What unites Canadians?

[Michael Hardner]

That is entirely dependant upon what you believe is reasonable and what someone else believes is reasonable.

I don't care what other people think is reasonable. I'm saying reasonable people, ie. "us", don't need to pay attention to these books.

One of the issues I have with regard to Islam is not just that their books are 'objectionable', which they are, but that unlike in Christian countries, they are taken as Gods own words.

This is so tedious. You have made that point so many times in the past that I was just waiting for you to make it here.

We're not learning anything new from this. This is why I don't think we need to discuss this part of the topic.

So where is the case for having millions more believers in this religion coming to Canada again?

You are the one who has to make the case that the religion is actually something that causes this objectionable behavior, rather than just a common aspect that you have picked out as joining a set of people together.

Again, it's your values driving this not some kind of objective facts.

[-1=e^ipi]

The Holy Books largely have the same type of objectionable content, so I don't see why we need to discuss them. Reasonable people know that they're just ancient stories.

1. Holy Books are different. Different holy books encourage different things. This relativist nonsense of all religions being the same is untrue and leads to incorrect conclusions.

2. It doesn't matter so much whether to Holy Books are true or not, as it does whether people believe in them and act on those beliefs. If someone thinks that god told them that homosexuals should be killed (for example), then the person might act on that belief.

3. You seriously still don't want to discuss religious texts when discussing immigration or foreign policy issues? Seriously? The discussion won't go anywhere with that close minded attitude...

Here is a 10 minute video that is fairly informative and non-biased video on the basics of Islam (though the part on zakat is a bit inaccurate). Please at least get yourself to this level of knowledge.

[-1=e^ipi]

None explicitly condone or encourage hate or social turmoil. It is the bigoted zealot who interprets the writings to rationalize a dark and negative agenda which those uneducated seekers of answers misinterpret as divine directions.

Completely untrue. There are numerous examples in many religions that condone or encourage hate or social turmoil. Some examples include the killing of apostates, homosexuals and people that commit adultery under Islam.

Do you just accept this social relativist position as truth but never actually challenge it with evidence? One big problem with western policy with respect to Islam is that the vast majority of politicians hold positions that are not justified and they never bother to actually learn about Islam or other religions to test their hypotheses.

[Boges]

One big problem with western policy with respect to Islam is that the vast majority of politicians hold positions that are not justified and they never bother to actually learn about Islam or other religions to test their hypotheses.

Like? Though it's clear that there are many different types of Islam, it's completely acceptable for people in the west to discriminate those that advocate for Sharia Law.

Also it's clear that many of the things about the Muslim world that people in the West find objectionable are ethnic and cultural and not related to what's found in the Quran.

[-1=e^ipi]

Thus while adultery is not a crime in the West, it is still punishable by death or imprisonment throughout the Muslim world, as is sex outside of marriage, as is homosexuality. And the superiority of man over woman, which is detailed in the Koran, remains in place throughout society and culture in the Muslim world. Women are sort of a lower life form, one to be taken care of by men, but also a dangerous life form which tempts men into immorality. That's why they must be made to cover themselves, and be beaten or killed when they engage in prohibited sexual conduct or behaviour.

Not entirely true. Adultery and homosexuality are punishable by death, that is true (adulterers get stoned to death, I think homosexuality is death by beheading, or is that apostasy). Sex outside outside of marriage receives 100 lashes. In all these cases, 4 witnesses are required to convict them (though someone can be a witness to themselves 4 times, if that makes any sense). Apostasy also has the death penalty.

Superiority of man over women is very inaccurate and certainly isn't close the psychology of devout Muslim women (and by this I mean non-moderate in the western sense). It is true that in trials the testimony of a women should count for half of that of a man and that menstruating women cannot pray, but that doesn't mean that males are superior to females in Islam. Rather they are different. The psychology of a devout Muslim women is that she is submitting herself to Allah's will and following his instructions on how to lead pious and Islamic life in order to avoid hellfire. Covering herself in a hijab or burka is 'empowering' and shows that she is more pious and devoted to Allah than the 'sluts' that do not cover themselves up.

Muslims, however, and I realize I'm generalizing, DO indeed believe the Koran is the literal word of God.

Qur'an

For Muslims, the Qur'an is the eternal and indisputable word of God. The oldest and most sacred text of Islam, it is the cornerstone of every believer's faith and morality http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t243/e275

This concept is probably too difficult for the western cultural relativists to understand since according to them 'all religions are the same'. So if Christians or Jews do not have to take their holy books literally, Islam must be exactly the same, right?

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, to be fair, the penalty for buggery in Christian Canada use to be DEATH as well.

[-1=e^ipi]

I don't care what other people think is reasonable. I'm saying reasonable people, ie. "us", don't need to pay attention to these books.

You aren't being reasonable because you refuse to look at what Islam actually tells people to do and believe.

[Big Guy]

...

“Muhammad is God’s apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another.” Quran 48:29

Etcetera...

The problem with ancient translated religious documents is that they are widely open to interpretation. The interpretation will vary with the view of the interpreter. We have seen scholars of the Bible disagree vehemently about the meaning of certain sections. We have seen Christians using the bible as an excuse for violence from the Crusades to blowing up government buildings. We have seen Rabbis strongly disagreeing with certain parts of the Talmud. We see illiterate religious zealots using the Koran as an excuse for violence to satisfy a political agenda.

I do not know of an established religion which encourages the physical destruction of members of other religions. I do not believe such a religious dogma would withstand the test of time.

"Non believers are damned and crushed underfoot by the ultimate keeper of the Truth and his disciples."

I just made that up. Does this statement mean that those do not believe in that religion will not go to heaven and be rejected by the Supreme Being? Or does it mean that non-believers are bad people and that they should be killed by the followers of the faith?

There are volumes and volumes written on religious faith and interpretations of the writings of that faith. It will certainly not be settled here or elsewhere as long as people have preconceived views of specific religions and assign values to them.

There is nothing here or elsewhere for me to change my attitude.

[-1=e^ipi]

Also it's clear that many of the things about the Muslim world that people in the West find objectionable are ethnic and cultural and not related to what's found in the Quran.

Somewhat true. The Burka for example is not required in Islam and is cultural. But there are some things such as death for homosexuality which are rooted in Islam.

[-1=e^ipi]

Well, to be fair, the penalty for buggery in Christian Canada use to be DEATH as well.

True. But Christianity has this loophole that allows Christians to not take the bible literally since it cannot be considered the direct word of god. This loophole does not exist in Islam. The Quran is the direct word of god through the prophet Mohammed.

[bush_cheney2004]

True. But Christianity has this loophole that allows Christians to not take the bible literally since it cannot be considered the direct word of god. This loophole does not exist in Islam. The Quran is the direct word of god through the prophet Mohammed.

Agreed, but there are Christian "sects" that do indeed take the Bible "literally". Others mix "literally" with "faithfully", preserving the metaphors for their belief system. This is why snakes still get a raw deal in some places !

The historical problem with completely condemning historical Islam (literal or not), is that some of those cultures actually advanced or preserved human development while the Christians languished in the religious and cultural dark ages.

[-1=e^ipi]

The problem with ancient translated religious documents is that they are widely open to interpretation. The interpretation will vary with the view of the interpreter. We have seen scholars of the Bible disagree vehemently about the meaning of certain sections. We have seen Christians using the bible as an excuse for violence from the Crusades to blowing up government buildings. We have seen Rabbis strongly disagreeing with certain parts of the Talmud. We see illiterate religious zealots using the Koran as an excuse for violence to satisfy a political agenda.

Stop trying to equate the Qu'ran with the bible. It is inaccurate. Islam is very different. It isn't written in the context of parables, it isn't written from the view of 3rd parties a century later then retranslated many times. It contains the revelations from Allah to Mohammed. It is the direct word of god, recited in Arabic and written in Arabic. Can there be a slight mistranslation from Arabic to English? Yes, that is why there are many versions of the Quran in English. However, almost all of them have bilingual (in Arabic and English) and insist on the importance of the reader understanding that the Quran can only be truely understood in Arabic. Furthermore, the Quran and other Islamic Holy books will often adopt arabic words into English when no good English word exists.

It is also important to understand that the Quran insists in many places that it is perfectly clear, and it has a system of abrogation to deal with 2 verses that may seem inconsistent. Other religions do not have this abrogation trait.

I do not know of an established religion which encourages the physical destruction of members of other religions. I do not believe such a religious dogma would withstand the test of time.

Physical destruction of members of other religions? no (at least no major religions at this time). Physical destruction of people that convert away from a religion? yes. Obviously the former would not stand the test of time because such a religion would not be able to spread if it kills potential converts. But the latter on the other hand can be very good at spreading.

There is nothing here or elsewhere for me to change my attitude.

Nothing here or elsewhere? So you know all evidence and nothing can change your mind? How very close minded of you.

[Big Guy]

...

Nothing here or elsewhere? So you know all evidence and nothing can change your mind? How very close minded of you.

For me, the mere fact that any religion survives through time and increases its membership gives it the credence of human acceptance and consequently establishes its pacificity. I believe that humans are generally a gentle species who would not consciously be attracted to something that promotes violence and chaos.

There are members of all religions who believe that theirs is the only "truth" and all others are wrong. I am not one of those people.

[-1=e^ipi]

For me, the mere fact that any religion survives through time and increases its membership gives it the credence of human acceptance and consequently establishes its pacificity. I believe that humans are generally a gentle species who would not consciously be attracted to something that promotes violence and chaos.

This is nonsense. Aggressive religions that prosecute disbelievers can be successful since they incentivize people to convert.

And humans being a gentle species is not rooted in reality or evolutionary history, regardless of how much you want to believe it. Humans commit war, commit crime, hunt other animals, etc. We are the first species to evolve high level intelligence and are capable of both bad and good. Under the right circumstances, can be attracted to something that promotes violence and chaos.

Not sure how one can call 1400 years of islamic jihad and conquest 'passive' or 'gentle'.

Edited July 8, 2014 by -1=e^ipi

[Big Guy]

This is nonsense. Aggressive religions that prosecute disbelievers can be successful since they incentivize people to convert.

And humans being a gentle species is not rooted in reality or evolutionary history, regardless of how much you want to believe it. Humans commit war, commit crime, hunt other animals, etc. We are the first species to evolve high level intelligence and are capable of both bad and good. Under the right circumstances, can be attracted to something that promotes violence and chaos.

Not sure how one can call 1400 years of islamic jihad and conquest 'passive' or 'gentle'.

It appears that we disagree on the basic nature of humans. So be it - but I would not dismiss any of your views as "nonsense".

[Argus]

I don't care what other people think is reasonable. I'm saying reasonable people, ie. "us", don't need to pay attention to these books.

That is a ludicrous response. It's not US who is interpreting Muslim holy books. To suggest our interpretation matters and theirs doesn't is utterly absurd.

This is so tedious. You have made that point so many times in the past that I was just waiting for you to make it here.

And yet, if I've made it so many times, you still haven't had anything to come back with but to whine that I've made it too many times.

You are the one who has to make the case that the religion is actually something that causes this objectionable behavior, rather than just a common aspect that you have picked out as joining a set of people together.

Again, it's your values driving this not some kind of objective facts.

No, it's YOUR values which get angry whenever anyone accuses Islam of anything problematic. I posted actual information, and your response was a snotty "I've seen this". No kind of actual thought behind it, no coherent response, just a sulky complaint that I posted something you don't like -- but can't respond to with anything remotely like an intelligent disagreement.

Edited July 8, 2014 by Argus

[Argus]

Superiority of man over women is very inaccurate and certainly isn't close the psychology of devout Muslim women (and by this I mean non-moderate in the western sense). It is true that in trials the testimony of a women should count for half of that of a man and that menstruating women cannot pray, but that doesn't mean that males are superior to females in Islam. Rather they are different. The psychology of a devout Muslim women is that she is submitting herself to Allah's will and following his instructions on how to lead pious and Islamic life in order to avoid hellfire. Covering herself in a hijab or burka is 'empowering' and shows that she is more pious and devoted to Allah than the 'sluts' that do not cover themselves up.

There are numerous other instances within the koran of the superiority of man, including the fact that he can divorce his wife fairly easily, and he will get custody of the children. He can beat his wife, as he would his children, explicitly so, to chastise her, so long as he doesn't leave marks, and of course, he can rape non-believer females who are 'captured', regardless of whether they're married or not. The original meaning was during war, or during a conquest of non-believer territories, but since the koran basically calls on Muslims in a number of places to conquer non-believers, to attack non-believers, to not befriend non-believers, we can see where how the war part kind of got a bit confusing.

[Argus]

The problem with ancient translated religious documents is that they are widely open to interpretation.

The sect of Islam which has been causing the most trouble, imho, is Wahabiism. It is an extremely conservative, ultra orthodox interpretation which embraces all the stuff I've posted, and the main proponents are the Saudi royal family. They have been pouring billions of dollars into funding mosques and schools and supplying imams and teachers around the world for years now, teaching their version of Islam. They have been extremely busy in Pakistan since the Soviet era, paying for schools which teach a very severe version of Islam, and that is the main reason Pakistan is becoming a basket case. All those thousands and thousands of boys graduating with little knowledge other than their severe version of the Koran going to mosques and preaching to their people - many of whom are unsophisticated and illiterate.

The selection of imams/mullahs in the Muslim world is nowhere near as systemized as it is in Christian churches. The Muslim mosques are not controlled by any central body, and will tend to hire on whoever seems to have been educated in Islam, can read and preach and wants the job.

[Argus]

It appears that we disagree on the basic nature of humans. So be it - but I would not dismiss any of your views as "nonsense".

His views are a lot less nonsensical than the ones you just posted.

[Argus]

For me, the mere fact that any religion survives through time and increases its membership gives it the credence of human acceptance and consequently establishes its pacificity. I believe that humans are generally a gentle species who would not consciously be attracted to something that promotes violence and chaos.

Uh... what?!

Ever heard of the Nazi Party? Ever heard of Communism? Pol Pot? The KKK? The Spanish Inquisition? The Reformation wars? The Crusades? Want some video of Sikhs hacking away at each other with swords in the Golden Temple? Want to see video a huge mob of Hindus tearing down a Muslim mosque with their bare hands?

The idea that any religion that survives must be pacifistic is... not born out by ANY evidence whatsoever. Quite the contrary.

[Argus]

Agreed, but there are Christian "sects" that do indeed take the Bible "literally".

Where? Cite please. I'd like to know who believes people should be executed for working on the sabbath or wearing two different kinds of thread in their shirts.

[Argus]

This is nonsense. Aggressive religions that prosecute disbelievers can be successful since they incentivize people to convert.

The majority of people in the west have no idea that Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and surrounding areas were all Christian lands once until conquered by Muslim armies. At that time most people were converted at sword point, or killed.

Edited July 9, 2014 by Argus

[Argus]

Somewhat true. The Burka for example is not required in Islam and is cultural. But there are some things such as death for homosexuality which are rooted in Islam.

I would argue that the basis of the burka is Islam. I would agree that it isn't required, but the insistence from the koran that women dress modestly is used as the basis for the burka by the extremists who are more and more in control throughout the Muslim world today (and by definition becoming the mainstream).

[-1=e^ipi]

It appears that we disagree on the basic nature of humans. So be it - but I would not dismiss any of your views as "nonsense".

Why wouldn't you be open to the possibility of dismissing my views as nonsense when you do not know all of my views? For all you know, I could believe in astrology, or homeopathy, or leprechauns, or 911-trutherism, or the flying spaghetti monster, or whatever.

I call a belief nonsense if it is nonsense regardless of the person holding the belief.

As for your belief that (all?) humans are 'gentle', where the people that beat me up, stole my wallet from me and gave me a concussion last month gentle? Was Anders Breivik gentle when he killed 77 people in 2011? Were the people that flew planes into the world trade center gentle? Was Luka Magnotta gentle when he hacked Lin Jun to pieces in 2012? Was Hitler gentle?

But if you want to believe in things because it makes you feel good regardless of evidence, then there is nothing I can do.

Edited July 9, 2014 by -1=e^ipi

[-1=e^ipi]

There are numerous other instances within the koran of the superiority of man, including the fact that he can divorce his wife fairly easily, and he will get custody of the children. He can beat his wife, as he would his children, explicitly so, to chastise her, so long as he doesn't leave marks, and of course, he can rape non-believer females who are 'captured', regardless of whether they're married or not. The original meaning was during war, or during a conquest of non-believer territories, but since the koran basically calls on Muslims in a number of places to conquer non-believers, to attack non-believers, to not befriend non-believers, we can see where how the war part kind of got a bit confusing.

Certainly men have rights under sharia that women do not. But that isn't the same thing as superiority, at least in the minds of Muslims. In Islam, males are not superior to females and females are not superior to males, rather both females and males have specific gender-specific roles that Allah has given them. So to use the term superior is inaccurate and misleading. Perhaps using the term 'unequal' is more accurate.

As for Muslims believing that they are superior to kuffar (non-believers), yes this is true and justified in the Quran, the Hadith and elsewhere.