Islamophobia in Canada

[Argus]

Joe Schlesiner's new column:

History suggests refugees can only make Canada a better place.

Some excerpts:

Refugees have contributed greatly to our country, even those with little education. They have started businesses, and have significantly changed industries.

As has already been documented, most of the Syrians who had ambition, the middle class, the ones who were more worldly and modern and educated, they took off for Europe. The ones still sitting in the camps are the docile ones, the ones who come from the desert, who haven't even heard of the internet, much less used it, who have very poor literacy skills, even in their own language, whose women did not work outside the home and whose men worked in low skill, physical labour jobs.

Illiterate third world refugees from the desert are not going to replace aging boomers at work. Given their skillset and our progressive taxation system they are also not going to replace them by paying for government services. Rather, they will be at the trough consuming government services without paying much, if anything, into the tax base. They will be a drag on finances and on the economy.

Edited December 6, 2015 by Argus

[GostHacked]

I'm not aware of any country where Muslims live peacefully with unbelievers unless the percentage of Muslims is very low. Once a certain threshold in numbers is reached, percentagewise, it seems to bring with it a chafing at the lack of Islam in daily life, and a demand that changes be made in media, in culture, in government and laws, to respond to the religious sensibilities of Muslims. Then violence ensues.

Of course, it's only a small percentage of the community which ever actively involves itself in the violence, but then, that's always been the case in any community with regard to those who take action on almost any subject.

The people that suffer the most via radicalized Islam are other Muslims.

Edited December 6, 2015 by GostHacked

[marcus]

As has already been documented

Where was it documented?

[GostHacked]

Those cranky Christians weren't blowing up buildings. And Islam is changing all right, for the worse, thanks to tens of billions of Saudi petrodollars funding schools, mosques and community centers around the world, and even supplying them with Saudi paid imams.

So why are we not after Saudi Arabia?

[Argus]

The people that suffer the most via radicalized Islam are other Muslims.

I recognize that, but that is their problem. It's their religion. I am opposed to making it my problem by bringing any Muslims here who are not first screened for Wahabi type fundamentalism.

[Argus]

So why are we not after Saudi Arabia?

I think because the West felt it needed the stability Saudis represented, and because it needed their oil. It needs it much less now, and there isn't much stability to be had in that region. Even so, any replacement for the Saudi government would be worse. All internal opponents believe in an even more strict, more fundamentalist observation of Islam and Islamic law than the Saud family. The best we could hope to do is put pressure on them to stop funding schools, mosques and Islamic centers around the world. Christ, we could start by not letting them fund any in our own damned countries, which they do.

David D. Aufhauser, a former Treasury Department general counsel, told a Senate committee in June 2004 that estimates went "north of $75 billion." The money financed the construction of thousands of mosques, schools and Islamic centers, the employment of at least 9,000 proselytizers and the printing of millions of books of religious instruction.

According to a major investigation by Washington Post reporter David B. Ottaway published on August 19, 2004, the Saudi government's Ministry of Islamic Affairs, Endowment, Call and Guidance pays the salaries of 3,884 Wahhabi missionaries and preachers, who are six times as numerous as the 650 diplomats in Saudi Arabia's 77 embassies.

http://dttj.blogspot.ca/2010/08/saudi-arabias-funding-of-american.html

No matter which organizational connections (if any) ultimately prove to be real, one thing is clear: the fountainhead of Islamic extremism that promotes and legitimizes such violence lies with the fanatical "Wahhabi" strain of Islam centered in Saudi Arabia. And if the world wants to tamp down and eliminate such violent extremism, it must confront this primary host and facilitator.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-yousaf-butt-/saudi-wahhabism-islam-terrorism_b_6501916.html

German Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel on Sunday said Saudi Arabia must stop financing fundamentalist mosques abroad which are accused of breeding extremism.

“From Saudi Arabia, Wahhabi mosques are financed throughout the world,” said Gabriel.

“In Germany many extremists considered dangerous persons emerge from these communities,” he told the newspaper Bild am Sonntag

http://tribune.com.pk/story/1004949/saudi-must-stop-financing-fundamentalist-mosques-abroad-merkels-deputy/

All those new Syrians in Germany? Where are they going to pray?! No fears, Saudi Arabia to the rescue. They have pledged to build 200 new mosques in Germany.

http://www.ibtimes.com/amid-muslim-refugee-crisis-saudi-arabia-vows-build-200-mosques-germany-2090905

And don't think they aren't doing it in Canada too.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/saudi-government-funding-private-islamic-schools-in-canada-docs-show/article25223573/

Edited December 6, 2015 by Argus

[GostHacked]

I recognize that, but that is their problem. It's their religion. I am opposed to making it my problem by bringing any Muslims here who are not first screened for Wahabi type fundamentalism.

You already made it your problem by supporting the invasions of nations in the M.E.

[GostHacked]

I think because the West felt it needed the stability Saudis represented, and because it needed their oil. It needs it much less now, and there isn't much stability to be had in that region. Even so, any replacement for the Saudi government would be worse. All internal opponents believe in an even more strict, more fundamentalist observation of Islam and Islamic law than the Saud family. The best we could hope to do is put pressure on them to stop funding schools, mosques and Islamic centers around the world. Christ, we could start by not letting them fund any in our own damned countries, which they do.

The Saudi's represent 'stability' via a tyrannical government. If it is all about oil and economics, anything else you speculate on regarding this is just wasting your breath.

However the prediction was that if Saddam was removed, you would see a rise in radical terror groups. But since that did not work, we decided to do it again in Syria. Which is creating more problems.

Why is your Saudi approach not applied to other governments?

[Argus]

You already made it your problem by supporting the invasions of nations in the M.E.

No, you made it my problem by supporting bringing hundreds of thousands of Muslims to Canada without the most basic of checks on what they believe.

There is no evidence whatsoever that anything Canada has done abroad has in any way, shape or form caused any refugees or economic hardships in that region.

[GostHacked]

No, you made it my problem by supporting bringing hundreds of thousands of Muslims to Canada without the most basic of checks on what they believe.

There is no evidence whatsoever that anything Canada has done abroad has in any way, shape or form caused any refugees or economic hardships in that region.

WHY are Syrians leaving the area?

[dialamah]

So, "abrogation" to you is simply the number of legitimate jihadists in formed armies? Wow!

Would you agree that with such low numbers, they should easily be dealt with?

1: Abrogation is a concept used to explain why different passages in the Quran contradict one another.

2: Some Muslims do not believe abrogation is at all valid, because it implies that Allah "made a mistake", so they use other means to explain the contradiction - such as claiming that some verses only apply in a certain context, or a certain time period, or simply that the additional verses added clarity to the original verses.

3: Other Muslims believe that abrogation is valid, but only in a very limited number of verses (24 was one number I saw bandied about a lot) and only for very specific contexts - none of which include Jihad.

4: Some Muslims believe that abrogation means that Sura 9:5 abrogated *all* previous verses of the Quran relating to peaceful co-existence with non-Muslims, and is a command for waging war upon all non-believers. This definition of abrogation is the LEAST SUBSCRIBED to among Muslims but apparently the most subscribed to among non-Muslims.

5: Ideological wars are not easily dealt with, and recruitment is ongoing aided by the actions of the West. Encouraging hatred and bigotry toward moderate Muslims in Western countries helps with recruitment - so you and a few others on this board are furthering the agenda of Islamic extremists, much as you deny it. It is a stated goal of ISIS to 'erase' the grey - that is, moderates - through terror. People become a part of their recruitment process because when they are unable and unwilling to differentiate between the majority of moderate, peace-seeking Muslims, and the minority of extremists.

Edited December 7, 2015 by dialamah

[Argus]

WHY are Syrians leaving the area?

Because there was a rebellion against Assad, which had nothing to do with the WEst, but was a product of the Arab Spring. It would probably be long over now were it not for Iran and Russia aiding the Assad regime.

[GostHacked]

Because there was a rebellion against Assad, which had nothing to do with the WEst, but was a product of the Arab Spring. It would probably be long over now were it not for Iran and Russia aiding the Assad regime.

The west has been key in assisting the rise of this Arab Spring. We are supporting the terrorism of Syria via the Free Syrian Army, supplying arms, and training. You can ignore that, but it's been documented and admitted by western governments. Ignore it at your own peril.

[Hal 9000]

1: Abrogation is a concept used to explain why different passages in the Quran contradict one another.

2: Some Muslims do not believe abrogation is at all valid, because it implies that Allah "made a mistake", so they use other means to explain the contradiction - such as claiming that some verses only apply in a certain context, or a certain time period, or simply that the additional verses added clarity to the original verses.

3: Other Muslims believe that abrogation is valid, but only in a very limited number of verses (24 was one number I saw bandied about a lot) and only for very specific contexts - none of which include Jihad.

4: Some Muslims believe that abrogation means that Sura 9:5 abrogated *all* previous verses of the Quran relating to peaceful co-existence with non-Muslims, and is a command for waging war upon all non-believers. This definition of abrogation is the LEAST SUBSCRIBED to among Muslims but apparently the most subscribed to among non-Muslims.

5: Ideological wars are not easily dealt with, and recruitment is ongoing aided by the actions of the West. Encouraging hatred and bigotry toward moderate Muslims in Western countries helps with recruitment - so you and a few others on this board are furthering the agenda of Islamic extremists, much as you deny it. It is a stated goal of ISIS to 'erase' the grey - that is, moderates - through terror. You, Argus, Dogonporch and a few others are part of their recruitment process because you are unable and unwilling to differentiate between the majority of moderate, peace-seeking Muslims, and the minority of extremists.

Not true! There are moderate Muslims - I actually know a few...and based on their lifestyles, they would be killed by the extremists too. We know "extremists" are the minority, but that doesn't matter when the moderates (the majority) are either sympathizers or indifferent.

You're the one playing the old "it's all or nothing" game.

When we talk about Nazi Germany, we tend to blanket all the germans as Nazis (and yes, we all do it). So, why don't you figure out just how many germans were Radical Nazis, moderate Nazis, sympathizers, or simply indifferent germans? It might surprise you just how few radicals are needed to take control of a country or society.

[WestCoastRunner]

As has already been documented, most of the Syrians who had ambition, the middle class, the ones who were more worldly and modern and educated, they took off for Europe. The ones still sitting in the camps are the docile ones, the ones who come from the desert, who haven't even heard of the internet, much less used it, who have very poor literacy skills, even in their own language, whose women did not work outside the home and whose men worked in low skill, physical labour jobs.

Illiterate third world refugees from the desert are not going to replace aging boomers at work. Given their skillset and our progressive taxation system they are also not going to replace them by paying for government services. Rather, they will be at the trough consuming government services without paying much, if anything, into the tax base. They will be a drag on finances and on the economy.

Ukranian refugees sound very similar:

The first wave of Ukrainian immigrants (1890-1914) had the following characteristics:

• the vast majority were peasants
• most were small ‘c’ conservative, attached to old traditions and the soil
• most were uneducated, and ignorant of modern farming methods
• about 50% were illiterate
• most had no knowledge of English
• they had no capital
• only a few were skilled tradesmen

[Michael Hardner]

Too many personal comments and uncited facts happening on this thread. Please pay attention.

[Argus]

Ukranian refugees sound very similar:

I suppose it has escaped your notice that Canada of 2015 is somewhat more technologically sophisticated than it was a hundred years ago?

Lots of people and lots of jobs lacked much education back then. Lots of jobs available for anyone with a strong back. No language, education or job skills necessary. That's not been the case for some time now.

Furthermore you supported yourself back then. There was no welfare, unemployment, pensions or government paid health care. That's also far from the case now.

Edited December 6, 2015 by Argus

[WestCoastRunner]

I suppose it has escaped your notice that Canada of 2015 is somewhat more technologically sophisticated than it was a hundred years ago?

Lots of people and lots of jobs lacked much education back then. Lots of jobs available for anyone with a strong back. No language, education or job skills necessary. That's not been the case for some time now.

Furthermore you supported yourself back then. There was no welfare, unemployment, pensions or government paid health care. That's also far from the case now.

And without those social programs, look how they succeeded. Can you imagine how much more successful they could have been or how much easier it might have been for them.

Not sure why you think that individuals today would be any different from individuals in the 1800's. Everyone wants a better life for themselves and their children but you seem to think that Muslims don't have that drive.

[WestCoastRunner]

Personally, I doubt I will meet most as I don't go into government subsidized housing projects and that is probably where most of them will spend their lives.

I might encounter one driving a cab a few years from now, after they learn how to drive, or cleaning the floors in a building I enter. But given the nature of their education and backgrounds, I doubt I'll see them elsewhere.

This is personal opinion and nothing more. It's a slam against refugees and immigrants.

[dialamah]

Not true! There are moderate Muslims - I actually know a few...and based on their lifestyles, they would be killed by the extremists too.

Then perhaps we agree more than I think we do.

We know "extremists" are the minority, but that doesn't matter when the moderates (the majority) are either sympathizers or indifferent.

Thousands of people died in the Arab spring, fighting against governments not even as brutal as ISIS or Boko Haram. What makes you so sure that 'moderates' will be happy to let radicals put them under another harsh yoke?

When we talk about Nazi Germany, we tend to blanket all the germans as Nazis (and yes, we all do it). So, why don't you figure out just how many germans were Radical Nazis, moderate Nazis, sympathizers, or simply indifferent germans? It might surprise you just how few radicals are needed to take control of a country or society.

When I read or talk about Nazi Germany, I think "Nazi" as distinctly different from "German" so to me Nazi Germany represents something very different than Germans in general. "Nazi Germany" was an aberration, short-lived in history, but it's impact was horrific.

Yes, I certainly agree that passivity and non-involvement is damaging, that people must speak out in order to avoid repeating past mistakes.

If I want to combat extremism in Canada, than I want to make sure Muslims feel welcome and accepted. If a Muslim person feels welcome and accepted, they have much less motivation for deciding "All Westerners" are against "All Muslims".

If a group of Muslims got together and submitted some kind of official request for their legal system to over-ride the Canadian legal system, I would not be ok with that.

If a Muslim congregaton got together and decided to use Sharia law in ways that did not contravene any Canadian law, then that would be up to them, same as it is for Mennonites and similar religious groups.

[WestCoastRunner]

This thread should be changed to 'Muslimphobia'.

[eyeball]

Those cranky Christians weren't blowing up buildings. And Islam is changing all right, for the worse, thanks to tens of billions of Saudi petrodollars funding schools, mosques and community centers around the world, and even supplying them with Saudi paid imams.

Ah yes the Saudis, our allies, bros in arms...to do something about them you'd have to do something about our side's cozy relationships with them wouldn't you?

Where do you think those billions of Saudi petrodollars came from Argus?

[Argus]

And without those social programs, look how they succeeded. Can you imagine how much more successful they could have been or how much easier it might have been for them.

And once again, you seem to have forgotten that these are different times and that our current technological environment does not allow for people with no communications, educational or job skills to come in and 'succeed' by our measure of the term. If those illiterate Ukrainian peasants walked off a boat today they'd wind up on welfare too.

[Argus]

This is personal opinion and nothing more. It's a slam against refugees and immigrants.

It's a logical inference given their lack of language, education and job skills.

[Argus]

The west has been key in assisting the rise of this Arab Spring. We are supporting the terrorism of Syria via the Free Syrian Army, supplying arms, and training. You can ignore that, but it's been documented and admitted by western governments. Ignore it at your own peril.

The Arab Spring was a homegrown response to government actions in Tunisia which then spread through the Arab world.

Edited December 6, 2015 by Argus