Rue

In regards to one yes I was half assed accusing you of sounding paternalistic using your personal subjective knowledge of Muslims as a basis to make an assumption about all Muslims. No you never said that in fact Quebec not you has been the one pushing that angle. Also in fairness to you, you stated: "There are quite likely moderate Muslims who privately accept Western perspectives." I should have acknowledged that which I did not. So in fairness to you I apologize for that. More to the point other than that very narrow point about not generalizing all Muslims which you clearly retracted from and I did not acknowledge which is clearly my mistake. You also went on to state after the above: " Too often, however, those who try to raise criticisms of Islamic ideology must seek protection for so doing, as reportedly has the young Saudi women who was recently accepted for resettlement by Canada. More famously, Muslim critics of mainstream Islamic thought and practice, like Irshad Manji and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, have publicly expressed their views at the risk of facing serious backlash and even danger for so doing. " So in fact I acknowledge that and stand by it. In fact I stand by every other comment you made for what it is worth other than the one narrow generalization point which I now retract as you clearly backed off of it and I failed to acknowledge. Genuine apology for that. Next I agree with this comment you made: "My guess is that any Islamic Party that might emerge in Ontario or Canada would instead seek to obtain public funding for religious schools for members of the community they represent, just as Waldman presumably sought public funding for Jewish schooling." I do not think any religious school should be paid by taxpayer's money .I personally myself believe state and religion should be kept separate and not mixed. I do however unlike some do believe a history of religion and religion class comparing religions should be part of the social science curriculum if for no other reason it still has such a strong impact on peoples' cultures fuels hatred and misunderstanding so I think is crucial to teach what religions have IN COMMON. I am going to save my comments for Quebec not you and you have my apology. That was a genuine one. I lumped you in on my responses. I actually agree 100% with everything else you stated but I debate specific issues at times. Now cool it before I start chanting up on a roof.

Trudeau committed himself not to get involved in the legal process. So if we now wait the time period for this could be years. This is the kind of case that goes all the way to the top court unless Trudeau pressures his Justice boys not to push an appeal. Here is the issue. As some said we don't extradite for something that is not a crime in Canada. THE CEO is up for fraud which is a crime but fraud as to sanctions vs Iran which is not a crime... in Canada.. so a fraud about something not a crime in Canada may not be sufficient to extradite. It's not clear at all on that one. It could go either way. Then there is the fact Trump said openmy he would consider sending the CEO back for favourable trade terms. When he said that he turned the extradition process into a political one. We also don't extradite if it can be shown the process is being used for political purposes which Trump's public comment may establish as the motive for the extradition request. So it's a very 50-50 kind of legal issue that could go all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada if the gov. appeals any decision that releasesher. Also the US government can be an intervenor and argue it's best interests meaning if we did not appeal a lower court decision if it did release her, the US might get ticked off if we don't appeal. Also her lawyer will appeal it to the last and highest court if they lose. It's a no win situation for all sides. The US did this to punish Trudeau for saying he would expand trade with China which would come at the expense of US trade. It was also a response to Trudeau ignoring the 5 Eyes intelligence alliance saying he waa going to give gov. approval for Hua Wei to engage in Canadian gov. and university business. Trudeau had his hands slapped. Now China feels betrayed by him. Two days ago Canada awarded a competitor to China a contract ear marked for Hua Wei before this fiasco. China overplayed it's hand, Trudeau is over his head, but the message is out. You want to hire Hua Wei, no one in the West will back you. China and Hua Wei are considered a spybot not to be trusted by the West. Took awhile for Trudeau to understand this.

Yes but will Argus stop eating Chinese food that is the question. May I suggest Hakka, which is technically Chinese in India combining for an excellent fusion of approaches to chile chicken. By the time this forum and Trudeau is done we will have to hold in detention all Chinese, Muslims, and I would think people from Kyrgyzstan.

That is precisely the point. Coming on this forum and basing your assumptions based on "your friends are Muslim" is bullshit. It can't be proven by you. More to the point just how many Muslims do you know that would then enable you to make the sweeping pronouncements you do about ALL Muslims? Yah yah, some of my best friends are Quakers. You asked for evidence of Muslim reformists. I gave you evidence. Now you changed the subject to arguing you don't believe these reformists are influential. Don't whine to me that I engage in ad hominem attacks.. either back up what you say or move on. I never postulated or raised any comment as to the degree of influence of Muslim reformists today in the Muslim world. That would be illogical. It is a movement in progress. It evolves as we speak just as reform movements in other religions do the same. You are the one postulating reformist Muslims have no influence. I am saying there is no objective methodology to prove their degree of influence one way or the other and that you have presented zero evidence to prove the Muslim reformists who do exist have no influence and therefore your comment Muslim reformists have no influence is necessarily baseless and subjective. This I will say. Muslim reformists exist. They exist, they speak out and risk their lives. Even if I give specific names like Kasim Hafeez, Adnan Oktar, Mohamed Zoabi, Toufik Hamid, Naveed Anjun, you have no clue who they are, what they put on the line and whether they are influencing anyone. So yes I acknowledge they exist and what they do.

Turning Rite you stated there were no reformist Muslims. Now you've deflected from your failed assertion and moved on to the argument, ok, they exist but these moderates have no influence. You do need to get real. Deflecting like that because you were shown to have made a false assertion and then whining because I told you to get real about that speaks for itself. Neither you or I know how much influence moderate, progressive and reformist Muslims will have on their religion. Its a work in progress just like Christianity, Judaism, and all other religious ideologies continue to evolve. I have never argued that the majority of Muslims today are reformists, progressives, moderates. In fact I have stated in past posts the majority of Muslims today remain illiterate and so the struggle for Islam to evolve will require Muslims learn to read and write and therefore be able to develop critical thinking skills on an individual basis to determine for themselves as individuals how to interpret the Koran. As more Muslims learn to read and write, so will their critical reasoning processes evolve and changes to the interpretation of the Koran will evolve no different than what happened in Judaism and Christianity. I challenged you on a false assertion you now have deflected from rather than admit was false. I then went on to challenge Quebec for his stereotypes of all Muslims being Islamists and his role playing as a Muslim scholar claiming to be an authority on what all Muslims believe. His assertions are based on his having "Muslim friends" and reading what he thinks makes him an expert on the internet. How about you? What was your point. This forum has more than been aware that Muslim extremist fundamentalists control many Muslims and instill fear in them and in fact engage in violence and terrorism against Muslims in fact in higher numbers than they do non Muslims. So tell me is it logical to label these Muslims who are victims of Muslim extremists, the same as Muslim extremists? You think that is brilliant dialogue that will acknowledge the problems in the Muslim world and encourage Muslims to join with non Muslims in the same approach (battle) against not just Muslim extremists but all extremists? That's why I have taken so much time. I have spent many posts challenging Muslim terrorism. I will spend the same amount of time defending Muslim progressive reformists particularly those in Canada who do indeed share the same Canadian values as myself and probably you. Surely I and you should have the logic and decency to do that otherwise we resort to the same extremist and rigid dogma terrorists do. This all or nothing conceptualization of Muslims is what is puerile as is making the overstatement and obvious statement no one debates that Muslim extremism coerces and has the ability to impose much fear on many Muslims. As for contending most Muslims are fundamentalists opposed to Canadian values and want to turn everyone Muslim that may be true for some Muslims but not others. If you or Quebec make the assertion the majority of Muslims are fundamentalists opposed to Canadian values, back it up with some objective methodology. Telling me you have friends who are Muslims is bullshit.

The length of my responses is in direct ration to the length of yours. In regards to 1 you in fact also stated: "every Muslim who follows the religion supports Islamists." In your latest response to me you ignore that these are the words you wrote I challenged which is dishonest of you and it is those words I challenged because they stereotype all Muslims as Islamists which I proved to you is not the case. In regards to 2, Mullahs and Imams are indeed Muslim clergy and for you to try deny they are speaks loudly to 3. In regards to 3, you clearly show in all your responses to me you base your knowledge on Islam to a reference to your "Muslim friends" or what I think is clear, going onto Wikepedia and reading definitions and then presto thinking that makes you an expert on Islam. You show that for example in comment 4, where you make a sweeping generalization about the concept of taqiyah. Yes that comment does state Muslims can mislead in comments to non Muslims. The key to understanding that concept, is not to read it literally from its context as you have and give it an unlimited context of usage but to understand the circumstances it is limited to being used in. It does not and never meant it is permissible whenever and all the time for Muslims to lie to non Muslims. That is false. Its an ignorant thing to say. It has specific usage for specific circumstances which clearly you do not understand and do not care to understand. It is an example of how you take a concept second hand you read, and have no idea what it means or how it is to be applied and that is because you show contempt or arrogance, i.e., you assume you can understand it from reading it on Wikepedia or claiming you have Muslim friends. In regards to 5, you use the phrase word salad. Yah I do not doubt when I state things you disagree with they come across to you as cucumbers and tomatoes. Arabic is a very complex language. To understand the Koran, you have to understand the language it was written in and the change of the structure of the language from the days in which the Koran was written until today. When the Bible was translated its meanings and contexts were of course distorted or misrepresented. To translate from ancient Hebrew to Roman and Greek and then later to English or from the ancient language of Jesus, Armaic to Hebrew to Greek and Roman led to many misrepresentations which Biblical scholars still today wrestle with when they revise the versions of translation of the New and Old Testaments. The fact you ridicule this is par for the course. 6-When I criticize Judaism, Islam, Christianity, I do so with utmost respect and humility and never with the assumption my opinions are undeniable truth and can not be questioned. My opinions are subjective and in fact I use unlike you, the same objective criteria for all these religions. I don't remove passages out of their context. I offer alternative forms of interpretation with respect. I examine these verses and sayings as allegories subject to an infinite number of meanings. In fact in Judaism we created a Talmud, a book of instruction to criticize the Bible and all Jewish written works because in our religion, there is no one meaning. We are supposed to take anything in the Bible, Talmud, Kabbalah, written essays of Jewish scholars and constantly challenge and debate and raise new and possible meanings. There is no one meaning. These works are said to be layers of the onion. Each time we peel back a layer of meaning is another and another, and like an onion, when we peel back the layers are eyes tear. This concept you have that when you read a Koran verse or for that matter a Bible verse, it has only one fixed meaning you claim it has, is called extremist fundamentalism, the rigid, one meaning only literal interpretation you and the extremists you claim to criticize share. Make no mistake, I do not claim to be or understand Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, but I read about them in their holy books and I listen to what their followers and leaders and scholars say about them. I listen. I don't claim I know. I am no religious leader. I am a hard working shmuck and all I know is when I walk in a Mosque, Hindu Temple, Christian Church, synagogue, I show respect to its leaders and followers and no I don't claim to agree with everything they say or do but I show respect. I show respect and I find common themes and I have been quite comfortable in all kinds of places of worship. The only one I was not comfortable in I believe celebrated the existence of for want of a better word what some call Lucifer or Satan and that is a God or figure or symbol I am not comfortable with as it is antithetical to everything I believe. I do not like organized religions. I like to think all religions were created to spread positive energy to heal the world and help us learn to be better people and control our primitive urges to kill, rape, steal, cheat. I believe all religions were created to help us learn to control the negative in ourselves. That is all. When I read your sweeping labels about Muslims I challenge them. As well for you to call me an Islamist is infantile. Unlike you I lived in a world, a real world, not Wikepedia, where I saw people die, talking like you, convinced their version of truth was the only one and thus it fueled them to blow up innocent people, both Muslims and Jews. I learned by picking up the body parts a Muslim and Jew smell the same, feel the same, ooze the same, have the same colours when they burst out of a body and hit a wall. That's my concept of equality. I learned people blow up exactly the same. So when you spew your stereotypes of Muslims this is what I know-I know that Muslim extremist terrorists kill more Muslims than they do Jews. They also want people like you preaching what you think Islam is, to make them think all non Muslims are as close minded as you-this then alienates these Muslims from people like you and causes them to turn to and believe these terrorists in their own community who say, the non Muslims hate you. So I ask, who do you aid when you write as you do? You are a walking incitement of falsehoods about Muslims that incites hatred and misunderstanding of Muslims. That I now is what Muslim terrorists want. What I also know is this country, Canada has very real people called Muslim reformists, peaceful, open minded, educated, tolerant people who have the same values as most of us and these people came to Canada to get away from extremist Islam. Hell I don't care if you do not believe me. By the way I don't make statements like "some of my best friends are Muslim". In fact I have experienced hatred from Muslims. I have been spat on, had mothers throw buckets of feces and urine at me, had young boys and girls spit on me who were Muslim and? And? Does it mean I hate Muslims? Should I hate all Germans, Ukrainians, Russians because of what some of them did to my family? Should I have all Christians because some still think I am a descendant of a killer of Christ and am going to hell for not believing in salvation through the personification of God through Jesus? Right. Too long. Hell don't read it. Go through life limiting your perception to simply 10 second sound bites on the cell phone. The thing is, the world is not a threatening place and neither are Muslims. What threatens you is your own inability to get passed rigid simple stereotypes of what you think is out there. Its a salad to you lol. Hell I think salads are something to eat and enjoy especially with the right dressing. You...well it sounds like you choke on them.

You missed the point the writer was making. The writer's point was to assume everyone from the same group thinks the same way or is the same, because everyone else in the group is, is not necessarily accurate. That clearly is something you do not understand. You believe generalizations and assuming everyone is the same is beyond question. That by the way has nothing to do with amalgamating people, it has to do about generalizing about people. Amalgamating people and stereotyping people are not the same in concept and maybe a problem exists in that until you get a good command of the language you use to generalize others you should be more careful. One of the problems using languages is all of us have become sloppy in what we write regardless of our mother tongue. May I suggest "amalgamate" in French is the same in English and refers to taking two distinct elements and mixing them into one unit. When you assume all people think the same because others of the same group they are in think that way you stereotype and generalize which means you engage in creating an oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing in this context, Muslims. You haven't merged anything to create one unified concept. In fact you have no idea what Islam is let alone its many sub-divisions and sects so it is impossible for you to amalgamate them to create a new unified concept of Islam for them all. What you engage in is a false belief in what Jihad refers to and for that matter basic concepts of Islam.

Oh but I have read your first response I challenged and now this one and did provide a reference for you. In your first post I challenged you stated and I quote: "There has been no similar evolution in Islam, particularly if one is to cite the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (1990) as broadly indicative of the gulf between Islamic and Western social and political thought. Radical fundamentalism, of course, is clearly a challenge to the Western ideals of individualism and the separation of church and state, but fundamentalist ideas also permeate mainstream Islamic thought and belief. I've met only a couple truly secularist Muslims, for instance, one who renounced her religion after moving to the West and the other was gay. I think that unless and until an alternative form of Islam emerges that accommodates Western values and beliefs, intractable cultural differences will render it difficult to easily integrate Islam into the Western mainstream..." Like Quebec in his responses to me you use your own perception and personal anecdotes " I've met only a couple truly secularist Muslims..." as the basis to make a sweeping claim there is no reformist movement in Islam. You claim and I quote "no similar evolution in Islam.." and you stated "until an alternative form of Islam emerges that accommodates Western values and beliefs..." which suggest NOT such alternative in Islam exists. Now you respond and try back pedal and use the reference, " Please provide references to documents or organizations that promote a more moderate and Westernized form of Islam..." which I most certainly did in response to your first post. Then you switch the reference by changing it with this addition "that at are generally influential among Muslims". So when I showed you reform Muslims exist, you now insist I ALSO show you they are "generally influential among Muslims". What bullshit. How would I measure how influential anyone is to anyone else. Am I psychic. This is precisely the bullshit I am challenging. You don't know what anyone thinks until you ask them. The only way to measure how influential Muslim reformists are would be to take polls or ask them. How would I do that? Oh do explain your bull shit addition. My point was Muslim reformists exist yours was they did not. When I showed you they exist, you now argue yah but are they influential..see I do read what you write. I do read how when you are shown reformists exist, and are given a site for that, you don't admit they exist, you switch it to demanding I show you how influential they are. Tell me how do you go about measuring which political beliefs are influential other than basing it on who you know that are Muslim? Get phacking real. Making assumption based on Muslims you know is nonsense. That is a subjective limited basis and its that kind of limited basis that enables people like you and Quebec to make sweeping stereotypes of what people think. What I clearly stated and what I state again is, I speak directly to people one on one to determine on an individual basis where they stand. I do not assume because one is extreme or the other reformist, all of the people in their religious or ethnic group thinks the exact same way. That was the point I was challenging. You really want to play semantics with me and switch what I said to avoid what you failed to show, and act as if your original point was not that reform movements exist in Islam but they are not influential? Really. If that is YOUR contention now that these reformist groups are not influential, PROVE IT. Don't play with me and postulate something new and then demand I prove it. More to the point when you are shown to be wrong, just move on. Don't slip and slide out from your original statement with a back door additional qualification...oh you bet I read. Next, you can't have it both ways. Don't complain my posts are too long for you to read and then deny what I write at the same time.

When I respond many say, too long. However I write with passion on behalf of any people unfairly stereotyped this time Muslims for the exact same reasons I defend Christians or Jews or Zionists or anyone else wrongfully stereotyped. Now to further respond to Quebec he stated: "It is legal for you, if you're a Muslim, to have many sexual slaves, as the religion was codified during the times where the first Muslims were raping their way through the Middle East and North." Jews and Christians did the same thing and evolved past it and so have most Islamic nations. In fact go to the 2014 Global Slavery Index. Traditional slavery is in fact illegal in 167 states many of which are Muslim necessarily meaning the above statement would be inaccurate in one sense...and that sense being "traditional" slavery where people were considered "legal property". However "modern-day "slavery exists of course but certainly not just in Muslim countries and not based on the Koran but socio-economic conditions having to do with criminal legal systems and labour laws. If you want to have a debate or discussion about slavery go to: https://www.antislavery.org/slavery-today/modern-slavery/. What I can tell you is that sex trafficking, prostitution, forced labour is not because of or solely created by Muslims. Here it may interest you to know we have 6,500 in Canada: https://globalnews.ca/news/2731827/there-are-6500-slaves-in-canada-nearly-46-million-worldwide-charity/. Do you blame that on Muslims? Next to answer the rest of your comments I would prefer a Muslim do it so please go to: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/omar-alnatour/muslims-are-not-terrorist_b_8718000.html " 1. Non-Muslims make up the majority of terrorists in the United States: According to the FBI, 94% of terrorist attacks carried out in the United States from 1980 to 2005 have been by non-Muslims. This means that an American terrorist suspect is over nine times more likely to be a non-Muslim than a Muslim. According to this same report, there were more Jewish acts of terrorism in the United States than Islamic, yet when was the last time we heard about the threat of Jewish terrorism in the media? For the same exact reasons that we cannot blame the entire religion of Judaism or Christianity for the violent actions of those carrying out crimes under the names of these religions, we have absolutely no justifiable grounds to blame Muslims for terrorism. 2. Non-Muslims make up the majority of terrorists in Europe: There have been over one thousand terrorist attacks in Europe in the past five years. Take a guess at what percent of those terrorists were Muslim. Wrong, now guess again. It’s less than 2%. 3. Even if all terrorist attacks were carried out by Muslims, you still could not associate terrorism with Islam: There have been 140,000 terror attacks committed worldwide since 1970. Even if Muslims carried out all of these attacks (which is an absurd assumption given the fact mentioned in my first point), those terrorists would represent less than 0.00009 percent of all Muslims. To put things into perspective, this means that you are more likely to be struck by lightening in your lifetime than a Muslim is likely to commit a terrorist attack during that same timespan. 4. If all Muslims are terrorists, then all Muslims are peacemakers: The same statistical assumptions being used to falsely portray Muslims as violent people can be used more accurately to portray Muslims as peaceful people. If all Muslims are terrorists because a single digit percentage of terrorists happen to be Muslim, then all Muslims are peacemakers because 5 out of the past 12 Nobel Peace Prize winners (42 percent) have been Muslims. 5. If you are scared of Muslims then you should also be scared of household furniture and toddlers: A study carried out by the University of North Carolina showed that less than 0.0002% of Americans killed since 9/11 were killed by Muslims. (Ironically, this study was done in Chapel Hill: the same place where a Caucasian non-Muslim killed three innocent Muslims as the mainstream media brushed this terrorist attack off as a parking dispute). Based on these numbers, and those of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the average American is more likely to be crushed to death by their couch or television than they are to be killed by a Muslim. As a matter of fact, Americans were more likely to be killed by a toddler in 2013 than they were by a so-called “Muslim terrorist”. When a drunk driver causes a car accident, we never blame the car manufacturer for the violent actions of that driver. This is because we understand that we cannot blame an entire car company that produces millions of safe vehicles just because one of their cars was hijacked by a reckless person who used it to cause harm. So what right do we have to blame an entire religion of over 1.6 Billion peaceful people because of the actions of a relatively insignificant few? I will not deny that terrorism is a real threat, it definitely is. However, it is extremely incorrect to associate the words “Muslim” and “terrorist” when literally all the facts implore you to do otherwise. The only way that we as Americans can defeat terrorism at home and across the world is by accurately targeting its root causes. There have been 355 mass shootings in the United States this year and falsely blaming Muslims for the San Bernardino shooting will do absolutely nothing to address this serious problem. It is time that we begin addressing terrorism on an educated and factual level. As an American Muslim, I plead you all to deeply consider the facts mentioned here the next time you see a news headline about Muslims and terrorism. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that”. We cannot allow the disparity in media coverage to blind us from the facts and turn us into hateful people, we are smarter than that."

In regards to 1: You contradicted yourself. You state not all Muslims are Islamists then go on to state every Muslim who follows the religion supports Islamists. Those two assertions contradict one another. Go find out who Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, CEO of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD) and co-founder of the MRM is. He Jis a physician and former U.S. Navy officer whose parents fled Syria. Go to http://thefederalist.com/2017/01/30/muslim-reformer-speaks-battle-islamism-pc/ and https://muslimreformmovement.org/about/. I think you and Turningrite and others to a great disservice to reformist Muslims making statements as if they do not exist. Its wrong. Please go to: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7009/muslim-reform-movement. And just so you know I do not speak for him or any Reformist Muslims and suggest they all think the same way here is another Reformist Muslim who is critical of Dr. Jasser: https://imamtawhidi.com/zuhdijasser1/ The point is you really need to make an effort to stop assuming you know what all Muslims think and that they all have the same beliefs. Please go to https://muslimreformmovement.org/about/. Please go find out who Nonie Darwish is. Go find out who Raheel Raza or Salim Mansour are...go to https://raheelraza.wordpress.com/page/2/. Go find out who Irshad Manji is. I can sit here and list hundreds of Muslims across the world and here in Canada who evidence you clearly have no clue what you talk about. Please do not pretend they do not exist. Interestingly in defence of 1 you stated exactly what an extremist fundamentalist does to justify not debating, you stated: " It's the undeniable truth, you can't say I'm wrong on that; I know the texts, I read some of them. " You pose as an authority beyond question. That is precisely what fundamentalists do and who you claim to criticize and you engage in this very fundamentalism. No of course you are not infallible any more than any other human is. Undeniable truth? Really? Get real. The Koran is not written in chronological order and so to understand it you would need to understand that the order to read its verses is not what is listed in the Koran. You have to be an expert on when each verse was written regardless of where you find them in the Koran and understand the Koran is what we call fluid in concept. It evolved and many of its passages add to, amend, or completely change the ones written before them and if you don't know what order to read them in you will necessarily read them out of context. Next unless you read and write Arabic fluently, and depend on translation from Arabic to English you can't possibly understand much of the context and meanings that can not easily transfer from Arabic to English. Arabic uses one word for many different words in English and so its easy to mistranslate them. How could you possibly state:" I know the texts, I read some of them/" What a silly, presumptuous and ignorant thing to say. To start with Muslim scholars who spent far more time than you have struggled and died without ever understanding all there is to know about the Koran. It is a complex form of writing often allegorical in content and subject to many possible interpretations and because its second hand, i.e., is not first hand written by Muhammed but written after the fact we can never know what he actually said or may never have said but has been claimed to have said. Next, what do you mean you read "some" of the verses. How could you possibly understand the Koran reading only "some verses". Were you even aware the verses you read may be subject to other verses you did not read and therefore not what you think they mean because you don't understand their true context? Well? Only a fool would claim to understand the Koran after reading some of its verses in English. Get real. You know how I know you are yet another arm chair expert on Islam who reads a few articles on internet and presto is an Islamic scholar? Easy. Your description of Islam being a religion of war and how you define Jihad and peace. You sure as hell are no Muslim that I know. In regards to 2 to start with let's deal with your misunderstanding that Islam claims to be a religion of "peace" or "war". In the past Islam was referred to or called the religion of peace not for the reasons you think. The word "Islam" literally originates from the root word “sa-la-ma”, as does the term Muslim used to refer to someone "who follows the message of Islam". As I stated in Arabic, words have many more meanings than in English. So salama can mean peace but it can also mean a state serenity, a state of calmness, feeling secure, safe, content by realizing there is something bigger that created life out there. Most religions believe that. The problem is experts like you who claim to be Muslim scholars re-word that to mean "people who submit to Muhammed". In fact all religions like Islam, suggest one will experience an innate sense of security and peacefulness if they let go to a higher sense or something other than themselves. In Judaism, Christian and Islam we use the expression "God" to explain what we let go to. Buddhists and Taoists, Hindus, Seikhs, don't necessarily call it God the way these three religions do but its a higher energy source. Next Jihad, does not refer to war as you think it does. It may be used by some Muslims to refer to an armed struggle against the West but that is not its original or only meaning. In fact it refers to the spiritual struggle within oneself against sin. All religions refer to the same thing. Humans created religions to guide us into controlling our primal instincts and drivers to kill, rape, destroy, engage in incest, theft. We created religions to regulate our behaviour. I will finish the rest of my response in the next post, but let me say unlike you when I lived in Israel as a necessary part of being a Zionist I had to learn Islam. I also lived with Beduins and learned their culture. I am no expert. I can't possibly be....but I was taught to listen to Muslims teach me about their religion. What I learned is the interpretation differs with each Muslim scholar (Mullah, Imam) because there is no one centralized school or institute to teach one form of it. What I learned was Islam is subject to being interpreted in a way that is not written in the Koran but comes from the Muslim authority (Imam, Mullah) applying it within the cultural context of the society in which that scholar lives. So for example in Jordan Muslim women do not cover up but in other Muslim countries they do. You will find no words in the Koran that state a woman must cover up. That is an interpretation a Muslim scholar created. Its not written anywhere nor is it from the Koran-its a cultural not a religious interpretation and for you to even suggest its applied the same way in everywhere for that reason alone is absurd. I doubt you even know how many Muslim sects there are. To start with the two major sects of Sunni and Shiite Islam are completely different. Some will say Sunnis are about 85% of all Muslims...but not all Sunnis are of the same sect or belief. They have many different branches of belief and variation. The well known Sunnis sects are the extremist the Wahhabis, Muslim Brotherhood (which immitates the Masons in structure and some believe is a Masonic branch limited to Muslims), and Jama`at-i-Islami. Shi`ites can be broken down as Twelvers (Ithna-`Asharis), Seveners (Isma`ilis), and Fivers (Zaydis).. Shi`ites believe Muslims should follow `Ali,” Muhammad’s son-in-law, who they claim was Muhammed's designated successor (imam). Then there are the Islamic mystics called the Sufis who seek a personal experience with God through meditation. Then came the Bahais and Ahmadiyyas who came out of Shiite and Sunni Islam. There are also Druze, Alevis, and the Alawis who split off as well from the Shiites. The Beduins of the Middle East, descendants of the people of the Arabian desert practice a spiritual path very similar to aboriginals in North America, South America, Australia (aborigines) and New Zealand (Maori). I doubt you know what any of them believe. What I know is that I do not presume to know until I meet each Muslim and ask them as individual what they believe. Until then I refrain from posing as a Muslim know it all. What I also know is a terrorist in the name of Islam is someone I do not mistake with an innocent Muslim because that is what Muslim terrorists want you and me to do. If we do that and hate all Muslims we empower Muslim terrorists to have all Muslims believe we are hateful of them all and these terrorists are right to say every non Muslim is evil. So if I did not know better I would think if anything when I read what you write you could me a Muslim extremist terrorist deliberately writing falsehoods about Islam to inflame Muslims into thinking all we non Muslims are stupid and do not know the difference. You see I put body parts in bags after a terrorist attack. I keep writing that to people like you and that is because I need to tell you, a Muslim terrorist wants to blow people up and when they do they end up achieving the lesson I wish I could have imparted to people like you and failed to do and that is when you blow someone up because you think you know who they are and so hate them, when they blow up, they have the same colour blood and the same colours when they are left in mounds on the street and let me assure you of this, Muslim terrorists kill more Muslims than non Muslims. Muslims have more to fear from Muslim terrorists than you do and yet you write them all off with your assumptions. How would any peaceful Muslim reach out to you when you claim without speaking to them you already know they hate you?

Alternative forms of Islam have emerged that accommodate Western values and beliefs. For example please go to: https://muslimreformmovement.org/about/. I am going to stop there. Clearly you make a sweeping generalized assumption about all Muslims and their beliefs without doing proper research. I hope that is also short enough for you not to have to read. I appreciate when I respond taking the time to debate someone and show him I am listening to what he says, some people on this forum would prefer I not, and simply make sweeping generalizations in short sentences. I won't.

SIR..sorry when one writes responses they can sound more severe then they are...if you detected a tone of prissy righteousness in my last response to you please you can call me fat head. Next, with due respect you seem to have come to a conclusion about all Muslims. I noted you stated, "The belief system of a Muslim doesn't change." Had you stated, "certain" not "all" Muslims I would get what you say. For me however your assumption so broad-based as to become illogical. You can't possibly know all the beliefs of all Muslims. Furthermore if I stated the same and replaced the word Muslim with "Jew", "Christian", using your analogy what would be the difference? I know of many of my own people (the Hebrews) and Christians who I would argue read their Bible literally as do some Muslims with their Koran. I would challenge them all equally if they began to suggest the government be used to impose their version of morality on others. I am not sure but your label on Muslims makes it sound every last one of them is as another writer said an "Islamist", someone who wants to use the state organ to promulgate Islam. I do not think that is true. I also think there is a very wide range of interpretations of the Koran by Muslims and you should not assume no matter what the degree of focus they use, they all believe in using state as agent to impose their version of Islam on you. I think when you and I or anyone uses the reference" I work with and am friends with...." to justify your assumptions about ALL Muslims you illustrate you are engaging in generalization based on subjective perception and assumption which is not rational. Not all Muslims are Islamists. Not all Christians want to use their state to impose their religious views on non Christians. Hell in Israel most Israels are not religious at all and do not define their Jewish identity as a religious belief but a collective identity based on political suffrage. This is why they reject Jewish religious parties in Israel trying to define what a Jew is by narrow religious terms. Hell I am a damn Zionist and I don't define myself as a "Jew" because of my beliefs in the Old Testament. To me it is a collective identity that came from being stereotyped as an inferior human and having to liberate from that. Its like when gays talk about their identity. They formed a collective identity to deal with non gays who do not understand or hate them but they aint all having sex the exact same way not that I know but Justin told me that. So seriously, its like me saying all Quebecers are separatists its just the degree of separation they want. You might want to dial down about and take some Xanax when you see some guy with a beard and no mustache. Listen I haven't seen any in a long time but I always was afraid of Hare Krishnas. They would smell of wierd incense and smile like they just ate a baby. They scared me. That smile was spooky man. Its like a mix of bad gas, cannibalism, insanity and magic mushroom or laughing gas. Relax man. You sound a tad paranoid. There are plenty of nut cases out there without you pissing your pants over fundamentalists. If they get violent or terrorist then they will be dealt with but until then, a democracy is about understanding you can't always agree with others nor do you have to or be afraid of them. I get it. Muslim extremists are dangerous but to use that to say ALL Muslims are to a degree extremist I won't condone. Its not logical to assume that nor is it true. It also alienates the very Muslims who came to this country to get away from that kind of extremist belief process. Shit I get your comment. They have said that about Jews, Christians, Seikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, name the religion, name the race, ethnicity, nose shape. We have to do better then that kind of hysterical fear mongering. Now if you want to use that stereotype on Trudeau supporters, lol, go ahead. Do that. It will make me smile like a Hare Krishna.

You have never been accused of being a Nazi loving Jew hater on this forum. You have never been accused of anti-Semitism simply because you criticize Israeli state policies. I will give you one guess who plays victim every time he debates anything Israel does and tries to make the thread about him being victimized. THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT YOU GET OVER YOURSELF AND DISCUSS THE FRIGGIN TOPIC. The topic now is that Israel in the last few weeks has increase air strikes in Syria against Iran's Al Qud's unit and Hezbollah within Syria. This is a direct response to Trump announcing he was pulling US soldiers out of Syria. This is a message to Iran's proxies in Syria not to get the idea they are now free to attack Israel with the vacuum this will create when US troops leave.

Sorry but I think appealing to people to fear is illogical. remain in the past with certain views that does not frighten me. I have to have the confidence and strength to find others lie me to counter the negative. This devil you present, (Islamic Party) will grow stronger if you fear it. Think about it. It can't flourish. it can not grow in strength and popularity unless you and others like you react in a manner that fuels its message. Go speak to MUSLIMS, Muslims who came to Canada to get away from this kind of extremism. You need to undnerstand many MUSLIMS came to Canada to get away from this kind of shit, and that this party's representation of Islam is only that. Its a particular group's belief of Islam. It doesn't mean its the only belief of Muslims in Canada. This I promise you, fear who you think is your enemy, that enemy will only feed on that fear and get stronger. I saw this with my own eyes. I saw one woman, one mother, take on an entire unit of Palestinian terrorists trying to take her child away. That woman made a choice. Her son became a doctor. I know him. He does not hate. He heals. His patients whether Israeli or Palestinian have the same colour of blood. I wish I had an iota of the balls that mother had.

Bottom line is there is no separation between state and religion with this party as Dogbite said. I would however state the Christian Heritage Party of Canada which interestingly knows enough not to call itself simply the Christian Party of Canada because it realizes it does not speak for ALL Christians, although like the Islamic party it does want to impose its version of religious morality through the laws. That is why it was started. It has very strong views interestingly no different than the Islamic party on sex education, abortion, homosexuality, marriage. That said it we have ethincsrunning for office appealing for other ethnics to vote for them. Mr. Jagmit Singh who lives two doors down from me in Mississauga runs in Burnaby in the largest Seikh riding he could find to assure he gets elected and his NDP party gets upset because a competing candidate referred to herself as Chinese (which is common in the mandarin language as a way of saying you represent Chinese cultural values..its not meant as a religious term but similar to saying you are a good Christian). Trudeau panders deliberately for ethnic votes. All parties run token ethnics in ridings where the majority ethnics in the riding are the same as the candidate.Trudeau and many politicians use multi-culturalism to be able to be a reverse racist and appeal to same ethnic members to vote for them,Is that democracy? Yes. If the majority of ethnics in your riding are the same ethnicity and they voted for you because you are the same ethnicity that is allowed. There is no way to stop it unless you do away with democracy. Let's spit it out and avoid the political correctness. Of course certain Muslims given their interpretation of the Koran believe there is no separation between state and religion and see the state as an agent of promulgating Islam in all forms of life. Thus they create their Islamic party that appeals to that version of Islam and yes in if they were elected, make no mistake, non Muslims would be reduced as they are in many Muslim nations today to dhimmi or second class citizens with inferior legal rights. This is what sharia law does in the hands of such people . This is why Jews left such countries and started their own country. In both Christian and Muslim countries the religions of those countries were connected to the state and did not allow them equality-so they liberated themselves. They created a Jewish state to protect Jews around the world and give them a haven to escape such behaviour but at the same time allowed non Jews the same legal rights as Jews unlike vice versa in the other states. For the most part Christianity and state governments have detached. Not the case with Islamic sharia law states. So s it any surprise Islamic tribalism exists in Canada? Did anyone but Eye or Omni think, presto kabango it would disappear the moment Lord Justin did a photo op at a mosque with fundamentalist extremist Muslims to pander to the Muslim vote? Trudeau has to decide. He can embrace multi-culturalism and pander for Muslim votes, but then he needs to have the integrity to denounce Islamic fundamentalism that is sexist and against gays and he won't of course do that any more than he will admit Muslim extremist views fuel terrorism. In his Liberal mind, if a Muslim extremist is a terrorist because of those Muslim extremist views, he won't say so for fear of losing Muslim votes and instead will engage in bull shit platitudes like terrorists have unemployment as their root cause. Trudeau lives in a fantasy world where he marches in every gay pride he can find but also shows up to pander for votes from extremist fundamentalist Muslims at Mosques where they preach intolerance of gays. Multi-culturalism is something we embrace in Canada. Its down side is if it becomes too extreme it promotes tribalism and if you question that tribalism you are accused of bigotry, On the other hand the other side of that extremism is Trumpism or American Chauvenism which is just a smidgen away from racism and white supremacist neo Nazis trying to justify their bigotry of everyone through scapegoating of a common ethnic group to hate to unify the masses. If you listen carefully to Trump, he needs an ethnic group (or other scapegoat) to piss on to unify his voters. He can't go a day without a scapegoat to generate hatred for his minions to unify around. Trump is failing miserably so of course he creates diversion tactics from his failed record by creating scapegoats such as the Latino hoards about to rape his country and make everyone drug addicts. We go today from one extremism to the other, from a Trudeau fantasy world where he wants a photo op with any or all ethnic groups to get elected and will pander to them and make it appear accommodation in Canada has no limits and there is no need to assimilate to certain Canadian values to build a unified country to the other extreme of Trump who creates an Aryan race no different than Hitler he calls "America first" a fabricated American person he claims to protect right out of the Goebels Hitlerian propaganda manual. We need to balance tolerance of different beliefs with the need to assimilate an give up certain beliefs when they clash with the greater good. Its a balancing act of course. That said, I would argue the best way to deal with any religious party is to debate them in public. If people claim its anti Muslim to question such parties such people need to be challenged openly as well. The cynic in me says political correctness is preventing genuine dialogue in all communities. I say debate it and I reject the Islamic Party no differently than I do the views of Taxme. They promote the belief that one group of people are better than another. Superiority complexes are a pain in the ass.

Just so you know I am starting a Jewish Party of Ontario and here is some of the platform I am working on: 1-all our politicians must be funny or dentists or both 2-we always offer lox and bagels at our meetings 3-we believe people should be able to use their left signal light to turn right on Bathurst Street in Toronto 4-people really should wash their hands more often you could get germs you know 5-speaking of which chickens need to be subsidized so everyone can make soup 6-we will control all banks, movie production, journalism, the air-waves, Canada, the US and the world..no wait we already did that..never mind... 7--special financial assistance will be given to set up more Chinese restaurants offering 5 pm dinner deals 9-more cultural exchanges with Miami, Florida will be allowed 10- all sessions of Parliament will start with the opening.." So how are you....." Gentiles can be in our party but they must be clipped and ready to go.

I doubt there is any conspiracy and I probably would think Betsy does not really think there is one either but there is a very real bias by this government in favour of pandering to ethnic communities for the next election vote using an open door immigration policy. That is real. Its blatant and it sells out the security and best interests of all Canadians including new Canadians in favour of trying to pander for ethnic votes. I would hope Canadians understand Trudeau is pandering and they do not allow him to use their ethnicity to pander for votes. The photoop with the Foreign Minister and the latest cause of the week teenager refugee was absolute and utter bullshit and if you think a policy should be determined by a Minister saying "she reminds me of my daughter" get real. You think Canada can take in every teenager on this planet who disagrees with their parents in other countries? Get real. You think we have a budget for that much Clearasil. You may have to donate some of yours Eye.

Scotts, Welsh, English, Irish, French, Dutch, Belgian, German, Spanish, Czech, Slovakian, Polish, Ukrainian, European Jewish, Romanian, Bulgarian, Greek, Russian, Chinese Indo-Pakistani-Sri-Lankan, , Korean, Indonesian, Fillipino, Ssuth and Central American, African, Asian, and don't forget people from Toga, you seem to have shortened your minority list. More than Paesanos came to Canada after WW2. Your history seems a tad selective. You also miss the point of this thread. Its about the lack of objective criteria being used to determine who can come into Canada. The current government is allowing people to push in ahead of law abiding individuals patiently waiting in line to come in. That is the issue. Those paesanos you talk about lined up, took jobs no one wanted, did not go to the government for assistance and lived in neighbourhoods with other ethnics and didn't have a philosophy that ridiculed the basic fundamental values of democracy but supported it. They didn't ask for any favours and did not disrespect their parents. They brought their parents with them and looked after them. You know any paesanos? You ever met one? You think they all live in Woodbridge? Lol. Listen, I can only imagine what ethnic group you come from to change the topic and point at Paesanos but your comments are as silly as Majo's trying to turn this into an issue of illiterate CBSA officers. This is an issue about lack of objective immigration policy and lack of proper security screening.

Bullshit. I call out what you say as total and utter bullshit. I say you smear CBSA to avoid dealing the issues of how we investigate people coming into Canada. The minimum requirements to be a CBSA officer are: 1-at least 18 years old and a Canadian citizen or permanent resident? 2-a high school diploma (in reality so many people compete its more then that now unless you are aboriginal or a visible minority who speaks more than English or French) 3-valid driver's license 4- pass the Canadian Firearms Safety Course and the Canadian Restricted Firearms Safety Course at y own expense before the start of training 5- able to pass the Physical Abilities Requirement Evaluation in 4:45 minutes? 6- pass a psychological assessment to ensure you are fit to undergo training, including use of force and handling a firearm 7- pass a medical exam performed by Health Canada 8- 4.5 months of in-residence training (in Rigaud, Quebec). So no you can not be illiterate to be a CBSA officer. Please provide the names of those individuals you determined were illiterate,. What are their names, how did you intreract with them, and why did you not report them? I have worked with the CBSA as well and no I do not have any liking for any particular CBSA officer or any human...but that is not the issue... they could not get hired if they can not speak not only French and English and often a third language. You and I may not like some of them but for you to try smear them all as illiterate is nonsense. Next why are you even attempting to suggest the flood of illegals in this country are not directly as a result of the policies of Trudeau but because of your fabricated CBSA illiterates? Come on... talk about creating and smeering a scapegoat to avoid the issue of the thread. Pathetic. Get back to me when you have the integrity to discuss the thread's issues.

True that won't happen directly Bogesy but indirectly? Happens all the time door to door on the election campaign. Oh you bet if a white person said that there would be all hell to pay. Its the bullcrap reality we live in today. I agree with you but I am just saying I am not surprised. Also I think people unfairly stereotype the Conservative Party as anti ethnic which will place pressure on it to recruit ethnic candidates. Its reality. We should be voting for candidates regardless of their damn ethnicity but you see how it works. Look how fast Trudeau tried to call Scheer a racist for questioning the insanity of illegal entry into Canada. Look how Trudeau went to India ethnic pandering. Its a reality on the campaign trail to put on ethnic outfits and pose for the cameras. Mr. Scheer does not have to wear a yamacha for me. Tell him that. I will vote for him even though he is a gentile. Some of my best friends are. (said tongue in Jewish cheek)

Boges I love you but... why is Jagmeet running in his seat in BC? He lives two doors down from me in Mississauga. Why is he not running in my riding or in Ontario? He went to the largest Seikh riding he could find to guarantee he would be elected. Yes this Chinese candidate engaged in clumsy ethnic pandering. She is one of many who does. I don't excuse it but its so common why act surprised? All three parties pander and recruit candidates with profiles based on the ethnic ghettoes in the ridings. Come on let's get real. The whole system of elections is geared on ethnic pandering. It is a joke for Jasmeet to say he is running on behalf of all Canadians. Bullshit. He went to a Seikh ghetto to appeal to Seikhs to guarantee he gets elected, end of story. He's an ethnic whore. This is someone who said he would run in Quebec. Yah fat chance. Seriously, you don't think the Conservatives will run tokens in ethnic ridings? You thing only the Liberals and NDP do? Please.

So let me see if I understand this: 1-I focus on gun control because I don't have to kill to eat; 2-the US is obsessed with guns and shooting itself to death because it has no higher authority to appeal to. If I also follow that "reasoning": 3-Americans are obsessed with shooting each other to death because they kill to eat; 4-I appeal to z higher authority so I am not a revolutionary and hate guns..... ....not to mention I am an Eskimo communist since I totally agree with Z. Just to clarify: 5-my appeal to a larger authority does make me humble as to the sanctity of life-yes-also having had to clean wounds or put body parts bags-in Canada most of us know the difference between a subsistence hunter and a recreational hunter and a farmer who has a rifle to protect his livestock from some half assed punk with a hand gun he holds sideways to compensate for his small penis; 6-there is nothing revolutionary in using a gun-in fact revolutionaries like Jesus, Ghandi, Luther King did not use them. Your comments are at times funny but also other times, inane and juvenile. It was soldiers who taught me never to love a gun by the way. It was what they did not say not what they said that taught me that humility.

Eskimo communist....I agree with Z but I never joined the party. Walruses look like Nietzche not just Stalin.

Me personally I respect that. This part of you I defer to with sincerity. Just so you know I may have volunteered in Israel because I am a Zionist Jew but Canada has to and will always come first and if it can't I have no business being Canadian and in a conflict Canada comes first zero question. My father served and survived then retired from the air force then army. Canadian military history is something I defer to because of humility. His life and all the people he served with I met were very very humble people about their service. That for me is the Canada that comes first. Those men and women of service I am a monarchist because until someone shows me a better symbol for stability I defer to it and its what my father and his comrades fought under and kept them from never forgetting who they were corny as that sounds man. Your last two posts were said with humility not malice . I get that.

Lol you outrank me. All I did was dig latrines but man I made the best latrines you ever saw. You would have loved my latrines. Works of art. Nice to see some humility in you. Thank you. Good on you. Hey finally a post I can sympathize with. Yer no Generalissimo now I get you...yer a disenchanted tax paying shmuck. ... lol welcome to the club .. sigh. Why we pay taxes I have no idea. I share your disenchantment but if you did serve you are entitled to a genuine thank you from this disenchanted shmuck to your disenchanted shmuck. Had I known that I would have changed the tone of my sarcasm. I defer with respect if you served. By the way and all kidding aside, the most complex and profound of things we try conceive are the simplest. That is precisely the struggle with our brains. You get so far to the answer by getting close to it. Friggin paradoxes man. Severely depressed men laughing like crazy. Brave brave men freezing with paralysis, wanting to scream and having zero voice, man I think of so much of that shit I saw. Don't know about you but just believe I can have a good laugh at what I see in the mirror.