Islamophobia in Canada

[Michael Hardner]

Percentage wise, I'd rather be a gay Christian.

I'm just trying to understand the rationale behind tying abhorrent behavior to holy books, as though they are the cause. They are not the cause, as far as I can see: it's far too simple. Causes for cultures are complex, and simplifying an entire culture to make people feel better or, worse, to dehumanize groups of people.

[Guest]

Wow, this thread was really appropriately titled.

It seems to me to indicate a culture of fear...

[Guest]

I'm just trying to understand the rationale behind tying abhorrent behavior to holy books, as though they are the cause. They are not the cause, as far as I can see: it's far too simple. Causes for cultures are complex, and simplifying an entire culture to make people feel better or, worse, to dehumanize groups of people.

I think you can go back to a time when the majority of human behaviour was tied to a holy book in some way. Or a holy man who spoke for book.

Over time we've evolved. The exhortation to kill men who sleep with men from the Bible is no longer taken seriously, except by a very few. The same can be said of the Koran, except current events indicate the "few" might be considerably larger.

As an example, I think both books have things to say on Idolatry, but only one seems to still find application in the 21st Century. (Given that nothing in this discussion is absolute)

[dialamah]

I posted that.

Diamelah thought it was just anti muslim propoganda.

You're welcome.

True. I opened it, and recognized it from a different version I'd seen previously which focused on the protest march. I did not realize this one went much longer, and included "the other side" of the story. My apologies.

[dialamah]

But that would be dishonest. If the people I'm referring to are Muslim, I would be remiss in not saying so. Unless they were like, cheating on their taxes or speeding, or something. Then I would say people.

The trick I want to learn, which a lot of people (I can use the word, see), on here seem to be able to do, is to differentiate between Muslims doing bad things and Muslims not doing bad things, and have other people know it. Or so it would seem.

Or maybe they don't talk about it at all. Or maybe they just pretend everone thinks the death penalty for various non crimes is a good idea and they just say people.

Wait a minute, you don't think that, do you?

It's not like we don't do it all the time. We talk about Americans, Israelis, Conservatives, Liberals, the Police, etc, and everone knows we dont mean all of them.

Actually, you can't count on people automatically knowing that you don't mean "all" of a group when you fail to specify. And you need to consider your audience as well. If you were to say "Police kill innocent people", you probably wouldn't get an objection from a group of prisoners, because they'll accept that the "Police" as a single entity, kill innocent people. But say the same thing in front of a group of policemen, and you'll get an objection because they're not going to accept "Police" as a single entity, but will point out that there are individuals within that group.

You can always say things like "Some Muslims are extreme" or "Some Muslims believe in Sharia law" or "Some Islamic countries impose the most severe version of Sharia law". Or, if you believe it's "most", then say most. The trick is that if you want to be understood, then use the modifiers. Especially in a discussion where feelings are involved. And generally speaking, it is more the responsibility for the communicator to ensure they're understood, than for the listener to accurately decipher what the communicator *really meant*.

[GostHacked]

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thesundayedition/muslims-against-terror-starving-isis-of-and-arms-pope-francis-s-climate-letter-radical-divesting-1.3326005/combating-radicalization-at-home-and-abroad-1.3326042

I was listening to this on the drive into work today. I am wondering if people are simply not paying attention to moderate Muslims for the sake of continuing the argument that all Muslims are terrorists. It was hard to disagree with much of what this Imam is saying with isolationism assisting the rise of radicalism. This isolationism comes via our own society that is manipulated by governments to say that we are at war with Islam, or radical Islam. These terrorists are not Muslims. Radical Christians are NOT Christians. Radical Jews are NOT Jews. ect ect.

This Imam is a moderate and is the founder of an organization of Muslims against terrorism. Even though he is a moderate, his mosque was trashed.

At the same time, if it's true that ISIS feeds off the alienation of young Muslims in Western societies and seeks to sow greater distrust and division between Muslims and non-Muslims, then Canadians might want to ask themselves if Islamophobic incidents are only aiding and abetting the enemy. One such incident took place a few days ago in Calgary. A mosque was broken into and robbed while its imam was attending a peace rally.

I suggest listening to the 22 minute interview. His views on Saudi Wahhabism seems to match that of my views on it as well. Soharwardy also calls on some mosque leaders to be investigated because they are spewing radicalization.

So when the moderates speak, is anyone paying attention?

Edited November 22, 2015 by GostHacked

[Guest]

Actually, you can't count on people automatically knowing that you don't mean "all" of a group when you fail to specify. And you need to consider your audience as well. If you were to say "Police kill innocent people", you probably wouldn't get an objection from a group of prisoners, because they'll accept that the "Police" as a single entity, kill innocent people. But say the same thing in front of a group of policemen, and you'll get an objection because they're not going to accept "Police" as a single entity, but will point out that there are individuals within that group.

You can always say things like "Some Muslims are extreme" or "Some Muslims believe in Sharia law" or "Some Islamic countries impose the most severe version of Sharia law". Or, if you believe it's "most", then say most. The trick is that if you want to be understood, then use the modifiers. Especially in a discussion where feelings are involved. And generally speaking, it is more the responsibility for the communicator to ensure they're understood, than for the listener to accurately decipher what the communicator *really meant*.

I should have this bronzed. Of course that is exactly right, and it is what I do, all the time. Islamists, Islamic Radicals, Islamic Exremists, Some, etc. The keys "n" "o" "t" "a" "l" are worn out on my keyboard.

To requote you here:

You can always say things like "Some Muslims are extreme" or "Some Muslims believe in Sharia law" or "Some Islamic countries impose the most severe version of Sharia law".

This does not seem to be the case with some posters on here. They do not like it. It's not that they think it is not the case, it's just that they think that people ought not to point it out.

Edited November 22, 2015 by bcsapper

[Big Guy]

It may be more appropriate to change the title of this thread from "Islamophobia in Canada" to "Islamophobes in Canada".

How many of the folks on this thread would publish their views under their real names?

[Guest]

It may be more appropriate to change the title of this thread from "Islamophobia in Canada" to "Islamophobes in Canada".

How many of the folks on this thread would publish their views under their real names?

This does not seem to be the case with some posters on here. They do not like it. It's not that they think it is not the case, it's just that they think that people ought not to point it out.

See what I mean?

Edited November 22, 2015 by bcsapper

[marcus]

Yes, daily reports of terror attacks and rape are just sweeping generalizations and bigotry.

Daily reports from ISIS? Who is doing it?

The simple fact that the acts of these extremist group(s) does not represent Muslims, seem not to be penetrating into your head.

[marcus]

We have always accepted that there is a moral difference in deliberately targeting civilians.

Who is we?

I don't accept the killing of civilians when you know civilians will be killed.

Why do you hold less value for these innocent civilians and shrug when they are killed by our governments?

[kimmy]

I'm just trying to understand the rationale behind tying abhorrent behavior to holy books, as though they are the cause. They are not the cause, as far as I can see: it's far too simple. Causes for cultures are complex, and simplifying an entire culture to make people feel better or, worse, to dehumanize groups of people.

I think bcsapper addressed this well. For people who believe that their scripture is the "divinely inspired" word of God, then obviously you had better do what the scripture says. That's the whole point of the story about Abraham and Isaac, right? God tells Abraham to sacrifice his son. Abraham is like "I don't want to kill my own son... but God says to do it, so I have to obey." And at the last moment, angels show up and say "psych! just testing!" And his reward for obeying God's work without regard for his own conscience was that he and his descendants were blessed beyond measure. The message is, ignore what your conscience tells you and obey God's word, and you'll be rewarded.

And obviously we find there are still some religious people who think that way. You can see it in the actions of parents who refused to take their sick kids to the doctor because they believe God will handle everything if they just believe hard enough. This stuff is still around.

-k

[Bryan]

This seems like a strange point to be making. Im most Christian countries the movement is towards more and greater rights for gay people (not all, I grant you), whereas one can still be killed in some Muslim countries. Percentage wise, I'd rather be a gay Christian.

The quote he posted also does not pertain to Christianity whatsoever. It's possible some fundamentalist Jewish sects might feel that way though, given it's their law he was quoting. Even then, unlikely, because Leviticus is a history lesson about the culture of the Levites, not a religious instruction for future followers.

[Guest]

The quote he posted also does not pertain to Christianity whatsoever. It's possible some fundamentalist Jewish sects might feel that way though, given it's their law he was quoting. Even then, unlikely, because Leviticus is a history lesson about the culture of the Levites, not a religious instruction for future followers.

Sorry, wrong Testament? I'm not up on that stuff.

[kimmy]

The quote he posted also does not pertain to Christianity whatsoever. It's possible some fundamentalist Jewish sects might feel that way though, given it's their law he was quoting. Even then, unlikely, because Leviticus is a history lesson about the culture of the Levites, not a religious instruction for future followers.

And yet Leviticus is usually the very first thing homophobic Christians cite when talking about how their religion can't tolerate gay people.

-k

Edited November 22, 2015 by kimmy

[Big Guy]

See what I mean?

If you have not read or seen any Islamophobic or racist comments in this thread then I certainly see what you mean.

[Guest]

If you have not read or seen any Islamophobic or racist comments in this thread then I certainly see what you mean.

Well, I don't read the whole thread. I come home from work and five pages have gone by so I generally try and pick it up where it stands instead of going back and poring over every post. Sometimes I come across posts that I think could be worded better, but Islamophobic, no. Not by my interpretation of the meaning of the word. (Except the obvious, of course, which usually result in the perpetrator being banned)

You could help me here, by defining what you mean by Islamophobia.

Does your meaning include being disgusted by barbaric acts carried out in the name of Islam?

[drummindiver]

It may be more appropriate to change the title of this thread from "Islamophobia in Canada" to "Islamophobes in Canada".

How many of the folks on this thread would publish their views under their real names?

How many ppl support and agree with your stance on Iran?

Even if I shared your views on that, which I most certainly do not, I sure as hell wouldn't state it publicly.

Being concerned with extremists being allowed into Canada? I'll state that all day long.

[Big Guy]

...

You could help me here, by defining what you mean by Islamophobia.

Does your meaning include being disgusted by barbaric acts carried out in the name of Islam?

Islamophobia - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Islamophobia (or anti-Muslim sentiment) is the prejudice against, hatred towards, or fear of the religion of Islam or Muslims.

I, like most normal people, am disgusted by barbaric acts carried out by anyone.

[Big Guy]

How many ppl support and agree with your stance on Iran?

Even if I shared your views on that, which I most certainly do not, I sure as hell wouldn't state it publicly.

Being concerned with extremists being allowed into Canada? I'll state that all day long.

I do not know how many people support and agree with my stance on Iran.

Perhaps you would not but I would and do. There is nothing that I post here that I would not add my real name to. I do share my views (the same ones I express here) in local, national and international newspapers and magazines - mostly in letters to the editor. I have participated on opinion boards for years and learned long ago to post only what I would be prepared to defend and for which I would take responsibility. If I did not use that threshold then I might be prone to prejudicial and cowardly anonymous rhetoric.

[Guest]

Islamophobia - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Islamophobia (or anti-Muslim sentiment) is the prejudice against, hatred towards, or fear of the religion of Islam or Muslims.

I, like most normal people, am disgusted by barbaric acts carried out by anyone.

Well, exactly. And you, like most people, have no problem identifying the perpetrators of such acts, nor the reasoning behind them.

To answer your earlier question then, no, I haven't come across any prejudice against, hatred towards, or fear of the religion of Islam or Muslims, generally. I have only come across prejudice against, hatred towards, or fear of the religion of Islam or Muslims, specifically.

[drummindiver]

I do not know how many people support and agree with my stance on Iran.

Perhaps you would not but I would and do. There is nothing that I post here that I would not add my real name to. I do share my views (the same ones I express here) in local, national and international newspapers and magazines - mostly in letters to the editor. I have participated on opinion boards for years and learned long ago to post only what I would be prepared to defend and for which I would take responsibility. If I did not use that threshold then I might be prone to prejudicial and cowardly anonymous rhetoric.

I state views on here I state in everyday life.

As in everyday life, people automatically assume bigotry if you have reservations about accepting refugees without vetting..

If you do not agree with extremest tenets of an ideology that transcends simple religion, you are somehow a bigot. Very strange.

This is the definition I found of Islamophobia.

Is·lam·o·pho·bi·a

izˌläməˈfōbēə,is-/

noun

noun: Islamophobia

dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force.

So, I am clearly Islamophobic. I would not support Sharia in Canada, and do not support it anywhere it is practiced.

Why? It is clearly an extremist ideology.

Theft is punishable by amputation of the right hand (above).

Criticizing or denying any part of the Quran is punishable by death (only for those who are Muslims & only in a country where Islamic law is completely implemented).

Criticizing or denying Muhammad is a prophet is punishable by death (not denying by non Muslims but criticizing only at a level where it causes mischief).

A Muslim who becomes a non-Muslim is punishable by death

A non-Muslim who leads a Muslim away from Islam is punishable by death.

Testimonies of four male witnesses are required to prove rape against a woman,

A woman's testimony in court, allowed only in property cases, carries half the weight of a man's.

A female heir inherits half of what a male heir inherits.

A woman cannot speak alone to a man who is not her husband or relative,

Edited November 22, 2015 by drummindiver

[BC_chick]

Wow, what a beautiful red herring. Because yeah, supporting refugees means supporting sharia law.

[bush_cheney2004]

Refugees are rejected for lots of reasons having nothing to do with "Islamophobia". PM Trudeau did not mention the millions of other refugees around the world because he would not be able to exploit them for political advantage.

[On Guard for Thee]

I state views on here I state in everyday life.

---SNIP---

Carry on with your phobia, but leave the refugees alone, and don't fret, our legal system will withstand their presence. Edited November 22, 2015 by Charles Anthony
[---SNIP---]