better protect minorities than is the case in Pakistan.

Understanding Islam Today is a site run by a Canadian who lives in Vancouver. Judging by his posts, he's also a devout Christian. I bring this to readers' attention because this site explores the issues I see posted about here often. It doesn't deny, dismiss or downplay the patriarchy of Islam, or the conservatism of most of it's adherents, the violence of it's extremists or the ideology underlying it. But it also provides explanation and perspective, and invites understanding and acceptance, not just from "us", but from Muslims as well.

A few years ago, a US politician was asked if Islam was taking over the US and the world. She responded: Clearly, she had an inkling of the threat of an Islamic takeover. Although Frankford Texas barely exists, having only a Church and small cemetary, Dearborn Michigan does have a Muslim community of some size. Jack O'Reilly, Dearborn's Mayor, commented that: "there was no Sharia law in Dearborn and the issue was never raised by residents. “Muslims have been practicing their faith in our community for almost 90 years without incident or conflict,” he said. “To suggest that they have taken over ignores the fact that Dearborn hosts seven mosques and 60 Christian churches.” Some takeover.

As I've already pointed out examples disproving that statement, I will stop reading. No doubt the rest of the post is more ranting and raving about things I haven't said and stuff I don't believe. Cya.

If the US wanted to target the genesis of terrorists flying planes into Western buildings, why did they ignore Saudi Arabia? And, how many countries did the US "save" prior to 9/11, how many innocent civilians did they 'accidentally' kill before these extremists decided to fight back? Occasionally, unavoidably hitting innocent civilians? US kills 500 Arab civilians in a single year Military personnel are supposed to look before they attack to make sure there are no civilians, but they don't; thousands of non-combatants die "accidentally". An estimated 4 million Muslims killed by Western military since 1990; hundreds of thousands of them civilian. Exporting Democracy: by Bob Rae Import/export Democracy: 20 years of democracy assistance .... The Dangers of Exporting Democracy The United States has attempted to export liberal democratic institutions through military occupation and reconstruction throughout its history, with mixed results. The received view about the globalization of culture is one where the entire world has been molded in the image of Western, mainly American, culture. Cultural Imperialism in the late 20th Century. No worries. Sometimes it's hard to tell you apart from a bigoted, racist xenophobe. Just as if the Muslims wanted to 'force' others to submit to Islam, we'd have been forced by now eh? See above links re: exporting democracy and cultural imperialism. Islam's efforts to 'convert' the world fall far short of the Western attempt to 'democracize' the world. What was the terror attack that justified the US using it's resources and military to support some countries and attacking or occupying other countries, starting in the 1950s and continuing to this day? Which terror attack happened prior to 1953, when the US government under Eisenhower instructed the CIA to depose the democratically elected leader of Iran? Or landed their military in Lebanon to help the "preferred" government there in 1958? Yes: cause and effect. The States, supported by it's allies, has interfered in the Middle East long before there were any attacks on Westerners, either in the region or in the West. If Americans hadn't considered it their sacred duty to take on the role of world policeman/political string-puller in foreign lands, there'd be no issues. Cause and effect, right? You know, it just so happens I think the US has done some very good things around the world, for some very good reasons. But that doesn't mean I can't see how the actual inhabitants of that region might view it differently.

That is a terrible story. It would be very interesting to learn the outcome of this: Also, it would be interesting to know how many of the 104 Canadian men arrested for seeking sex with children were of Pakistani origin. Sadly, the penalties for seeking sex with a child in Canada are stunningly mild: Hardly seems severe enough for a willingness to destroy a child.

After spending several months following right-wing political figures and participating in right-wing social media cites, Alexandre Bissonnet storms a Mosque during prayer, killing 6 and injuring 19. After immersing himself in right-wing, anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim rhetoric, Anders Brevik kills 77 people to register his objection to immigrants and Muslims in his country. Right-wingers everywhere: "Those people are mentally ill, that has nothing to do with us or our anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim and pro-White Supremacy rhetoric". Nobody here agreed with that ruling, including myself. Nobody here defended this person as far as I know. I objected to people who said things like "See what we are bringing into our country? Muslims who don't know how to behave in public". Of course these same people, when confronted with non-Muslims doing exactly the same sorts of things respond with "Meh, what do you expect? Of course some men are bastards, we know this, we condemn it, but it's just part of life." Double standard in spades: if a Muslim does it, hand-wringing and bigotry ensues; if a non-Muslim does it, sad shakes of head and resigned shrug of shoulders. Where did I, or anyone, call you a 'f'in racist', again? Every bomb drop/drone attack in the Middle East: What do you mean, they are tired of us killing them by the 100s of thousands over there; don't they understand we're doing it for their own good? Of course our war-mongering in their countries has nothing to do with resentment against the West, or of their extremists taking action! How dare they object, the ungrateful bastards! They hate us and attack us for no reason other than religious fanatacism! A form of dress is such a problem for you folks you'd be happy to impose rules on women: a solution that addresses the wrong problem and the wrong person and creates an even worse situation for the women. At least you (eventually) had the honesty to admit it wasn't so much that you wanted to 'help' these oppressed women, but that the extremity of the burka offends you. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/sharia-law-muslim-no-go-zones/ - these stories of no-go zones are false. https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/nz8kab/residents-of-europes-no-go-areas-talk-about-life-in-the-danger-zone - residents of these so-called 'no go zones' mention the diversity and the lack of Sharia law in their neighborhoods. They invite people who think they live in a 'no-go zone' to come and visit for themselves and see how wrong they are. The supposed 'no-go' zones are analogous to places like the DTES in Vancouver, where poverty reigns supreme and criminal behavior is higher than the rest of the country; where residents often don't report crime because they don't trust the police, or because of fear of reprisal. Inner-city ghettos is what they used to be called, but since there's an agenda to demonize Muslims, RW media has termed these places 'no-go' zones and spread stories about how Muslims have taken over, imposed Sharia law and the police no longer attend. https://www.thelocal.se/20170621/no-go-zones-what-you-need-to-know-about-swedens-vulnerable-aeas But hey, the fear and loathing generated by the myths of the 'no-go' zone is a lot more attractive than the reality so I'm pretty sure nothing is going to change your conviction about these 'no-go' zones. Yes, anti-semitism is on the rise, along with crimes against all other minorities, including LGBTQ. Generally, the people charged with those sorts of crimes are right-wingers. But hey, let's blame Muslims for the rise in antisemitism, shall we? The Muslim Rape Game doesn't exist; what does exist is something called "taharrush gamea", or group harassment in Arabic. But that's bad enough, so hey .. I'll let you have this one. Especially since gang rapes definitely happen, the world over, so it's not like this is the least bit implausible. Just for the record, I never called that reporter a liar; I agreed that something horrible must have happened to her. I did find the other eyewitness account that contradicted *some* parts of her description interesting. Perhaps a description of demonizing would help you understand why I object to so many of your posts. Here's a link that offers a simple explanation. Here's the Wikipedia definition. And here's an interesting discussion on Quora, which helps explain why I object to people demonizing Muslims, even if I don't particularly agree with Islamic belief or the cultural norms prevalent in Islamic society. This passage describes it pretty well for me:

True. You need a Visa to enter, checkpoints on the borders of Burnaby, Delta and North Van. Makes it tough for tourists to get to Whistler since most of the world hasn't yet realized that Vancouver has become a Chinese territory and they don't get the right Visa. I haven't been into Vancouver in the last few days, but I've heard that all English signs have been removed and non-Chinese people are all being deported to refugee camps in Burnaby and North Van. Its very sad.

I also don't know where the next drone strike or bomb drop, in the name of Western capitalism, will take out a few dozen civilians or schoolchildren. Do you? You seriously think there is some moral high ground we inhabit here, as we sell arms to the most oppressive and brutal regime in the Middle East? We're unassailably the "good guys" as we casually accept countless civilian casualties as the necessary byproduct of exporting "Western freedom and democracy" - aka capitalism - to other countries. You paint Muslims as aggressors, Westerners innocent victims of a cult maddened by religious fanaticism. You are apparently blind to the Western military in their countries, the imposition of dictators and coups engendered by Western governments, the ongoing wars waged in and against Middle Eastern countries, all well before Islamic terrorists began targetting Westerners in their own countries. Western aggression and foreign policy has resulted in the death of 100s of thousands of Muslims in the Middle East, but as far as you are concerned, they are the agressor because they've managed to kill a few thousand non-Muslims in retaliation. You are ridiculous, which is why I keep you on ignore most of the time.

Ok. I did not call call you or anyone here an Islamophobe or a racist, though I did refer to 'racist' generally in one comment. The news story I linked to also referred to this person's racist comments so I don't think I was wrong about that. You posted on October 1 about the CRA removing tax-exempt status from an Islamic organization. I did read that when you posted it, but since you failed to imply that Muslims are busily funding ISIS, I had no reason to object, eh? And on September 28, Argus posted the story about the school in Malaysia that had some dumb-ass course about wife-beating - which again I read when he posted it. He also failed to demonize Muslims in any way, so there was nothing to object to in that way, though the story itself was pretty objectionable. Pretty sure if you look through the topic here and elsewhere, you'll find plenty of negative comments about Muslims that don't also demonize them as a group and to which I have not objected, and have even agreed with. So much for your paranoia that I perceive 'anti-Muslim' in pretty much everything anyone says. I notice you still haven't said anything about DoP demonizing all Muslims as incipiently violent. Do you agree with him?