A muslim wedding gift: how to beat your wife guide in toronto book sto

[bleeding heart]

BTW where are the demonstrators in front of the book shop? If Tom Sawyer draws nays, shouldn't this!

The question is why aren't you demonstrating in front of the book shop?

[GostHacked]

Why should th bible be banned? I'd be interested in your reasoning.

Promotes violence, murder, rape, incest .... i'd even go as far to say it promotes genocide.

[jbg]

Promotes violence, murder, rape, incest .... i'd even go as far to say it promotes genocide.

GH, as you well know, most of that has been interpreted out of the Bible. People are not being thrown off cliffs or beheaded in Germany or Israel with any degree of regularity.

[Guest Peeves]

The question is why aren't you demonstrating in front of the book shop?

Nonsense.

I don't demonstrate, I write to my reps, the papers and the orgs. Too many nuts out there with knives. Besides it's too far away. But, there are Muslims near the site that could show their displeasure and contrary opinion if they have one.

[Guest Peeves]

Promotes violence, murder, rape, incest .... i'd even go as far to say it promotes genocide.

No it doesn't. Maybe a hundreds of years and generations ago. There has been a reformation since then. There have been civil laws since then in democracies. There have been separation of church and state since then But Islam promotes violence through Sharia today.

The bible was for a place and time. The Koran IS TODAY!

[Guest Peeves]

I believe that a Canadian judge banned publication of certain passages in certain contexts. Leviticus is a brutal code of law to follow... hard to see why more of the bible isn't banned from time to time.

Like in Islamic countries?

[bleeding heart]

Nonsense.

I don't demonstrate, I write to my reps, the papers and the orgs.

But no one's caling you out on your hypocrisy for these actions (which are politically activist, by definition)...rather, for the hypocrisy of your lack of attention to other matters in which you are not involved.

Why hold the demonstrators to a higher standard than you hold yourself?

[Guest American Woman]

Nonsense.

I don't demonstrate, I write to my reps, the papers and the orgs. Too many nuts out there with knives. Besides it's too far away. But, there are Muslims near the site that could show their displeasure and contrary opinion if they have one.

The bookstore has sold out, so I'm not sure what demonstrating would accomplish at this point - but I don't understand why Muslims should subject themselves to the "too many nuts out there with knives" any more than the rest of us should.

[Guest Manny]

No it doesn't. Maybe a hundreds of years and generations ago. There has been a reformation since then. There have been civil laws since then in democracies. There have been separation of church and state since then But Islam promotes violence through Sharia today.

The bible was for a place and time. The Koran IS TODAY!

Ok fine. So the problem is not in the books themselves, it's in the interpretation.

And Islam needs a reformation.

[Michael Hardner]

Like in Islamic countries?

And in Canada, yes.

[Guest Peeves]

The bookstore has sold out, so I'm not sure what demonstrating would accomplish at this point - but I don't understand why Muslims should subject themselves to the "too many nuts out there with knives" any more than the rest of us should.

I don't care whether they do or not, I was asked why 'I" wasn't there demonstrating.

If they demonstrate for sharia or against it, this would seem as good a cause since it applies to them.

Edited April 1, 2012 by Peeves

[Guest Peeves]

But no one's caling you out on your hypocrisy for these actions (which are politically activist, by definition)...rather, for the hypocrisy of your lack of attention to other matters in which you are not involved.

Why hold the demonstrators to a higher standard than you hold yourself?

Please detail 'My' hypocrisy? The store was dealing in matters involving Muslims. I'm not a Muslim.

[Guest Peeves]

And in Canada, yes.

The bible is banned there, neither Koran nor bible is banned here nor should they be. However, do you deny a distinction between the two books? Such in that the violence and draconian references in the bible are not considered as apropos in contemporary times while the Koran's tenets, laws and sura ARE in some countries,(by many millions.)

[Guest Peeves]

Does this count?

Moderate Muslim Tarek Fatah says this book isn’t preaching anything that Muslims don’t already know about. “The Muslim community knows that this is widespread, that a woman can be beaten. Muslim leaders will deny this.” He also added that anyone who sells the book should be charged for inciting violence against women.

Muslim book encourages restraining and threatening stupid wives

All I can say is -unbelievable.

Fatah is right and so is the author of you article (link) sadly to say when he opines, "As people reel in fear about the possibility of radical Islam coming to North America, it’s worth noting that the sale of books like these (and the presence of people willing to buy them) indicate radical Islam is already here.

[bleeding heart]

Please detail 'My' hypocrisy? The store was dealing in matters involving Muslims. I'm not a Muslim.

Fine, let's pretend you're obtuse, and really didn't get the point. I'll play along:

You asked, in essence, "why protest This...but not That?"

The implication is one of politicized hypocrisy.

Fine, perhaps a real enough phenomenon...but one that applies with perfect multi-partisanship, multi-ideology; you see, you write letters to reps, and so on. That's political activism. But there are certain specific issues...real ones, important ones--which I daresay you don't bother getting exercised about, for various reasons.

I don't consider that a fault, just to be clear. It's perfectly understandable, and all activists--including yoruself--must pick and choose his or her battles.

You, however, do consider it a fault.

When I mentioned your "hypocrisy," I was not laying my personal judgement upon you (I don't know nor care if you're actually a hypocrite, and wouldn't assume it in any case); I was applying your own judgement to yourself.

[Michael Hardner]

The bible is banned there, neither Koran nor bible is banned here nor should they be.

I suspected, you didn't read the post where I cited an instance where it was banned here.

However, do you deny a distinction between the two books?

They are different books - how could I deny them being distinct ?

Such in that the violence and draconian references in the bible are not considered as apropos in contemporary times while the Koran's tenets, laws and sura ARE in some countries,(by many millions.)

That's not a difference in the books, is it ? Your point is that the books are different because some people follow the violence in one and not the other ?

[Shady]

cause its the cults go to book, it brainwashes, its dangerous to society

What other books should we ban? Should we throw them all in a big pile and burn them too?

[cybercoma]

Islam needs a reformation.

Seeing how there's no central authority in Islam, that's not possible.

[bleeding heart]

Quite true. And in fact, as is to be expected, there are huge rifts among Muslims about what the religion is, and should mean.

It would appear that Western policy generally is not concerned with this argument, since "moderate Muslim" quite explicitly means "Muslims who support Western policies," a pretty perfect little tautology.

There are plenty of Muslims who, philosophically and ideologically, are aligned with liberal humanism and greater secular influence in politics.

Our leaders and policymakers don't appear to show much interest in them.

[Jack Weber]

Quite true. And in fact, as is to be expected, there are huge rifts among Muslims about what the religion is, and should mean.

It would appear that Western policy generally is not concerned with this argument, since "moderate Muslim" quite explicitly means "Muslims who support Western policies," a pretty perfect little tautology.

There are plenty of Muslims who, philosophically and ideologically, are aligned with liberal humanism and greater secular influence in politics.

Our leaders and policymakers don't appear to show much interest in them.

True...

But Islam requires a "Martin Luther Moment" to allow different perpectives of that faith to hive off from each other.This would allow those who might have a more modern view of the world to have a vialble voice,instead of the voice always coming from the crazies,who simply bully and browbeat those who disagree withthem into silence...

[Guest Peeves]

Fine, let's pretend you're obtuse, and really didn't get the point. I'll play along:

You asked, in essence, "why protest This...but not That?"

The implication is one of politicized hypocrisy.

Fine, perhaps a real enough phenomenon...but one that applies with perfect multi-partisanship, multi-ideology; you see, you write letters to reps, and so on. That's political activism. But there are certain specific issues...real ones, important ones--which I daresay you don't bother getting exercised about, for various reasons.

I don't consider that a fault, just to be clear. It's perfectly understandable, and all activists--including yoruself--must pick and choose his or her battles.

You, however, do consider it a fault.

When I mentioned your "hypocrisy," I was not laying my personal judgement upon you (I don't know nor care if you're actually a hypocrite, and wouldn't assume it in any case); I was applying your own judgement to yourself.

Certainly a long end run to get to a charge of hypocrisy.

I posted, "BTW where are the demonstrators in front of the book shop? If Tom Sawyer draws nays, shouldn't this!"

I Asked question. I posed a consideration. However your ad hominem response implied I personally should be there demonstrating if I opined that any other might wish to in the circumstance.

That does not meet the test of hypocrisy.

Posing a question orv a statement,is certainly not the same as would be a statement directly critical. I thought some concerned should be there protesting, that doesn't mean in anyway that others or I should be.

My posted question/statement was reasonable and not hypocritical in any sense.

You suggest far more than was said or implied by my posed question, to wit, "but one that applies with perfect multi-partisanship, multi-ideology;"

What partisanship. My question was not directed at any one part of society nor any one ideology.

You said, "You asked, in essence, "why protest This...but not That?"

Exactly, I posed a question hypothetical question/statement for consideration. you have extrapolated that question far beyond it's content or intent.

You continued, "The implication is one of politicized hypocrisy."

Nonsense.

Perhaps to you, but not to me. A question is a question and a cigar but a cigar.

Edited April 2, 2012 by Peeves

[bleeding heart]

Certainly a long end run to get to a charge of hypocrisy.

And your response here is longer, and, unlike my own, quite empty.

Perhaps it's a literary conceit; as you pretend preposterously that you "didn't mean nothin," and that your remark was devoid of politics, and devoid of implied criticism....you analagously demonstrate the total emptiness of meaning by posting a meaningless (if reeking a little of "methinks he doth protest too much") justification.

Nonsense.

Perhaps to you, but not to me. A question is a question and a cigar but a cigar.

Sweet godzilla on His throne.

Whatever you say, m'man.

Edited April 2, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Guest Peeves]

And your response here is longer, and, unlike my own, quite empty.

Perhaps it's a literary conceit; as you pretend preposterously that you "didn't mean nothin," and that your remark was devoid of politics, and devoid of implied criticism....you analagously demonstrate the total emptiness of meaning by posting a meaningless (if reeking a little of "methinks he doth protest too much") justification.

Sweet godzilla on His throne.

Whatever you say, m'man.

Proving only that when one as you can not address the subject intelligently, attack the person.

Or as in law

When the law is on your side, argue the law. When the facts are on your side, argue the facts.

When neither the facts nor the law are on your side, make an ad hominem attack. -

[bleeding heart]

Proving only that when one as you can not address the subject intelligently, attack the person.

Ah. So when you elsewhere inform cybercoma that

You quibble like a picayune pissant

you were openly conceding that you had "neither the facts nor the law...on your side," and that cybercoma was correct...and you were wrong!

Have you informed cybercoma of your concession to his superior argument yet?

'Cause I think you have not.

Edited April 2, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Michael Hardner]

Sweet godzilla on His throne.

Whatever you say, m'man.

Hi BH, you seem to have good arguments on this board. Just a note, though, that the moderators here have little patience for insults on any level, and they reserve the right to discipline any poster who violates Rules and Guidelines in the top bar.

I'm a facilitator here, so I am only a messenger.

Welcome.