dialamah

Did you mean to say don't apply?

I have to agree with this and the way it's stated. In my opinion sexist and misogynist attitudes need to be discouraged. Even challenged although sometimes challenging people on their deeply held religious beliefs can be counter-productive. l believe that leading by example and through education we can help the women and girls escape this lifestyle more effectively than shunning them and refusing them entry into our country.

Sweetie, its not me who makes a point of mentioning your name in every negative post about what "the other side believes". You, like DoP and Argus, slur me every chance you get, regardless of whether I'm even involved in whatever conversation you are having. And thanks for showing me the proof I was asking for. It certainly bears thinking about.

Its only one person that I'd consider a rabid Muslim hater on this forum. Another I'd consider quite Islamophobic and a third person I think simply lacks an ability to adequately apply critical thinking skills. But hey, thanks for devolving into a either/all mindset and ignoring anything I post that doesn't fit into your assumptions about who I am or what I believe.

Quite often hysteria by the majority has been shown to be wrong - ever heard of mob justice and how often it targets the wrong person or has the right person but the wrong facts? And yeah, the anti-Muslim rhetoric by commentators both outside and inside these countries is a lot easier to find than than officials within the country debunking those reports. But louder doesn't equal "right" and once again when I look at the source and content of these reports they tend to read like "dire warnings" rather than "factual accounts". So now you tell me that rather than falling into an Islamic State, Sweden recognized a problem and enacted a law designed to counter that problem. To me, that supports my contention that far far from becoming ruled by Sharia law, countries are maintaining and enforcing their own cultural standards. Which is what I expect Canada to do as well. The question still remains: Show me a Western country that has enacted Islamic law that applies to all citizens.

I've read those things; I've also read articles saying that such claims are overblown and outright false. So who's word should I take, hmmm? Given the bizarre response of some Canadians over a motion for a study of religious intolerance, including Islamophobia and the hysteria of "Sharia is coming" I'm inclined to disbelieve similar sounding claims about countries far away. And the question was .... What Islamic laws affecting every single citizen habe been enacted in a Western country? So far, the answer is none.

Has Sweden changed their laws to make honor killing or wife beating legal? Have they made theft punishable by removing a hand? Perhaps they've enacted laws against apostasy? Or laws requiring women to wear hijab, burkas or niqab? Maybe they've decreed that a woman's testimony should be half that of a man's? No? Imagine that! Despite the claim that Sweden has been overrun by Muslims demanding they all live under Sharia, nothing has actually changed!

Show me a Western country where the law has been changed to incorporate Islamic laws or beliefs that effect every single citizen.

Yup. Europe is still not Muslim. Imagine that!

Show me a non-Muslim, Western country where that has actually happened. And I don't mean Sharia councils specific to Muslims but countries where laws have actually incorporated some belief of Islam into laws that affect every single citizen regardless of religion or belief.

I don't like this either. I didn't like it when I saw a few women like this in Egypt and I don't like seeing it in Canada. But as far as I'm concerned there is nothing in this world that gives me the moral right to decide I must save these women against their will or offer blanket insults to them, their husbands and fathers or their religion. I can offer them something different through example and education but they have to make a choice to accept it. Banning them from my country because they make me uncomfortable will not help them or their daughter. Forcing them to wear what I find acceptable will not help them. Prosecuting them for domestic abuse sends a message that wife beating, honor killings and FGM are unacceptable in this country helps them understand our standards and sends a message to potential victims that they aren't abandonned. Refusing to let them entry because they're dressed a certain way and assuming their thoughts doesn't help those women or their daughters. If our culture isn't strong enough to offer opportunity for freedom from oppression to these women without losing our way, that's pretty pathetic.

I left the same religion you did. I've also left an abusive relationship where I was quite literally expected to the the slave of the man. Yet somehow I didn't come out of that believing I knew best for other people and could impose on them my beliefs about how they should behave. I understand that until a woman chooses for herself to make that change you'll only make her more determined to remain in her comfort zone if you try to force her to change.

I suppose if these people were devoting hours and threads to non-Muslim women being abused by their non-Muslim husbands, or non-Muslim women forced to wear long skirts and long sleeves by non-Muslim husbands/fathers their concern for Muslim women would be a bit more believable. These posters claim concern about Canadian culture, but how many threads have they started about rape and pedophilia by non-Muslim men being a problem? Or fraud and crime by non-Muslim and those of white European descent? The point isn't that bad actions committed by Muslims are excused because the same thing happens among non-Muslims, but that focusing on Muslims as if the bad actions they commit aren't committed by non-Muslims or aren't as common or as serious. As if fraud, abuse and criminal behavior were almost unheard of before Muslims, and now these people threaten to overthrow Canada because some of them also do what some Canadians have always done. This is why I think it would be useful if ethnic or religious information was part of crime stats. Instead of speculation and guesses, such information might calm hysteria or fan it - but still, hard data is preferable to assumptions based one's personal bias, imo.

It's not Rabbinical law; it's Sharia law. It exists alongside Christian and Rabbinical law in Israel. It's merely a counterpoint to the hysteria of Islamophobes who insist that once Muslims have a foot in, it's Sharia for everyone or that Sharia law invariably includes stonings, amputations and death to gays.

Like I said, its entirely dependent on what the reader wants from it.

Why is there Sharia in Isreal? http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/silly-american-fear-sharia-law-article-1.3229045

Verse 5:32: For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah’s sovereignty), but afterwards lo! Many of them become prodigals of the earth.” I already know the argument you will use against this, and I remind you again that it doesn't matter what you claim, what matters is that this instruction is interpreted by most Muslims as being a prohibition against killing and a clear condemnation of terrorist acts. Attempting to prove your meaning is the correct one seems rather silly since real Muslims reject your interpretation. Except for ISIS and other extremists, of course.

And when Iqra Khalid received thousands of threats of death and sexual violence did you conclude that mainstream Canadians agreed with this? Or even mainstream Conservatives? Why would you choose this as representative of mainstream Islam and not that which has Muslims protecting or helping Jews, or even marrying one? Because that also happens. I bet if we could really access people's hearts and minds we'd find most of them somewhere between the two extremes of rabid and unreasoning hate and proactive acceptance or marriage. Your example of Muslims defrauding welfare for multiple wives, that charge has also been levelled against other religious groups. However accurate these stories are, once again why would anyone take fraudsters as representing an entire group? You appear to have been working with the most disadvantaged of Muslim people and have projected their behavior on to the rest of them. That makes as much sense as working with battered women in the North and concluding that its a mainstream Canadian value to beat women. As for what Muslims really think of Westerners, sometimes we get what we give. Or perhaps we see what we expect to see.

You are more reasoned than DoP

You did exactly as predicted: denied anything "good" about Islam. It wouldn't matter if I quoted verse after verse from the Quran or posted multiple hadiths or gave a million examples of Muslims who actually practice those 'good things' that are taught in Islam. You would deny them simply based on the fact that you can find examples of Muslims who don't practice those things, or you can find verses and hadiths who contradict those things; you'll claim that Muslims who choose 'good' over 'bad' are not genuine Muslims. I hold the position that people *choose* what they believe and that a Muslim is equally able to choose "good" from Islam as "bad". You hold the position that only valid choice from Islam is 'bad'. It's only an unreasonable person who will only allow one perspective when many are clearly available. My 'support' of Islam or the behavior of Muslims is not completen or blind. Your condemnation of Islam is both complete and blind. That's why I'm the winner and you are the Islamaphobe.

I did and accurately predicted your response. I win. You lose.

I accept your surrender.

Ya see? You reject anything that might show Islam in a different light. This is an unreasoning fear of Islam, aka Islamaphobia.

Yeah. Though I have to say that my bros-in-law equates Sisi and Trudeau. Which I find odd, but he really hates the Muslim Brotherhood and he hated Morsi, was worried that they'd enforce a very extreme form of Islam in Egypt.

I predict that you'll deny these things, as if they could not exist within Islam or be followed by even a single Muslim. Charity is a requirement, and for every Muslim I know, is applicable to Muslim and non-Muslim alike. Loaning/borrowing money is highly frowned upon, and charging interest even more so. Taking care of one's family so the State doesn't have to, nor do they need to live on the street or in poverty. For many (not me, specifically) the focus on family life as being the basis of society and most important element in any individual's life. To protect human life, even the life of an enemy. To show mercy to animals. To allow others freedom to worship God in their own way. Let me see if I can predict your arguments against the above: Charity is only a requirement for other Muslims (I'm sure you'll quote something somewhere to "prove" this, just as I could have quoted something to "prove" otherwise) Loaning/borrowing money happens all the time in Muslim-majority countries (I'm sure it does, but that's not what Islam teaches) Taking care of one's family (probably something about beating wives or practicing FGM to refute this, as if making a law, even a religious law, guarantees that everyone will follow it). Family first as basis of society (same argument as above) Show mercy to animals (slaughter of cattle for Eid, which ignores every culture's dissonance between what they believe and what they actually practice) To allow others freedom to worship (ISIS, which is an organization rejected by Muslims worldwide). So, GO! (Qualifying Statement: There are many bad things taught within Islam. Recognizing the good does not mean the bad is invisible to me.)