Islamophobia in Canada

[Argus]

That's correct. That's a phobia.

Might I suggest you consult a dictionary rather than attempting to redefine words yourself?

Any good one will state that the fear must be irrational.

Edited December 14, 2015 by Argus

[drummindiver]

And Christians should also throw out the Bible and denounce Jesus because Christianity is just as flawed as Islam.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

http://aattp.org/here-are-8-christian-terrorist-organizations-that-equal-isis/

http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/10-worst-terror-attacks-extreme-christians-and-far-right-white-men

http://www.ifyouonlynews.com/religion/christian-terror-12-examples-of-terrorism-from-the-right/

The world would be a better place if they did.

Same as Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Zoroastrianism, Taoism, Bokononism...the list goes on.

All religions have elements of violence and base superiority. I challenge you to find one that doesn't.

[On Guard for Thee]

Might I suggest you consult a dictionary rather than attempting to redefine words yourself?

Any good one will state that the fear must be irrational.

That is correct. Good on you for looking it up.

[dialamah]

You seem to have different views of what constitutes extremist depending on the race of the individuals concerned.

What "anti-Muslim rhetoric" is largely concerned with it wariness about the extremism of Islam and how many extremists there are. That is long leagues away from Muslim extremism which calls for the wholesale slaughter of enemies.

I object to anti-Muslim rhetoric because it emboldens the more extreme among us to be moved to action. It's not ok to set a mosque on fire and it's not ok to kill apostates. Both acts are unacceptable. That has nothing to do with race; it has to do with actions of individuals regardless of race.

Sure you do. You've already accepted that almost 70% of the country has extremist views. Do you imagine none of the thousands of Pakistani immigrants who come here every year come from among this group? That is wholly unrealistic.

Yes, actually. I think most people who immigrate from Pakistan are trying to get away from that kind of extremism.

"Although Pakistan is ethnically and linguistically diverse, Islam is the state religion, and Islamic Shari’a law has been in place since the 1980s. The country’s history since 1947 has been at times tumultuous, involving periods of civil war, conflict with India, and military government. These and other factors have prompted Pakistani immigration to Canada and elsewhere."

Yes, some people with extremist views will doubtless arrive here from elsewhere, and some people with extremist views are born here, descended from European families who arrived here in the 1700s.

Not really. The only vetting done is for criminal records. Their files are analyzed according to their skillset, language skills and education. No one asks them questions about their religious or social views.

Not according to this document from Government of Canada. It lists several things, but the rather vague first item "You are a security risk" leaves a pretty wide latitude for determining if someone holds views that are contrary to Canada's values. And, judging by comments from people who've been interviewed, that latitude is fully exercised.

You are speaking of refugees who have nothing, and thus are not eager to leave the region entirely and start a new life among non-Muslims who don't speak Arabic. They also know almost nothing about Canada. Pakistani immigrants are entirely different.

I did think we were talking mainly about the Syrian refugees on this thread, and that you'd brought in Pakistanis to make a point. But never mind, we can discuss Pakistanis too.

According to this site, and Wikipedia, Pakistanis are the most well-integrated of all immigrants to Canada. Also, it seems there are less than 300,000 of them in Canada; there are 169,800,000 Muslims in Pakistan so I still think it's the people least happy with the extremist government and society in Pakistan that are most prone to coming to Canada or other Western countries.

Probably? The Khadrs came to Canada. Do you think they're the progressive type?

They were Canadian citizens, so that's not 'immigration'.

Unlikely? You might want to look at one of the cites I posted yesterday speaking about the harsh conservatism of some of the Syrian refugees in Germany.

Europe is an entirely different place (with an entirely different situation) than Canada, and this thread is about *Canada*. So lets stick to that.

I've said before and I'll repeat: Extremism is a problem around the world, and in Canada. At this point in time, in Canada and the States, extremism of right wing, anti-government groups and White Supremacists leads to more violence and crime than Islamic extremism. We could discuss extremism and how to combat it, rather than on how to combat Muslims coming to Canada - that would be a more helpful and realistic discussion as it would target the problem instead of a religion.

Your focus on the extremism of a particular religion is not based on the reality of extremism in Canada today. That is why it is a phobia, and not 'wary concern'.

If you'd like to discuss the problem of extremism and ways to counteract that, we can. If you want to continue to discuss targeting Muslims as threats, I'm done.

[Hudson Jones]

Like the sneering way people on the Left talk about conservatives, you mean?

You go ahead and label yourself all you want. I rather not allow labels and groups to define my thoughts and ideas.

[Hudson Jones]

Hudson I don't doubt that you know some very nice muslims who appreciate the country that they live in, and that in most cases first-hand experience trumps what you would chalk up to "the assumptions of Islamophobes". I would even agree that westerners are overly active in the middle east, and that racial tensions between Muslims and Westerners will cause some unnecessary problems.

But the big picture isn't "Hudson knows some nice Muslims who assure him that they are peaceful people". It's the last 2,000 years of human history, it's the widespread terrorism and genocides of the modern era, the blatant & legalized attacks on every other culture or religion within Muslim-dominated nations, the universal lack of respect for women within their culture, the problems that are arising in every nation where the Islam population starts to get up past 15%, etc.

What you know about Muslims or Islam first-hand qualifies as an extremely small sample size in the grand scheme of things.

Islam (yes, I know, I'm allowing the continuation of these superficial little games by generalizing) is no different than other religions. Groups who follow Christianity have killed more people in the 20th century than Islam ever did in its history. I don't have the patience to sit here and pick apart your narrow-minded and shallow view of people and history. Not today anyway.

[eyeball]

Probably? The Khadrs came to Canada. Do you think they're the progressive type?

Their son certainly appears to be. That's what normally happens in successive generations of immigrants.

[dialamah]

The world would be a better place if they did.

Same as Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Zoroastrianism, Taoism, Bokononism...the list goes on.

All religions have elements of violence and base superiority. I challenge you to find one that doesn't.

I essentially agree with you, so why would I bother?

[Hudson Jones]

Setting fire to a mosque is not acceptable,nor is attacking a Muslim on the street for no reason.These people will be called out on it for their behavior.It's a real pity the same cannot be said for Muslim behavior towards" infidels" in the Arab world.

That is a total misinformed comment. How can you say that when you obviously haven't even looked at what they're discussing in regards to groups like ISIS? If you did do some looking into, you'd learn that Arabs and Muslims in general distance themselves from these crazy groups.

[Rue]

I believe Dialamah's reasoning used to object to ALL anti-Muslim criticism engages in the same bigoted assumptions used to say all Muslims are bad people, i.e, I use the word "bogoted" to mean engaging in a line of reasoning that makes a negative stereotype generalization.

I would argue his reference to anti Muslim criticism does not differentiate, it lumps in negative and positive criticism in one foul swoop.

I would argue tat:

1-the use of the term anti Muslim criticism used in the context he did illogically lumps all criticism of Islam in one negative category;

2-that criticism of components and concepts of Islam are a basic right of anyone to share-its called free speech- I would argue Islam does not get some card of immunity from criticism because Dialamah feels it might trigger a negative response from someone-using that reasoning-fear of reaction to protest against free speech to me is illogical and unfair-it makes an unfounded assumption the comments caused someone else to do what they did-it does not hold the perpetrator responsible for his own actions, but someone else for expressing an opinion the perpetrator committed-this failure to define cause and effect and culpability for one's own actions is evident in its lack of logic-more importantly without specific words and their context, how does anyone make an assumption those words caused violence?..we just take Dialamah's fear for fact?

3- I disagree with Dialamah's generalization of all Islamic criticism- I would argue criticism of Islam as is the case with all religions is a crucial element if we are to reform religions and challenge those people who use it to engage in terrorism and intolerance-in fact I argue the opposite of Dialamah, and that is that remaining silent and refusing to criticize religions condones those who practice them to promote intolerance, terrorism and violence;

4-I would argue using Dialamah's line of reasoning we should not allow any criticism of anything because it might cause someone to do something negative and that this is an absurd contention that holds one person responsible for another's actions without any proof;

5-I would argue bigotry is the act of anyone engaging in a negative bias to justify imposing his beliefs on another and so I find the reasoning Dialamah uses just that and no different than saying all Muslims are bad;

6- I argue Muslim terrorism will not end until we question and challenge and expose the Muslims who engage in it, and essential to that is to talk openly about extremist values in Islam with everyone including Muslims so they no its not Muslims we challenge its certain interpretations of their religion and what it leads to that we challenge-we can't do that if we don't talk;;

7-I also argue there is an appearance Dialamah has engaged in a selective exercise of trying to single out and censor only criticism of Islam-if he truly believes hispoint, why stop at only Islam, why not issue a fatwa against any and all forms of criticism-why only single out criticism for banning when its directed at Muslims?

In conclusion I would argue many people are trying to use the banner of political correctness to censor those they disagree with.

We have the right to criticize who ever we want. Its part of free speech.

I would argue if you feel it engages in an attack on someone personally or somebody, quote the words you feel do that, and explain why.

I have edited my response on request of the moderator as it was felt it went to personal in comment. It probably did and I only meant to challenge Dialamah's line of reasoning, nothing else. In reading back my original comments there were too many unintended personal references that need to be removed.

I am trying now to argue a classic Buddhist position that critical thought, mindfulness as they call it, is essential because without it, we stop breathing, we become brain dead. All the religions refer to critical thought as an essential force of life.

Edited December 14, 2015 by Rue

[SRV]

Win and lose what exactly?

ISIL wins every time another Muslim is radicalized or becomes an ISIL supporter. ISIL maintains that the West has declared war on all of Islam, and that every Muslim is a target of the West's war on terrorism. Treating all Muslims as guilty until proven innocent makes all Muslims victims of the so-called War on Terrorism. Also, in terms of civilian casualties --drones strikes, invasions, imprisonment without trial often including abuse and even torture, illegal invasions of countries and violations of sovereignty, etc.--there have been far more innocent Muslim civilian casualties of the so-called War on Terrorism than non-Muslims. We would lose in terms of creating more enemies than we eliminate, and in terms of becoming the very evil we claim to want to defend ourselves from.

[Smeelious]

1-the use of the term anti Muslim criticism used in the context he did I would argue lumps all criticism of Islam in one negative category;

I believe her argument is that claiming most Muslims are violent is wrong. It's actually fairly specific.

2-criticism of components and concepts of Islam are a basic right of anyone-its called free speech- I would argue Islam does not get some card of immunity from criticism because Dialamah feels it might trigger a negative response-his failure to define and differentiate Islamic criticism and just throw it out in one lump definition of negativity I would argue is a bigoted approach to criticism;

I seem to recall her own criticisms of Islam mirror her criticism of Christianity.

3-I would argue criticism of Islam as is the case with all religions is a crucial element if we are to reform religions and challenge those people who use it to engage in terrorism and intolerance-in fact I argue the opposite of Dialamah, that remaining silent and refusing to criticize religions condones those who practice them to promote intolerance and violence;

Eh. That's not what I get from what she is saying at all.

4-I would argue using Dialamah's line of reasoning we should not allow any criticism of anything because it might cause someone to do something negative and that is an absurd contention holding one person responsible for another's actions without any proof of connection or cause and effect, just a bigoted assumption that one led to the other;

You and I are reading different threads I think.

5-I would argue bigotry is the act of anyone engaging in a negative bias and so I find the reasoning if Dialamah bigoted-its offensive to people who spend a great deal of time dialoging with people and teaching out to them and trying to find mutual grounds of agreement;

What?

6-Muslim terrorism will not end until we question and challenge and expose the Muslims who engage in it, and essential to that is to talk openly about extremist values in Islam;

Remove Islam, and replace with " " and your statement is exactly as true. As it's been said in this thread a gillion times by now; Extremists will use whatever they have to justify their actions. In the middle east that is predominantly Islam.

7-I think Dialamah engages in a selective exercise of trying to single out and censor only criticism of Islam-if he truly believes that point, why stop at only Islam, why not issue a fatwa against any and all forms of criticism-why only single out criticism for banning when its directed at Muslims?

Again, we're reading different threads.

[dialamah]

I believe Dialamah's reasoning that "anti-Muslim criticism leads" to a few people committing violence and therefore should be censored.

I believe his comments are illogical, and engage in a bigoted assumption that all anti Muslim criticism is negative and needs to be prevented for the following reasons:

1-the use of the term anti Muslim criticism used in the context he did I would argue lumps all criticism of Islam in one negative category;

2-criticism of components and concepts of Islam are a basic right of anyone-its called free speech- I would argue Islam does not get some card of immunity from criticism because Dialamah feels it might trigger a negative response-his failure to define and differentiate Islamic criticism and just throw it out in one lump definition of negativity I would argue is a bigoted approach to criticism;

3-I would argue criticism of Islam as is the case with all religions is a crucial element if we are to reform religions and challenge those people who use it to engage in terrorism and intolerance-in fact I argue the opposite of Dialamah, that remaining silent and refusing to criticize religions condones those who practice them to promote intolerance and violence;

4-I would argue using Dialamah's line of reasoning we should not allow any criticism of anything because it might cause someone to do something negative and that is an absurd contention holding one person responsible for another's actions without any proof of connection or cause and effect, just a bigoted assumption that one led to the other;

5-I would argue bigotry is the act of anyone engaging in a negative bias and so I find the reasoning if Dialamah bigoted-its offensive to people who spend a great deal of time dialoging with people and teaching out to them and trying to find mutual grounds of agreement;

6-Muslim terrorism will not end until we question and challenge and expose the Muslims who engage in it, and essential to that is to talk openly about extremist values in Islam;

7-I think Dialamah engages in a selective exercise of trying to single out and censor only criticism of Islam-if he truly believes that point, why stop at only Islam, why not issue a fatwa against any and all forms of criticism-why only single out criticism for banning when its directed at Muslims?

I would argue many people are trying to use the banner of political correctness to censor those they disagree with.

We have the right to criticize who ever we want. Its part of free speech.

If you feel it engages in an attack on someone or somebody, quote the words you feel do that, and explain why. I don't see that in this thread. I just see an allegation that criticizing Muslims leads to violence.Putting the word "few" in to describe the violent ones does not prove cause or effect or make that slur any more credible. Its still an unfounded allegation.

You want to blame Trump for some idiot who fire bombs a mosque prove it. What has happened that we are being told its politically unacceptable to criticize Islam because it might cause people to get angry? Has it stopped Muslim terrorists? You think if you remain silent to Muslim extremism it wil go away and the crazy people will vanish?

You think parading some feel good refugee stories on the news will make terrorists go away?

I suppose if some Muslims were here posting that "Jews are inherently violent, they oppress others and believe in things that are anti-Canadian", you'd let that pass with out objection?

Objections do not equal censorship. You object to what I have posted; do you intend to censor me?

Note also, I said I object to anti-Muslim *rhetoric* - this is different than *criticism*. Rhetoric is an attempt to 'persuade' others to a point of view or to some action. Rhetoric can be used to illuminate truth, or to galvanize witch-hunts. In this case, the anti-Muslim rhetoric leads to the witch-hunts, and leaves innocent, non-violent people at risk of being targeted.

I've also agreed with valid "criticisms" of Islamic states who impose the most severe versions of Islamic law. I've agreed with valid criticisms of those Muslims who hold extremist views and who engage in extremist activities.

Parading some feel-bad stories about refugees on the news will also not make terrorists go away.

[drummindiver]

I suppose if some Muslims were here posting that "Jews are inherently violent, they oppress others and believe in things that are anti-Canadian", you'd let that pass with out objection?

Objections do not equal censorship. You object to what I have posted; do you intend to censor me?

Note also, I said I object to anti-Muslim *rhetoric* - this is different than *criticism*. Rhetoric is an attempt to 'persuade' others to a point of view or to some action. Rhetoric can be used to illuminate truth, or to galvanize witch-hunts. In this case, the anti-Muslim rhetoric leads to the witch-hunts, and leaves innocent, non-violent people at risk of being targeted.

I've also agreed with valid "criticisms" of Islamic states who impose the most severe versions of Islamic law. I've agreed with valid criticisms of those Muslims who hold extremist views and who engage in extremist activities.

Parading some feel-bad stories about refugees on the news will also not make terrorists go away.

You agree with the basic tenets of Islam then, right?

The "rules" if you will, of Islam.

Not interpretations, but the tenets as stated. You agree, yes or no?

[dialamah]

You agree with the basic tenets of Islam then, right?

The "rules" if you will, of Islam.

Not interpretations, but the tenets as stated. You agree, yes or no?

I'm not a Muslim. I have my own personal code of ethics, some of which correspond to various religious tenets, but I do not subscribe to the tenets of any particular religion.

[Argus]

I object to anti-Muslim rhetoric because it emboldens the more extreme among us to be moved to action.

And what do you regard as "anti-Muslim rhetoric" as opposed to legitimate criticism of the expressed social and ideological beliefs and behaviour of those who follow this religion?

Is all criticism invalid?

Yes, actually. I think most people who immigrate from Pakistan are trying to get away from that kind of extremism.

It's nice that you think that but your opinion has no basis in fact. Most people who immigrate to Canada don't come here because they loath their home country and culture, but because Canada is richer than their home country.

Yes, some people with extremist views will doubtless arrive here from elsewhere, and some people with extremist views are born here, descended from European families who arrived here in the 1700s.

And again, you are failing to differentiate between home grown 'extremist', presumably Christians, who rarely cause any harm, and Islamic extremists who do. Further, even what we might term the anti-social beliefs of local Christian extremists are rarely as extreme as those of Muslims from Pakstan and elsewhere in the middle east.

Not according to this document from Government of Canada. It lists several things, but the rather vague first item "You are a security risk" leaves a pretty wide latitude for determining if someone holds views that are contrary to Canada's values. And, judging by comments from people who've been interviewed, that latitude is fully exercised.

They might ask them if they support ISIS or Al Quaeda, but they won't ask them if they believe a woman has to cover her face or hair at all times or whether they believe in Sharia law or whether they think gays should be killed.

I did think we were talking mainly about the Syrian refugees on this thread, and that you'd brought in Pakistanis to make a point. But never mind, we can discuss Pakistanis too.

What we're discussing is whether there is a legitimacy to the wariness many Canadians have about bringing in Muslims from the middle east, or whether it is a "phobia" as the progressives term it. Thus bringing up the 112 million extremists in Pakistan is intended to point out that extremism doesn't have to involve only terrorism. It is not simply those who support terrorism Canadians are wary of, but the extremist anti-social views of many Muslims from that part of the world.

According to this site, and Wikipedia, Pakistanis are the most well-integrated of all immigrants to Canada.

And how exactly would Wikipedia judge that?

They were Canadian citizens, so that's not 'immigration'.

The Khadrs were immigrants. He immigrated from Egypt, and his wife was a Palestinian. They decided to bring their children up abroad so they would not be contaminated by Canada's permissive cultural values.

Europe is an entirely different place (with an entirely different situation) than Canada,

You're saying the Syrians who went there in the last few months were different from "our" Syrians?

I've said before and I'll repeat: Extremism is a problem around the world, and in Canada.

Yes, Muslim extremism. The US has some of those militia nuts, those "freemen", it's true. But we haven't had any trouble with them.

Your focus on the extremism of a particular religion is not based on the reality of extremism in Canada today.

You continue to try and narrow the definition of extremism to those who set off bombs when you've already admitted that there are actually hundreds of millions of extremists in the Muslim world other than the actual terrorists. I am actually more concerned with the people with extremist views multiplying here, even if they don't set off bombs.

[Argus]

Their son certainly appears to be. That's what normally happens in successive generations of immigrants.

And he's spent how much time in Canada?

[Argus]

I believe her argument is that claiming most Muslims are violent is wrong. It's actually fairly specific.

Who has claimed this?

[eyeball]

And he's spent how much time in Canada?

Enough to demonstrate just how little time it takes for progressiveness to sink its roots into a successive generation.

[Argus]

Enough to demonstrate just how little time it takes for progressiveness to sink its roots into a successive generation.

Please enlighten us on his progressive views.

[eyeball]

Please enlighten us on his progressive views.

Go enlighten yourself.

Omar Khadr

[drummindiver]

I'm not a Muslim. I have my own personal code of ethics, some of which correspond to various religious tenets, but I do not subscribe to the tenets of any particular religion.

Semantics are fun.You clearly avoided the question.

Do you agree that the basic tenets of Islam stand for the greater good, or are they harmful to society as a whole.

[dialamah]

Semantics are fun.You clearly avoided the question.

Do you agree that the basic tenets of Islam stand for the greater good, or are they harmful to society as a whole.

I answered the question that was asked. Now you've asked a different question.

The five pillars of Islam are these:

• Faith or belief in the Oneness of God and the finality of the prophethood of Muhammad;
• Establishment of the daily prayers;
• Concern for and almsgiving to the needy;
• Self-purification through fasting; and
• The pilgrimage to Makkah for those who are able.

#3 I would consider for the benefit of Society as a whole. The rest are kind 'meh' in terms of societal benefit.

You may object to me citing the five pillars of Islam, when you said tenets; if so, I point you to this:

"The religious practice of Islam, which literally means to submit to God, is based on tenets that are known as the Five Pillars (arkan), to which all members of the Islamic community (Umma) should adhere"

[DogOnPorch]

And there are the Pillars of Islamic Faith which are:

1. Belief in God (Allah)

2. Belief in Mala-eka (Angels and Jinn)

3. Belief in the Books of Allah (Verbatim)

4. Belief in the Prophets of Allah and that Mohammad is the Final Prophet.

5. Belief in Yawm al-Qiyama (Day of Judgement)

6. Belief in Qada wal-Qada (Allah's Will)

[-1=e^ipi]

#3 I would consider for the benefit of Society as a whole. The rest are kind 'meh' in terms of societal benefit.

Pretty sure that Zakat can only be given to muslims, not non-muslims. And zakat can be used to fund jihad (didn't prophet Mohamed fund his campaign in Syria using Zakat?).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zakat

"Those fighting for a religious cause or a cause of God (Fī Sabīlillāh),^[15] or for Jihad in the way of Allah by means of pen, word, or sword,^[50] or for Islamic warriors who fight against the unbelievers but are not part of salaried soldiers."

ISIS is funded in large part by Zakat.

"Islamic scholarship, historically, has taught that only Muslims can be recipients of zakat."

I don't see how zakat is for the benefit for society as a whole, at least as long as a significant proportion of humanity is not muslim.