This week in Islam

[DogOnPorch]

35 minutes ago, dialamah said:

 

At the same time, I can see the risks that "assuming" Mosques or Imams need closer watching presents for the rest of us in terms of personal freedoms.  If Imams cannot refer to Jews as "the vilest people", should internet commenters also be sanctioned for calling Muslims iredeemably barbaric and violent?  

 

It's the Quran that says Jews and 'polytheists' are the vilest of creatures...not any specific Imam who is repeating the verse. The Quran was written by Allah and is not open to reform (you can't reform perfect).

[DogOnPorch]

2 minutes ago, Goddess said:

You know I'm going to disagree with this. 

There's been actually quite a few imams in Canada preaching hate, a google search brings up quite a few pages of instances.

In addition, the Al Qud festival held in major Canadian cities annually has been well-documented as nothing more than a hatefest.

Also, there have been many Islamic extremism incidents in Canada, including some that we don't hear about and some that we don't hear about until after the danger has been handled by authorities. So far, 60 extremists who left to join ISIS have been allowed back into the country to roam the streets freely and we still have to deal with others who are wanting to come back, which begs the question - Why do they even want to come back if they hate us?

There's also been evidence of certain Islamic organizations funneling money to extremists.

 

Islam..unfortunately for us...is all about hating the other while loving what Allah loves.

The concept is called al-Walla' Wal Bara'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Wala'_Wal_Bara'

[dialamah]

Just now, Goddess said:

You know I'm going to disagree with this. 

There's been actually quite a few imams in Canada preaching hate, a google search brings up quite a few pages of instances.

In addition, the Al Qud festival held in major Canadian cities annually has been well-documented as nothing more than a hatefest.

Also, there have been many Islamic extremism incidents in Canada, including some that we don't hear about and some that we don't hear about until after the danger has been handled by authorities.

And there are alt-right and White Supremacy hate speech all over the internet, increasing numbers of White hate groups and increasing violence as a result of this rhetoric. Both have led to the deaths of innocent people. It's a problem and if we, as a society, choose to crack down on Islamic-inspired hate, then we need to also crack down on White Supremacy-inspired hate. A Muslim's sincere belief that Jews are "the vilest people" should be no less acceptable than an old-stock Canadian's sincere belief that Muslim's are the "most barbaric people".  

So where do we draw the line and against whom?

[dialamah]

15 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

It's the Quran that says Jews and 'polytheists' are the vilest of creatures...not any specific Imam who is repeating the verse. The Quran was written by Allah and is not open to reform (you can't reform perfect).

The Koran also says that Christians and Jews are people of the book and should be protected along with Muslims.  Your rhetoric is no more honest than is that used by al Qaeda or ISIS to radicalize young men online and offline.

Edited May 24, 2019 by dialamah

[DogOnPorch]

14 minutes ago, dialamah said:

The Koran also says that Christians and Jews are people of the book and should be protected along with Muslims.  Your rhetoric is no more honest than is that used by al Qaeda or ISIS to radicalize young men online and offline.

 

As long as the vile creatures follow the rules of Dhimmi to the letter and live as second class citizens in their own lands...then yes. Wouldn't that be swell? Be called vile and paying the Jizya for the privilege. I've got to wonder WHY you'd support such a concept. You must actually believe that Islam is superior above all others in the World...or you'd fight against it.

Meanwhile, how well is that 'protection' doing in the Muslim world? What was the latest Jihad massacre? Would it surprise you to find-out it was Syrian Christians murdered by their Islamic masters and 'protectors'?

 

[Goddess]

2 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

Meanwhile, how well is that 'protection' doing in the Muslim world? What was the latest Jihad massacre? Would it surprise you to find-out it was Syrian Christians murdered by their Islamic masters and 'protectors'?

Ignoring the world-wide picture helps if you only focus on "moderate" Muslims hampered by Western laws.

There was another attack in France - breaking news story.

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, Goddess said:

Ignoring the world-wide picture helps if you only focus on "moderate" Muslims hampered by Western laws.

There was another attack in France - breaking news story.

 

Islamic 'protectors' can go into a village and off the Christian population in massacres that make My Lai look tame and the MSM doesn't even give it a moments coverage.

Can you provide details on the specific attack? There have been many in France that go unnoticed/unreported by our dutiful media.

[DogOnPorch]

...and Notre Dame...an accident, don't you know?

Notice we don't hear anything more about that?  Why hear more about a simple 'accident'...nothing to see here.

Islam responsible??? No way! That's impossible. Islam is only interested in attacking Christian cathedrals that aren't as well known.

Edited May 24, 2019 by DogOnPorch

[dialamah]

3 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Ignoring the world-wide picture helps if you only focus on "moderate" Muslims hampered by Western laws.

Hundreds of thousands of Muslims put in camps by Chinese.

Tens of thousands Muslims killed in Sri Lanka, India, Myanmar by non-Muslims.  Tens of thousands more killed by other extremist Islamic groups. Tens of thousands more Muslims killed by Western forces in illegal invasions  and proxy wars.

Demonization of Muslims continues in Europe, the States and Canada.

Ignoring the world-wide picture helps if you only focus on "extremist" Muslims attacking in Western countries and miss the slaughter, incarceration and demonization of Muslims carried out around the world.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

1. If I may point out that neither Goddess nor I suggested going into Muslim homes, but to ensure religious and community leaders aren't enabling extremism or hate.   

2.  I would like to be sure it's not festering and growing, as White Supremacy has been festering and growing in the unwatched corners of the internet. 

3. At the same time, I can see the risks that "assuming" Mosques or Imams need closer watching presents for the rest of us in terms of personal freedoms.  If Imams cannot refer to Jews as "the vilest people", should internet commenters also be sanctioned for calling Muslims iredeemably barbaric and violent?  

1. One of you suggested giving police powers to search Mosques.  Presumably that's because they are gathering places.  I doubt that a home used as a gathering place would have mich legal difference under a security law like that.

2. Ok, well I like that you see symmetry here.  If we had a thread called This Week in Alt Right maybe someone might have suggested police powers to arbitrarily search pick up trucks in Alberta ?  I'll take my answer off the air.

3. I like to clarify things.

[Goddess]

1 hour ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Islamic 'protectors' can go into a village and off the Christian population in massacres that make My Lai look tame and the MSM doesn't even give it a moments coverage.

Can you provide details on the specific attack? There have been many in France that go unnoticed/unreported by our dutiful media.

Well, I couldn't find it in any mainstream newsfeed except the article I found on Global News facebook page:

https://globalnews.ca/news/5311738/lyon-france-explosion-injured/?utm_source=GlobalNews&utm_medium=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR1MnUVGzTmEPDRmX3RZAuvfIsbqZ7GKoNfrtrwMcR05gXAZWOgy0tVaaOw

 

It's interesting the things that come up when you type "attack in Lyons, France" into the search bar - lots of things you never hear in the news - beheadings, bombings.....

[Goddess]

56 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. One of you suggested giving police powers to search Mosques.  Presumably that's because they are gathering places.  I doubt that a home used as a gathering place would have mich legal difference under a security law like that.

2. Ok, well I like that you see symmetry here.  If we had a thread called This Week in Alt Right maybe someone might have suggested police powers to arbitrarily search pick up trucks in Alberta ?  I'll take my answer off the air.

3. I like to clarify things.

Your entire argument is based on the erroneous assumption that the rules for searching private homes and public buildings are the same.  There are many types of search procedures and legalities based on where is being searched, why it's being searched and how it can be done.

[dialamah]

7 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Your entire argument is based on the erroneous assumption that the rules for searching private homes and public buildings are the same.  

Well, to be fair the arguments you and I have put forth assume that someone is guilty based solely on their choice of religion - whether it's investigating Mosques/Imams for extremism or closed religious Christian societies for abuse of women and girls.   We may think the erosion of freedom implied by such assumptions is worth the additional safety we think society would gain as a whole, but are we right or wrong?  Certainly, Egypt believes that assumption of guilt and harsh crackdowns on 'unacceptable' speech protects their society, and we regularly condemn their behavior.   How do we "protect" our society while not falling into the authoritarian system of Egypt and similar countries?   Any ideas?

[Goddess]

14 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Well, to be fair the arguments you and I have put forth assume that someone is guilty based solely on their choice of religion - whether it's investigating Mosques/Imams for extremism or closed religious Christian societies for abuse of women and girls.   We may think the erosion of freedom implied by such assumptions is worth the additional safety we think society would gain as a whole, but are we right or wrong?  Certainly, Egypt believes that assumption of guilt and harsh crackdowns on 'unacceptable' speech protects their society, and we regularly condemn their behavior.   How do we "protect" our society while not falling into the authoritarian system of Egypt and similar countries?   Any ideas?

What would be best is if Muslims in Western countries voluntarily decided as a community to stop importing the Saudi version of Islam, stop taking it's money, get rid of all Saudi-based materials and imams and start preaching a more moderate doctrine.  If you're right that the vast majority of Muslims are against terrorism and extremist versions of Islam, this would go a long way to both assuring Westerners that they truly are against radicalization and it would also actually reduce radicalization.

What do you think the chances are of the majority who you claim to be of the Religion of Peace, ever voluntarily cleaning up the extremist version of Islam in their mosques and schools and giving the boot to radical imams in Western countries?

[dialamah]

3 minutes ago, Goddess said:

What would be best is if Muslims in Western countries voluntarily decided as a community to stop importing the Saudi version of Islam, 

Since the majority of Muslims denounce terrorism, and since the majority of Muslims in Canada are not violent and since less than half of them conservative (based on burka or hijab wearing), and since polls tell us that the majority of Canadian Muslims support freedom of religion and gender equality, where is your proof that they haven't already 'voluntarily' given up Saudi version of Islam?  

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

Your entire argument is based on the erroneous assumption that the rules for searching private homes and public buildings are the same.  There are many types of search procedures and legalities based on where is being searched, why it's being searched and how it can be done.

How can it be erroneous when we're just speculating about a rule that doesn't even exist yet?  I submit that such a law would be about searches of gathering places, not Mosques or homes.

If you are going to use security as a reason to break privacy, why would the type of meeting place matter?  Would you be less offended if alt-rights gathered in churches and we searched them?

[Goddess]

18 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

How can it be erroneous when we're just speculating about a rule that doesn't even exist yet?  I submit that such a law would be about searches of gathering places, not Mosques or homes.

If you are going to use security as a reason to break privacy, why would the type of meeting place matter?  Would you be less offended if alt-rights gathered in churches and we searched them?

Again, not one person here has suggested searching individual Muslim homes.

There are different laws and different procedures for different types of searches.  I didn't make those laws or procedures but I would trust the police to abide by the laws.

Islam is no where near reforming itself.  I fear here are too many ideological glitches for this ever to happen - the universal Islamic concept of Ummah, for one, the universal acceptance of the Koran being the literal word of God - which forbids any change under penalty of death and threat of hell, the universal acceptance of Sharia law, which places women and unbelievers not just as second or third class citizens, but as dhimmi - slaves, among others.

Or we can go your way and just shake our heads sadly while radical Islam tears up the world in body counts because we don't want to offend the majority (who apparently want peace as much as we do, yet feel absolutely no responsibility to do anything about it....??? And why should they?  They've got mouthpieces like you and Dia telling them they don't have any responsibility in rooting out extremism in their own religion.  I wonder who's responsibility it is?  You feel - not our's and not their's.  Who is left?)

Edited May 24, 2019 by Goddess

[DogOnPorch]

It's silly and abrasive to insist that the Muslim community condemn terrorism. Either they are or they are not against terrorism...who cares, really? That's the "Good Nazi" argument in action. There are many good Muslims...that's not the issue. There were many good Nazis.

 

 

[DogOnPorch]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

Since the majority of Muslims denounce terrorism...

 

Do they? Does it matter? To me, it seems about a 50-50 split if we take all things into account...that's still...what??...700 million or so that feel terrorism IS the answer...as prescribed by Muhammad himself. Big Mo was FOR terrorism...in case you missed that bit of the Hadiths.

I have been made victorious through terror...and such.

Personally, I feel that one more al-Quds hate fest that goes unchallenged by the "Muslim Community" is all I need to know re: where the "Muslim Community" stands on terror and antisemitism in Canada. That is...generally for terrorism and against Jews.

Typical Islamic use of children at the annual al-Quds Jew hate rally. Disgusting. Why not just admit that the founder of the Palestinian Cause was a real life Nazi and the whole movement belongs in the trash-bin with the rest of the garbage? Indeed...why not?

[Goddess]

https://www.iambirmingham.co.uk/2019/05/23/muslims-lead-birmingham-pride-parade-first-time-events-22-year-history/?fbclid=IwAR0fjQ6E3CYaA82Buqas4e8NHqZaYQ3uvONGFGz-BOjKAOo6VcoUhYiL78s

 

Well, this is clearly not Birmingham, Alabama 

More of this, more of this, more of this.

[Argus]

5 hours ago, dialamah said:

The Koran also says that Christians and Jews are people of the book and should be protected along with Muslims

Not unless they pay the special tax.

And I might add, that in not one of 50 odd Muslim countries do Christians have the same rights as Muslims.

[Argus]

3 hours ago, dialamah said:

Well, to be fair the arguments you and I have put forth assume that someone is guilty based solely on their choice of religion -

If there's a religion which says that children are sexual objects for the taking, and that adherents are obligated to make use of them and Bob is a member of that religion, would you want Bob around your child?

[Goddess]

3 minutes ago, Argus said:

Not unless they pay the special tax.

And I might add, that in not one of 50 odd Muslim countries do Christians have the same rights as Muslims.

Should ask the Jews in France if they feel "protected" by their Muslim brethren.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, DogOnPorch said:

It's silly and abrasive to insist that the Muslim community condemn terrorism. Either they are or they are not against terrorism...who cares, really? That's the "Good Nazi" argument in action. There are many good Muslims...that's not the issue. There were many good Nazis.

I think you meant to say there were many good Germans.

The actual argument I've heard was that it didn't matter that most Germans were good, and didn't want to slaughter Jews and conquer the world. They went along, or at least, didn't resist those who did. I'm sure most of the Muslims back in the day just wanted to raise their kids and do their job and weren't all that into the idea of conquering Europe, but that didn't stop the Sultan and his army from conquering Constantinople and putting its Christian residents to the sword.

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Goddess said:

1. Again, not one person here has suggested searching individual Muslim homes.

2. There are different laws and different procedures for different types of searches.  I didn't make those laws or procedures but I would trust the police to abide by the laws.

 

1. So ? 

2. Oh FFS... Abide by the laws that don't exist you mean?