This week in Islam

[dialamah]

47 minutes ago, scribblet said:

Well, it hasn't been debunked either.  Obviously the situation is enough to cause the European courts to look into it and the U.K. released report  reveals the systemic discrimination against women in Islamic courts. The fact that we are even talking about the rape gangs in the U.K. and especially how they are handled is in itself enough to cause concern. 

The report is good, objective and fair.  Notes the disadvantage women have in Sharia councils, admits that outlawing them wouldn't eliminate them, and suggests ways forward that would protect women and reduce the power and use of these councils. 

Thanks for the link, Scribblet.

[dialamah]

29 minutes ago, scribblet said:

Oh sure, if you want to parse words and draw your own conclusions you are free to do that. 

Oh. So reading the link you provided and noting that it didn't actually say what you claimed it said is parsing words and drawing my own conclusions?  Maybe a better response would be to make sure your links support what you are claiming rather than getting mad at me for doing the reading you didn't.

---‐-----------------------------

Media Bias Fact check's assessment of Voice of Europe:  Overall, this site is Questionable due to extreme right wing bias, promotion of propaganda, conspiracy theories and poor sourcing.

Edited September 4, 2019 by dialamah

[scribblet]

The page provides links to back up their assertions.  just because you only like far left sources is your problem. 

[DogOnPorch]

Women gets 24 year sentence in prison for not wearing her hijab. Meanwhile, women in the West celebrate the hijab as a symbol of freedom.

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/rejecting-hijab-dooms-woman-to-24-years-in-prison

[dialamah]

29 minutes ago, scribblet said:

The page provides links to back up their assertions.  just because you only like far left sources is your problem. 

How about you use the same fact checking I use and call me out for using far-left sources that spread propaganda and misinformation, because your unsupported "opinion" on my sources means SFA.  In other words, put up or shut up.

In the meantime, Bangladesh drops the requirement for "virgin" to appear on marriage certificates.  A tiny step in the direction of equality between male and female Muslims.

Left-center bias link.

Right-bias link.

 

Edited September 4, 2019 by dialamah

[scribblet]

Just because you don't like a source doesn't mean it isn't true, but you are now sounding a bit hysterical. 

[Goddess]

Yes, nothing has been debunked.

I know some of you don't like Ezra Levant (he's not my favourite person either) but the human rights case against him for reprinting the Mohammed cartoons (which caused widespread Muslim rioting and killings in Denmark and all over the world) was totally bogus and another incident of Muslims demanding Westerners adhere to Sharia law.

The complaint was brought up by Syed Soharwardy, an imam in Calgary and founder of the Islamic Supreme Council in Canada.  Soharwardy first went to the police, insisting they arrest Levant for printing the cartoons. Interesting that despite living in Canada for over 20 years, Soharwardy expected the Canadian police to act like their counterparts in Saudi Arabia.

When the police refused, Soharwardy then went to the Alberta Human Rights Commission.

Even though media is banned from these tribunals, Levant did bring a video camera and taped the whole proceeding, posting the video of the interrogation on line.

In February 2008 - Soharwardy tried to withdraw his complaint, claiming that he previously did not appreciate the importance of free speech.  But in an interview with the CBC later, Soharwardy revealed the true reason he wanted to drop the complaint - he didn't want Levant to be a martyr for freedom of speech.  Also in an interview with Licia Corbella of the Calgary Herald, Soharwardy revealed that it was HE HIMSELF who wanted to be the hero and martyr and that when things turned out differently, he wanted to back off.

Levant charged that Soharwardy wanted to see Canada under Sharia law. Soharwardy denied this but in 2004 he made this statement - "Sharia cannot be customized for certain countries.  These Universal, divine laws are for all people in all countries at all times."  Later, he charged that Corbella had "misread" his statements.  Corbella wrote, "Soharwardy is a charmer. He convinced me that I must have misread his comments.  But relistening to the tape of our interview and rereading his original texts, one thing is clear - He cannot be believed."

The trial cost Levant over $100,000, and of course it cost us - the taxpayers.  Welcome to soft jihad.

The Mark Steyn case was similar.  A journalist who wrote for MacLean's magazine, he had written an article about Islam for the magazine.

Complaints were filed in both Ontario and BC by  Mohammed Elmasry, the head of the Canadian Islamic Congress.

The complaint was dismissed in Ontario but a show trial went ahead in BC.  Petti Fong of the Toronto Star reported mostly on a Muslim woman in the  audience who "began weeping quietly as comments from readers of the Islam article were read."  Should Steyn be held responsible for these reader comments?

The woman's husband argued that "free speech is not the only issue that mattered here."  Clearly Muslim tears trump freedom of speech.

In the end. BC also dismissed the charges but it was only because Canadians, alerted by the blog, made clear their outrage at this abuse of power.

I find the Muslim assault on free speech - in a democratic country to be very disturbing.  Especially when Dean Steacy - the investigator for the Federal Commission dismissed the question of freedom of speech considerations by saying, "Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value."

These are not the only cases of Muslim outrage in Canada and certainly not the only ones in the world.  Muslims are hauling reporters, journalists, blog-writers and average citizens into tribunals and demanding police act on their complaints - all over the world.

So, ya, despite what apologists like Dia and Michael say - the Muslim attack on freedom of speech and democracy is not HORSESHIT.

 

Edited September 4, 2019 by Goddess

[Goddess]

15 hours ago, scribblet said:

It's not just Sharia courts operating and judges using a form of Sharia, but it's judges excusing Muslims or giving lesser sentences because of 'cultural differences'.

Judges across Europe routinely give the perpetrators of  "honor Killings" not heavier sentences because of them being premeditated, but lighter sentences because their crimes are not crimes at all in Muslim culture.  But even this isn't enough for apologists for Islam - in 2007, Norway's most celebrated lawyer proposed that punishment for honor killings should OFFICIALLY be set lower because "we are doing the Muslim man a disservice; he acts in accordance with his own sense of honor and we call this dishonorable.  This is arrogance - we should not expect the Muslim to conform to OUR society's norms, we should be striving humbly and respectfully to understand HIS society's norms."

Women's rights, gay rights and Jews are at great risk of losing hard-fought for rights all over the world, due to Muslim pressure and again - apologists for Islam.

[dialamah]

13 minutes ago, Goddess said:

These are not the only cases of Muslim outrage in Canada and certainly not the only ones in the world.  Muslims are hauling reporters, journalists, blog-writers and average citizens into tribunals and demanding police act on their complaints - all over the world.

So ... Ezra Levant won his case, and somehow this "proves" that freedom of speech is under attack.  

18 minutes ago, Goddess said:

So, ya, despite what apologists like Dia and Michael say - the Muslim attack on freedom of speech and democracy is not HORSESHIT.

Part of freedom of speech happens to be allowing people to say "I think this is wrong and I'm going to take it to court".  

Calling people apologists is just an attempt to shut down speech you don't like.  

 

[Goddess]

12 minutes ago, dialamah said:

So ... Ezra Levant won his case, and somehow this "proves" that freedom of speech is under attack.  

Part of freedom of speech happens to be allowing people to say "I think this is wrong and I'm going to take it to court".  

Calling people apologists is just an attempt to shut down speech you don't like.  

 

Calling people apologists is "just an attempt to shut down speech you don't like" but journalists, reporters, citizens, blogwriters being hauled into tribunals all  over the world, killings and bombing by Muslims who are outraged by criticism of their religion -  does not constitute an attack on freedom of speech?  You realize that even though he won - freedom of speech was still attacked, right?

Or is that too confusing for your apologist brain?

Your above statements are classic apologist for Islam.

Quote

Part of freedom of speech happens to be allowing people to say "I think this is wrong and I'm going to take it to court".  

Freedom to criticize religion has been an accepted part of freedom of speech for many years.  Why are Muslims attacking it now and trying to force Sharia law - which states any criticism of Islam should be punished.

Yup - you're a total apologist.

Edited September 4, 2019 by Goddess

[dialamah]

9 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Freedom to criticize religion has been an accepted part of freedom of speech for many years.  Why are Muslims attacking it now and trying to force Sharia law - which states any criticism of Islam should be punished.

You have failed to prove that Muslims are "forcing" Sharia law in Western countries.  Your story about Greece turned out to be the exact opposite of what you claimed.  Your claim about the Austrian case turned out to have nothing to do with Muslims, given the law was put in place for all religions and was used by Christians to bring suit against a cartoonist.  

Also, the report Scribblet linked to regarding Islamic councils was critical of several aspects of these councils, and was supported by the Muslims on the board that carried out the investigation.  

Just like your heroine Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, you can't tell the difference between criticism and slander.  

16 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Yup - you're a total apologist.

Yup, your a total Islamophobe.

[Goddess]

16 minutes ago, dialamah said:

You have failed to prove that Muslims are "forcing" Sharia law in Western countries.

I have proved it - Muslims all over the world - including Canada - are attempting to force Western countries to abandon freedom of speech and adopt Sharia laws regarding punishments for criticizing Islam.

You and Michael asked for proof - I've provided many cases.

That you refuse to accept what  your favourite religion is doing, is not my problem. 

Don't worry, though - lots of other people are still fighting for your right to ignore and excuse what is plainly in front of your face, while you and your fellow apologists for Islam are fighting for Sharia and for everyone else to have less freedom of speech - especially when it comes to criticism of Islam.

Edited September 4, 2019 by Goddess

[Goddess]

It's pretty obvious that apologists for Islam are working hard in Canada - even here some have already given up the rights of disabled people to have guide dogs in favour of Muslim sensitivities.  It makes me wonder what other rights these apologists are willing to sacrifice to Islam.

When horrific terrorism takes place and hundreds of innocent lives are lost, if forced they will say simply "I condemn this."  But the worst of their name-calling, insults, moral equilency games and parsing of words are reserved for those who dare to criticize Islam. 

But please, continue to tell us that you're not an apologist, when you can't even bring yourself to admit that freedom of speech is under attack in all parts of the world due to Islamic influence.

[dialamah]

12 minutes ago, Goddess said:

You and Michael asked for proof - I've provided many cases.

You provided three that I saw - case in Greece, which was debunked.  Austria's case, again debunked.  Neither of these had anything to do with imposing Sharia; in fact, in Greece it resulted in Sharia which had been imposed for a century being disallowed - with the support of Muslims.  

In Austria, the law was put in place well before the advent of any Muslim influence.  In addition, perusal of the actual ruling made it clear that the issue wasn't criticizing Islam, but was using unsupported allegations to in order to insult.  Claim of imposing Sharia again debunked.

In Canada, Ezra Levant was not limited in his speech, even though it apparently offended someone.  This completely debunks your claim that Sharia law is being imposed.

In addition, Canada's and Austria's laws were both used, albeit with different outcomes, as that is the purpose of laws, especially in a free country.  To claim that using a law is the same as an attack on free speech is ridiculous.  If that were true, nobody could take anyone to court for anything because everyone's word would be given the same weight and disagreeing would be limiting "free speech".

[Goddess]

9 minutes ago, dialamah said:

This completely debunks your claim that Sharia law is being imposed.

I have consistently said that Muslims are trying to impose Sharia law restrictions on freedom of speech.  I have consistently said that freedom of speech is under attack.  I have showed you exactly where it is under attack.  The fact that Muslims sometimes FAIL in their attempts does not mean they are not TRYING to accomplish imposing Sharia on the West.

This is the last time I'm explaining the flaw in your thinking.  If you don't understand it yet - it is deliberate.  That you refuse to actually investigate - is your own fault.  You haven't debunked anything - you've given your own special Islamic spin and parsing of words on cases without actually investigating them. I read as many blogs, articles, books on these cases as I could find.

I'm not going to go into your fake "de-bunking" because you are firmly of the opinion that Muslim wants, needs, desires and preferences should replace Western freedoms.  Muslims come first to you - there is nothing that will change your mind.

Edited September 4, 2019 by Goddess

[dialamah]

13 minutes ago, Goddess said:

even here some have already given up the rights of disabled people to have guide dogs in favour of Muslim sensitivities

Cite, please.  Far as I know, here in Canada its against the law to refuse guide dogs.  And in case you were thinking of me, recall my post of August 18, where I said: "Anyway, I believe Muslins do refuse guide dogs entry to cabs and buses, and I don't think they have that right.  The dog isn't touching them and there is nothing in their religion that prevents them being in company of a dog."

21 minutes ago, Goddess said:

When horrific terrorism takes place and hundreds of innocent lives are lost, if forced they will say simply "I condemn this." 

Ever tried to get an anti-Muslim type to condemn right-wing slaughter of Muslims?  They won't even go so far as to say they condemn it, and will argue endlessly that it's the fault of liberals/progressives/Muslims that the poor killer was overwrought and shot a bunch of people.

25 minutes ago, Goddess said:

when you can't even bring yourself to admit that freedom of speech is under attack in all parts of the world due to Islamic influence.

When you can prove it.  So far you haven't.  It took me 2 minutes to debunk you Greece story; the clue was right in the article you linked.  It took a bit longer on the Austrian story, maybe 5 minutes to find the transcript, and the articles that summarized the findings "objectively".  

11 minutes ago, Goddess said:

  I have consistently said that freedom of speech is under attack

Yes you have.

12 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I have showed you exactly where it is under attack. 

No, you haven't.  You've cited articles, and when they've been debunked you've started throwing out accusations and names.

15 minutes ago, Goddess said:

This is the last time I'm explaining the flaw in your thinking.  If you don't understand it yet - it is deliberate.

Back at'cha.

[Goddess]

This is partly why I didn't want to provide tons of incidents of freedom of speech being attacked for Michael - because you two "de-bunk" each detail in each case and refuse to look at the whole picture - that Muslims and their apologists all over the world are working to eliminate freedom of speech.  The Press are alarmed about this - you are not.  You insist nothing is happening - everyone look away, nothing to see here.

The usual moral equivalency games come up over and over

You deny homophobia in Islam but stating that "Well!  Many Christians, Jews, atheists, etc (pick any group) are also homophobic!"  With that logic it could have just as easily been said in the 1930's "There is no anti-semitism in Germany because some Americans and Englishmen and Canadians are also anti-semitic."

Frankly, I've known you for about 10 seconds and enjoyed none of them so I don't take my homework assignments from either of you.

[Goddess]

10 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Back at'cha.

And I've debunked your apologist agenda.

[Goddess]

23 minutes ago, dialamah said:

It took me 2 minutes to debunk you Greece story; the clue was right in the article you linked.  It took a bit longer on the Austrian story, maybe 5 minutes to find the transcript, and the articles that summarized the findings "objectively".  

You haven't debunked anything.  It takes more than 2 minutes or 5 minutes or one blog post to comprehend what all was involved in those cases and it also takes a mind not blinded and shackled by Islam, which you clearly do not possess.

 

Edited September 4, 2019 by Goddess

[Goddess]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

In Canada, Ezra Levant was not limited in his speech, even though it apparently offended someone. 

I wanted to comment on this statement, as well, but i had to do something else for a bit.

To say that Ezra Levant was not limited in his speech, is Islamic deception.  Of course he was.  He was hauled before a tribunal and it cost him over $100,000 and it cost the taxpayers probably more.  

Even though he won, journalists are thinking twice about what they write about Islam for fear they also will be hauled in and not everyone has a spare $100,000 sitting around.

Many journalists are now using weasel-y words to give vague reports on Islamic activities, such as the above apologist statement - "someone" was offended. That "someone" is Muslims.

Freedom of speech does not mean journalists and writers must be afraid to name the actual perpetrators of the war on freedom of speech.  Freedom of speech does not include caving into Islamic threats to kill anyone who writes unflattering things about Islam, as is happening in Europe after the Denmark cartoon fiasco and the Charlie Hebdo massacre. Folowing these events and the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, a lot of organizations in a lot of countries have made rules for what journalists and writers can say - there is a list of words and phrases that are not allowed to be written about Islam and are subject to possible prosecution. 

At least four books detailing the financing of terrorism have been blocked in Britain.  Partly because the publishers do not want to become the next Charlie Hebdo or Theo Van Gogh..

This is why the discussion on Islam and the war on freedom of speech is much more complex and warrants more than just a cite or two to comprehend the full picture.  Apologist brains stop at "Levant  won his case, therefore Muslims are NOT attempting to bring in Sharia."  End thought process.

Edited September 4, 2019 by Goddess

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

This is partly why I didn't want to provide tons of incidents of freedom of speech being attacked for Michael - because you two "de-bunk" each detail in each case

It wouldn't be possible to debunk them if they were legit. Case in point: Muslim citizens in Greece have been subject to Sharia since about 1918.  A Muslim woman seeks to have civil law applied to her, and succeeds.  Further, that case is the starting point for removing the requirement for Muslim citizens to be subject to Sharia, which the Muslim community supports.  But you continue to insist that this is one more nail in the coffin of Muslims imposing Sharia law, and I/we just refuse to see it.  Same with the other two links.

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

You deny homophobia in Islam

I don't actually.  I also don't deny anti-Semitism, or the fact that women are treated poorly in Islamic countries and often within immigrant communities in Canada.  I have expressed my opinion, many times, that education and exposure to Western progressive values will alleviate those problems in the long term.  You may disagree with me about the value of education or that being exposed to progressive values over time will help modernize Islam, but to characterize my statements as outright "denial" and claiming that "as soon as Muslims cross the border, they magically become progressive" is only your dishonesty showing through. 

You "claim" you want discussion, but you don't: you demand that people agree with you and if they don't you characterize their comments in the most extreme way possible and then call them apologists.  

 

[Goddess]

23 minutes ago, dialamah said:

It wouldn't be possible to debunk them if they were legit. Case in point: Muslim citizens in Greece have been subject to Sharia since about 1918.  A Muslim woman seeks to have civil law applied to her, and succeeds.  Further, that case is the starting point for removing the requirement for Muslim citizens to be subject to Sharia, which the Muslim community supports.  But you continue to insist that this is one more nail in the coffin of Muslims imposing Sharia law, and I/we just refuse to see it.  Same with the other two links.

I don't actually.  I also don't deny anti-Semitism, or the fact that women are treated poorly in Islamic countries and often within immigrant communities in Canada.  I have expressed my opinion, many times, that education and exposure to Western progressive values will alleviate those problems in the long term.  You may disagree with me about the value of education or that being exposed to progressive values over time will help modernize Islam, but to characterize my statements as outright "denial" and claiming that "as soon as Muslims cross the border, they magically become progressive" is only your dishonesty showing through. 

You "claim" you want discussion, but you don't: you demand that people agree with you and if they don't you characterize their comments in the most extreme way possible and then call them apologists.  

 

More apologist blathering.

Why do you only pick one word in a sentence and not quote the whole sentence or address the argument?

Your quote:

You deny homophobia in Islam
 

My actual sentence:

You deny homophobia in Islam but ( (I meant by, not but, BTW) stating that "Well!  Many Christians, Jews, atheists, etc (pick any group) are also homophobic!" 

Nor do you quote the explanation:

With that logic it could have just as easily been said in the 1930's "There is no anti-semitism in Germany because some Americans and Englishmen and Canadians are also anti-semitic."

28 minutes ago, dialamah said:

you demand that people agree with you and if they don't you characterize their comments in the most extreme way possible and then call them apologists.   Islamophobes

No, darling......you just did that yourself.

[Goddess]

50 minutes ago, dialamah said:

It wouldn't be possible to debunk them if they were legit. Case in point: Muslim citizens in Greece have been subject to Sharia since about 1918.  A Muslim woman seeks to have civil law applied to her, and succeeds.  Further, that case is the starting point for removing the requirement for Muslim citizens to be subject to Sharia, which the Muslim community supports.  But you continue to insist that this is one more nail in the coffin of Muslims imposing Sharia law, and I/we just refuse to see it.  Same with the other two links.

Actually, I don't continue to insist that this case illustrates my point, I haven't mentioned it even once since then.   YOU, however, keep holding it up in every post like Aha!  I win!

How about this:  I'll give you that one, okay?  Mostly because it would take too long to go over the entire case with you and you've already decided that your 2 minutes of research was enough.

What about the rest of them?  What about all the other ones that we're not going to have time to discuss or cite?  I noticed you keep holding that one cse up, while completely ignoring everything else.

[dialamah]

17 hours ago, Goddess said:

How about this:  I'll give you that one, okay?  Mostly because it would take too long to go over the entire case with you and you've already decided that your 2 minutes of research was enough.

Just think ... if you'd done those two minutes of research, you'd not have to now admit you were wrong.  The clue was right in the article you posted, mentioning that Muslins in Greece were subject to Sharia law.  Not my fault if you missed/ignored that.

17 hours ago, Goddess said:

1. What about the rest of them? 

2. What about all the other ones that we're not going to have time to discuss or cite? 

3. I noticed you keep holding that one cse up, while completely ignoring everything else.

1.  I checked the links in one post of yours.  As I recall, one link was about the case in Greece and the other 2 or 3 links were different articles about the Austrian case.   The third was your post about Ezra Levant.  

2.  Maybe "the rest" won't be as easily debunked.  But I am sure you are right, you probably have better things to do than support claims you've made on an internet forum.  

3.  I repeatedly held up all three examples, till the final post, as I was getting a bit tired of repeating myself endlessly.

The best argument you've made so far was that it cost money for Ezra Levant to defend himself, and that this could discourage others from making similar remarks.

On the other hand, Muslims aren't the only people he's pissed off as he was taken to court for comments he made re: Alberta's HRC.  He lost that case because "Levant acted with malice in his coverage of a 2008 British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, Justice Wendy Matheson said "he did little or no fact-checking regarding the posts complained of, either before or after their publication. Nor did he accurately report what was taking place at the hearing. And, with one exception, when he learned that he got his facts wrong, he made no corrections."

Maybe Ezra Levant is just an a-hole who says stuff for attention, with little concern for truth and accuracy.  Maybe what journalists (and all of us) should learn from Levant is that truth and accuracy matter.  

[Goddess]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

if you'd done those two minutes of research, you'd not have to now admit you were wrong.

Actually, your 2 minutes of research - which was basically you googling to find an opinion that agreed with you on the case - was inadequate.  There's a whole other side to that case which you will not ever agree with because you personally put a higher value on Muslim sensitivities and Muslim religious beliefs than you put on human rights.

 

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

The best argument you've made so far was that it cost money for Ezra Levant to defend himself, and that this could discourage others from making similar remarks.

Not COULD - it is.  Muslim sensitivities are not just costing money to defend in courts (which by the way - these things have all been settled years ago - now we are actually debating AGAIN whether disabled people can have guide dogs in taxis) they are also costing lives - Islam kills those who don't bow to their sensitivities - the Hebdo massacre, Theo Van Gogh, mass rioting and bombing and killing innocent people because of a Mohammed cartoon etc.  The message to the West is: insulting the prophet or talking disparagingly about Islam is punishable by death in Islam and that threat IS - not COULD - affecting freedom of speech.and jurisprudence.  What part of "We don't have to adhere to Muslim religious beliefs"  do you not understand?  How many hard-fought for human rights have to go before you and the Muslims are happy?

Journalists all over the world are sounding the alarm on this and you disagree.  That's fine.  But you're wrong.

It's very difficult for you to grasp other perspectives and  the bigger issues at stake because all that is important to you is Islam''s rights.  You put a far higher value on religious rights than there should be.

 

Edited September 5, 2019 by Goddess