dialamah

It is sufficient enough. Its one if the Abrahamic religions and they are remarkably similar, despite each religion's adherents thinking they are unique in the world and uniquely favored in God's plan. I do not know what it commands you, that is true. But I know it 'commands' different things from different people, else there would be no division among Muslims, no Sunni vs. Sharia, no controversy about how women should be attired, no disagreement about when or how a caliphate will come about - or anything else over which Muslims disagree. I understand that as a believer, you have to be blind to other truths, to other experiences, to other perspectives. No different than evangelical Christians, who believe as fervently as you that they are the ones special to God, that non-believers have neither the comprehension nor the right to criticize the teachings of their religion.

In Westrrn countries, Christians have been able to give women equal standing with men, and are coming to understand that previously marginalized people are also deserving of God's love, while still asserting they are following God's law. I'm sure Muslims can do as well. While I think many people here exaggerate the evils of Islam (whether through ignorance, maliciousness or both), it's nonetheless true that Islam is patriarchal in teaching and in practice. This means that unless you are a Muslim man, you'll find yourself on the losing side of rules, laws, discrimination and persecution in any majority Muslim country. If God, by whatever name he's called, truly loved humanity and wanted peace and prosperity for his creation, he would not have devised "laws" that divided people and that gave them reason to judge, criticize and condemn others- whether its over a hijab or an individual's gender or sexuality. You can believe what you like, but the sooner Islam, and any religion, loses the "laws" that create division, hatred and violence against others, the better. And as much as you, personally, may not think women are second tier, and gays/apostates/non-believers are sinners deserving of punishment or death, your religion supports those beliefs as much as it supports more humane beliefs. Islam needs to change, because too many people are hurt by it

We've given up the second car, and have reduced the average temperature of my home - we use warm sweaters and blankets instead of heating. We cut the use of AC by about 75% last year, by using other means of cooling our home. We've also cut back on meat eating, buy local whenever possible and use transit. I am sure we can do more and equally sure we'll continue to make small changes to gradually reduce our carbon footprint. Nobody is asking people to give up everything all at once - except climate change deniers. All that is being asked for at this time is to make some relatively small changes - enough people doing that will help. But you refuse to do anything at all. You laugh at the idea of eating less meat, whine endlessly about a couple extra dollars at the pump, lie about how effective carbon pricing is, and arrogantly demand that people whose carbon footprint is much smaller than yours should "do more" before you should be asked to do anything. If these things we could do voluntarily become government mandated, it will be because of the do-nothing lobby.

Which is more economical - paying a higher wage, or constant staff turnover? Being chronically short-staffed because nobody wants to work for a pittance? Hiring people who can barely speak English (or French) because they're the only ones desperate enough to take a small wage? Constant turnover, short-staffing, poor communication all impact customer service, which impacts customer base. Odd that you'd assume left-leaning people don't operate successful businesses-or do you maybe have sources to back that assumption up?

That wasn't even a choice.

Pretty much, though he'll never admit it. You wear a hijab, you're an extremist. You attend mosque, you're an extremist. You object to painting all Muslims as terrorists, rapists, misogynists - a progressive extremist.

They always have. If you look back in history, you'll see that they used to be a lot more blatant about it. Today, there are many sources that "report" the news with minimal bias. But partisan people who don't like the message claim bias. And when they see stories they like from sources that are obviously (and often extremely) biased, they claim that these are the sites that are "telling the truth", and the unbiased media is "hiding" things. This is the fault of the people who'll only accept news they like as "factual", not the media for reporting facts that people don't like.

Then what are you doing, saying that hijab is "required" and those who do not wear it are wrong.

Dictating what women can or can't wear is just as wrong coming from Muslims as it is coming from non-Muslims. Too many Muslims disagree with you about the necessity of hijab to let your claim that non-covering women aren't Muslim go unchallenged. You practice your faith your way, and let others practice their way. God can sort things out in his own time.

So, here is a woman who does not agree that Islam supports the beating of wives, and she provides support for her views, but you call her a liar. I would have thought that you'd be willing to support a Muslim woman who doesn't think spousal abuse is supportable in Islam, but no - you must have it your way, Islam is evil, Muslim men are evil, Muslim women are victims. You aren't Muslim, you aren't a scholar and yet you seem to think you have the only "correct" version of Islamic teachings.

I suppose if we'd bothered ourselves to address what we've known for decades, we wouldn't be getting these increasingly dire scenarios of what we'll have to do or accept as a result of our inaction. But the seniors on this forum can afford to be dismissive, as its our children and grandchildren who will have to take action. Perhaps the boomers will be remembered in history with even more contempt than Nazis. At least Nazis only saw to the annihilation of a few million Jews; boomers are on track to assure the annihilation of billions.

Conservatives can have good ideas too.

I'd consider voting for her, she seemed to have some common sense. Would have to see what her actual platform would be first, of course. For me, it will likely come down to climate change policies followed by human rights and immigration policies; we need to develop policy to deal with climate refugees before they start arriving on our doorstep. For fiscal policy, cutbacks in corporate welfare policies and increased health and education support would be important to me, with some personal tax increase acceptable to support that. Transition to guaranteed basic income and elimination of several government agencies that currently deliver our social safety net would also be nice, but I doubt that would come from a Conservative government (or probably any gov for the foreseeable future).

If that's your criteria, I can only assume you've never had confidence in any government. As for the rest, I more or less agree - a handgun ban won't stop guns coming over illegally from the States. I don't expect the situation with gun crime to improve, regardless of government or regulation because I believe most (not all) crime is driven by social factors. We could address that, but there is no political will to do so since the mindset of the electorate is focused on punishment as opposed to real rehabilitation or prevention through social policies. C'est la vie.

They engage in terrorism and murder in other countries. If a country has laws calling for death penalty for what they deem a crime, its not murder, its execution. It hardly matters if the law itself is just, or if people inside or outside of the country approve of the law. If a government kills it's own citizens in contravention of its own laws, that would be murder. Some Western countries have anti-blasphemy laws, which are rarely, if ever, enforced. Some Islamic countries have anti-blasphemy laws which includes the death penalty, but rarely enforce it to that degree. I don't like those laws either, even if they're rarely enforced. I think they're wrong, but I'm not about to hold every Muslim in the world responsible for them, especially those who choose to come to live in Canada.

In Western countries, pretty much, yup. A Muslim female can be beaten and controlled by her father/mother/brothers or boyfriend/husband regardless of whether or not she's wearing an hijab or not. The issue isn't the garb, it's the patriarchy of the religion itself. Limiting religious garb doesn't help women who are oppressed. Depending on how draconian the laws are, it will only help a woman's oppressor. In Quebec, forbidding religious garb only in government places isn't too draconian, but I still think it's wrong in a country which has held freedom of religion as one of its core values. It's also stupid because real Islamic extremists (the ones you can't identify because they look and dress just like us) will use it to foment hatred against Western countries and their citizens. If Teena's wish for the law to be implemented across Canada came true, that would give extremists even more propaganda material.

Quote where I said that or admit you are a liar.

Well if you say so ...

Like Western nations haven't! LOL

Maybe instead you could stop making ridiculous comments about how I'm "ok" with domestic abuse. Especially given that whenever I've mentioned discussing solutions that would apply to Muslims and non-Muslims alike, you refuse.

Ok. I see. Basically, in your world, if I'm ok with freedom of religious expression in Canada, I must also be ok with domestic abuse, (and presumably pedophilia, homophobia, child marriage etc.). Can you explain how belief in Freedom of Religious Expression and being ok with all the stupid and illegal things religious people do are synonymous, exactly. Thanks.

Too funny. ISIS publucized in Dabiq that one goal of their terror attacks was to generate fear and loathing of Muslins among Westerners, so that Muslims would return to their own countries and/or take up arms against the West. And here you are, along with DoP, Argus scribblet and now Teena, happily following that playbook. I fail to see how advocating for freedom of religion against people who want to limit such freedom puts me in the same camp as ISIS, but I suppose twisting things enough will get ya there.

How are women wearing hijab bothering you, again? Oh, you personally don't like it because because only extremists or.victims.wear hijab in your world. Hijab wearing women have done nothing to harm you we continue to enhance progressive human rights and to reduce violence against women through education and laws. The same goes for women wearing niqab, women wearing bonnets, men and women wearing turbans, men wearing beards, men wearing tunics and funny hats, and people wearing crucifixes. Not one of these groups has done anything in Canada that justifies you having their personal freedoms limited because your assumptions about Muslim women make you uncomfortable.

That's laughable, considering how often you are on here claiming women in Muslim dress are either extremists or oppressed. No middle ground for you. Also, my sister never talks about this stuff unless I ask her - and I ask her because she provides a perspective that neither I nor any of you have. Perhaps the neurosis lies with those who are preoccupied with how Muslim women dress in order to implicate them as either extremists or victims.

In which Islamic country is murder or terrorism legal?