This week in Islam

[GostHacked]

5 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

'Our' in quotations. So your values include beating gays and transexuals in the streets? Well, that's a bit of a surprise...

What is not a surprise is that this is nothing more than your typcial DogOnPorch stupid projected trolling. And it is nothing more than trolling.

[Argus]

36 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

What about the masses among us who oppose 'our' values?

Who would these masses be?

[Goddess]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

What about the masses among us who oppose 'our' values?

 

Just because some criminal in Western society beats up a transgender person, does not make beating transgender persons a mainstream value of our society.   People that do these types of things, based on intolerant beliefs,  are widely condemned in our society and dealt with by the law.

It is a fact that Islamic-ruled countries have barbaric views and laws against the LGBQT community - that is a mainstream value for them.  The fact that there are some in Islam who transcend those values, does not make acceptance of the LGBQT community a mainstream value of Islam, any more than the criminal who goes against our values and beats a trans person up represents our mainstream values.

What "masses" of people among us  oppose our values?  You, and others, seem intent on equating the minority of Muslims in the world who are accepting of LGBQT community as reflecting their mainstream views, while at the same time, intent on equating the minority of bigots in Western society as reflective of Western values.

For gawd's sake, an issue in our provincial election coming up is whether parents of students who join a GSA should be informed by the school of their child's membership.  While a bit discouraging for myself because of my personal views, it's clear that we are fine-tuning an already established value.  One thing they're NOT debating is whether these students have a right to an education or whether they should be shoved off the rooftop of the school. 

I shake my head that someone who enjoys nit-picking as much as yourself, does not see such a glaring difference.  I doubt you will grasp the point I just made.

[DogOnPorch]

2 hours ago, Goddess said:

 

Just because some criminal in Western society beats up a transgender person, does not make beating transgender persons a mainstream value of our society.   People that do these types of things, based on intolerant beliefs,  are widely condemned in our society and dealt with by the law.

It is a fact that Islamic-ruled countries have barbaric views and laws against the LGBQT community - that is a mainstream value for them.  The fact that there are some in Islam who transcend those values, does not make acceptance of the LGBQT community a mainstream value of Islam, any more than the criminal who goes against our values and beats a trans person up represents our mainstream values.

What "masses" of people among us  oppose our values?  You, and others, seem intent on equating the minority of Muslims in the world who are accepting of LGBQT community as reflecting their mainstream views, while at the same time, intent on equating the minority of bigots in Western society as reflective of Western values.

For gawd's sake, an issue in our provincial election coming up is whether parents of students who join a GSA should be informed by the school of their child's membership.  While a bit discouraging for myself because of my personal views, it's clear that we are fine-tuning an already established value.  One thing they're NOT debating is whether these students have a right to an education or whether they should be shoved off the rooftop of the school. 

I shake my head that someone who enjoys nit-picking as much as yourself, does not see such a glaring difference.  I doubt you will grasp the point I just made.

 

As you can see, when it comes to choosing between supporting Islam and supporting LGBQT rights, it's Islam that wins. This will be how it goes nationally...watch. Sorry gay folks...but it's Islam...and it's higher on the victim ladder.

Edited April 5, 2019 by DogOnPorch

[Michael Hardner]

4 hours ago, Argus said:

Who would these masses be?

The masses of people who hate trans people ?  

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, Goddess said:

 

1. Just because some criminal in Western society beats up a transgender person, does not make beating transgender persons a mainstream value of our society.    

2.It is a fact that Islamic-ruled countries have barbaric views and laws against the LGBQT community - that is a mainstream value for them. 

3. The fact that there are some in Islam who transcend those values, does not make acceptance of the LGBQT community a mainstream value of Islam, 

4. What "masses" of people among us  oppose our values? 

5. You, and others, seem intent on equating the minority of Muslims in the world who are accepting of LGBQT community as reflecting their mainstream views, while at the same time, intent on equating the minority of bigots in Western society as reflective of Western values.

6. I shake my head that someone who enjoys nit-picking as much as yourself, does not see such a glaring difference.  I doubt you will grasp the point I just made.

1. I didn't say it was a mainstream value of our society or any other.

2. So one might presume that the ones who come here are a little more liberal then.

3. I don't think it's a mainstream value of any religion.

4. The large number of transphobic and homophobic people in our country.

5. Wow.  I am not equating anything.  You pulled that rabbit out of your hat not mine.

6. I don't like the soli implication that we should ban Muslims because of individual crimes, because of beliefs held by them and generally shared by other religions, or because they coe from oppressive countries.  And if you aren't suggesting that, then why are we talking about this ?

 

 

[Goddess]

41 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I didn't say it was a mainstream value of our society or any other.

2. So one might presume that the ones who come here are a little more liberal then.

3. I don't think it's a mainstream value of any religion.

4. The large number of transphobic and homophobic people in our country.

5. Wow.  I am not equating anything.  You pulled that rabbit out of your hat not mine.

6. I don't like the soli implication that we should ban Muslims because of individual crimes, because of beliefs held by them and generally shared by other religions, or because they coe from oppressive countries.  And if you aren't suggesting that, then why are we talking about this ?

 

 

1.  I know you didn't.  I did.  It's a mainstream value of pretty much every Muslim-ruled country.  World-wide polls show it is a mainstream value of Islam.  We can add Brunei to this list:

Quote

 

In some Muslim countries, whole towns have become the butt of jokes about the supposed homosexuality of their inhabitants. Idlib in Syria is one of them; Qazvin in Iran is another. An old joke in Afghanistan is that birds fly over Kandahar with one wing held under their tail – as a precaution.

At another level, though, it’s no joking matter. In Iran today, lavat (sodomy) is a capital offence and people are frequently executed for it. In Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Yemen and Mauritania, sodomy is also punishable by death – though no executions have been reported for at least a decade.

Among other Arab countries, the penalty in Algeria, Bahrain, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Somalia, Tunisia and Syria is imprisonment – up to 10 years in the case of Bahrain. In those that have no specific law against homosexuality, gay people may still be prosecuted under other laws. In Egypt, for example, an old law against “debauchery” is often used.

 

2.  Ahhh, yes.....you're one of those who believe our borders are magical, that these beliefs are dropped as soon as they arrive - so, what is the problem, right?? And the news coming out of Europe of attacks by Muslims on Jews, women and the gay communities are "fake news."  You just go on "presuming".....

3.  If it's not a mainstream teaching in Islam, then why did this happen:

Most Muslim-majority countries and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) have opposed moves to advance LGBT rights at the United Nations, in the General Assembly or the UNHRC. In May 2016, a group of 51 Muslim states blocked 11 gay and transgender organizations from attending 2016 High Level Meeting on Ending AIDS.

And this:

Quote

In recent times, extreme prejudice persists, both socially and legally, in much of the Islamic world against people who engage in homosexual acts, exacerbated by increasingly conservative attitudes and the rise of Islamist movements.

You "presume" it's getting better.  It's not.

 

Quote

 

Several violent attacks against LGBT people in the West have taken place

• In 2012, in the English city of Derby, some Muslim men "distributed . . . leaflets depicting gay men being executed in an attempt to encourage hatred against homosexuals." The leaflets had such titles as "Turn or Burn" and "God abhors you" and they advocated a death penalty for homosexuality.^[137] The men were "convicted of hate crimes" on January 20, 2012. One of the men said that he was doing his Muslim duty.^[92]
• December 31, 2013 - New Year's Eve arson attack on gay nightclub in Seattle, packed with 300+ revelers, but no one injured. Subject charged prosecuted under federal terror and hate-crime charges.^[138]
• February 12, 2016 - Across Europe, gay refugees facing abuse at migrant asylum shelters are forced to flee shelters.^[139]
• April 25, 2016 - Xulhaz Mannan, an employee of the United States embassy in Dhaka and the editor of Bangladesh's first and only LGBT magazine, was killed in his apartment by a gang of Islamic militants.^[140]
• June 12, 2016 - At least 49 people were killed and 50 injured in a mass shooting at Pulse gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, in the second deadliest mass shooting by an individual and the deadliest incident of violence against LGBT people in U.S. history. The shooter, Omar Mateen, pledged allegiance to ISIL. The act has been described by investigators as an Islamic terrorist attack and a hate crime.

 

• 4.  Funny how you believe Islam is tolerant toward the gay community but you think there is a "large number" of homophobic people in our own country.  Because it seems to me that views on the LGBQT community in the West are softening in the last few decades, but it appears to be going to other way in the Islamic world.

My concern is that at the same time we are making great strides in acceptance of the LGBQT community, we are bringing in masses of people from areas that do not have that same value.  If they came in a little at a time and were encouraged to assimilate, I would feel differently. 

I'm sorry, but you sound exactly like the people who insisted there were no ovens in Germany, while the ashes of people fell on their houses.  You will deny these intolerant beliefs have any power until you're forced to clean up the bodies, just like the German people were made to do.

[Argus]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

The masses of people who hate trans people ?  

How do you define hate? Would you include Kimmy in that? Anyone who disagrees that biological males should compete against biological females in sports? Anyone who doesn't approve of biological males who claim they are women changing in the women's changing rooms or going to womens prisons? What about those of us who don't believe in telling 8 year olds they can be boys or girls, and then starting medical and drug therapy if they say they think they're the other gender, regardless of what their parents want?

Cuz if that's hate then yeah, that's masses of people all right. Probably near enough 80%-90% of the population.

[Argus]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. So one might presume that the ones who come here are a little more liberal then.

I'm sure some who come here are relieved to get out from under the thumb of the mullahs, no question. I'll give you that.
BUT... there is no question that most of those who come here are coming for economic reasons. They're not abandoning their mosques, and their children are, according to PEW, even more religious than the parents. So not liberals.

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. I don't think it's a mainstream value of any religion.

It is unquestionably a mainstream value of Islam. Or to quote Douglas Murray "Gays for Palestine? Give me a break! If Gays for Palestine were in Palestine they'd have to move to Israel!"

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

4. The large number of transphobic and homophobic people in our country.

And again, you need to define what that means. Also, give us some numbers.

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

6. I don't like the soli implication that we should ban Muslims because of individual crimes, because of beliefs held by them and generally shared by other religions, or because they coe from oppressive countries.  And if you aren't suggesting that, then why are we talking about this ?

How about carefully screening each applicant for their cultural and moral values, views and cultural adaptability?

[Michael Hardner]

13 hours ago, Goddess said:

1.  I know you didn't.  I did.  It's a mainstream value of pretty much every Muslim-ruled country.  World-wide polls show it is a mainstream value of Islam.  We can add Brunei to this list:

2.  Ahhh, yes.....you're one of those who believe our borders are magical, that these beliefs are dropped as soon as they arrive - so, what is the problem, right?? And the news coming out of Europe of attacks by Muslims on Jews, women and the gay communities are "fake news."  You just go on "presuming".....

3.  If it's not a mainstream teaching in Islam, then why did this happen:

Most Muslim-majority countries and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) have opposed moves to advance LGBT rights at the United Nations, in the General Assembly or the UNHRC. In May 2016, a group of 51 Muslim states blocked 11 gay and transgender organizations from attending 2016 High Level Meeting on Ending AIDS.

And this:

You "presume" it's getting better.  It's not.

 

• 4.  Funny how you believe Islam is tolerant toward the gay community but you think there is a "large number" of homophobic people in our own country.  Because it seems to me that views on the LGBQT community in the West are softening in the last few decades, but it appears to be going to other way in the Islamic world.

5. My concern is that at the same time we are making great strides in acceptance of the LGBQT community, we are bringing in masses of people from areas that do not have that same value.  If they came in a little at a time and were encouraged to assimilate, I would feel differently. 

6. I'm sorry, but you sound exactly like the people who insisted there were no ovens in Germany, while the ashes of people fell on their houses.  Y 

1. The way you phrased this: 'does not make beating transgender persons a mainstream value of our society." implies that I was countering that and you replied.  I didn't say that.

2. You seem to "believe" that people who have hardline views are just as likely to move to a permissive society as those who don't.  I don't think it's so.  I think people who move to a liberal country are not stupid - they know what kind of society they are going to.

3. You misunderstood.  You said: "does not make acceptance of the LGBQT community a mainstream value of Islam, " and I said LGBTQ is not a mainstream value of any religion I know of.

4. I didn't say that.  Actually, I'm getting tired of having to correct you on points I haven't made.   There's no way I said "Islam is tolerant towards LGBTQ".

5. It's horseshit.  It's an excuse to not accept people from Muslim countries, and ridiculous because - as I said - "we" aren't even accepting of LGBTQ anyway.  Stop linking the two, it's just a way to justify xenophobia, to my mind.

6. Wow.  Not only is this hyperbolic, but your response is based on an opinion YOU made up, then attributed to me.

[Michael Hardner]

11 hours ago, Argus said:

1. How do you define hate?

2. Would you include Kimmy in that?

3. Anyone who disagrees that biological males should compete against biological females in sports? Anyone who doesn't approve of biological males who claim they are women changing in the women's changing rooms or going to womens prisons?

4. What about those of us who don't believe in telling 8 year olds they can be boys or girls, and then starting medical and drug therapy if they say they think they're the other gender, regardless of what their parents want?

5. Cuz if that's hate then yeah, that's masses of people all right. Probably near enough 80%-90% of the population.

1. Violence is one good way.  Denial of their humanity is another.

2. No.

3. No.  No.  

4. Ridiculous.  No.

5. Well, we started out with a video of people being violent so why move the goalposts now that we're talking about homeland hate ?

 

[Michael Hardner]

11 hours ago, Argus said:

1. I'm sure some who come here are relieved to get out from under the thumb of the mullahs, no question. I'll give you that. BUT... there is no question that most of those who come here are coming for economic reasons. They're not abandoning their mosques, and their children are, according to PEW, even more religious than the parents. So not liberals.

2. ... is unquestionably a mainstream value of Islam. Or to quote Douglas Murray "Gays for Palestine? Give me a break! If Gays for Palestine were in Palestine they'd have to move to Israel!"

3. How about carefully screening each applicant for their cultural and moral values, views and cultural adaptability?

1. Agreed.  But they are patriotic so one presumes that they have a basic understanding of pluralism.  My guess is that since "pluralism" defines rights of theirs, that are constantly under thread, they understand it as well as the average homeland person.

2. See above.

3. I already think screening questions are fine - as long as you limit it to what is says in our constitution.  I won't let Canadian values be defined by arbitrarily denoted things like how you dress, language and so on.

[DogOnPorch]

French police arrest  a man after discovering his plot to kill children at a nursery... 

French media outlets revealed on Wednesday that a man who described himself as the “heir of Mohamed Merah” — the Islamist terrorist who murdered three young children and a rabbi at a Jewish school in Toulouse in March 2012 — was arrested by security agents last week on suspicion of plotting his own terrorist attack against a school.

Broadcaster BFM TV reported that the man was seized in the Seine-et-Marne region near Paris on March 25 while attempting to obtain weapons. According to police, the man had been planning an attack on children at a nursery school, apparently following the example set by his hero, Merah. A second man was also arrested on charges of complicity.

During his interrogation by police officers, the main suspect, a 21-year-old, told police that he saw himself as Merah’s “heir.” He admitted that he had picked out a school as his target, and that his plan had been to kill some children and take others hostage, with the goal of dragging police into a gun battle. The man was subsequently charged on March 29 and remains in custody…

https://www.algemeiner.com/2019/04/03/heir-of-mohamed-merah-french-cops-arrest-suspected-terrorist-inspired-by-islamist-behind-jewish-school-massacre-in-toulouse/

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Agreed.  But they are patriotic so one presumes that they have a basic understanding of pluralism.  My guess is that since "pluralism" defines rights of theirs, that are constantly under thread, they understand it as well as the average homeland person.

You reckon on a sophisticated understanding of politics for those raised in tribal countries with a culture of 'winner take all' and 'no compromise'. You also, as many secular people do, do not grasp the enormity of the the influence religion puts on the faithful, esp in non-western countries. They are raised in cultures where submission to Islam is all. It is a part of everyday life, culture, values and law. Even the true believers certainly understand they can't hack homosexuals and Jews down with machetes in the streets here, but that doesn't mean they'd cry if someone else did, or don't think it would please Allah.

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. I already think screening questions are fine - as long as you limit it to what is says in our constitution.  I won't let Canadian values be defined by arbitrarily denoted things like how you dress, language and so on.

What if you dress in a KKK robe? Doesn't that pretty much speak to a lot of your values? If you're wearing a burka then you're a fundamentalist Muslim. Fundamentalist Muslims believe in what the Koran says and that Sharia law must be the law of the land. That means they absolutely believe unbelievers must adopt Allah or die.

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Violence is one good way.  Denial of their humanity is another.

2. No.

3. No.  No.  

4. Ridiculous.  No.

5. Well, we started out with a video of people being violent so why move the goalposts now that we're talking about homeland hate ?

Because from what I'm reading anyone who voices the least doubts about the questions above is hounded as a transphobic bigot and can and has been banned from the likes of Twitter and Facebook. 

Edited April 6, 2019 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

6 hours ago, Argus said:

1. You reckon on a sophisticated understanding of politics for those raised in tribal countries with a culture of 'winner take all' and 'no compromise'.  

2. What if you dress in a KKK robe? Doesn't that pretty much speak to a lot of your values?  

1. I said "basic understanding of pluralism"

2. What if I wear a cross ?  Does it mean that I believe a woman is a man's property ?  Maybe but maybe not.  Moderate Muslims exist.  Do you know any ?

[Michael Hardner]

6 hours ago, Argus said:

Because from what I'm reading anyone who voices the least doubts about the questions above is hounded as a transphobic bigot and can and has been banned from the likes of Twitter and Facebook. 

"Anyone".  No.  And, anyway, it doesn't mean that trans people aren't persecuted and hounded.  

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

"Anyone".  No.  And, anyway, it doesn't mean that trans people aren't persecuted and hounded.  

It doesn't mean they are either. When just saying a transsexual is a man on twitter can bring police to your door the idea has gone wildly off the rails.

 

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I said "basic understanding of pluralism"

Democracy as practiced in the third world is dissimilar to ours.

Quote

2. What if I wear a cross ?  Does it mean that I believe a woman is a man's property ?  Maybe but maybe not.  Moderate Muslims exist.  Do you know any ?

Christianity does not say a woman is a man's property. Christianity is based on the life of Jesus, who comes after the old testament. And westerners are much more relaxed about their interpretations of such things anyway.

Islam DOES say, however, that a woman is a man's property. Some jurisdictions have even codified how much and how hard you can hit them.

Edited April 7, 2019 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

35 minutes ago, Argus said:

It doesn't mean they are either. When just saying a transsexual is a man on twitter can bring police to your door the idea has gone wildly off the rails.

Ok - well the level of violence against trans women is well-known.  There's an attack on video, and people use it to vilify Muslims.  When I try to say that trans people aren't treated well here, you break off on a tangent saying that people aren't allowed to call them names on Twitter.  You do realize you're now working to prove my point, right ?

[Michael Hardner]

36 minutes ago, Argus said:

1. Democracy as practiced in the third world is dissimilar to ours.

2. Christianity ...

1. They don't really have democracy in a lot of the places people emmigrate from.  And they don't have pluralism so... of course they know we're different.

2. You didn't answer my question though.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Ok - well the level of violence against trans women is well-known.  There's an attack on video, and people use it to vilify Muslims.  When I try to say that trans people aren't treated well here, you break off on a tangent saying that people aren't allowed to call them names on Twitter.  You do realize you're now working to prove my point, right ?

What was your point?

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. They don't really have democracy in a lot of the places people emmigrate from.  And they don't have pluralism so... of course they know we're different.

Of course they know we're different. That does not suggest they believe their values need changing, or that they will if those values are supported by their religious beliefs.

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. You didn't answer my question though.

Your question makes no sense. Wearing a cross does not imply the wearer believes a woman is owned by a man because western Christianity does not support that belief. Islam most explicitly does. Which is why there is no Muslim majority country in which women have the same rights as man.

[Michael Hardner]

8 hours ago, Argus said:

What was your point?

Mistreatment of trans people is not a defining difference between an identifiable group of immigrants and Canadians, to the point where we can just ban them from coming based on that.

[Michael Hardner]

8 hours ago, Argus said:

1. Of course they know we're different. That does not suggest they believe their values need changing, or that they will if those values are supported by their religious beliefs.

2. Your question makes no sense. Wearing a cross does not imply the wearer believes a woman is owned by a man because western Christianity does not support that belief. Islam most explicitly does. Which is why there is no Muslim majority country in which women have the same rights as man.

1. Agreed.  It does not mean that.  

2. I overreached when I said "owned by".  How about "commanded by" ?  And because I slipped up on that, I gave you a chance to jump into the content of my example rather than the point which is that religion, as a marker, can identify likelihoods and trends but is not a way to mark absolute characteristics.  If it were, and if you really believed that then you wouldn't advocate for the immigration "values screening".  What would be the point ?  You could just ban Muslims.