dialamah

I can agree with you that the governments of Islamic countries are the worst for human rights violations and oppressive government. I cannot, however, lay this at the feet of Islam itaelf because non-Islamic governments can be equally bad. Of course, Islamic or Quranic teachings can be used to justify the oppression, which is a problem with religion in power regardless of religion, or even just with people in power. Right now, the Chinese government actions against Urgyur Muslims is pretty brutal. Yet, that isn't ever mentioned here because why? Perhaps because Muslims are truly the victims in this instance and most commentators here aren't interested in Muslims as victims. Or what about Muslims in India? They are being heavily persecuted by government and violence against them is not heavily policed or.ounished - but again, this is rarely mentioned here because it goes against the "Muslims are evil" narrative preferred. Should Iranian Imams who support marriages of 9-year-olds be condmned - yes, absolutely. But what about the Muslims who insist their daughters finish university before thinking of marriage? Or Imams who support those parents? Why is every discussion here about the worst that Muslims do and any effort by myself or anyone else to present a different side ridiculed and diamissed as "apology"? I have never denied the excesses of ISIS or other extremists, nor have supported oppression or misogyny or terror, yet I'm regularly accused of such things when I point out that Islam can also support more progressive beliefs which many Muslims choose to follow. I've been called a liar and been told my family lies to me when I've provided them as examples of "normal" Muslims - more conservative than most Canadians, but certainly not extreme by any stretch. Why would that be, other than to discredit any suggestion that Muslims are not hell-bent on taking over the world and killing anyone who disagrees with them.

Actually I covered that in my simmary when I said "These increases apply mainly to non-Islamic states, since Islamic states already scored highly on restrictions and favoritism." Your claim that I'm calling them "comparable" fails. The fact is that state sponsored interference in religious practice is increasing in non-Islamic countries. Quit trying to pretend that isn't true or doesn't matter.

Yes, same goal to engender political change and impose religion through violence and fear, but as you say "lessor in scope". Would these groups be "lessor in scope" if Western nations lacked strong and effective legal and criminal justice systems? I, personally, doubt it. And I think we'll find that out if climate change sufficiently destabilizes our politics and economy. At this moment in time, I don't consider extremist Christians (or White Supremacists) any more of a threat than Islamic extremists in Western countries. If I lived in a Middle Eastern country, I might worry about ISIS and Western forces being equally dangerous to my continued health and well-being.

For some information of what Christians with power will do, read up on The Lord's Resistance Army, or the Eastern Lightning - who believe Jesus has returned as a Chinese woman, and who the Chinese government considers a terror group. There's also the "Phineas Priesthood", which is less an organized group and more of a title given to people who engage in murserous violence, based on the example of a Hebrew rewarded by God for killing an interfaith couple. "The term "Phineas action" is used by white supremacists more broadly not only for murders of interracial couples, but also for attacks on Jewish people, other non-white ethnic groups, "multiculturalists" and anyone they see as their enemies. And here is the Army of God, complete with New Testament Biblical support for violence against abortionists.

Matt Shea, a GOP lawyer elected to caucus in Wahington Statestate had a vision ..." to create a 51st state called Liberty and distributed to his closest followers a “Biblical Basis for War” document that calls for the “surrender” of those who favor abortion rights, same-sex marriage, “idolatry” and communism. “If they do not yield — kill all males,” it said." It's easy to write him off as a crackpot, I suppose, but there are more than a few people in the States who believe as he does - that the Bible should be the basis of law in the States and that Christianity be imposed on everyone as the State religion. There is even a 116 page action plan currently being implemented called Project Blitz. If enough extremists like Matt Shea get together with less violent groups like that behind Project Blitz, would the result look much different than ISIS in the Middle East? In the West, our laws and institutions are strong enough to withstand these kinds of challenges, but would that be true if we we were de-stabilized in some way, perhaps through climate change? Christianity, given power, is no different than Islam, given power.

Between 2007 and 2017, Pew Research found that State imposed restructions on religion has increased, aling with State sponsored favoritism of certain religions. These increases apply mainly to non-Islamic states, since Islamic states already scored highly on restrictions and favoritism. The restricted/favored religions include a variety of religions and it seems that only North Korea "plays fair" by banning any religious practice. As usual, Pew provides a balanced and nuanced discussion - the article is well worth reading, imo, to get a feel for the way in which State-sponsored religious persecution is increasing around the world.

Not if it's your primary residence. Only investment properties are subject to capital gains when sold.

If the assessment authority in your area notices your improvements, they'll assess property taxes.

Hope it works out for you.

Increased value is usually assessed on the land, not the improvements. If you look at this years asseasment vs. last year's, you'll most likely see that the land value increased, but not the structures. Value is also determined by other people based on a property's desirability (location, amenities, availability) on the market. BC assessnent is usually behind the market by a year or two, so for current market value, its best to talk to a real estate agent. I thought my place was undervalued by the market when I bought it; now I think its overvalued, but we're in the lower mainland so there's lots of desirability, but its still in the lower end of the market.

Don't you pay property taxes separate from your mortgage? I do, so what I pay towards principle remains the same, regardless of what property taxes do. My property taxes increased by about 60% year before last. The assessed value of my property has doubled since I bought in 2010. Good for me, bad for people who want to get into the market. If properties around your place have lower assessments, I think you'd have a good case for appeal, but I think you have only 30 days or something to file an appeal.

And conservatives never turn down an opportunity to slag JT, regardless of how petty or irrelevant.

Wish granted! JT attends Catholic Easter service JT attends Sikh Temple JT attends Jewish Synagogue Another Jewish service I know I need not cite his Mosque visits.

Thats really good to know. I agree with you that freezing to death or dying from heatstroke isn't a realistic option, and that I am fortunate to live where transit or car-sharing is an option. The cycling of hotter and colder throughout earth's history is true, and its also true that in this time period, human activity has accelerated it. If you support mitigation through infrastructure, would you accept extra taxation for the government to administer the kind of infrastructure needed? As much as the government is unwieldy and often wasteful, I n.v elieve they are still the best option to get things done on a national scale. Do you agree or disagee? Weather is not climate, so a dump of snow somewhere or a heatwave somewhere else does not prove or disprove climate change. Planet-wide trends over time define changes in climate. It can be 25 below for a week somewhere, and the overall temperature of the earth will still have increased over a decade (or two or three). Its like a retail business: they don't define their year's sales by Christmas time, they average it over the year. Annual earnings may go up (or down) over time, regardless of what happens on any particular Christmas, or even any particular year. Its the aversge over time that matters, not single event.

Incidence of child marriage is not the same as legal age. Try again.

You imply it daily. At least be honest.

Your cite corroborates what I said about marriage to young women, that consummation happened at menstruation and that M married her for political reasons. Based on your reasoning, Christians are just as much pedophiles as Muslims.

Someone else suggested the match; he didn't "choose" her. Some historians think Mohammed agreed to strengthen ties with Aisha's father, which hasn't been uncommon throughout history. No, its not when people like DoP call M a pedophile and claim that all Muslims are thus pedophiles. Yup, I agree. On the other hand, most Muslim majority nations forbid marriage prior to age 18; the practice of child marriage is prevalent among poorer, less educated populations, including non-Muslims. But you will define Islam according to what the minority do - so long as it allows you to paint all Muslims as evil. And you'll ignore all other reasons why child marriage occurs in or outside of Islam. People like you disgust me with your bigotry, blatant lies and unending propaganda designed to marginalise innocent people.

There is no proof M was a pedophile. Aisha's age is disputed by scholars, and in conflicting Hadiths; she herself gave different ages, probably because they didn't really track birthdates the way we do now. Even if she was married at 9, that is within the custom of the time and does not mean the marriage was consummated. According to custom, marriages were not consummated until the female menstruated - which is unusual at 9, but not uncommon. You cling to the pedo-rape narrative to justify your irrational bigotry and to foment hatred and fear of Muslims and Islam.

Most likely I'd say "hit me", not beat me, and it would still be unacceptable. Ask yourself what it would say about an employer who thought it acceptable to hit their employee, even lightly and even with a pencil, in order to "correct" them. Ask yourself what it would say about an employee who would accept that. Would you think it acceptable in a workplace environment?

Before the British/Europeans arrived, the Indigenuous people did not suffer from alcoholism, did not suffer family division, were not decimated by smallpox or suicide, were allowed to speak their own language and practice their customs, were allowed to roam the land freely. All of that changed with White settlers; their families were destroyed, their way of life destroyed, they were herded on to small and poor plots of land, and forbidden from leaving without permission from the Indian agent. Up until the 60s, they could not freely leave to work off-reserve, or to attend university. So, do you think they were "better off"? When you say "better off", I suspect you are talking about material things ' houses, cars, a better "standard of living". But Indigenuous people have not been the recipients of a "better standard of living" in exchange for the loss of culture, language and family. Given that these people lived successfully here for thousands of years before Europeans arrived, I'd venture to say they are worse off than they would have been without us. But tell me, if Muslims promised you a higher standard of living, a longer and healthier life, would you be willing to embrace Islam in exchange for losing your culture, your language and your family? Because if not, why would you think that's acceptable for First Nations?

So I've read that, and it does support the hitting of a wife. 'Leaving no marks" and "lightly striking her" and "only if you think it will do some good" do not excuse the fact that in Islam, hitting women is explicitly acceptable. And I would bet that there is no corresponding verse allowing women to strike their husbands, eh? Not that spousal abuse in any form is acceptable, but surely a religion that claims equality and fairness would allow equal punishment for misbehaving husbands and wives. Islam, like any patriarchal system, treats women as second class citizens. This is wrong.

I have researched and this is why I continue disputing the anti-Islam crowd here because. My research has also demonstrated that Islam is no less patriarchal than Christianity and that there is support to be found for and against almost anything a Muslim may practice today. Stoning adulterers and FGM being two exceptions that I can think of right now. I can understand this might be frustrating for you, but I don't have unlimited time so I do tend to default to responding to what is easiest. I will have some time this weekend, and will try to address those questions you've. True, my interest in studying Islam is limited to trying to offset as much of the extreme bigotry I run across online as I can. I am starting to see similar bigotry offline though, which is sad and I may have to step up my game. I seek out Islamic sources wherever possible, and I talk to my sister. My example is my sister's husband and bros-in-laws, who treat my sister extremely well, who disapprove so strongly of wife abuse that my bros-in-law refuses to allow people in his home if he thinks the husband is not treating his wife as he should - and that doesn't mean actual physical abuse, simple disrespect is unacceptable. Nonetheless, the patriarchal attitudes of of Islam are apparent to both myself and my sister in all of the men and their wives. Thanks. So, this is a discussion forum and so it's perfectly normal and acceptable to ask people to provide clarification of their views, along with support for those views. In addition, while I can present alternative intrepretations of controversial teachings in Islam, I'm not Muslim so my research/understanding is spotty at best, as you have pointed out. I think it's worth pushing back against Islamophobic attitudes and beliefs, so in my opinion, clarification coming from a devout and practicing Muslim is more credible than anything I can say - even if I do argue some of the things brought out simply because any religion, in my opinion, has flaws. I think its good to get more information and perspectives added to the mix, even though I know it won't change the mind of the die-hard haters.

Then perhaps you could take the time to more clearly explain why I am wrong. Your responses, to me and others, rather than clarifying, come across as non-responses or deflections. For example, if the verse at al-Nisa 4:34 is not explicitly a command or permission to beat their wives, perhaps you could explain how it is not. Or explain how verse 2:282 does not make women's testimony less valuable then men's. Or how verse 4.11 does not award twice as much inheritance to sons as to daughters. These verses are pretty explicit in setting women as under the authority of men, and of less intrinsic value. This is the kind of thing that makes wife-beating religiously "acceptable" whether its Islam or Christianity. Mohammed and the Qu'ran may have been ahead of their time in their treatment of women 1500 years ago, but now these teachings simply support an outdated way of viewing women. If there is some explanation you, or any devout Muslim, can offer as to why these teachings should not be considered at best patriarchal and at worst misogynistic, I'd be interested in hearing it.

When injury stops, healing begins. You are right in that we're so far gone that some effect is inevitable, but wrong in thinking its pointless to do anything. Recently, I've heard of two examples where ecological systems recovered more quickly than expected, once the areas were protected. Given where I live, all of that is possible for me, save for temperature control on days of extreme cold or extreme heat, since those can kill. I have lived without a car in the past, and rarely use the one we have (strictly speaking, it's not mine). For me, meatless is the ultimate goal - already tried going cold turkey, failed and now trying a more gradual approach. It's not only better for the planet, but also my health. Everyone doing something would certainly make a difference. Doing things voluntarily is better than being forced. Giving oneself time to work into the kinds of changes that will help is better than being forced to do so all at once. Mitigation is better than nothing, and mitigation is what we're talking about. The current projected death toll is 6 billion people; perhaps we'd be able to keep it from rising to 8 or 10 billion, if everyone were willing to mitigate now.