eyeball Posted February 5, 2016 Report Posted February 5, 2016 Islam is a religion rather than a race of people. All three 'religions of the book' are from the same desert. Cool. The worst racist bigotry our species exhibits comes from the same direction of the political spectrum - the right-wing conservative one. A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Argus Posted February 5, 2016 Report Posted February 5, 2016 Islam is a religion rather than a race of people. All three 'religions of the book' are from the same desert. True, but we've been using "antisemitism" to refer to hatred for Jews for a very long time now, so picking nits is silly. It used to be the extreme right who hated Jews, and they still do, but there aren't very many of them, whereas there are an awful lot of Jew hating progressives. "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
eyeball Posted February 5, 2016 Report Posted February 5, 2016 there are an awful lot of Jew hating progressives. BS. A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
dialamah Posted February 5, 2016 Report Posted February 5, 2016 Can you provide an alternative translation that's correct? Depends on who you ask; every translation has it's fans and it's critics. DoP likes the interpretation that ISIS uses; my brother-in-law likes the interpretation that says non-believers are free to believe as they wish, and murder is wrong.
dialamah Posted February 5, 2016 Report Posted February 5, 2016 Perhaps the Koran doesn't say that. But many Muslims seem to think that way as a cultural practice. I find that more worrisome. Yes, I'd agree that cultural practices can be more of a problem than Islam or any other religion. Cultural practices tend to transcend both religion and time, so that similar customs can be found at different times and throughout the world.
dialamah Posted February 5, 2016 Report Posted February 5, 2016 I guess, if it happened even close to a lot. You'd have better luck being by lightening. True, but you'd also have a better chance of being struck by lightning than being killed by a terrorist in Canada, yet look at the "concern" among non-Muslim Canadians about bringing Syrian refugees over.
dialamah Posted February 5, 2016 Report Posted February 5, 2016 Except when our PM doesn't mention Jews when talking about the Holocaust. The holocaust is about Jews, so this statement makes no sense.
dialamah Posted February 5, 2016 Report Posted February 5, 2016 Has there been any actual "islamaphobia" in Canada beyond the pepper spray incident? Haven't you been following this discussion?
dialamah Posted February 5, 2016 Report Posted February 5, 2016 Jewish Canadians, remarkably, are more than 10 times as likely to be the victim of a hate crime than Muslim Canadians I'm going to go out on a limb and guess most of those who commit anti-Semitic hate crimes are Muslims and progressives. http://www.the10and3.com/which-canadians-are-most-likely-to-be-the-victims-of-hate-crimes/ Actually, most likely white supremacists. http://www.adl.org/combating-hate/domestic-extremism-terrorism/c/conspiracies-against-jewish-targets.html?referrer=https://www.google.ca/#.VrQepvkrLIU http://www.mintpressnews.com/israels-white-supremacy-agenda-targets-jews-arabs-africans/199858/ http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/10/us/white-supremacist-bomb-plot-virginia-fbi/
On Guard for Thee Posted February 5, 2016 Report Posted February 5, 2016 BS. Truly is BS. I wonder what argus means by "an awful lot" The wild, non substantiated assumptions he makes are numerous.
DogOnPorch Posted February 5, 2016 Report Posted February 5, 2016 Depends on who you ask; every translation has it's fans and it's critics. DoP likes the interpretation that ISIS uses; my brother-in-law likes the interpretation that says non-believers are free to believe as they wish, and murder is wrong. Straw-man argument. I have not stated any preference to any particular English translation of the Quran. So how would you know? As well: where is this peaceful version of the Quran? I use: http://quran.com/ Are you saying that the above is an Islamic State website? What version do you use/prefer? We'll compare verses and you can show me how vastly different they actually are. Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
dialamah Posted February 5, 2016 Report Posted February 5, 2016 Straw-man argument. I have not stated any preference to any particular English translation of the Quran. So how would you know? As well: where is this peaceful version of the Quran? I use: http://quran.com/ Are you saying that the above is an Islamic State website? What version do you use/prefer? We'll compare verses and you can show me how vastly different they actually are. Look up the word "interpret", then consider how a single book, containing many different ideas might be interpreted differently by different people. You may also benefit from recalling the fable of the three blind men and the elephant: each man described the elephant differently depending on which part of the elephant he touched. In the same way, my brother-in-law is "blind" to the violence you see in the Quran, whilst you (and Islamic terrorists) are "blind" to the peace he and the majority of Muslims find. I think that should clear up any notion you have that your interpretation of the Quran is more "correct" than anyone else's.
DogOnPorch Posted February 5, 2016 Report Posted February 5, 2016 (edited) Look up the word "interpret", then consider how a single book, containing many different ideas might be interpreted differently by different people. You may also benefit from recalling the fable of the three blind men and the elephant: each man described the elephant differently depending on which part of the elephant he touched. In the same way, my brother-in-law is "blind" to the violence you see in the Quran, whilst you (and Islamic terrorists) are "blind" to the peace he and the majority of Muslims find. I think that should clear up any notion you have that your interpretation of the Quran is more "correct" than anyone else's. I do not interpret the Quran. I quote it verbatim. The website I use does the interpretations...all the major translations including every English one available. Which version is the peaceful one? Edited February 5, 2016 by DogOnPorch Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
dialamah Posted February 5, 2016 Report Posted February 5, 2016 I do not interpret the Quran. I quote it verbatim. The website I use does the interpretations...all the major translations including every English one available. Which version is the peaceful one? All of them.
DogOnPorch Posted February 5, 2016 Report Posted February 5, 2016 All of them. Now you're just deflecting. Poorly at that. Your claim is that I'm following ISIS's interpretation of the Quran...lol. Which one is that? Can you show me or is it a secret? Which one is the peaceful version? We'll compare verses and see what they both say. This shouldn't be a problem for you since I have Islam all wrong...and you know the truth. Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
dialamah Posted February 5, 2016 Report Posted February 5, 2016 Now you're just deflecting. Poorly at that. Clearly, you are unable to understand what is meant by the word "interpret" when used in the context of Holy Books being interpretated differently depending on the person reading it. Your claim is that I'm following ISIS's of the Quran...lol. Which one is that? Can you show me or is it a secret? The Quran contains verses relating to war and violence. ISIS's interpretation says that means they can murder innocent people on the flimsiest of excuses, and that they are required to wage war on non-believers. They take the verses relating to war and violence as the main message of the Quran, as do you. Which one is the peaceful version? We'll compare verses and see what they both say. The Quran contains verses relating to peace and strictures against murdering innocents. Most Muslims interpret this to mean that they cannot murder anyone, with the exception of those they are actively at war with and only if the war was brought to them. They take the verses relating to peace as the main message of the Quran. This shouldn't be a problem for you since I have Islam all wrong...and you know the truth. The truth is that people read what is in the Quran and come away with different ideas of what it teaches. You and ISIS think it teaches violence. Most Muslims think it teaches peace. Comparing verses with you is pointless. Like the Bible, and no doubt any other Holy Book, the Quran contains a lot of different messages. You and I can take whatever we like better and use that to define the prime message of the Quran and the proper behavior of Muslims.
Argus Posted February 5, 2016 Report Posted February 5, 2016 (edited) Actually, most likely white supremacists. Your first link was about white supremacist groups in the US, the second accused Israel of having a white supremacist mentality, and the third was on a particular crime. None of them addressed the point of antisemitism in Canada and the west. The reason why so many so-called progressives dislike Jews is because they reflexively hate Israel, and identify Jews as supporters of Israel. Besides which the Left disdains anyone who is religious unless they're non-White, so that's another mark against observant Jews. Jews are also identified rightly or wrongly as being establishment, being capitalists. Oh there are so many reasons for a zealous, strutting progressive to dislike them! Edited February 5, 2016 by Argus "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted February 5, 2016 Report Posted February 5, 2016 Look up the word "interpret", then consider how a single book, containing many different ideas might be interpreted differently by different people. Which of the many different types of people with many different types of language around the world have interpreted the tenets of Islam in a tolerant, peaceful manner which encourages gender equality and tolerance for other religions - WHEN MUSLIMS ARE THE MAJORITY? C'mon, there's dozens of Muslim states. Surely there's one! "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted February 5, 2016 Report Posted February 5, 2016 (edited) The Quran contains verses relating to war and violence. ISIS's interpretation says that means they can murder innocent people on the flimsiest of excuses, and that they are required to wage war on non-believers. They take the verses relating to war and violence as the main message of the Quran, as do you. Just ISIS then? https://muslimstatistics.wordpress.com/2014/08/24/92-of-saudis-believes-that-isis-conforms-to-the-values-of-islam-and-islamic-law-survey/ The Quran contains verses relating to peace and strictures against murdering innocents. Most Muslims interpret this to mean that they cannot murder anyone, with the exception of those they are actively at war with and only if the war was brought to them. They take the verses relating to peace as the main message of the Quran. What evidence have you that 'most muslims' live by such messages? Certainly if we look at areas of the world where Muslims are a majority we see no great paradise of peace, tolerance and tranquility. What we generally see from Muslim societies is a hairtrigger willingness to commit mass violence, particularly against non-believers, and a rigid and violently enforced cultural and legal demand that people follow the laws of Islam. Edited February 5, 2016 by Argus "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
DogOnPorch Posted February 5, 2016 Report Posted February 5, 2016 Which of the many different types of people with many different types of language around the world have interpreted the tenets of Islam in a tolerant, peaceful manner which encourages gender equality and tolerance for other religions - WHEN MUSLIMS ARE THE MAJORITY? C'mon, there's dozens of Muslim states. Surely there's one! Book 2 of the Quran (The Cow) warns of those who would reform the word of Allah. Allah's words are not for humans to pick and choose. Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
DogOnPorch Posted February 5, 2016 Report Posted February 5, 2016 Clearly, you are unable to understand what is meant by the word "interpret" when used in the context of Holy Books being interpretated differently depending on the person reading it. So I am allowed to pick and choose which of Allah's commands to follow and those to ignore? Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
DogOnPorch Posted February 5, 2016 Report Posted February 5, 2016 For example...this command from Allah: Quran 2:16 - "Fighting has been enjoined upon you while it is hateful to you. But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you. And Allah Knows, while you know not."Sahih translation Should I ignore it? Allah knows what is best for me while I do not... http://quran.com/2/216 What does this particular verse say to the reader in your opinion (anyone)? Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
On Guard for Thee Posted February 5, 2016 Report Posted February 5, 2016 Which version is the peaceful one? It could very well be the one your site interprets as the violent one.
Rue Posted February 5, 2016 Report Posted February 5, 2016 (edited) Rue, stop referring to me with your ridiculous strawman arguments. What you think I've argued is not at all what I've said, as usual. Cyber own up to your comments. Hal 9000, made a statement in response to Sharia law tribunals the following: "Are with that, the door opens ." His comment referred to the fact that if we allowed Sharia law trials to opt out of Canadian law and make decisions based on their own laws, it would open the door to disputes from religious tribunals. You then responded in Post 3353 and stated: "Just as the doors are open to Hasidic laws FOR ALL CANADIANS! Hide under your beds!" So I responded in 3392: " While we are at it, let's remind Cyber that Hasids do not practice mainstream Jewish religion. Unlike Sharia law, the laws they practice can not and do not opt out of existing Canadian laws. No they have not gone to public schools and demanded their people be accommodated. They don't demand prayer rooms and insist all food in public schools be kosher as Muslims have demanding Halal. Hasids have not been welcomed by the plane load by John McCallum escaping civil wars-no their followers have not" My comment was directly responding to your decision to throw Hasidic Jews into the discussion. People can see for themselves why you threw Hasidic Jews into the comment. . Edited February 7, 2016 by Rue
Rue Posted February 5, 2016 Report Posted February 5, 2016 (edited) are you still reeling from me making the citation request? The request you have yet to meet? You made a claim that former Ontario Premier McQuinty said "..."... you also spoke of the subsequent creation of (non-Islam) based tribunal arbitration relative to your statement/claim. As I said, neither fit the historical accounts I've read. Apparently, you're having difficulty finding sources to support your statement/claim. no - the Boyd report was not rejected by the Ontario government; it was the impetus to substantiate going forward to begin an intended proceeding to facilitate public response. I'm shocked your coy wording would have you presuming to leave a false impression on the report... and what I stated. Shocked, I tells ya! and no, I don't realize your stated "realize"... but then again, this is just another of your unsubstantiated statements. It seems you're pressing awfully hard to tag presumed positions and your hypothetical musings towards me... notwithstanding you, once again, single out your focused group attention while ignoring the principals bringing opposition forward to that proposed Ontario school curriculum change. you say you "love Liberals"... I expect some might, in turn, revel in your poster-boy representation. . In response to the above, let me also point out what you said in your Post 3361: “the Ontario government pulled the plug on the whole arbitration process itself, causing the end of those Jewish and Catholic based tribunals." try to get some degree of understanding before you jump in and embarrass yourself further.” You also stated in Post 3372: "along with the accompanying end to those existing Jewish and Catholic arbitration tribunals. They still exist." You also stated in Post 3396: "you (referring to my post 3393) also spoke of the subsequent creation of (non-Islam) based tribunal arbitration relative to your statement/claim. As I said, neither fit the historical accounts I've read. Apparently, you're having difficulty finding sources to support your statement/claim." First off the actual comments I made in 3393 about tribunals were: Waldo clearly did not grasp the issue. Arbitrations have always been allowed. Passing decisions that will contradict or ignore existing Ontario laws and still be binding is not allowed. Let's be clear because it appears Waldo does not get it- anyone can go to mediation and mediate a settlement. Mediations are not binding. Anyone can go to arbitration and try settle a matter and come up with a binding legal agreement from that arbitration that can be enforced in court unlike a mediation agreement which then needs to be placed in a contract to have any legal binding effect However mediation and arbitration agreements, family issue settlement contracts, can not opt out of Ontario family laws, federal divorce laws or the Charter which is what the sharia law lobby groups wanted. Those pro sharia law groups make no mistake wanted the right of Muslim councils to create binding legal decisions that would opt out of existing Ontario family laws and federal divorce laws and it was stopped and I am proud to have been one of many lawyers and family mediators who assisted the above groups." I in fact contrary to what you stated, did provide the historical sources for my comments in post 3393 and anyone can see those sources so for you to deny them is ludicrous. You also repeated falsely not once but in your posts 3372 amd 3396 that Ontario did away with the tribunal process and religious process. That is false and displays an ignorance as to the actual system repeated to to me in your post 3396. Waldo you show clearly you still don't get it, and rather than read and find out, you continue to throw out comments that falsely state the issue I was clarifying for you as well as falsely misrepresenting that I did not provide sources which I did. You then show your failure to even understand the issue in post 3374: "...and here I thought those former Jewish and Catholic faith-based tribunals to settle family law matters on a voluntary basis existed in Ontario since 1991 (vis-a-vis the Ontario Arbitration Act)." The issue which I pointed out in 3393 and you deliberately ignored is not whether religious tribunals can exist or do exist, because they always have, but is whether the Ontario government could pass legislation to allow religious to make decisions as to family law not based on federal and provincial laws, but Sharia laws and where those Sharia laws contradicted federal law or provincial law, to allow them to stand. That is why both Hal and West Can not just myself tried to explain to you that this is an issue about Muslims trying to opt out entirely of Canadian family laws and to question that does not make anyone Islamophobic and to answer anothher poster arose, as an example of how Muslims have tried to lobby there way out of Canadian laws. Since you can't grasp the issue, I repeat again, no one banned religious tribunals and no one banned arbitration or tribunals as you stated. That is blatantly false. No one ever banned them. What McGuinty backed down from was Boyd's report which suggested Muslims be allowed to make family law decisions based on Sharia law that would ignore federal and provincial family laws. The only issue which you still do not get is these tribunals can not make decisions that opt out of, ignore or are not based on existing provincial and federal laws. Since you will not make an effort to understand the law but instead think you can pass off debate my making misrepresentations may I show others this web-site to explain the current laws on arbitration: https://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/family/arbitration/faith-based.php The above states and I stated this in post 3393 which you claim is not true that and I quote: “Nothing in Ontario law prevents people from turning to a religious official or someone knowledgeable in the principles of their religion to help them resolve their family dispute. However, if that person made a decision based on religious principles, the decision would not be a valid family arbitration award under the law. Both spouses could comply with the decision voluntarily, but the decision would not be enforceable if one of the people involved took it to court. The court may only enforce awards made in arbitrations conducted exclusively under Canadian law.” Now people can look at my post in 3393, your posts I have produced to see you were wrong. No one abolished any arbitration process, religious or otherwise. You are dead wrong/ All the law does say is that no you can't use religion as a pretext to devise a law that holds you exempt from our existing family laws-that is what Muslims were lobbying for. Waldo if you don't want to take the time to research the law I will take the time to point out when you are falsely misrepresenting it. As for your ridiculous suggestion I can's prove or won;t cite that McGuinty backed away from allowing Muslims to opt out of Ontario family law or your absolutely false representation that the Boyd report was accepted: http://www.nosharia.com/Globe%20and%20Mail%2012,09McGuinty%20government%20rules%20out%20use%20of%20sharia%20law.htm http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/2010/09/14/one_law_for_all_ontarians.html http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/mcguinty-government-rules-out-use-of-sharia-law/article18247682/: While it's unlikely that amendments to the Arbitration Act will go that far, Mr. McGuinty told The Canadian Press yesterday that "I've come to the conclusion that the debate has gone on long enough. There will be no sharia law in Ontario." "There will be no religious arbitration in Ontario," he said. "There will be one law for all Ontarians." Legislation will be introduced "as soon as possible," he said. This is where the Boyd report is: www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/.../about/pubs/boyd/fullreport.pdf What makes Waldo's comments absurd is his attempt to suggest Boyd's report is operational. Everything it suggested was rejected and in fact both Catholics and Orthodox Jews agreed to drop their request for their own right to opt out of Canadian family laws when they reviewed Sharia law. I again repeat arbitration exists, so do religious councils. They just are not allowed to opt out of Canadian laws including family laws. They did not disband or band Muslim or any other religious tribunals-just their right to make decisions ignoring Canadian laws. Waldo you are over your head please save your responses for someone else. Let's get it clear, Muslims tried and failed to opt out of Canadian family laws and instead practice their version of arbitration (tahkim); their version of mediation (wasatah); and therere version of conciliation (sulh). Their approaches to all 3 contain laws and bases for decisions in direct contradiction of Canadian laws. They are based on different assumptions and Muslims can't even agree on those assumptions. The primary issue of what interpretation of Islamic law should be used in these arbitrations and mediations was never agreed to. Bottom line is Muslims can do whatever they want but if they do not follow and conform to Canadian laws, their decisions will not be recognized as legally binding. That was always the case and still is, despite an attempt to use it to opt out of Canadian laws. Right now we have plenty of examples of how people follow traditional Christian or Jewish laws and their rituals which exist. You can't marry same sex in a Catholic church but you can outside the church and the outside laws prevail. No Muslims can not marry 4 wives as Sharia law would permit. No you can't marry underage minors as Sharia law permits. Waldo does not get it. Shariah law is as WestCan stated a comprehensive legal, ethical and spiritual guide of conduct and its primary purpose is to achieve submission to the will of God. Its rules of conduct are enforced through what is called fiqh or Muslim jurisprudence. Fiqh has two parts; i- Usul al Fiqh; and 2- the Furu al fiqh. Usul al fiqh provides the rules of procedure or methodology of jurisprudence, including the philosophy of law, sources of rules, and the principles of legislation, interpretation and application of the Quran and traditions of the prophet Mohamed. Furu al fiqh on the other hand tales about what legal rules or concepts or principles to use for each fact situation and its wide ipen to different opinions. Its not uniform. There is no case law or precedent system where decision makers use the same reasoning process when possible. There is NO formal certification process to designate someone as being qualified to interpret Islamic law. NONE. So anyone can be a Muslim Mullah or Imam. There is no one college. So this is why in the Muslim community we have people calling themselves alims (scholars), faqihs (jurists) or muftis (Juris-consults and they can't be women or gays. I am not saying they are all idiots. Many are very wise, I am just saying there is no uniform body of regulation for their clergy. Edited February 5, 2016 by Rue
Recommended Posts