Muslim Honor Killing's in N.A!

[WIP]

I don't disagree with most of what you're saying...

...but it's hardly a rare thing when a divorced man slays his ex-wife. Granted, usually it involves a gunshot or dozens of stab-wounds, not a beheading. The spin is just a little different. Instead of a "humiliated man" engaging in an "honor killing", it's "a lonely, bitter man, unable to cope..." Culture and religion are usually ignored as aspects of this story. It's not a cultural thing, it's just an isolated case of one troubled man.

I mean, honestly I hate the misogyny built into Islam and I loathe the idea of Islam becoming more prominent in our country. But aside from the morbid curiosity of the beheading... what makes this different from any number of slayings of women by their ex-partners?

-k

All true, and if you're old enough, you can remember a time when nothing was done about spousal abuse even from other family members. I had an aunt who, along with their children, were constantly physically and verbally abused by my uncle, and yet my father refused to offer his own sister any support or help when she tried to seek a legal separation and take her two youngest children with her to safety. Thirty or forty years ago, a man's home was his castle, and the man was the head of the house according to Christian principles -- so my father's reasoning was that it was improper to interfere regardless of how unfortunate the situation was (then again, my father was also abusive on a somewhat less egregious scale)

Anyway, we don't do Muslim immigrants any favours here by stroking fragile egos and assuring them that we respect their culture enough to look the other way and tell them how wonderful the religion of peace is. It is up to them to confront the realities of this violence and deal with whatever contributions by religion and culture are made. Fortunately, there are some voices in the Muslim communities who are pragmatic enough to realize they have to address the problem and deal with it. This is a problem they are going to have to deal with, and we shouldn't be playing cultural relativism to dismiss the problem.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wajahat-ali/...a_b_168211.html

[Michael Hardner]

WIP

The default claim that religion is a good thing (other than the wars, genocides, pogroms, persecutions, forced conversions, and objections to modernity) doesn't pass the smell test when an impartial analysis of history is performed. The French playwright Voltaire narrowly escaped being burned at the stake for writing a book that theorized Christendom caused the fall of the Roman Empire; but whether the new religion which Emperor Constantine picked to try to keep his empire afloat was the cause of the Fall of the Roman Empire, it nonetheless hastened the decline and made the quality of life much worse by burning books of science and medicine, closing bathhouses, and promoting bloodletting and prayer to combat plagues that made a grim life even worse during the Dark Ages. The actions of the Church that set Western civilization back a thousand years were not done by a tiny minority of extremists or fringe fanatics -- the orders came from the popes themselves.

Bad things that were done in the name of religion weren't necessarily caused by religion. You can go through history and find many examples of evil that were done in the name of [some cause] but what was the real cause ? In a lot of cases, it's like trying to find the cause of a flood, but generally these things are caused by negative emotions such as hatred and fear at the root.

Just as you provided some bad things that were done in the name of religion, I can find lots of examples of good things that came out of religion. Although that doesn't prove that religion is good, I submit that it stands to reason that a book that ostensibly preaches good behavior must have more of a positive impact than a negative one.

Should Christianity get the credit for the flourishing of European culture during the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment? I would say no, since efforts to improve life and acquire new knowledge, were carried out after the Church was forced to grudgingly concede some ground, first to the Greek philosophers, and slowly over time to advancing scientific understanding of the world around us. Even in this day and age, when we have big problems to deal with, we have the religious of all stripes fighting against sensible abortion policies, stem cell research and euthanasia, because they insist on dragging their medieval understanding of the mind into any and every life issue debate.

Christianity and 'the Church' are two entirely different things, yet you have fused them together in your first sentence. The schism between different Christian factions was about the true interpretation of Christianity, in the face of the corruption of the papacy as I remember (somewhat) from history class. The results of this schism were eventually separation of Church and state, and eventually democracy etc.

I would say that the advance in Europe happened because of Christianity, although it was done in spite of the Church.

Even more insidious, the heavy influence of Christian and Muslim religious leaders (most notably, the Vatican) have successfully taken overpopulation off the table as an issue for policy makers to discuss. This, at a time when population growth rates that had been slowing for two decades, are now on the rebound, and we are straining to provide the food and fresh water to feed the now more than 6.5 billion people on this planet. The human population growth is also increasing environmental degradation and causing an increase in the extinctions of mammals, amphibians, and even insects, that is unprecedented in Earth's history -- past extinctions have never been this rapid, and present trends will lead to the human race joining the extinction list in another hundred to two hundred years if nothing is done to stop this headlong rush to disaster.

Our problems are more spiritual than material anyway, and what better way to solve spiritual problems than in acknowledging a higher power, or a purpose greater than our own ?

That said, I have no objection to going to church for a religious experience of some form or other -- I even occasionally attend Unitarian/Universalist services, since they are apparently the only church that uses a set of shared principles, rather than shared metaphysical dogmas as their organizing principle. Many Catholics reject the Vatican's dangerous dogmas that encourage overpopulation, and they should be speaking out against the Pope and other Church hierarchy about the harm they are doing by encouraging a population explosion in the Third World, instead of sitting silently in the pews.

Why how generous of you to not object to the personal decisions others make about their beliefs !

And, of course, the crowning end to your post is that you attend services. I don't think I've yet had a discussion like this (with somebody who is against religion, or whatever you are) without finding out that they were or still are religious.

Overpopulation is a red herring by the way. Our population is increasing at a declining rate.

[Oleg Bach]

The earth is an organic ball of life..It has it's own natural governance and would not generate more people than it could sustain - those that are all about population control are wack jobs who if given the power would go on a massive killing spree - This planet has been around for a billion years - and will still be here long after the haughty social engineers and herd cullers are gone.

[bush_cheney2004]

The earth is an organic ball of life..It has it's own natural governance and would not generate more people than it could sustain - those that are all about population control are wack jobs who if given the power would go on a massive killing spree - This planet has been around for a billion years - and will still be here long after the haughty social engineers and herd cullers are gone.

Yep...every single bit of whatever they choose to whine about will be long gone. And the planet won't care at all. I'm convinced they would have tried to save the frickin' dinosaurs too.

[kimmy]

Anyway, we don't do Muslim immigrants any favours here by stroking fragile egos and assuring them that we respect their culture enough to look the other way and tell them how wonderful the religion of peace is. It is up to them to confront the realities of this violence and deal with whatever contributions by religion and culture are made. Fortunately, there are some voices in the Muslim communities who are pragmatic enough to realize they have to address the problem and deal with it. This is a problem they are going to have to deal with, and we shouldn't be playing cultural relativism to dismiss the problem.

Wonderfully stated.

-k

[kimmy]

Yep...every single bit of whatever they choose to whine about will be long gone. And the planet won't care at all. I'm convinced they would have tried to save the frickin' dinosaurs too.

I'm hopeful that we'll at least have the sense to save ourselves.

-k

[WIP]

WIP

Bad things that were done in the name of religion weren't necessarily caused by religion.

Could you elaborate on this point? So far you haven't explained what you mean by religion, or how it can be connected with so many bad things and yet not be the cause of them.

Religion is usually understood to be a system of metaphysical doctrines combined with a list of ethical rules. Both are usually presented as the results of divine revelation. The instant knowledge presented in sacred texts is the exact opposite path to knowledge as the gradual buildup of knowledge and understanding of our world. Science and religion are not compatible, regardless of occasional blathering by theologians and a few scientists. One side has to give way. Usually the religious authorities have to reinterpret their story when empirical evidence mounts up too high to continue literalist interpretations.

You can go through history and find many examples of evil that were done in the name of [some cause] but what was the real cause ? In a lot of cases, it's like trying to find the cause of a flood, but generally these things are caused by negative emotions such as hatred and fear at the root.

And where did the hatred and fear come from? In places where you have a homogeneous population, there have been bloody sectarian wars fought over which religious sect the people should adhere to. It's not hard to figure out the source of the conflict when two warring sides are divided by religions that claim exclusive rights to the hereafter.

Just as you provided some bad things that were done in the name of religion, I can find lots of examples of good things that came out of religion. Although that doesn't prove that religion is good, I submit that it stands to reason that a book that ostensibly preaches good behavior must have more of a positive impact than a negative one.

And if you're referring to the same book I'm thinking of, the good things to preach are found through careful, deliberate cherrypicking of verses to support modern standards of good behaviour that were not shared by Christians living two thousand years ago.

Christianity and 'the Church' are two entirely different things, yet you have fused them together in your first sentence. The schism between different Christian factions was about the true interpretation of Christianity, in the face of the corruption of the papacy as I remember (somewhat) from history class. The results of this schism were eventually separation of Church and state, and eventually democracy etc.

For centuries the Catholic Church suppressed most schisms through inquisitions and heresy trials; but after fighting long, bloody wars against the followers of Luther and Calvin, a ceasefire was agreed upon. But that was not the beginning of separation of church and state. In Europe, there is de facto separation of church and state because the churches have lost their influence over the majority of people. But most nations in Europe still have official, state supported churches.

I would say that the advance in Europe happened because of Christianity, although it was done in spite of the Church.

That doesn't make a lot of sense, since a church is just a group of organized Christians.

Our problems are more spiritual than material anyway, and what better way to solve spiritual problems than in acknowledging a higher power, or a purpose greater than our own ?

Maybe a definition of "spiritual" would be helpful. How are spiritual problems solved? Does acknowledging this higher power solve these spiritual problems when there is no way to prove that this higher power exists anywhere outside of the imagination?

Why how generous of you to not object to the personal decisions others make about their beliefs !

I have no problem with people believing in things they can't prove exist, unless they feel they should determine real life public policies that affect everybody.

And, of course, the crowning end to your post is that you attend services. I don't think I've yet had a discussion like this (with somebody who is against religion, or whatever you are) without finding out that they were or still are religious.

As I explained previously, the church I support is organized around shared principles, not the insistence that everyone believe the same dogma. I have been in churches during my life where I thought "this place would be great if it wasn't for all of the stupid things they expect everybody to believe without question!" The Unitarians tend to attract a lot of mystical, new age type flakes -- but as long as I don't have to believe the stuff that Eckard Tolle and other new age mystics write, I have no problem with it.

I mentioned the U/U's because I believe the problem with religion is exactly the opposite of what you claimed to be the problem. You claim religious faith and the basic Christian dogma are good, and the problems associated with religion are caused by the churches that are organized around these beliefs. I see the problem as having beliefs based on faith, that cannot be challenged, scrutinized or easily altered. So a church that organizes around a sensible set of principles can be a fine place.

Overpopulation is a red herring by the way. Our population is increasing at a declining rate.

Which helps nothing, since the world's population is already too large to be sustained for long at the rate we are using nonrenewable resources and fresh water. Aside from the increasing amount of natural resources each of us use in the modern world, lets take a brief look back a couple of centuries to see how fast human population has grown:

It took over 100,000 years for modern humans to reach the 1 billion mark in 1804, and then.........

2 billion in 1927 (123 years later)

3 billion in 1960 (33 years)

4 billion in 1974 (13 years)

5 billion in 1987 (12 years)

6 billion in 1999 (12 years)

7 billion in 2013 (14 years - projected)

8 billion in 2028 (15 years - projected)

Back when I was young, the world's population was a little over three billion, and we heard as much about the threat of overpopulation as we do about global warming today. I have wondered why this issue gets little traction in the mainstream media today as we get near the 7 billion mark, since overpopulation impacts on all of the other environmental issues -- but I hadn't realized what a concerted effort the Catholic Church has made over the last 30 years to take this issue off the table until I read these articles a couple of weeks ago. If you think overpopulation is a red herring, you are only fooling yourself. This is THE most important issue that is the number one threat to our survival as a species.

[jbg]

She is one of 5,000 so called honor killings each year around the world. How tolerant are we meant to be of others religions? Are we to look the other way and celebrate this as freedom of religion as the left have been screaming for for decades? The left is always telling us we need to be tolerant but where do we draw the line and accept no more? What sort of religion is this that we're allowing into our towns and cities?

I think we welcome immigrants; and make clear we're going to enforce the laws against them the way we do against everyone else. Thus, a murder should be actively investigated and prosecuted. If that means 5000 Muslims in jail, so be it.

[kimmy]

Bad things that were done in the name of religion weren't necessarily caused by religion.

Could you elaborate on this point? So far you haven't explained what you mean by religion, or how it can be connected with so many bad things and yet not be the cause of them.

I think it would be like, say Leon Fishberg takes an AK47 to the Red Lobster and kills dozens of people. People might think "hey, that sounds like a Jewish name. Maybe he slaughtered all those people because he read in Leviticus that shellfish is an abomination." And so maybe you could make the argument that these people are dead because of religion. But millions of Jewish people have read Leviticus and none of them have gone on a shooting spree at Red Lobster... so maybe in my little example, the problem is not with the Jewish faith, but rather with Leon Fishberg. The people at the Red Lobster are dead because Leon Fishberg is a stark raving fruit-loop, not because religion caused him to kill people.

Likewise, if Achmed Hussein beats up his daughter because she wore a t-shirt instead of a tent, people might be prone to say "ah-ha! Look, Islam sucks!"

If Bob Smith, atheist, beats up his daughter because she looks like a slut, people don't say "his religion must be at fault!" ... they say "Bob Smith is a real asshole." Achmed Hussein might just be a real asshole too, the problem might not be with religion at all, even if Achmed says that's why he beat up his daughter. Lots of Muslims have daughters who rebel against what the local Imam says is proper... but most of them don't beat them up for it.

Achmed might be the kind of guy who would find a reason to beat up his daughter whether he were Muslim, atheist, Rastafarian, or Fruitopian.

-kimmy

{has nothing against Red Lobster, Leon Fishberg, Bob Smith, or Achmed Hussein.}

[Argus]

Could you elaborate on this point? So far you haven't explained what you mean by religion, or how it can be connected with so many bad things and yet not be the cause of them.

I think it would be like, say Leon Fishberg takes an AK47 to the Red Lobster and kills dozens of people. People might think "hey, that sounds like a Jewish name. Maybe he slaughtered all those people because he read in Leviticus that shellfish is an abomination." And so maybe you could make the argument that these people are dead because of religion. But millions of Jewish people have read Leviticus and none of them have gone on a shooting spree at Red Lobster... so maybe in my little example, the problem is not with the Jewish faith, but rather with Leon Fishberg. The people at the Red Lobster are dead because Leon Fishberg is a stark raving fruit-loop, not because religion caused him to kill people.

That's certainly possible, given a single individual. But it becomes more problematic if there were lots of Rabbis thumping fists on their pulpits (do Jews have pulpits?) demanding the deaths of everyone who eats shellfish, reading Leviticus to those in attendance, leading them in chants for the death of shellfish eaters, churning out pamphets and web sites decrying the eating of Shellfish, etc. If that were the case, and whole groups of Jews all across the world were getting together to train with weapons and explosives in the woods, and if every now and then one of these groups launched machinegun attacks on shopping malls or hotels or blew up trains or buses, then I think we might have a legitimate suspicion that there's something about the religion itself, or at least how many of its holy men and worshipers are interpreting that religion, which could give us doubt about their peaceful intent.

Likewise, it might be that one person is just an asshole and kills his daughter, but it's more difficult to contemplate when entire extended families get together, including mothers, brothers, fathers, uncles and aunts, and cousins, to put to death some wayfaring young miss who was seen walking alone with a boy without a chaperone. Then you might legitimately consider what it is about the culture of such people which would get them to participate in such a thing.

[WIP]

Could you elaborate on this point? So far you haven't explained what you mean by religion, or how it can be connected with so many bad things and yet not be the cause of them.

I think it would be like, say Leon Fishberg takes an AK47 to the Red Lobster and kills dozens of people. People might think "hey, that sounds like a Jewish name. Maybe he slaughtered all those people because he read in Leviticus that shellfish is an abomination." And so maybe you could make the argument that these people are dead because of religion. But millions of Jewish people have read Leviticus and none of them have gone on a shooting spree at Red Lobster... so maybe in my little example, the problem is not with the Jewish faith, but rather with Leon Fishberg. The people at the Red Lobster are dead because Leon Fishberg is a stark raving fruit-loop, not because religion caused him to kill people.

Likewise, if Achmed Hussein beats up his daughter because she wore a t-shirt instead of a tent, people might be prone to say "ah-ha! Look, Islam sucks!"

But, as previously noted by Argus, Achmed Hussein has the problem of having lots of company with him in his honour-killing assignment; it cannot be written off as an anomaly, like a Jew going on a rampage at a Red Lobster would be.

In the case of the TV station owner who beheaded his wife, he is a professional, well educated, lived in the United States for over twenty years, and made it his special mission in life to show Americans that Muslims can fit in to the fabric of American life -- and what does he do when he's served with divorce papers? He pulls a scimitar off the wall and chops his wife's head off! And, according to police who were first on the scene, he did not attempt to flee or demonstrate any remorse for his action, but instead appeared proud of himself and claimed that he had to do it to defend his honour. Am I wrong to see religious and cultural significance behind this act? If he had shot her or stabbed her, it might not have grabbed national attention, but a beheading.....where did he get that idea from?

If Bob Smith, atheist, beats up his daughter because she looks like a slut, people don't say "his religion must be at fault!" ... they say "Bob Smith is a real asshole." Achmed Hussein might just be a real asshole too, the problem might not be with religion at all, even if Achmed says that's why he beat up his daughter. Lots of Muslims have daughters who rebel against what the local Imam says is proper... but most of them don't beat them up for it.

Achmed might be the kind of guy who would find a reason to beat up his daughter whether he were Muslim, atheist, Rastafarian, or Fruitopian.

-kimmy

{has nothing against Red Lobster, Leon Fishberg, Bob Smith, or Achmed Hussein.}

Of your hypothetical group, Achmed is the most likely to beat up his daughter, because he belongs to a religion that considers women to be of less worth than men, and stresses the shame brought on the family if she is accused of fraternizing with non-Muslim boys.

An atheist does not have any predetermined ethical positions because atheism is an absence of belief in gods and supernatural forces that cannot be seen or proven to exist. An atheist has an obligation to do some study of his own in order to make consistent ethical judgments. An atheist could be a humanist, a Marxist, or a selfish libertarian like Ayn Rand disciple - Alan Greenspan. Atheists are defined by what they don't believe in, not what they believe in.

And Rastafarians...........what do they believe in......besides smoking pot?

[jbg]

(do Jews have pulpits?)

We call it in Hebrew the "bee-mah" (phonetic) and otherwise the altar, the pulpit, or any appropriate neutral word. Basically it's a place for the Rabbi or whoever is leading the service to put a Torah or other reading material, such as his speech. The "ark" where the Torah scrolls are kept has more of a particular function then the bee-mah but as in Christianity, no particular location is worshipped as such.

[sharkman]

Could you elaborate on this point? So far you haven't explained what you mean by religion, or how it can be connected with so many bad things and yet not be the cause of them.

That's an odd thought. I will answer your question with another question: How is it that humans, being connected with every single bad thing in the world, can not be the cause of them?

Edited March 15, 2009 by sharkman

[kimmy]

That's an odd thought. I will answer your question with another question: How is it that humans, being connected with every single bad thing in the world, can not be the cause of them?

(wha?)

First off, that wasn't me, that was me quoting WIP. And secondly, who has been suggesting otherwise?

But, as previously noted by Argus, Achmed Hussein has the problem of having lots of company with him in his honour-killing assignment; it cannot be written off as an anomaly, like a Jew going on a rampage at a Red Lobster would be.

I completely understand what you and Argus are saying on this, and I agree with it to a large extent. However, I did want to present what I think Michael may have been trying to say.

While I agree all other things being equal a Muslim might be more prone to violence against women due to cultural factors, I think the phrase "all other things being equal" is pretty important there.

I think there are people who are due to purely genetic factors more prone to violence than others. I think there are people whose family environment and life experiences make them more prone to violence than others.

Mo Hassan beheaded his wife. A typical white guy doesn't do something that ritualized, but there's no shortage of typical white guys who've killed their wives in domestic disputes. The cultural factors likely played a large role in determining what the crime looked like, but I'm not convinced that they're a determining factor in the crime actually occurring. This is just my feeling, but I think there are people who could do something like that, and people who couldn't. Religion might play some role in deciding which kind of person someone turns out to be, but I think other factors are probably at least as important.

And Rastafarians...........what do they believe in......besides smoking pot?

We'll have to ask Bubber next time he logs in.

-k

[sharkman]

Sorry Kimmy, I got my wires crossed I think when I read Argus's quote of you in post 110.

[Richie777]

Most muslims in Canada and the States are simply biding their time until they have the numbers that they have in countries like Holland or the Swedish city of Malmo. Once they reach "critical mass" then they will start making demands on non-muslims and we will see the number of "honour" killings go through the roof. Do a Google on the word "taqqiya"; that will explain the relative quiet in the muslm community in North America...for now.

[jbg]

Most muslims in Canada and the States are simply biding their time until they have the numbers that they have in countries like Holland or the Swedish city of Malmo. Once they reach "critical mass" then they will start making demands on non-muslims and we will see the number of "honour" killings go through the roof. Do a Google on the word "taqqiya"; that will explain the relative quiet in the muslm community in North America...for now.

I would like to think that America's also pretty good at assimilating just about anyone.

[Richie777]

I would like to think that America's also pretty good at assimilating just about anyone.

America has assimilated waves of immigrants over the centuries, but what if the immigrants steadfastly refuse to be assimilated? What if they are intent on doing the assimilating? What if muslims see Western culture as corrupt, unworthy and well, un-islamic? These immigrants are not your grandfather's immigrants!

[WIP]

I completely understand what you and Argus are saying on this, and I agree with it to a large extent. However, I did want to present what I think Michael may have been trying to say.

While I agree all other things being equal a Muslim might be more prone to violence against women due to cultural factors, I think the phrase "all other things being equal" is pretty important there.

When religion is interwoven with culture, it's very difficult to separate where one begins and one leaves off. The problem with putting all the blame on a cultural tradition that views women as a threat to the social hierarchy, is that these same people will almost certainly tell you that religion is everything in their culture. Every aspect of life in most Muslim-majority nations has to follow the directives of the clerics.

So a Muslim society, that is following Sharia Law in varying degrees, should be confronted about the reasons why they either condone honour killings, or do not intervene. For example, how much do the misogynistic Sharia rules about women maintaining their purity and family honour, play in providing the inspiration for honour killings of women who have refused arranged marriages, or have been seen talking to strange men?

I think there are people who are due to purely genetic factors more prone to violence than others. I think there are people whose family environment and life experiences make them more prone to violence than others.

There certainly are! People that go into a rage easily, when angry, are going to be more likely to be ruled by impulse and less able to hear that little voice saying 'this may not be such a good idea!'

Mo Hassan beheaded his wife. A typical white guy doesn't do something that ritualized, but there's no shortage of typical white guys who've killed their wives in domestic disputes. The cultural factors likely played a large role in determining what the crime looked like, but I'm not convinced that they're a determining factor in the crime actually occurring. This is just my feeling, but I think there are people who could do something like that, and people who couldn't. Religion might play some role in deciding which kind of person someone turns out to be, but I think other factors are probably at least as important.

The problem is those other factors can be held up for scrutiny -- but religion remains on that top shelf, where a lot of people want it left so that a doctrine that 'religion is a positive force in society, and only causes evil when it is misinterpreted' remains as the common wisdom and no one is allowed to criticize or even analyze the merits of each religion.

We'll have to ask Bubber next time he logs in.

-k

[WIP]

Most muslims in Canada and the States are simply biding their time until they have the numbers that they have in countries like Holland or the Swedish city of Malmo. Once they reach "critical mass" then they will start making demands on non-muslims and we will see the number of "honour" killings go through the roof. Do a Google on the word "taqqiya"; that will explain the relative quiet in the muslm community in North America...for now.

It seems we may have a problem now that the Canadian Islamic Congress is trying to take over as the leading association of Muslims in Canada, but we are still a ways off from the problems in Europe. Keep in mind that much of the problem with European Muslim populations stems from cultural and racial problems, more than religion. Especially in France, where most of the Algerian and other North African Muslim communities that riot every summer are not all that observant, and a lot of the strife can be traced to the creation of suburban ghettos for immigrants, and the fact that they are not considered "real" French by the natives.

The strange dichotomy that many Islam critics who work on behalf of Neoconservatives and the religious right is that they never mention that the threat of Islamic fundamentalism is directly proportional to the world price of oil. Oil has financed Saudi Arabia's public and private Islamification program that has built mosques and madrassahs with Wahabbi-trained clerics all over the world. Instead of fighting wars and making deals to get access to MiddleEast oil, a concerted effort to end dependence on oil would have drained the swamp and eliminated the funds that fueled the most aggressive forces within the Muslim World. End Western dependence on oil and you'll end the most aggressive forces within the Muslim World.

[sharkman]

America has assimilated waves of immigrants over the centuries, but what if the immigrants steadfastly refuse to be assimilated? What if they are intent on doing the assimilating? What if muslims see Western culture as corrupt, unworthy and well, un-islamic? These immigrants are not your grandfather's immigrants!

Yes, my brother in law had a conversation with a Muslim in southern Alberta of all places who said that Muslims are quietly increasing their numbers through births and immigration in Canada, and there will come a time when they will be quiet no longer. He was not kidding.

Canada would be the perfect place for such an effort since we are so open minded and tolerant that we can see and hear no evil, unless America is attached to it somehow.

[guyser]

Most muslims in Canada and the States are simply biding their time until they have the numbers that they have in countries like Holland or the Swedish city of Malmo.

Can you quote from where that came? Apart from that, do they have a secret handshake or something?

Once they reach "critical mass" then they will start making demands on non-muslims and we will see the number of "honour" killings go through the roof. Do a Google on the word "taqqiya"; that will explain the relative quiet in the muslm community in North America...for now.

...and this just in , murder charges laid have soared....

Works just fine.

[WIP]

Can you quote from where that came? Apart from that, do they have a secret handshake or something?

...and this just in , murder charges laid have soared....

Works just fine.

The part these conspiracy theorists are missing out on is that life in the West is a corrupting influence on this kind of fundamentalist religion, and will dilute fundamentalist zeal, just as it does with the fundamentalist Christians who are constantly complaining about hedonistic culture corrupting their young people.

[sharkman]

The part these conspiracy theorists are missing out on is that life in the West is a corrupting influence on this kind of fundamentalist religion, and will dilute fundamentalist zeal, just as it does with the fundamentalist Christians who are constantly complaining about hedonistic culture corrupting their young people.

And that, my friends, is why the Muslim fundamentalist efforts in such places as France(if ever there was a corrupting influence, France would be the place) and many other European nations has been so peaceful. No riots, rapes, or killings to speak of there.

Seriously, it's sobering to see WIP's attitude in this matter. How can one hold that view when the muslim violence in several European nations has been going on for years? But holders of this viewpoint ignore it hoping it will go away, like France did, and is now reaping the whirlwind.

Edited March 17, 2009 by sharkman

[guyser]

Yes, my brother in law had a conversation with a Muslim in southern Alberta of all places who said that Muslims are quietly increasing their numbers through births and immigration in Canada, and there will come a time when they will be quiet no longer. He was not kidding.

Who, your brother or the muslim?

Considering over half of all muslims live in TO, why worry? We are just fine having them. They pay damn good taxes and our economy was improved with the beautiful mosque they opened up.

Put it this way, in the same way a continual and repeated drop of hot water in a large pool will not ever really change the temp, the slow influx of any immigrant population will not affect the landscape much.