Islamophobia in Canada

[DogOnPorch]

9 hours ago, dialamah said:

Clearly, we agree.

 

Well...except Islam. No objecting Islam.

[PIK]

On 9/18/2017 at 4:12 PM, jacee said:

I am not "in Islam".

Anyone who needs recourse to the law has it in Canada.

What is your point?

Islamophobia - inciting hatred against Muslims in Canada should not be against the law?

Is that your point?

WTF do you mean I am not in Islam, you are a women, get it.  Bill m103 jacee is nothing to do with inciting hatred, any criticism of it will be unlawful. Don't you read up on anything. I am now believing you are nothing but a troll, you can't be a white grandmother like you say you are. Be truthful.

[Michael Hardner]

21 minutes ago, PIK said:

Bill m103 jacee is nothing to do with inciting hatred, any criticism of it will be unlawful.

This is hyperbole.  I'm going to keep pointing out extreme hysteria on Islam, like it or not.  

[DogOnPorch]

57 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

This is hyperbole.  I'm going to keep pointing out extreme hysteria on Islam, like it or not.  

 

Yeah, damnit...it's a very MILD blasphemy motion designed to protect Islam from its critics.

Who wouldn't want that???

[Grand Mal]

20 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

It's the new tactic. Quoting the Quran = hate speech if you're not part of Team Islam.

Part of the Orwellian world we now live in.

If quoting the Koran is relevant in this 'religion of peace' controversy, does that open the door for quoting the Bible?

[betsy]

4 minutes ago, Grand Mal said:

If quoting the Koran is relevant in this 'religion of peace' controversy, does that open the door for quoting the Bible?

The Bible?    That's funny.....

The Bible's been under attack for so long.....did you hear of Christians crying Christianophobia?

Edited September 20, 2017 by betsy

[dialamah]

8 minutes ago, Grand Mal said:

If quoting the Koran is relevant in this 'religion of peace' controversy, does that open the door for quoting the Bible?

No.  Any violence carried out by Christian extremists based on Biblical scripture is:

1. Contrary to modern (Western) mainstream Christian belief and doesn't count;

2.  Way in the past, so irrelevant;

3.  From the Old Testament but because the New Testament supersedes anything in the OT (that makes Christianity look bad) it doesn't count.

4.  Carried out by some nutcase who calls himself Christian but clearly is not.

5.  And if all else fails "You don't understand the context of that scripture".

 

 

[Michael Hardner]

26 minutes ago, Grand Mal said:

If quoting the Koran is relevant in this 'religion of peace' controversy, does that open the door for quoting the Bible?

Those are just the first few steps in the circular explanation that is: "the culture is caused by the book, and the proof is that the book lead to the culture"

[Argus]

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Those are just the first few steps in the circular explanation that is: "the culture is caused by the book, and the proof is that the book lead to the culture"

What causes the violence then? Coincidence?

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, Argus said:

What causes the violence then? Coincidence?

We've already discussed this.  Isolating causes is a difficult exercise, but the books are not 'the' cause.

[Rue]

On 18/09/2017 at 4:57 PM, kactus said:

 

 

You are nothing but full of hatred towards Muslims.

 

Says someone who came on this board on the Netanyahu is a racist thread to slur all JEWS with the reference THE Jews, all Zionists with the term "typical Zionist thug" and wrote of the entire nation of Saudi Arabia because of its government.

I have asked you to provide one thread or word from me on this forum expressing hatred towards Muslims other than terrorist extremist Muslims. You have yet to provide one post. On the other hand I reproduce yourJew slurs continuously.

You don't speak for Palestinians or Muslims. You speak for your political cell of Shiite Iranian extremists who hate not just Jews but progressive Shiites, all non Shiite Muslims, Bahaiis,Christians, Kurds, feminists, gays,trade uionists, Berbers. Zoroastrians to  name but a few targets.

You know where to find me.

Also you responded to me on that other Netanyahu is a racist thread which you then used to accuse all Israelis and Jews of being evil, and said to me I was deflecting that thread. When I pointed out in that thread how you in fact deflected the thread and then reproduced your comments accusing me of doing so after you introduced the accusation Israel is a criminal state against other nations which has nothing to do with the thread topic, to show once again how inconsistent you are, you lied. You said ypu were responding to Bush and I should butt out. Everyone on that thread could plainly see you responded to me.What is interesting is you think you can tell me to butt out of responses not addressed to me and then you do the same with Dialamah speaking for her. Lol.

Can you go one sentence without demonstrating the very thing you accuse me or others of?

You have not now in about 15 responses to me been capable of not contradicting yourself by challenging me for doing the very thing you do in your response. Its so repetitive now I can only ask, do you think you have any credibility left? Probably you don't care. What I see is a lazy, sloppy, emotional mess of knee jerk hate responses now thrown out by you with no time taken to even read what you write. You just spew it.

 

[Goddess]

37 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

We've already discussed this.  Isolating causes is a difficult exercise, but the books are not 'the' cause.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali disagrees with you.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/11/09/islam-is-a-religion-of-violence-ayaan-hirsi-ali-debate-islamic-state/

Quote

 

Mainstream Islamic jurisprudence continues to maintain that the so-called “sword verses” (9:5 and 9:29) have “abrogated, canceled, and replaced” those verses in the Quran that call for “tolerance, compassion, and peace.”

As for the example of Mohammed, Sahih Muslim, one of the six major authoritative Hadith collections, claims the Prophet Mohammed undertook no fewer than 19 military expeditions, personally fighting in eight of them. In the aftermath of the 627 Battle of the Trench, “Mohammed felt free to deal harshly with the Banu Qurayza, executing their men and selling their women and children into slavery,” according to Yale Professor of Religious Studies Gerhard Bowering in his book Islamic Political Thought. As the Princeton scholar Michael Cook observed in his book Ancient Religions, Modern Politics, “the historical salience of warfare against unbelievers … was thus written into the foundational texts” of Islam.

There lies the duality within Islam. It’s possible to claim, following Mohammed’s example in Mecca, that Islam is a religion of peace. But it’s also possible to claim, as the Islamic State does, that a revelation was sent to Mohammed commanding Muslims to wage jihad until every human being on the planet accepts Islam or a state of subservience, on the basis of his legacy in Medina. The key question is not whether Islam is a religion of peace, but rather, whether Muslims follow the Mohammed of Medina, regardless of whether they are Sunni or Shiite.

 

She seperates Muslims into 3 different types:

Quote

 

The first group is the most problematic — the fundamentalists who envision a regime based on sharia, Islamic religious law. They argue for an Islam largely or completely unchanged from its original seventh-century version and take it as a requirement of their faith that they impose it on everyone else. I call them “Medina Muslims,” in that they see the forcible imposition of sharia as their religious duty, following the example of the Prophet Mohammed when he was based in Medina. They exploit their fellow Muslims’ respect for sharia law as a divine code that takes precedence over civil laws. It is only after they have laid this foundation that they are able to persuade their recruits to engage in jihad.

The second group — and the clear majority throughout the Muslim world — consists of Muslims who are loyal to the core creed and worship devoutly but are not inclined to practice violence or even intolerance towards non-Muslims. I call this group “mecca Muslims.” The fundamental problem is that the majority of otherwise peaceful and law-abiding Muslims are unwilling to acknowledge, much less to repudiate, the theological warrant for intolerance and violence embedded in their own religious texts.

More recently, and corresponding with the rise of Islamic terrorism, a third group is emerging within Islam — Muslim reformers or, as I call them, “modifying Muslims” — who promote the separation of religion from politics and other reforms. Although some are apostates, the majority of dissidents are believers, among them clerics who have come to realize that their religion must change if its followers are not to be condemned to an interminable cycle of political violence.

 

Which group will come out on top?:

Quote

The future of Islam and the world’s relationship with Muslims will be decided by which of the two minority groups — the Medina Muslims and the reformers — wins the support of the meccan majority. That is why focusing on “violent extremism” is to focus on a symptom of a much more profound ideological epidemic that has its root causes in Islamic doctrine.

 

Edited September 20, 2017 by Goddess

[Michael Hardner]

7 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Ayaan Hirsi Ali disagrees with you.

For sure, this is a detailed discussion of the role of the Quran in justifying violence but the gist of her article seems to be about defeating the culture that uses the book as justification.  It would be another thing altogether to call for banning the book.  And although I admire her writing and her reasoning, we still seem to be talking about culture.  It's at once a bigger problem than a book, and a more familiar one also.

[Goddess]

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

For sure, this is a detailed discussion of the role of the Quran in justifying violence but the gist of her article seems to be about defeating the culture that uses the book as justification.  It would be another thing altogether to call for banning the book.  And although I admire her writing and her reasoning, we still seem to be talking about culture.  It's at once a bigger problem than a book, and a more familiar one also.

I agree it's not JUST the book.  So I wouldn't go so far as to say it should be banned.

But I agree with the article that a large part of it is.  

[DogOnPorch]

1 hour ago, Grand Mal said:

If quoting the Koran is relevant in this 'religion of peace' controversy, does that open the door for quoting the Bible?

 

Sure...and you can also point to the terrorists that follow those Bible scriptures. Perhaps somewhere in Africa...they like AK-47s.

[Goddess]

The authentic and original teachings of any religion can be found by looking at their books.

• What does the book say?
• What did the founder do?
• What did the first followers do?

 

[DogOnPorch]

6 minutes ago, Goddess said:

The authentic and original teachings of any religion can be found by looking at their books.

• What does the book say?
• What did the founder do?
• What did the first followers do?

 

 

Ms Hirsi-Ali is spot-on...but you know...she's one of those Islamophobes.

[DogOnPorch]

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

No.  Any violence carried out by Christian extremists based on Biblical scripture is:

1. Contrary to modern (Western) mainstream Christian belief and doesn't count;

2.  Way in the past, so irrelevant;

3.  From the Old Testament but because the New Testament supersedes anything in the OT (that makes Christianity look bad) it doesn't count.

4.  Carried out by some nutcase who calls himself Christian but clearly is not.

5.  And if all else fails "You don't understand the context of that scripture".

 

 

 

Can you list the last dozen Christian terrorist attacks.

There must be a list...

 

 

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

We've already discussed this.  Isolating causes is a difficult exercise, but the books are not 'the' cause.

That's your opinion. Until you know what is the cause you can't rule out the books, and even if you believe the violence isn't in the books - despite that little stat I posted earlier about the majority of the Koran talking about how to treat unbelievers - that doesn't mean the religion as it is currently practiced, taught and preached isn't responsible.

I mean, there seem to be 'islamist' terrorist or guerrilla organizations in almost every Muslim country, or every country which has a sizeable Muslim minority, from the south pacific to Africa. We do not see a like number of Christian terrorist/guerrilla organizations around the globe.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

For sure, this is a detailed discussion of the role of the Quran in justifying violence but the gist of her article seems to be about defeating the culture that uses the book as justification.

Did you read a different article than I did? It says no such thing. It points out that the violence against unbelievers is written into the foundational texts of the religion, and the example of the founder, Muhammed, is one of violence against unbelievers, and spreading the religion by force.

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

Did you read a different article than I did? It says no such thing. It points out that the violence against unbelievers is written into the foundational texts of the religion, and the example of the founder, Muhammed, is one of violence against unbelievers, and spreading the religion by force.

 

...and his Companions. A bunch o' laughs they were....

[DogOnPorch]

Without Companion Caliph Omar claiming that it was the freshly conquered Jerusalem that was the VERY location of the mythical 'furthest mosque' as mentioned in the Quran, there would be none of this Third Most Holy Place in Islam jazz.

[Argus]

Now let's consider what Islamophobia means. That seems to differ depending on who you ask. If you listen to progressives, being an Islamophobe is basically identical to being a racist or Antisemite. Ie, you're a bigot who has an unreasoning hatred for people who are Black, or Jewish, or Muslim. Thus, you have a phobia.

Merriam Webster, on the other hand, defines it as " irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against Islam or people who practice Islam"

Which is pretty odd. If you have an 'aversion' to Islam you're guilty of Islamophobia?

On the other hand, Oxford simply says: " Dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force."

Which seems pretty strange, because in terms of Islam as a political force how is dislike a phobia? Is there a 'phobia' involved in dislike of other political forces, like Communism or Marxism or Nazism? What if you have an aversion to Communism? Are you a Communophobe? Can one be a Liberalophobe?

Now the Cambridge dictionary seems at least a little more reasonable, in that it requires your dislike to be unreasonable." unreasonable dislike or fear of, and prejudice against, Muslims or Islam:"

Perhaps the best discussion I've seen of the term is found here from the International Civil Liberties Organization.

The term “Islamophobia” was coined just over a century ago. The first recorded use of the word was in 1912, in French (“l’islamophobie”)7, and it reappeared occasionally in the 1920sand later in the century. Its original sense referred to a fear among modernized Muslims of the traditional forms of Islam, rather than an attitude towards Islam held by non-Muslims.8

...The term Islamophobia seemed to first appear in Britain during the Rushdie affair in the late 1980’s.This was an attempt by fundamentalist Muslims to silence critics such as Rushdie and his supporters for free speech by arguing that only the wider ‘Islamophobia’ of British society and state allowed this to pass unpunished. The implication was clear: criticism of Islam is tantamount to ‘Islamophobia’ andis therefore out of bounds. This is a position that progressives cannot and should not accept.

...

The more generalized version of Islamophobia the Left generally believes in was, in fact, created by an Islamist! And this is the one which equated Islamophobia with racism and xenophobia. It is the current belief of almost all progressives and most on the Left.

Islamophobia is a contemporary form of racism and xenophobia motivated by unfounded fear, mistrust, and hatred of Muslims and Islam. Islamophobia is also manifested through intolerance, discrimination, unequal treatment, prejudice, stereotyping, hostility, and adverse public discourse. Differentiating from classical racism and xenophobia, Islamophobia is mainly based on stigmatizationof a religion and its followers, and as such, Islamophobia is an affront to the human rights and dignity of Muslims.

 

Edited September 20, 2017 by Argus

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

We've already discussed this.  Isolating causes is a difficult exercise, but the books are not 'the' cause.

People reading them is the cause.  People thinking they are a holy book, or the word of God, is the cause.

[DogOnPorch]

5 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

People reading them is the cause.  People thinking they are a holy book, or the word of God, is the cause.

 

You really hit the nail on the head: the Quran claims to be the VERY word of God...not subject to revision in any form (there's a verse saying so).

The Christian Bible in its various forms makes no such literal claim with perhaps the exception of the 10 Commandments...and...a stretch...Jesus's lines from the NT (in red).