This week in Islam

[dialamah]

32 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I shake my head when you say things like this because you have frequently held Egypt up as a shining example of Islamic moderation and

Oh, you mean when you/Argus screams about how all Islamic countries want to put gays to death, and I say Egypt does put gays in jail, but has no death penalty for homosexuality, you and Argus claim I'm holding Egypt up as "Shining Example" of gay rights?  Or if you/Argus claim that pedophilia and wife beating is legal and common in Muslim countries and I point out that Egypt has a law against marriage under age 18 and wife beating, albeit not as well enforced as they could be, you and Argus again claim I'm holding Egypt up as a "Shining Example" of female equality?  If contradicting the hyperbolic bullshit you guys spew is holding up a country as a "Shining Example", the only thing I can suggest is that you failed reading comprehension in grade school, and nobody bothered to tell you.  

32 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I shake my head when you say things like this because you have frequently held Egypt up as a shining example of Islamic moderation and when others point out instances that indicate the "lip service" you refer to now, you call them racists, bigots and Islamophobes (among many other worse names.)

Really?  What're worse names than racist, bigot and Islamophobe?   Anyway, if you don't like those labels applied to your posts, don't express opinions that are so clearly bigoted and Islamophobic.  Easy-peasy.

 

[Goddess]

1 minute ago, dialamah said:

Oh, you mean when you/Argus screams about how all Islamic countries want to put gays to death, and I say Egypt does put gays in jail, but has no death penalty for homosexuality, you and Argus claim I'm holding Egypt up as "Shining Example" of gay rights?  Or if you/Argus claim that pedophilia and wife beating is legal and common in Muslim countries and I point out that Egypt has a law against marriage under age 18 and wife beating, albeit not as well enforced as they could be, you and Argus again claim I'm holding Egypt up as a "Shining Example" of female equality?  If contradicting the hyperbolic bullshit you guys spew is holding up a country as a "Shining Example", the only thing I can suggest is that you failed reading comprehension in grade school, and nobody bothered to tell you.  

Really?  What're worse names than racist, bigot and Islamophobe?   Anyway, if you don't like those labels applied to your posts, don't express opinions that are so clearly bigoted and Islamophobic.  Easy-peasy.

 

I've had to research Emotional Abuse a lot lately for a case I'm working with and everything I read about emotional abusers, reminds me of the things you do/say/behave here.  You employ many of the abusive communication styles of a narcissist - name-calling, twisting of words, gaslighting, assigning hostile intentions and motivations where there are none, demanding over-explanations so that you can nitpick, only listening for points to argue, ignoring other perspectives, character attacks, snotty/snarky/snide/sarcastic remarks, unwarranted and off-topic "drive-by" style  attacks on certain posters in threads they haven't even commented on.......

I hope you are taking out all your ugliness here and not in real life.

[dialamah]

1 minute ago, Goddess said:

You employ many of the abusive communication styles of a narcissist - name-calling, twisting of words, gaslighting, assigning hostile intentions and motivations where there are none, demanding over-explanations so that you can nitpick, only listening for points to argue, ignoring other perspectives, character attacks, snotty/snarky/snide/sarcastic remarks, unwarranted and off-topic "drive-by" style  attacks on certain posters in threads they haven't even commented on.......

Too funny ... this is precisely how I see you in your comments about Muslims and anyone who disagrees with you, such as myself and MH.  

2 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I hope you are taking out all your ugliness here and not in real life

Back at'cha.

[DogOnPorch]

Dialamah defends Islam and uses all the tools Islam provides to do the job. Deceit being one of the biggest...

Also, as an ideologue like ourselves, she's never going to stop defending the one true religion that she subscribes to. It's her cult...her people...her community.

I expect nothing less than insults, lies and...yes...deceit. Why? It's simple, really. Islam has NOTHING good going for it...so it can't be defended on its merits.

It has none.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

 

I did once take offense to Rue referring to immigrants from the ME as smelling bad.  I may have misunderstood his context in that particular instance.  But I would never accuse him of Islamophobia, because:

• He doesn't always harp on the evils of Muslims;
• He doesn't choose carefully curated anti-Muslim stories to prove the evil of Muslims;
• He doesn't reject facts or common sense in favor of hysteria about "whats happening in Europe" or "Sharia law is coming once Muslims reach 10% of the population", etc;
• He doesn't reject every "good news" story about Muslims as being too rare to mean anything or part of a combined media/government conspiracy to fool Canadians;
• He often talks about the humanity we all share, good and bad, whatever our creed, country or skin color.

Those four things are what I consider the main differences between "critics of Islam" and Islamaphobics. 

Rue is NOT a critic of Islam any more than you are. Both of you admire Islam and have mentally castrated yourselves from judging anyone from any group or religion as being in any way culturally inferior to us.

I don't 'harp' on the evils of Muslims. I don't choose careful anti-Muslim stories either. I do post stories which pop up in the news, or to rebut your "Islam is the most wonderful and humane system of government on earth" arguments. I recall you once trying to explain how Egypt was a paradise for women, so I certainly found a number of stories to give the lie to that. I've also never said Sharia law is coming, and use Europe only as an indicator of what can happen if immigrant Muslims aren't properly assimilated.

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

Yes, many Pakistanis have beliefs with which I disagree and disaprove.  Claiming that we're importing these beliefs because X number of Pakistanis in Pakistan support them and we have immigrants from Pakistan is essentially fear-mongering.  Why? Glad you asked.

There is no indication that higher education defeats religious reverence among Muslims.  Your studies of previous generations of Immigrants are mostly on European christian immigrants and thus of little value. Plus they're from previous generations without ready 24/7 communications with and easy flying time to the old country and its culture and values, so doubly worthless. And the primary motivation for immigrants from the third world is monetary. Were the Khadr family more 'open to new experiences and cultures'? Hmm?  And if second generation Muslims are more willing to embrace Canada and Canadian values why are they more likely to wear hijabs, niquabs and burkas than their parents?

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

You seem to have a cartoonish vision of an extremist Muslim, brandishing a sword and slaying people (or raping little girls) as the standard type who come to Canada. 

Nope. I'm not even that worried by terrorism. We can handle the odd terrorist incident. What I do not want to see is the growth of large foreign communities inside Canada, clinging to foreign ways and beliefs which are hostile to our own and having more loyalty to outside forces and ideas than to Canada. The evidence from Europe suggests Muslims, esp those from the middle east and western Asia, do not assimilate easily. Nor do their kids.

There is no economic case for bringing them here, especially in such numbers, as once again the evidence is they, as a group, have poor earnings. And the social/cultural reason for not bringing them over seems strong.

All of which is based on logic - something entirely foreign to your arguments.

 

 

 

[Argus]

39 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Oh, you mean when you/Argus screams about how all Islamic countries want to put gays to death,

I've never said any such thing. Cite?

39 minutes ago, dialamah said:

 you and Argus again claim I'm holding Egypt up as a "Shining Example" of female equality?  I

If not a shining example, then certainly a nice place to live.

https://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/23559-this-week-in-islam/page/38/?tab=comments#comment-1179320

[Goddess]

37 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Too funny ... this is precisely how I see you in your comments about Muslims and anyone who disagrees with you, such as myself and MH.  

Back at'cha.

The school-yard version of  "I know you are, but what am I?"

  

Thank you for proving my point. Emotionally, you are a toddler having temper tantrums.

Edited January 21, 2020 by Goddess

[Charles Anthony]

Folks, 

This thread is temporarily locked.  You all need to calm down. 

 

 

 

 

I will buy a beer for the 1st person who can answer the following question correctly: 

Can we all just get along?  

 

[scribblet]

Saw this from 2014  Sharia Law adopted by British Legal Chiefs and it really is astonishing.   How can a free and civilized country accept and promote a system that discriminates against women, at what point do people speak out and say enough is enough.   Suffragettes will be rolling over in their graves.  What is the tipping point for people to speak out against this - oh wait - we can't, it's 'hate speech' and you know, 'Islamophobia'.  

https://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm?blog_id=69023

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10716844/Islamic-law-is-adopted-by-British-legal-chiefs.html

Islamic law is to be effectively enshrined in the British legal system for the first time under guidelines for solicitors on drawing up “Sharia compliant” wills.

Under ground-breaking guidance, produced by The Law Society, High Street solicitors will be able to write Islamic wills that deny women an equal share of inheritances and exclude unbelievers altogether.

The documents, which would be recognised by Britain’s courts, will also prevent children born out of wedlock – and even those who have been adopted – from being counted as legitimate heirs.

Anyone married in a church, or in a civil ceremony, could be excluded from succession under Sharia principles, which recognise only Muslim weddings for inheritance purposes.

Nicholas Fluck, president of The Law Society, said the guidance would promote “good practice” in applying Islamic principles in the British legal system.

Some lawyers, however, described the guidance as “astonishing”, while campaigners warned it represented a major step on the road to a “parallel legal system” for Britain’s Muslim communities.

Baroness Cox, a cross-bench peer leading a Parliamentary campaign to protect women from religiously sanctioned discrimination, including from unofficial Sharia courts in Britain, said it was a “deeply disturbing” development and pledged to raise it with ministers.

Baroness Cox has said:

“Everyone has freedom to make their own will and everyone has freedom to let those wills reflect their religious beliefs. But to have an organization such as The Law Society seeming to promote or encourage a policy which is inherently gender discriminatory in a way which will have very serious implications for women and possibly for children is a matter of deep concern,” she said.

[Marocc]

They're allowed to decide regarding their property?

[scribblet]

7 hours ago, Marocc said:

They're allowed to decide regarding their property?

It doesn't say.   However, I found this later in 2014; the Law Society has withdrawn it and apologized after criticism, and rightly so.   I was wondering if anyone would take it to the Supreme Court.  It's pretty shocking that thought it was a good idea to disenfranchise women and send them back to the middle ages.    Sharia Tribunals still operate in the U.K.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11250643/Sharia-law-guidelines-abandoned-as-Law-Society-apologises.html

 

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, scribblet said:

Sharia Tribunals still operate in the U.K.

Don't these have to operate according to UK laws, that is they're not allowed to contravene British law - no stoning allowed?

You almost make it sound like UK law forces Muslim women into these tribunals. 

Edited January 31, 2020 by eyeball

[Marocc]

3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Don't these have to operate according to UK laws, that is they're not allowed to contravene British law

They cannot break the law of Britain, but other than that they are free to judge according to Islam.

Likewise, a Muslim needs to obey the laws of the land he is on, but only in the sense that he cannot do something prohibited by the law, while he can do something that isn't required by the law.

As anyone in Britain can leave someone out of their testament or decide what to leave and to whom, Muslims can do this as well. If they choose to do as Islam requires, that's fine from the side of the Law in UK.

 

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Don't these have to operate according to UK laws, that is they're not allowed to contravene British law - no stoning allowed?

You almost make it sound like UK law forces Muslim women into these tribunals. 

Yes, but you almost make it sound as though no-one is influenced by peers and family members to act in a way that isn't in their best interests.

I was just reading an article from the BBC about FGM in Egypt.  That country made it illegal in 2008, bless them, but around 50% of Egyptians still feel it is religious requirement.

They just arrested the parents of a child who died during the procedure.  As far as I know, no-one forced the parents to do this.  The child, on the other hand...

[eyeball]

11 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Yes, but you almost make it sound as though no-one is influenced by peers and family members to act in a way that isn't in their best interests.

I was just reading an article from the BBC about FGM in Egypt.  That country made it illegal in 2008, bless them, but around 50% of Egyptians still feel it is religious requirement.

They just arrested the parents of a child who died during the procedure.  As far as I know, no-one forced the parents to do this.  The child, on the other hand...

You almost make it sound as if the UK is just like Egypt.

Pretty typical of the mindset of people who write off hundreds of millions of human beings due to the ignorance of one or two individuals.

I mean look at women, they're still paying for that stupid twit who wouldn't do as she was told back in Eden.

[Guest]

Just now, eyeball said:

You almost make it sound as if the UK is just like Egypt.

Pretty typical of the mindset of people who write off hundreds of millions of human beings due to the ignorance of one or two individuals.

I mean look at women, they're still paying for that stupid twit who wouldn't do as she was told back in Eden.

No I don't.  Good try though!

My point, obviously, is that religious laws that do not jibe with secular laws will be not necessarily be ignored when peer and family pressure is brought to bear.

[dialamah]

22 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Yes, but you almost make it sound as though no-one is influenced by peers and family members to act in a way that isn't in their best interests.

I was just reading an article from the BBC about FGM in Egypt.  That country made it illegal in 2008, bless them, but around 50% of Egyptians still feel it is religious requirement.

Used to be upwards of 90% of Egyptians believed FGM was a religious requirement (Coptic Christians and other non-Muslims included).   Its good to see that education and laws are having seen effect. 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Used to be upwards of 90% of Egyptians believed FGM was a religious requirement (Coptic Christians and other non-Muslims included).   Its good to see that education and laws are having seen effect. 

Yes, I understand there is a grey area between religions and cultural ideas when it comes to FGM

Just as there is with religious laws.  The discussion above is regarding Sharia, but I'm sure the same discussion could be had about J-dubs,  Mormons, and Witch Doctors, to name but a few.

[dialamah]

24 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

My point, obviously, is that religious laws that do not jibe with secular laws will be not necessarily be ignored when peer and family pressure is brought to bear.

Fortumately for women living in the UK (and other Western countries), any social pressure brought to bear can be at least somewhat offset by the knowledge that they have options.

 

[eyeball]

37 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

No I don't.  Good try though!

Yes you do. We were talking about Muslims in the UK one minute and then you switched to Muslims in Egypt. 

Your attempt to backpedal here is feeble.

Edited January 31, 2020 by eyeball

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Fortumately for women living in the UK (and other Western countries), any social pressure brought to bear can be at least somewhat offset by the knowledge that they have options.

 

Perhaps.  I would not allow those conditions to exist that would force them to make those kind of choices, but that's just me.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

Yes you do. We were talking about Muslims in the UK one minute and then you switch to Muslims in Egypt.

Your attempt to

You got so excited you forgot to finish!

[DogOnPorch]

7 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Fortumately for women living in the UK (and other Western countries), any social pressure brought to bear can be at least somewhat offset by the knowledge that they have options.

 

 

You do realize that saying FGM isn't the problem it used to be is Trump Jr's Skittles argument in reverse?

And options? Haven't girls been killed for daring to step outside what Islam...and Daddy...prescribe?

To me, this says we should be accepting these few casualties...part of the diverse fun.

Are you saying that?

Edited January 31, 2020 by DogOnPorch

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Yes you do. We were talking about Muslims in the UK one minute and then you switched to Muslims in Egypt. 

Your attempt to backpedal here is feeble.

It's not a backpedal.  I'm always amused (actually, irritated, but what the hell) when people bring up backpedalling instead of arguing a point.

Notwithstanding my using Egypt as an example of where laws that do not agree with religious beliefs can be ignored, do you disagree with my argument?

Edited January 31, 2020 by bcsapper

[eyeball]

5 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

It's not a backpedal.  I'm always amused (actually, irritated, but what the hell) when people bring up backpedalling instead of arguing a point.

Notwithstanding my using Egypt as an example of where laws that do not agree with religious beliefs can be ignored, do you disagree with my argument?

That Muslims are all the same? Of course I disagree with it.