This week in Islam

[dialamah]

18 minutes ago, scribblet said:

The article from the Toronto Sun explains it but no mention of Sharia Law, neither have I mentioned it.   

You said, in your status update:

it's another to push the religion.  Considering the CBC and the Star are trying to normalize Sharia via their recent articles one has to wonder what we are being softened up for.

 

[scribblet]

1 minute ago, dialamah said:

You said, in your status update:

it's another to push the religion.  Considering the CBC and the Star are trying to normalize Sharia via their recent articles one has to wonder what we are being softened up for.

 

Okay...  but the CBC and the Star published articles with the CBC saying Shariah and rules that govern religious practices in other faiths are not to be feared...   The MSM is failing us by omitting pertinent information.   They might not be feared when practiced in another country because they don't apply to us, but as the demographics change there will be more demands for aspects of Sharia so we should be afraid.   One decision that Dalton McGuinty made was the right one.  While this was only about family matters it was just a foot in the door.

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/2010/09/14/one_law_for_all_ontarians.html

McGuinty’s declaration ended a heated 20-month controversy sparked by Toronto lawyer Syed Mumtaz Ali’s 2004 announcement that an “Islamic Institute of Civil Justice” would shortly begin arbitrating family matters on the basis of sharia law, accompanied by a warning that Muslims who did not submit cases to Islamic arbitration panels were not “good Muslims.”

 

 

[dialamah]

I choose not to be afraid and to believe those Muslims who tell us they believe in following the laws of the country they live in, they are proud of Canada as is, and have no desire to make Sharia law part if Canadian law.  Those Muslims don't make the news of course.  

[Guest]

Just now, dialamah said:

I choose not to be afraid and to believe those Muslims who tell us they believe in following the laws of the country they live in, they are proud of Canada as is, and have no desire to make Sharia law part if Canadian law.  Those Muslims don't make the news of course.  

Me too.  They don't need to make the news because no-one who actually does nothing to make the news ever does.

I also choose not to be afraid to acknowledge the truth about anyone, not matter how objectionable it might be to some.

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

They don't need to make the news ...

I also choose not to be afraid to acknowledge the truth ...

The news is not truth or falsehood... it's a story from a perspective.  

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

The news is not truth or falsehood... it's a story from a perspective.  

Sure, and I didn't kill anyone today.  It's not on the CBC yet, but give it time, I guess.

 

Edit>  the two lines were not meant to be connected.  That's why I put them on different lines.

Edited October 1, 2017 by bcsapper

[dialamah]

20 minutes ago, scribblet said:

Okay...  but the CBC and the Star published articles with the CBC saying Shariah and rules that govern religious practices in other faiths are not to be feared...   The MSM is failing us by omitting pertinent information.   They might not be feared when practiced in another country because they don't apply to us, but as the demographics change there will be more demands for aspects of Sharia so we should be afraid.   One decision that Dalton McGuinty made was the right one.  While this was only about family matters it was just a foot in the door.

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/2010/09/14/one_law_for_all_ontarians.html

McGuinty’s declaration ended a heated 20-month controversy sparked by Toronto lawyer Syed Mumtaz Ali’s 2004 announcement that an “Islamic Institute of Civil Justice” would shortly begin arbitrating family matters on the basis of sharia law, accompanied by a warning that Muslims who did not submit cases to Islamic arbitration panels were not “good Muslims.”

 

 

Was the end result of this the elimination of similar Catholic and Jewish panels overseeing their adherent's family matters?  Isn't this just example another example of how unfounded fear removes freedoms for everyone,  while doing absolutely nothing to make us safer?

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ontario-bill-bans-faith-based-tribunals/article1131070/%3Fservice=amp#ampshare=https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ontario-bill-bans-faith-based-tribunals/article1131070/

[dialamah]

2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Sure, and I didn't kill anyone today.  It's not on the CBC yet, but give it time, I guess.

You do seem inclined to believe that the news defines "normal" more than lack of news does.

[Guest]

Just now, dialamah said:

You do seem inclined to believe that the news defines "normal" more than lack of news does.

No, I seem inclined to believe that normal doesn't make the news.  Why would it?

[dialamah]

7 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

No, I seem inclined to believe that normal doesn't make the news.  Why would it?

If you didn't think the news defined 'normal' you wouldn't make asinine statements defending the hysteria of Islamophobes.

[Guest]

Just now, dialamah said:

If you didn't think the news defined 'normal' you wouldn't make asinine statements defending the hysteria of Islamophobes.

Good point.  That's why I don't.

[dialamah]

2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Good point.  That's why I don't.

You sure don't waste any effort disputing them or even trying to support facts instead of their hysteria.  Instead, you criticize those who aren't succumbing to hysteria. 

[Guest]

Just now, dialamah said:

You sure don't waste any effort disputing them or even trying to support facts instead of their hysteria.  Instead, you criticize those who aren't succumbing to hysteria. 

No I don't.  I just criticize those who use the whole "more people have been killed by lightning" BS as a justified response to murder or attempted murder. 

[dialamah]

3 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

No I don't.  I just criticize those who use the whole "more people have been killed by lightning" BS as a justified response to murder or attempted murder. 

That is a response to the hysteria of "we are all gonna die from terrorism"; its not justifying murder.  But of course you decide an attempt at a realistic perspective is stupid and attack that.  Good on you, supporting hysteria.

[Guest]

Just now, dialamah said:

That is a response to the hysteria of "we are all gonna die from terrorism"; its not justifying murder.  But of course you decide an attempt at a realistic perspective is stupid and attack that.  Good on you, supporting hysteria.

It doesn't matter how many times you say it, it doesn't make it true.  My posts are my own.  The notion that more people are killed by lightning, falling pianos, etc is an appropriate response to terrorism, is cowardice, in my opinion.

 

[Goddess]

12 minutes ago, dialamah said:

That is a response to the hysteria of "we are all gonna die from terrorism"; its not justifying murder.  But of course you decide an attempt at a realistic perspective is stupid and attack that.  Good on you, supporting hysteria.

You always frame it as a black/white, one extreme or the other thing. Either people are "hysterical" and saying "were ALL going to die from terrorism"  or we go to your extreme - ignore what's going on in Islam and humbly and meekly accept casualties as a part of doing business with Islam.

There is no in between for you.

[dialamah]

1 minute ago, Goddess said:

You always frame it as a black/white, one extreme or the other thing. Either people are "hysterical" and saying "were ALL going to die from terrorism"  or we go to your extreme - ignore what's going on in Islam and humbly and meekly accept casualties as a part of doing business with Islam.

There is no in between for you.

Yeah there is, but not when I am faced with someone who has had a couple of bad interactions with war-traumatized Muslims tells me, who has had many great interactions with dozens of Muslims, that my experience is atypical and theirs is typical.

There is no in-between for people who insist that Sharia law is coming, or who cherry pick verses from the quran to "prove" all Muslims are or will be violent, but deny the validity of those Muslims who are peaceful because of what the koran teaches.

 

[Goddess]

14 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Yeah there is, but not when I am faced with someone who has had a couple of bad interactions with war-traumatized Muslims tells me, who has had many great interactions with dozens of Muslims, that my experience is atypical and theirs is typical.

There is no in-between for people who insist that Sharia law is coming, or who cherry pick verses from the quran to "prove" all Muslims are or will be violent, but deny the validity of those Muslims who are peaceful because of what the koran teaches.

 

Yes, some people have trouble distinguishing between bad Muslims and good Muslims. Including you. 

[dialamah]

3 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Yes, some people have trouble distinguishing between bad Muslims and good Muslims. Including you. 

I distinguish between good and bad people.  

[DogOnPorch]

17 minutes ago, dialamah said:

I distinguish between good and bad people.  

 

Oskar Schindler was a good Nazi.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

Good point.  That's why I don't.

Her definition of Islamophobia probably goes well beyond what the Toronto District School Board came up with...

[betsy]

20 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

The news is not truth or falsehood... it's a story from a perspective.  

Not when the news media give the basic FACTS:

WHO

WHEN

WHERE

 

As to why, unless the perp gives his motive, "if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck.....it's a blasted duck!"

 

 

 

Edited October 2, 2017 by betsy

[dialamah]

19 hours ago, Argus said:

Her definition of Islamophobia probably goes well beyond what the Toronto District School Board came up with...

I've posted my definition a few times.   

By the way, you still haven't answered a question I asked a few days back.  Here is the conversation, from Sept 22, Pages 262-263, to jog your memory:

Me:  19 wounded and 6 dead Muslims demonstrate that [Islamophobia exists] never mind the fact that reported hate crimes against Muslims has risen over 250% in 4 years.

Argus:  Your complaint of a rise in hate crimes is without merit. People are reacting to outsiders and the news. Virtually all such 'hate crimes' are minor in nature, and consist of verbal abuse or vandalism.  

Me:  Even when those crimes are directed against Jews?   

Argus:  The biggest threat against Jews is Muslims.

Me:   Do you have some facts to back that up?  As far as I have been able to determine, white nationalists are usually the culprits when it comes to Jews, Blacks and now, Muslims.  In 2015, hate crimes against Jews declined over the previous year and increased against Muslims; that seems odd if Muslims are the biggest threat to Jews.   

Anyway, if the crimes against Jews and Muslims are similar in both type and number (178 to 159) should they also be dismissed as minor? 

 

 

[Michael Hardner]

On 10/1/2017 at 1:27 PM, Michael Hardner said:

 The TDSB is covering its ass with an overreaching policy that they can't even enforce, and probably wouldn't in most cases.

@bcsapper 

Update:  TDSB will be changing the definition of Islamophobia.

http://toronto.citynews.ca/2017/10/02/definition-islamophobia-broad-lead-staff-student-punishment-bnai-brith/

"TDSB chair Robin Pilkey said in a letter to the group that the updated guide will reflect the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s definition of Islamophobia, which makes no reference to politics."

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

@bcsapper 

Update:  TDSB will be changing the definition of Islamophobia.

http://toronto.citynews.ca/2017/10/02/definition-islamophobia-broad-lead-staff-student-punishment-bnai-brith/

"TDSB chair Robin Pilkey said in a letter to the group that the updated guide will reflect the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s definition of Islamophobia, which makes no reference to politics."

Thank you for the update.  I really think it is still far too broad, but that would depend on what they were going to do about it.  If they were not going to punish it, they can call it what they want. 

Edited October 3, 2017 by bcsapper