Islamophobia in Canada

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, carepov said:

What about Progressive Conservatives?

What about them? Like I said, I think its just about impossible to screen people for their values and I think screening people for their political affiliations would prove similarly fruitless.

[Rue]

2 hours ago, carepov said:

1-An educated person is more likely to be tolerant than an uneducated person.

2-Islam can be political and often is, but it is not necessarily political:

 

 

In regards to 1 your comment is meaningless because you offer no proof or even define what "educated" means-you spit out a stereotype, an assumption, a generalization without any proof. Education can come on the streets and from life experience  or it can come from books.

Interesting but most religious believe the reason we suffer hardship is to educate ourselves, to develop insight as to what causes suffering by feeling it so we can then help prevent it. That has nothing to do with books and everything to do with humility. That is the point I was making.  Your repeating that meaningless phrase does not make it any more valid.

My criticism of Islam as it is all religions is that when they are hijacked by so called spokespersons who  can't be questioned, that the inability to question those spokespersons necessarily means that religion through its leader is being  politically coercive and anti-democratic. In the case of Islam as it is widely practiced today, that is what happens and in the case of Islam the Koran says its very purpose is to impose itself as a form of government control on the masses and not permit free discussion and demand blind obedience. That  makes it fascist and totalitarian until its followers put into practice freedom of expression and thought I challenge it as an anti-democratic system of thought and the anti-thesis to a tolerant, democratic society.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 10, 2017 by Rue

[carepov]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

If Irshad Manji is a Muslim then certainly. But your question really should have been "Can a person be both a good Muslim and a good Canadian citizen?" And the answer to that is, I believe, no. Because a good Muslim accepts that every word in the Koran is the literal word of God, and so much be obeyed. And the Koran contains much vicious and intolerant stuff on how to deal with Inifdels and others which simply is not compatible with Canadian values.

Look, I haven't said we should kill all the Muslims, or expel them all, and I haven't even said we should have no Muslims immigrating here, though I waver on that. You point out that there are variations between just how intolerant people are around the world, and I acknowledge this, too. But we're bringing in tens of thousands of Muslims each year largely from those parts of the Muslim world where rigid and violent intolerance is at its highest. And the way immigration rules are set up right now even if a prospective immigrant freely says he thinks all gays and Jews should die, and women should be beaten if they disobey their husbands there is absolutely nothing in our criteria which would rule out bringing him here and giving him citizenship.  Pakistan is one of our top immigration source countries and 89% of them feel stoning is the appropriate punishment for adultery. I do not want people with that sort of belief coming to Canada and being given Canadian citizenship.

 

Thank for clarifying your position.  I noticed that it has softened over time... Thanks also for the reference to Irshad Manji.  

Needless to say, I disagree with your judgement on what makes a "good Muslim", and also think that Pakistani immigrants have had an positive impact on Canada.  Yes, I do find beleifs highlighted in the pew study offensive and troubling, however these beleifs change upon integration into Canadian society:

"Pakistanis have integrated well into Canadian society..."

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

 

 

[carepov]

26 minutes ago, Rue said:

In regards to 1 your comment is meaningless because you offer no proof or even define what "educated" means-you spit out a stereotype, an assumption, a generalization without any proof. Education can come on the streets and from life experience  or it can come from books.

Interesting but most religious believe the reason we suffer hardship is to educate ourselves, to develop insight as to what causes suffering by feeling it so we can then help prevent it. That has nothing to do with books and everything to do with humility. That is the point I was making.  Your repeating that meaningless phrase does not make it any more valid.

My criticism of Islam as it is all religions is that when they are hijacked by so called spokespersons who  can't be questioned, that the inability to question those spokespersons necessarily means that religion through its leader is being  politically coercive and anti-democratic. In the case of Islam as it is widely practiced today, that is what happens and in the case of Islam the Koran says its very purpose is to impose itself as a form of government control on the masses and not permit free discussion and demand blind obedience. That  makes it fascist and totalitarian until its followers put into practice freedom of expression and thought I challenge it as an anti-democratic system of thought and the anti-thesis to a tolerant, democratic society.

 

What do you think about Naheed Nenshi?

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Rue said:

Huge difference between female circumcision which mutilates the vagina and clipping off a foreskin.

Foreskin was removed and still is by all people who live in desert climates because sand would get caught in the foreskin. That's where the practice originated.

It was also done in warm climates to prevent fungus and yeast infections.

Today its still done for that reason and it lowers cervical cancer transmission rates to women so boys cut if off and show some sensitivity

Listen no one asked me when the doctor spanked my ass either. What the hell. Life is unfair.

Now back to Islamophobia,  I don't think a fear or disdain of foreskin removal counts as part of Islamophobia  but since it still has not been defined maybe I should check with the MP who passed that motion.

 

Huge difference, true, but then, so is the difference between being spanked and being circumcised.

Still, like I said, heath reasons.  Never for religious reasons.  The kid might grow up to be an atheist.

[dialamah]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

I take it you disagree, and you DO want people who believe stoning should be the punishment for adultery to immigrate to Canada in their thousands?

Nope, I posted that because I read what you posted and thought to myself "This is what Argus believes and it makes sense he'd feel the way be does" and then I thought I'd say so out loud, as it were.  

Understanding why you feel as you do doesn't mean I agree with you, and disagreeing with you doesn't mean I want people being stoned in Canada.

[Hydraboss]

1 hour ago, carepov said:

What do you think about Naheed Nenshi?

He's an idiot.  Any other questions?

[Argus]

5 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Understanding why you feel as you do doesn't mean I agree with you, and disagreeing with you doesn't mean I want people being stoned in Canada.

Uhm, actually it sort of does. If you're in favour of bringing in thousands of people who favor stoning then you clearly don't have much of an issue with it yourself.

[dialamah]

Just now, Argus said:

Uhm, actually it sort of does. If you're in favour of bringing in thousands of people who favor stoning then you clearly don't have much of an issue with it yourself.

Don't be ridiculous, Argus.

[Argus]

Just now, dialamah said:

Don't be ridiculous, Argus.

My logic is flawless. Yours is... absent.

[dialamah]

Just now, Argus said:

My logic is flawless. Yours is... absent.

We disagree on the threat posed by Muslim immigrants.   So far, given the fact that we've got over a million Muslims in Canada and no stonings, I'd say my logic is more on point than yours.

Anyway Argus, thanks so much for noting and responding reasonably when I made a good faith effort to express my understanding of your point of view, even if I still disagree with you.

Carry on.

[Omni]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

Arguing with Islamophiles is, in some ways like arguing with 9/11 truthers. They ignore all evidence which counters their beliefs, and simply dismiss the sources as 'fake news' or 'far right wing' sites. And so you have someone who blithely calls the marriage between Muhammed and a 6 year old 'debunked' when no Islamic scholar would ever agree. And then says anyone who says otherwise is an islamophobe! 

Faced with the arguments of Western critics, Muslim apologists sometimes piece together information from various accounts in an attempt to deny that Aisha was as young as critics often claim:The problem with the selective and carefully edited defense just given (other than the complete lack of references) is that it ignores the numerous accounts we now possess which record Aisha’s age when Muhammad consummated his marriage to her. Many of these accounts are from Aisha herself. Indeed, the evidence for Muhammad’s marriage to the young Aisha is as strong as the evidence for just about any other fact in Islam. We have copious traditions relating Muhammad’s marriage proposal when Aisha was six or seven years old, as well as his consummation of that marriage when she was nine: 

https://myislam.dk/articles/en/wood was-muhammad-a-pedophile.php

I would suggest you try and find more reliable sources to support your xenophobic ideas. Did David Wood write this while he was in jail I wonder?

[Argus]

24 minutes ago, dialamah said:

We disagree on the threat posed by Muslim immigrants.   So far, given the fact that we've got over a million Muslims in Canada and no stonings, I'd say my logic is more on point than yours.

I'm not sure what logic you're referring to. Mine says that the more retrograde barbarians we bring into Canada, the higher the possibility of violence and social upheaval. Your logic seems to be to let them in and hope for the best. I don't see that as logic, especially since if we don't get the best there's very little we can do at that point.

[Argus]

23 minutes ago, Omni said:

I would suggest you try and find more reliable sources to support your xenophobic ideas. Did David Wood write this while he was in jail I wonder?

Aisha's age at the time she was married to Muhammad has been of interest since the earliest days of Islam, and references to her age by early historians are frequent.^[11] According to Sunni scriptural Hadith sources, Aisha was six or seven years old when she was married to Muhammad with the marriage not being consummated until she had reached puberty at the age of nine or ten years old.^{[10][11][12][13][14][23][24][25]} For example, Sahih al-Bukhari states that Aisha narratated that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).Sahih al-Bukhari, 7:62:64

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha#Age_at_marriage

[Omni]

18 minutes ago, Argus said:

Aisha's age at the time she was married to Muhammad has been of interest since the earliest days of Islam, and references to her age by early historians are frequent.^[11] According to Sunni scriptural Hadith sources, Aisha was six or seven years old when she was married to Muhammad with the marriage not being consummated until she had reached puberty at the age of nine or ten years old.^{[10][11][12][13][14][23][24][25]} For example, Sahih al-Bukhari states that Aisha narratated that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).Sahih al-Bukhari, 7:62:64

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha#Age_at_marriage

It turns out that Hadith's and the Quran have their differences. Believe which one you choose I guess.

 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/sep/17/muhammad-aisha-truth

[carepov]

1 hour ago, Hydraboss said:

He's an idiot.  Any other questions?

Yes, how was Nenshi re-elected in 2013 with 74% of the vote?

[Hydraboss]

20 minutes ago, carepov said:

Yes, how was Nenshi re-elected in 2013 with 74% of the vote?

Idiot-lovers voted for him?  You asked what was thought of Nenshi, not how he got elected.

And I couldn't care less if he's Muslim, Catholic, Buddhist or Atheist.  He's still an idiot with no regard for taxpayer money.

[Omni]

6 minutes ago, Hydraboss said:

Idiot-lovers voted for him?  You asked what was thought of Nenshi, not how he got elected.

And I couldn't care less if he's Muslim, Catholic, Buddhist or Atheist.  He's still an idiot with no regard for taxpayer money.

So you're saying 74% of Calgary's voting population are idiots. 

[Hydraboss]

50 minutes ago, Omni said:

So you're saying 74% of Calgary's voting population are idiots. 

It would appear so.

[Omni]

34 minutes ago, Hydraboss said:

It would appear so.

Not to the majority that voted for him.

[Argus]

19 hours ago, Omni said:

So you're saying 74% of Calgary's voting population are idiots. 

Almost the same percentage of Canadians say they want values testing for immigrants and you seem to have no issue dismissing them as idiots.

[Omni]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

Almost the same percentage of Canadians say they want values testing for immigrants and you seem to have no issue dismissing them as idiots.

Not really, I just realize the plan is a waste of time and effort.

[Argus]

57 minutes ago, Omni said:

Not really, I just realize the plan is a waste of time and effort.

Because you're smarter than they are?

Do you regard job interviews as a waste of time, too?

Edited May 11, 2017 by Argus

[Omni]

16 minutes ago, Argus said:

Because you're smarter than they are?

Do you regard job interviews as a waste of time, too?

The experts who actually deal with such things point out the huge costs of hiring/training people who MAY be effective trying to conduct such questioning, and even at that you might still end up wasting time. They point out that as quickly as we could piss away a lot of tax money setting up such questioning, "schools" would be created abroad to advise would be immigrants how to deal with those questions, whether they were lying or not. 

[DogOnPorch]

Yea olde Hope for the Best plan o' action...

Here's your miniature Canadian flag...you're now a Canadian. Act accordingly, please. But, no worries if you don't.