This week in Islam

[DogOnPorch]

45 minutes ago, dialamah said:

I'd keep intolerant folks like both you and Marocc out.  As far as I'm concerned, you guys are two sides of the same coin.

 

You can't keep me out, immigrant. 

[dialamah]

3 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

You can't keep me out, immigrant. 

Well, fourth generation immigrant, but yeah.

I guess you are Indigenuous then, not Black as I had previously surmised. 

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, dialamah said:

Well, fourth generation immigrant, but yeah.

I guess you are Indigenuous then, not Black as I had previously surmised. 

 

What colour am I, racist?

[dialamah]

2 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

What colour am I, racist?

You just make me laugh with your desperate attempts to offend.  

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, dialamah said:

You just make me laugh with your desperate attempts to offend.  

 

I accept you have no clue and certainly no business telling me to leave Canada.

What colour am I, racist? You can't figure it out...but you desperately wish to put me into one of your boxes.

So keep sucking-up to Islam...you've been judged and found wanting by me.

[dialamah]

1 minute ago, DogOnPorch said:

you've been judged and found wanting by me.

Oooohhhhh ... scary!   

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, dialamah said:

Oooohhhhh ... scary!   

 

Be sure to wear knee pads.

[Marocc]

2 hours ago, bcsapper said:

It is entirely unacceptable to impose your religion upon someone else.  Indecent then.

But I don't do that.

3 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Would you suggest all immigrants from Muslim societies should conform with generally accepted standards of respectable or moral behavior in the countries they move to? 

You think your generally accepted standards of morality are respectable? Canada needs a mirror — bad. No, I don't think it okay for you to brainwash little children to be the way you prefer just because they're from an immigrating family.

3 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Hell, in France that could mean adultery.

A Canadian claiming moral high ground. "I support abortion, sodomy, alcohol, fornication, hate speech, libel and for children to be allowed to choose their gender before they're allowed to choose their bedtime — but adultery, well, I haven't seen anyone do it so...let's just say it's immoral."

[Guest]

33 minutes ago, Marocc said:

But I don't do that.

You think your generally accepted standards of morality are respectable? Canada needs a mirror — bad. No, I don't think it okay for you to brainwash little children to be the way you prefer just because they're from an immigrating family.

A Canadian claiming moral high ground. "I support abortion, sodomy, alcohol, fornication, hate speech, libel and for children to be allowed to choose their gender before they're allowed to choose their bedtime — but adultery, well, I haven't seen anyone do it so...let's just say it's immoral."

You support those who do.

You think that someone who has their head cut off for showing school children a cartoon brought their fate upon themselves.  You are not respectable.

Your view of immigrant families shows that you don't meet your own posted definition of decency, either.

I don't support all freedom of choice for children.  I think they should be able to choose not to be married if they don't want to be, though.

Adultery is a choice between two or more adults.  Morally you might not like it.  I might not either.  Neither of us has a say if someone else decides to make that choice.

Edited November 5, 2020 by bcsapper

[dialamah]

26 minutes ago, Marocc said:

A Canadian claiming moral high ground. "I support abortion, sodomy, alcohol, fornication, hate speech, libel and for

Aside from generalizing Canadians, this demonstrates that you do not understand the concept of personal freedoms.

29 minutes ago, Marocc said:

for children to be allowed to choose their gender before they're allowed to choose their bedtime

BTW, very few Canadians or medical professionals support "children to be allowed to choose their gender before they're allowed to choose their bedtime".  That's an extremist viewpoint used by anti-transgender people to fool gullible folks into thinking children are regularly being allowed or encouraged to change their gender.  It's kinda the same method used by Islamophobes to persuade others that Muslims are bloodthirsty barbarians just waiting to behead non-believers.

[Marocc]

27 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

You support those who do.

Who?

28 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

You think that someone who has their head cut off for showing school children a cartoon brought their fate upon themselves.

Actually, I never said that. What I said was that the action was foolish.

29 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Your view of immigrant families shows that you don't meet your own posted definition of decency, either.

What is my view of immigrant families and why does it make me indecent? I didn't post my own definition of decency... I linked to a dictionary.

30 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I don't support all freedom of choice for children.

How remarkably irrelevant.

30 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I think they should be able to choose not to be married if they don't want to be, though.

I suppose you think Islam doesn't allow that, for 10 years you haven't bothered to find out and now you think you sound smart.

32 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Neither of us has a say if someone else decides to make that choice.

Also known as free will — not created by secularism..

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, Marocc said:

Who?

Actually, I never said that. What I said was that the action was foolish.

What is my view of immigrant families and why does it make me indecent? I didn't post my own definition of decency... I linked to a dictionary.

How remarkably irrelevant.

I suppose you think Islam doesn't allow that, for 10 years you haven't bothered to find out and now you think you sound smart.

Also known as free will — not created by secularism..

We can solve the first point with some basic language.  I do not believe that anyone from any religion has any right to dictate to anyone else regarding any kind of behaviour based on their religious beliefs.  I believe they have the right to apply their religious beliefs to their own behaviour, within the confines of the law.  (Opinion of the law notwithstanding)

Would you agree with that?

Your dictionary definition of decency included "Conformity to prevailing standards of propriety or modesty".  Should a family emigrating to France from Pakistan conform or not?

You brought up a child's rights, not me.  Your views of such are indicated by your use of the word "brainwashing".  Hysterical.

I don't know what you mean in your second to last sentence.

Free will isn't created by anyone or anything.  It can only be denied.

Edited November 5, 2020 by bcsapper

[scribblet]

Finally, they are taking some action, Austria will make it a criminal offense to spread 'political Islam' following Islamic extremist's terror attack last week’    Too little too late IMO, but I guess it's a start.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8938455/Austria-make-criminal-offence-spread-political-Islam-Vienna-terror-attack.html
Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz's cabinet today agreed on a wide range of anti-terrorism measures meant to plug perceived security flaws identified after a deadly attack by an Islamic extremist in Vienna last week.The proposals include the ability to keep individuals convicted of terror offences behind bars for life, electronic surveillance of people convicted of terror-related offenses upon release and criminalizing religiously motivated political extremism.Kurz said the measures, which will be brought before parliament in December for a vote, take a two-pronged approach, targeting both terror suspects and also the ideology that drives them.

[Marocc]

On 11/14/2020 at 6:17 PM, scribblet said:

Finally, they are taking some action, Austria will make it a criminal offense to

It says:

On 11/14/2020 at 6:17 PM, scribblet said:

Kurz said the measures, which will be brought before parliament in December for a vote

EU is not that prone to discrimination. Macron is there doing his best of course, but he has his opponents there doing their best. Let's just pay attention to what Macron's choices have led to in the past, the distant past as well as the near past.

[dialamah]

On 11/14/2020 at 8:17 AM, scribblet said:

criminalizing religiously motivated political extremism

Why wouldn't all political extremism be criminalized?  Why specifically 'religiously motivated'?  That doesn't make any sense to me.

[Guest]

50 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Why wouldn't all political extremism be criminalized?  Why specifically 'religiously motivated'?  That doesn't make any sense to me.

I don't think one can be a Nazi in Austria at the moment.  Ask David Irving.

Perhaps they are just catching up with Islam.

[dialamah]

3 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I don't think one can be a Nazi in Austria at the moment.  Ask David Irving.

Perhaps they are just catching up with Islam.

There's other kinds of extremism besides Islam and Nazi.  Your comment makes no sense. 

[Guest]

Just now, dialamah said:

There's other kinds of extremism besides Islam and Nazi.  Your comment makes no sense. 

It does.  It makes a lot of sense. The Austrians banned Nazi activity because of their history and the potential for future violence from Nazis if they were allowed to regroup after the war. 

Now they are talking about (it's not done yet, so we'll see) banning Islamic extremism because of their history and the potential for future violence from Muslims if they were allowed to continue without any kind of restriction.

I'm sure if they perceive any other political/religious threat to be worthy of legal restraint they will act on those too.

(I should add, I am against any form of sanction for Holocaust denial, as in my David Irving example,  so I would be against any restriction on the freedom of speech of Muslims too.  As long as such contained no incitement to violence of any kind.  It doesn't bother me if Muslims tell me I'm a Kafir who is going to hell)

[dialamah]

10 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

It does.  It makes a lot of sense. The Austrians banned Nazi activity because of their history and the potential for future violence from Nazis if they were allowed to regroup after the war. 

Now they are talking about (it's not done yet, so we'll see) banning Islamic extremism because of their history and the potential for future violence from Muslims if they were allowed to continue without any kind of restriction.

I'm sure if they perceive any other political/religious threat to be worthy of legal restraint they will act on those too.

(I should add, I am against any form of sanction for Holocaust denial, as in my David Irving example,  so I would be against any restriction on the freedom of speech of Muslims too.  As long as such contained no incitement to violence of any kind.  It doesn't bother me if Muslims tell me I'm a Kafir who is going to hell)

Thanks for explaining.  

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Thanks for explaining.  

Stop that at once!  It's very disarming...

[Argus]

France is going to require Muslim leaders sign a "republican" charter. Unfortunately I have no doubt socks boy would react in horror and indignation at the thought of us doing this over here.

"Two principles will be inscribed in black and white [in the charter]: the rejection of political Islam and any foreign interference," one source told the Le Parisien newspaper after the meeting.

The CFCM representatives also agreed to create a National Council of Imams, The body would reportedly issue imams with official accreditation which could be withdrawn if an ethical code is breached.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-55001167

[Guest]

44 minutes ago, Argus said:

France is going to require Muslim leaders sign a "republican" charter. Unfortunately I have no doubt socks boy would react in horror and indignation at the thought of us doing this over here.

 

I could never understand what he had against the "barbaric cultural practices" idea. 

Let's face it, if a cultural practice is barbaric, what's wrong with telling people they won't be allowed to continue doing it if they want to live here.

I wouldn't have minded being told that when I arrived.

Edited November 19, 2020 by bcsapper

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

I could never understand what he had against the "barbaric cultural practices" idea. 

Let's face it, if a cultural practice is barbaric, what's wrong with telling people they won't be allowed to continue doing it if they want to live here.

I wouldn't have minded being told that when I arrived.

 

Islam has a mandate...world domination. Allah ordains it. You're not going to get Islam to stop except the ol' Charles Martel way.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Islam has a mandate...world domination. Allah ordains it. You're not going to get Islam to stop except the ol' Charles Martel way.

I know, they could always lie.  But at least then they could be deported without appeal.  It could be written into the document they signed coming in.

Of course, barbaric cultural practices are not restricted to Islam.  It should be made clear to everyone that they won't be tolerated, for fear of going home on the next flight.

Edited November 19, 2020 by bcsapper

[Argus]

10 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I know, they could always lie.  But at least then they could be deported without appeal.  It could be written into the document they signed coming in.

Of course, barbaric cultural practices are not restricted to Islam.  It should be made clear to everyone that they won't be tolerated, for fear of going home on the next flight.

The Liberals, the NDP, and the media have long made it clear that ANY criticism of any aspect of a minority ethnic, cultural, religious or ethnic group is racism akin to Adolph Hitler. As is any suggestion that an immigrant can be deported for any reason.