Muslims Muslims Muslims

[jbg]

Why do you only respond to my posts with one-liner pot-shots?

It seems you have that problem with quite a few posters. Maybe some people don't enjoy your rants and diatribes. Frankly, I feel like tearing my hair out when I read many of your posts.

[JB Globe]

It seems you have that problem with quite a few posters.

And all of these posters happen to share the opinion that Islam is inherently evil/violent/socially backward. I don't have any problems with anyone else - even if we disagree strongly, it never comes to personal attacks.

I think the fact that the Islamophobes on this board seem incapable of discussing things in an informative and civilized manner is actually indicative of the

And by Islamophobes I mean people who have not done much substantial objective study into Islam, yet claim it is inherently a bad force in the world in an effort to further the "Clash of Civilizations" paradigm - which justifies aggression towards the world's Muslims. My definition of Islamophobe does not include Muslims and non-Muslims who criticize aspects of Islam in an effort to reform and improve the lives of Muslims and non-Muslims around the world.

Maybe some people don't enjoy your rants and diatribes.

Maybe those people should not read my posts if they don't like them.

Frankly, I feel like tearing my hair out when I read many of your posts.

Than don't read them. You NEVER respond to any points I raise in any of my posts, you just chime in to let me know you can't stand me.

Good for you, do you want a cookie or something? I really can get by in life just fine without validating myself through your opinion of my opinions.

Perhaps you can't stand the fact that we live in an open democracy and there are going to be people which hold opinions counter to yours. Perhaps you would like to counter my argument but you simply lack the knowledge and/or ability to do so.

Whatever it is, you may want to consider ceasing taking personal shots in lieu of making a case for your position - it just makes you appear to be either a coward, a hack, and/or an idiot.

[JB Globe]

Semantics are apparently much more important to you than reality.

That isn't semantics.

Saying everyone who subscribes to Islam as a religion is socially backward is an ignorant and false statement. It implies that there is NOTHING that can be done to advance social justice in Muslim majority countries besides some sort of neo-Crusade to force-convert everyone from Islam.

Saying that equality, rule of law, and social justice are lagging behind in the Muslim world implies that they can catch up through reform efforts. This "lag" of course was greatly influenced by the colonial period.

Oh I think I've shown more than enough reasons to support the statement,

Perhaps for your own (low) standards, but you certainly haven't convinced anyone else.

I wasn't aware the British Labour Party constituted an oppressive government. Granted, only 40% of British Muslims want Sharia law, but to me, that's one helluva lot more than an "occasional radical".

The UK's integration policies have resulted in a particularly messed up situation regarding all immigrant groups. Muslims in particular are much more isolated than they are here in Canada, as a result of discrimination, or oppression if you will. When minority groups feel threatened, they tend to pull inward and identify strongly with signifier of their culture/religion. Hence, the strong support for Sharia and the increasing amount of women who wear the hijab. This isn't unlike what Jews did in Eastern Europe in the past, under different circumstances of course.

This doesn't make the support of Sharia Law right, but it demonstrates that there is a way out of this mess for the UK. I support reform, what exactly are your solutions?

Thankfully in Canada, there has never been much support for Sharia Law outside of religious conservatives. I attribute this to how much better integrated Muslims our in our society.

Is there a school where women aren't buried in the sand and stoned to death for having sex outside wedlock?

Yes.

I guess I'm just not the towering intellectual you are.

I'm sure there are subjects where you are more knowledgeable than I am. The difference between you and me is I'm able to recognize when I DON'T know something, and instead of shooting from the gut - I listen and ask questions.

I'm not under the illusion that I posses some psychic ability to see the truth in all things regardless of whether I understand the issue at hand or not.

The discussion was about how socially backward they are as a people, not whose military has been involved in the most adventures.

Since when are wars of aggression to expand a country's Imperial domain NOT an example of social backwardness?

Since when is allying yourself with brutal dictators who commit war crimes not an example of social backwardness?

Denying people their self-determination, politically and economically, dominating them, sucking wealth out of their country for your benefit, and committing routine human rights violations as a result - you don't consider any of these signs of social backwardness?

For the record, given Muslim dispositions, my opinion is that were they not substantially weaker, enormously weaker, in fact, than the West, we would have seen a lot more violence on a nation level from them.

Who knows what would have happened? But again - I've never argued that Islam has been any better or worse than any other religion when it comes to wars of conquest or current social justice issues - just that this worldview of yours that Islam=bad and The West/Christianity=Good is just not true.

You're inserting it is just another of your petty attempts at smearing me because you are incapable of arguing against my statements with any degree of intellectual honesty or ability.

Stop with the crocodile tears. It wasn't intended as a smear, but if you don't want that to happen to you in the future, practice what you preach. It's hard for anyone to have sympathy for a guy who makes wild accusations like that whole "welfare writer" nonsense.

What do you think the chances are of the military in Canada orchestrating murderous race riots?

I'm sorry but I don't see the connection between this comment and my explanation of the Indonesian riots of the mid 90's.

And Canadian support. Let's not forget that Chretien was an enthusiastic supporter of Suharto's.

Sure.

We work with the governments which are in power wherever they are. Sometimes that means working with some pretty unsavoury people. But there are something like 100 countries in the world which are non-democratic so there really isn't any way around that.

There is a difference, however, in maintaining diplomatic ties to a country with a country, versus providing military support to a country that has committed war crimes, and will use that military support to commit acts of aggression.

We support democracy and justice, as long as they don't get in the way of our economic interests.

Oil so we can heat our homes and fuel our cars is in the public interest, and almost all of it is controlled by "brutal dictators".

We have means of heating our homes and getting from A to B that don't require vast amounts of oil, we could drastically reduce the amount of business we're forced to do with dictatorships - but that would require a shift in how we live (not necessarily a reduction in quality of life) and most people would rather keep the over-sized house and two-cars-plus per family, because they're unaware of how much damage they could do to these regimes if their GDP dropped dramatically because no one wanted their dirty oil anymore. That's the only thing keeping them in power, it's not as if they actually know how to run a country.

And they've been getting worse, year by year, at least in Africa and the middle east.

And post-independence, you can chalk a lot of this up to both bad governance in these nations (aka - their fault), political interference (aka - our fault) and bad development projects that lead to debt (aka - their fault and our fault).

Meaning, we shouldn't be so smug, we have a hand in their problems.

The US does not have a large presence in Saudi Arabia.

There were 10000 US troops there as recently as 2003, this is where the main base for enforcing the old Iraq no-fly-zone was.

Many American corporations have operations there, and the civilian US government has a lot of staff there as well.

Not a single of the worlds top 500 universities is in a Muslim nation. You don't find that telling?

For perspective - how many post-colonial countries are represented in that list?

They absolutely need to invest in education, and the Gulf States are leading the way in that field:

Abu Dhabi - NYU

Dubai - Michigan State

Qatar - Northwestern, Texas A&M, Georgetown, etc.

The branch campus thing is a smart idea - because they knew that their economies are advancing so fast, and it takes so long to get a reputable university up and running from scratch that they would loose people to overseas institutions. Add to that fact that protectionist professional associations invalidate any certifications from outside North America or Europe, regardless of how high standard they are. Might as well get around that by partnering with established institutions.

[jbg]

And by Islamophobes I mean people who have not done much substantial objective study into Islam, yet claim it is inherently a bad force in the world in an effort to further the "Clash of Civilizations" paradigm - which justifies aggression towards the world's Muslims. My definition of Islamophobe does not include Muslims and non-Muslims who criticize aspects of Islam in an effort to reform and improve the lives of Muslims and non-Muslims around the world.

Then why is just about every war in the world either on the fringes of the ummah, or intra-Muslim?Why is violence involving Muslims usually at sickening bloodbath levels?

Than don't read them. You NEVER respond to any points I raise in any of my posts, you just chime in to let me know you can't stand me.

I respond to plenty of your points until you being testing my patience.

[wyly]

Carthage and Egypt and the islamic empires have nothing to do with Black History.

incorrect

the Kingdom of Egypt was divided into upper and lower kingdoms...the Pharaohs crown was an amalgamation of the crowns of both kingdoms and the Pharaohs came from both kingdoms....and the people of Upper Eygpt were Black Africans and so were a number of Egypt's Pharaohs...

notice the black pharaoh from Upper Egypt with his Lower Egyptian wife

this history lesson free from wyly...your welcome...

Edited September 16, 2009 by wyly

[DogOnPorch]

incorrect

the Kingdom of Egypt was divided into upper and lower kingdoms...the Pharaohs crown was an amalgamation of the crowns of both kingdoms and the Pharaohs came from both kingdoms....and the people of Upper Eygpt were Black Africans and so were a number of Egypt's Pharaohs...

notice the black pharaoh from Upper Egypt with his Lower Egyptian wife

this history lesson free from wyly...your welcome...

True enough re: Egypt...sort of a mixture...though after Alexander's time, upper crust Egypt became more and more Hellenic than anything else.

[Argus]

I think the fact that the Islamophobes on this board seem incapable of discussing things in an informative and civilized manner is actually indicative of the

Translation of "informative and civilized manner" - people who agree with JB Globe, who will otherwise discuss things in a manner filled mostly with personal insults and insinuations.

[Argus]

Saying everyone who subscribes to Islam as a religion is socially backward is an ignorant and false statement.

I like how you keep making these kinds of statements, then condemn them in the same breath. It's such a clever debating tactic, and I'm sure no one else notices that nobody but you ever made the statement to begin with.

Saying that equality, rule of law, and social justice are lagging behind in the Muslim world implies that they can catch up through reform efforts

You sound like one of those educational misfits from the board of education talking about how we can't give out grades to children because that would challenge their sense of self-esteem. I'm not interesting in how my words encourage reform in the Muslim world. I'm only interested in their accuracy. And they ARE accurate.

Perhaps for your own (low) standards, but you certainly haven't convinced anyone else.

On the contrary. I think most people agree with me.

The UK's integration policies have resulted in a particularly messed up situation regarding all immigrant groups. Muslims in particular are much more isolated than they are here in Canada, as a result of discrimination, or oppression if you will.

the UK's socialist government has been well ahead of us in its recognition of multiculturalism, anti-racism and the rights of immigrants and ethnic minorities. I think you would feel right at home among their ranks in your refusal to judge or condemn the misbehaviour of other cultures or ethnic groups. Describing them as oppressive towards minorities is a joke.

This doesn't make the support of Sharia Law right, but it demonstrates that there is a way out of this mess for the UK. I support reform, what exactly are your solutions?

The end of multiculturalism. If you come to a country as an immigrant, you come to be a citizen of that country which includes integrating into its culture and accepting - without reservation, the borad tenets of its culture and value system. If you're not prepared to to that, then don't come. And we return to the seven year minimum residency requirement to obtain Canadian citizenship (I would actually prefer 10). Those who fail to integrate properly, including the language, don't get citizenship. Most Canadian immigrants are not literate in English or French, no matter how long they've been here. That should change.

In other words, we offer up zero recognition of people's ethnic origins. If they want to remember life in the old country they can do it on their own. No multulturalism, no grants or money for ethnic fairs or clubs or societies or second language classes so the kiddies can properly learn grandpa's language.

Thankfully in Canada, there has never been much support for Sharia Law outside of religious conservatives.

Nevertheless, more than half of Canadian Muslims surveyed for the federal government wanted Sharia law incorporated into family law, and nearly 13% of those surveyed thought the attacks planned by the "Toronto 18" would have been justified.

I'm sure there are subjects where you are more knowledgeable than I am. The difference between you and me is I'm able to recognize when I DON'T know something, and instead of shooting from the gut - I listen and ask questions.

No, I think the difference is you shrink from saying anything which could be construed as derogatory towards "brown people", regardless of the causes or evidence.

Since when are wars of aggression to expand a country's Imperial domain NOT an example of social backwardness

Since forever.

Since when is allying yourself with brutal dictators who commit war crimes not an example of social backwardness?

In almost every respect, the "allying" is against a group which would make up an even worse dictatorship, and be anti-Western. I don't see the moral problem.

I'm sorry but I don't see the connection between this comment and my explanation of the Indonesian riots of the mid 90's.

You can't instigate violent, murderous race riots among a populace which feels no particular inclination towards commiting violence against others.

There is a difference, however, in maintaining diplomatic ties to a country with a country, versus providing military support to a country that has committed war crimes, and will use that military support to commit acts of aggression.

I'm unaware of anyone we supported who commited "acts of agression" unless those acts were against violent extremist groups.

We have means of heating our homes and getting from A to B that don't require vast amounts of oil,

No, we don't. And I'm not interested in hearing about your utopian fantasies.

There were 10000 US troops there as recently as 2003, this is where the main base for enforcing the old Iraq no-fly-zone was.

And they were kept as much away from the population at large as the US and Saudi governments could arrange.

Many American corporations have operations there, and the civilian US government has a lot of staff there as well.

So merely our presence is sufficient insult to justify violent attacks on us, is that it? And we should react to that by cringing away from giving offense, and retreating from anywhere certain groups of people are offended by our presence?

[JB Globe]

Then why is just about every war in the world either on the fringes of the ummah, or intra-Muslim?

Looking back at the past half century, it actually appears that most of the world's conflicts have little or nothing to do with Islam.

Even in cases where conflicts have taken place where some of the participants have been Muslims, Islam was not a factor that drove that conflict most of the time, and when it has been a factor most of the time it has not been the primary factor but functions more as a rallying flag.

There are of course cases where Islamism does play a factor, but my point is that this is the exception rather than the rule.

Why is violence involving Muslims usually at sickening bloodbath levels?

Again, Muslims do not have a monopoly on mass slaughter. In fact, the majority of the world's genocides in this past century have been committed by non-Muslims, or have happen to have been committed by Muslims but Islam was not a factor in the genocide (ie - in a move condoned by the US Suharto of Indonesia killed over 600 000 people who were members of a legally elected communist party - the factor there was political, not religious).

It appears that the Armenian genocide by the Ottomans is one of the only examples, even Darfur is not a religious genocide - after all, Darfurians are themselves Muslim.

I respond to plenty of your points until you being testing my patience.

I think you must be mistaking me for someone else. The exchange we've had in this thread is the most I've had with you since last winter I believe, and it consisted of perhaps a half dozen posts whereby you posted 1-2 sentence comments on my exchange with Argus.

I don't recall it getting heated or personal, I really am dumbfounded where you're getting this idea that I'm some sort of huge antagonist of yours.

[ToadBrother]

Looking back at the past half century, it actually appears that most of the world's conflicts have little or nothing to do with Islam.

Even in cases where conflicts have taken place where some of the participants have been Muslims, Islam was not a factor that drove that conflict most of the time, and when it has been a factor most of the time it has not been the primary factor but functions more as a rallying flag.

There are of course cases where Islamism does play a factor, but my point is that this is the exception rather than the rule.

All wars, no matter what the claimed (propaganda) goal is, are fundamentally economic in nature. Even the Muslim expansions that lead to a wide band of territory from India to Spain, while always very pious in description, were fundamentally about creating a vast mercantile apparatus that could control trade from the Far East and provide for a controlled market in which to sell the spices, silks and so forth. When the Crusaders came along to wrest the Holy Land from the Muslims, all the garbage about liberating the birthplace of Christ and saving the Eastern Church from the Mohamedan hoardes was just a pile of B.S. to justify seizing what was, at the time, one of the single most important trade corridors on the planet (the 4th Crusade pretty much proved that).

And it goes round and round. The current bunch of fanatics, wearing the righteous cloth of holy Islam, are really trying to restore the long-lost unity of the first Caliphates. It's the same game that the Roman Church played during the Middle Ages, trying to find a Christian Prince who could act as the ying to the Papal yang, restore the Western Roman Empire, and maybe even bonk those dirty Orthodox bastards on the head for daring to question the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. In the end it's just economics, and the Islamists ultimately are no different than Charlemagne, Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great or Cyrus the Great.

In every case, these men, like guys like bin Laden, Chairman Mao and Stalin have tried, is to make their subjects and soldiers believe them imbued by some supernatural or extranatural capacity. In the case of Alexander the Great, he, typical for his style, dispensed with Divine Providence and simply declared himself Divine. The others, to varying degrees, had to use somewhat more mundane methods to get their little piece of the necessary Holiness to construct their empires, but it's all the same. The same pattern, the same model, the same fundamental drive. Maybe it comforts some to imagine the Islamists being this creature apart, not quite human, a religious devil, but one thing you'll notice about Islamists, like Alexander's troops or Mao's Cultural Revolutionary nutsos, is that the leaders do all the talking, all the divining and grand declarations, and its the poor deluded sods that get killed on the battlefield or in pizzerias with dynamite strapped to their chests or in airplanes flying at buildings.

An interesting thought entered my head. I remember years ago reading that if WWI was about anything, it was about Great Powers' failure to deal properly with the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. Like all explanations for WWI, it suffers from too much simplicity, but if you think about it, we're still ultimately fighting the Ottoman ghost. The modern Islamists is the philosophical and spiritual descendant of the Arabian Wahabis, who formed in the 18th century as a reactionary conservative movement against the perceived debauchery of the Ottomans. Maybe we're still fighting the same war we've been fighting since 1914, with different principle belligerents showing up every once in a while. The modern Islamist might hate the Ottomans as much as the Wahabis did, but I wager in their hearts they yearn for a time when an Islamic state controlled everything from Mesopotamia to northwestern Africa.

Edited September 29, 2009 by ToadBrother

[M.Dancer]

All wars, no matter what the claimed (propaganda) goal is, are fundamentally economic in nature.

That may be true....there are exceptions though.

The Falklands comes to mind...as well as the British war against slavers in the 1850s

[jbg]

I don't recall it getting heated or personal, I really am dumbfounded where you're getting this idea that I'm some sort of huge antagonist of yours.

It did, but unlike jdobbin I am willing to let bygones be bygones.

[kactus]

I just came across this thread and have to say kudos to JB Globe for bringing a different perspective into this discussion! Frankly, it is rather refreshing to see a healthy and logical debate going on here instead of the usual bigotry and sweeping generalisations I have seen by certain posters.

Edited October 15, 2009 by kactus

[dre]

I am not afraid of Muslims. I have Muslim friends aplenty. Anyone who hates Muslims for being Muslim is retarded.

Having said that, the cultures and values of a lot of people coming from fundamentalist Islamic States are VERY scary to a lot of people, myself included.

In Saudi Arabia, for example, I've read it's illegal for a woman to be out and about by herself with a group of guys. Not too long ago there was a case where a woman was raped by a group of guys and while the guys themselves were punished, the woman HERSELF was also sentenced to getting lashed for being alone a man that wasn't her fiance. What the hell?

There was a case in Pakistan I read about where a man murdered his wife for cheating on him. He was sentenced to jail but he traded a goat for his freedom. His wife's life was worth a goat.

It's not the Islamic faith that's the problem, it's the people that bring draconic and fundamentalist values from places like Iran, Pakistan etc to the West. For VERY obvious reasons these values clash with ours.

When you have indoctrinated fools believing anyone who doesn't follow Islamic Law is evil, THAT's where the negative perceptions begin to develop.

No diferent than indoctrinated western fools blathering on about how muslims and various other cultures are evil.

We got scumbags... they got scumbags...

[justme]

No diferent than indoctrinated western fools blathering on about how muslims and various other cultures are evil.

We got scumbags... they got scumbags...

While you're looking for some sort of equivalency, I ask you, would you rather live under Sharia law or Common law? Inquiring minds want to know.

[jbg]

While you're looking for some sort of equivalency, I ask you, would you rather live under Sharia law or Common law? Inquiring minds want to know.

A good question for JB Globe, Kactus and numerouos other posters.

[Battletoads]

Hi everyone, I'm new on this forum and I'm sorry if it's not the right section to post my comment.

I am wondering why so much people are scared of Muslims in Canada, being myself Muslim ( I don't practice, I'm just "Muslim") my parents are, nobody has more than 1 wife, nobody in my family here wears the scarf, nobody in Tunisia in my family wears it. I was born here, I consider myself as being CANADIAN.

The more I read (Quebec forums are much worse) I see people having some bad opinions towards Muslim people. Mostly on the following aspects:

#1) They have many wifes

#2) They don't integrate

#3) They see women as animals

#4) They are wild people

#5) They all hate Occidental people and values

In my case I don't qualify in any of these aspects. Most journalists take one or many anecdotes and they put them on the newspapers or on the ''Tee-Vee''. It's so wrong. Of course some Muslim people are ASSHOLES and they should stay in their country instead of coming here and try to impose ''The Charriah" or commit Honor murders and all that stuff. But most of them come here just to work, as my parents did (Doctor and Manager in a store) and hope that their children (me) will integrate to the society well, chose the religion they want to chose etc.

Most of Muslim people in the world, don't have many wifes, aren't terrorists.

What do you think about Muslim People ? I'm curious, I always thought that English Canadians were more tolerant than French Canadians were, it shows on Tee Vee first of all!

Are you scared of Muslim People? Do you really think they don't like Canada and don't want to integrate (Immigrants) etc...

I hope this discussion will have some different points of view!

Whens the last time you saw a large religious group, that wasn't muslim , yelling for someones beheading at mearly drawing a picture of their prophet.

I am not saying muslims are inherently bad I just see a lot of them are comming from places that don't share canadian values.

[jbg]

Whens the last time you saw a large religious group, that wasn't muslim , yelling for someones beheading at mearly drawing a picture of their prophet.

I am not saying muslims are inherently bad I just see a lot of them are comming from places that don't share canadian values.

Well, didn't you know it's routine practice, in Christian and Jewish congregations to beat guests from religions other than the church or temple religion at services at their facility to a bloody pulp?

[GostHacked]

A good question for JB Globe, Kactus and numerouos other posters.

We simply do not have to worry about this in Canada. Muslims who immigrated to Ontario tried this a few years ago to set up a Sharia court for family matters for Muslims. In the end they were denied and at the same time the Jewish family courts were also axed. We have one justice system in Canada. It's obviously not the best, but it is what we got. This was nice to see and it seems that our government has taken a stand on alternative religious courts. There is no place for them in our secular society anymore.

The Sharia courts would have been unfavourable to women, and this is the main reason why it was canned.

This is refreshing

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/15685

The Muslim Canadian Congress called on the Harper government to ban the wearing of the burka and the niqab in public. According to the group’s communications director, Farzana Hassan, the wearing of a complete face covering is a matter of public safety as criminals often conceal their identities when they are committing crimes.

[jbg]

We simply do not have to worry about this in Canada. Muslims who immigrated to Ontario tried this a few years ago to set up a Sharia court for family matters for Muslims. In the end they were denied and at the same time the Jewish family courts were also axed. We have one justice system in Canada. It's obviously not the best, but it is what we got. This was nice to see and it seems that our government has taken a stand on alternative religious courts. There is no place for them in our secular society anymore.

But it doesn't change the fact that the Muslims, and the Jewish sects that sought to maintain separate Bet Din courts were and are resisting integration into society.

This is refreshing

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/15685The Muslim Canadian Congress called on the Harper government to ban the wearing of the burka and the niqab in public. According to the group’s communications director, Farzana Hassan, the wearing of a complete face covering is a matter of public safety as criminals often conceal their identities when they are committing crimes.

You took that section out of context. There's nothing refreshing about it at all. This is the Muslim Canadian Congress demanding that the government follow the "whim of the day" of some other government in another Muslim country. Edited October 18, 2009 by jbg

[Guest TrueMetis]

But it doesn't change the fact that the Muslims, and the Jewish sects that sought to maintain separate Bet Din courts were and are resisting integration into society.

Let them but in the end our laws trump their culture.

Edited October 18, 2009 by TrueMetis

[jbg]

Let them but in the end our laws trump their culture.

The problem is that the Muslim and Jewish courts were proceeding under laws allowing for submission of disputes to binding arbitration. The Courts, i.e. the enforcers of "our laws" have almost no ability to review the decision of any arbitral panel, whether it's in labor, contract interpretation or religion. For example, if a panel deciding a contract dispute gets the law wrong, too bad, unless the arbitrators were bribed. A mistake of law is not grounds for overturning the work of an arbitrator or a panel of arbitrators. Thus, if a marriage is solemnized under, say, Sharia law, the covenants that go with marriage include submission of marital disputes to arbitration. Thus, the problem with your assumption that "in the end our laws trump their culture".

[GostHacked]

But it doesn't change the fact that the Muslims, and the Jewish sects that sought to maintain separate Bet Din courts were and are resisting integration into society

And now our government has axed that avenue of non integration. They simply don't have a choice here. Our way, or GTFO. They can't resist anymore because they can't. If they don't want to integrate.. again gtfo.

You took that section out of context. There's nothing refreshing about it at all. This is the Muslim Canadian Congress demanding that the government follow the "whim of the day" of some other government in another Muslim country.

It says the Canadian Muslim Congress is against the Burqa, which to many is degrading to women.They are also stating that it can be used to commit crimes by others who want to hide their identity. If we have more moderate mulsims come out against the extremism of Islam, we begin to have them integrate into our society. They want the Canadian government to ban the burqa, which to me is not a freakin bad idea at all. I would have wanted it banned because of it's symbolism and degradation to women. They are from another country, but they are living in Canada. They are putting a moderate face on Islam and muslims. Integration and acceptance. Like I said, this is refreshing to see. If a country like Eqypt wants to ban the burqa, and we know there is a large muslim population there, why not consider it here as well? Even those who take steps to bring Islam into moderation gets poo-poo'd by the likes of you.

If the Muslim Canadian Congress is sincere about public safety in Canada, perhaps they should spend more time trying to weed out home grown terrorists instead of dictating what women should and should not be allowed to wear.

Alright I don't understant this part of that article. First we get a little pissy when we see them telling them what to wear, and now we are pissy because they are telling them what not to wear. This is comming out against extremists that have hijacked their religion. It's a small step, but a step in the right direction.

[jbg]

Alright I don't understant this part of that article. First we get a little pissy when we see them telling them what to wear, and now we are pissy because they are telling them what not to wear. This is comming out against extremists that have hijacked their religion. It's a small step, but a step in the right direction.

If that were the motive that would be great. I highly doubt it's what the CMC has in mind though.

[GostHacked]

If that were the motive that would be great. I highly doubt it's what the CMC has in mind though.

Maybe you can enlighten us as to what they do have in mind?

Edited October 19, 2009 by GostHacked