Muslims Shot and Killed in Quebec City

[Altai]

17 hours ago, Cum Laude said:

If we’re being fact based and honest, here’s a threat. The vast majority of “shooters” are on anti-depressants, SSRI’s. I’m certainly no genius, but I have to believe that is a contributing factor. How about we stop allowing wholesale distribution of anti-depressants. What say you Big Pharma? What say you AMA? Nary a word is mentioned about this link in the MSM, as millions and millions of dollars of advertising revenue would simply evaporate. The MSM must obey their corporate masters at all costs, even the costs of our lives.

People should always remember a rule about their body while using drugs. When you give something artificial to your body, your body will reduce and finish its own production. So anti-depressan are giving people some hormones of happiness and relaxation like as dopamine or serotonin and people feel good when they use it first. Then in time their body slow down its own mechanism to produce these hormones and everything is going to be much worse.  They are being addicted and using these artificial drugs never compensate natural-original production and they are being much worse than initial stage if they try to stop using it. 

[Argus]

16 minutes ago, mowich said:

I'm one of those 'Old Stock Canadians' which just means I am a descendant of earlier immigrants. Without immigration, this country would be a poorer much less diverse society. 

Well, it would be less diverse, but there's no evidence it would be poorer.

And not everyone is in love with diversity. The natural human condition is to value association with similar types of people. Perhaps it's instinctively tribal, but it is also universal.

16 minutes ago, mowich said:

Those immigrants who came to Canada during the Mulroney years are now naturalized Canadians.  Those coming now will be in 3 years time when they take the Oath of Citizenship but before they got here they were subjected to a vetting process that is the envy of many Americans and one of the reasons behind the temporary ban imposed by President Trump.

I don't know what the vetting process was decades ago. From what I've been reading now, and posting in other threads, the vetting for immigrants consist of checking police records to see if they have one, and checking to see if they're on the watch-list of intelligence agencies who suspect they might be involved in terrorism. That's it. There is no formal interview with the prospective immigrant. It's all done through long-distance, as immigration officers who are pressured to move the numbers as quickly as possible, hurriedly go through paperwork that has been mailed to them and then approve them as fast as they can (this too has been posted here earlier).

16 minutes ago, mowich said:

The fact is that us OSCs aren't breeding in the numbers we once were for a number of reasons - thus our numbers are shrinking while those of other ethnicities are on the rise.  I see nothing harmful nor alarming about this fact at all.  The truth is that no matter the color of our skin, the choice of our religion or the politics we support - we are ALL Canadians.  

If immigrants come in and adopt Canada's culture and value then I would tend to agree. Unfortunately, there is evidence that in many cases that's not happening. They're bringing their beliefs with them, and some of those beliefs and values are extremely hostile to the secular and tolerant values Canadians cherish. There's also the question of cost, since many reports have indicated a diminishing economic success for immigrants, and we appear to be increasing recruitment from areas of the world where Canada's immigration department has already stated produce the least economically successful immigrants.

[mowich]

Quote

If immigrants come in and adopt Canada's culture and value then I would tend to agree. Unfortunately, there is evidence that in many cases that's not happening. They're bringing their beliefs with them, and some of those beliefs and values are extremely hostile to the secular and tolerant values Canadians cherish.

Would you be so kind as to post links to specific articles that will provide some basis in fact for what you wrote in the post above. 

The fact is that the overwhelming majority of immigrants to our country are assimilating with little difficulty and that the extremist views you mention are to be found in the hearts and minds of homegrown Canadians. 

 

[Rue]

40 minutes ago, Altai said:

People should always remember a rule about their body while using drugs. When you give something artificial to your body, your body will reduce and finish its own production. So anti-depressan are giving people some hormones of happiness and relaxation like as dopamine or serotonin and people feel good when they use it first. Then in time their body slow down its own mechanism to produce these hormones and everything is going to be much worse.  They are being addicted and using these artificial drugs never compensate natural-original production and they are being much worse than initial stage if they try to stop using it. 

Seratonin is not artificial, its naturally made by the brain. Anti-depressants do not create Seratonin they simply stop the body from releasing serotonin.

Seratonin is a chemical called a neurotransmitter. When it runs low or the brain empties it, the thoughts of the brain are dominated by emotions or feelings such as sadness, despair, hopelessness, an inability to concentrate, feel, hear, smell. It can make one feel overwhelmed by fatigue and muscle aches and unable to even tie one's shoes.

Seratonin is a chemical required to transmit thoughts and without them these emotions cause the thoughts to be attached to these feelings. Its a mood regulator. Its effect is subtle. It takes many weeks to build up in the blood system when one takes an anti depressant. The anti depressant does not create a damn thing it simply tells the brain not to release and instead keep or retain its serotonin/. People most certainly do not feel happywhen they use it. There is no effect like that at all. Seratonin is not a hormone its a neurotransmitter. No itis not addictive it does not impact on the part of the brain or on any part of the body that would cause a craving either physical or mental. When people withdraw from it they do not crave it and desire a fix. Nonsense. No it does not make them happy, sing, jump up and down.

To make a long story short, you have no clue what you are talking about and before you write such nonsense take the time to research the topic.

 

 

 

[kactus]

1 hour ago, Altai said:

People should always remember a rule about their body while using drugs. When you give something artificial to your body, your body will reduce and finish its own production. So anti-depressan are giving people some hormones of happiness and relaxation like as dopamine or serotonin and people feel good when they use it first. Then in time their body slow down its own mechanism to produce these hormones and everything is going to be much worse.  They are being addicted and using these artificial drugs never compensate natural-original production and they are being much worse than initial stage if they try to stop using it. 

Absolutely untrue...

[Rue]

10 minutes ago, mowich said:

Would you be so kind as to post links to specific articles that will provide some basis in fact for what you wrote in the post above. 

The fact is that the overwhelming majority of immigrants to our country are assimilating with little difficulty and that the extremist views you mention are to be found in the hearts and minds of homegrown Canadians. 

 

Its interesting because the tone of your response seems to be upset with Argus for making generalizations about immigrants you think are unfair but you then engage in the very same generalizations in response only in reverse. You provided no evidence for your position and label his as extremist but so are yours for the very same reasons. The fact is some immigrants adjust, some do not and ALL including my family and every damn immigrant I know did not have it easy. Of course immigrants experience adjustment problems. I would agree with you suggesting ALL immigrants or even a majority of immigrants are failing to adjust is a negative generalization because if nothing else common sense would tell us its not true or they would have left and others would not come. That said can you and I CAN discuss immigration adjustment problems without assuming either of us hate immigrants. Here are some articles that touch on some of the issues:

http://vancouversun.com/life/growing-poverty-among-canadian-immigrants-could-explode-study

http://www.straight.com/article-271917/vancouver/many-depressions-part-life-canada

http://canadianimmigrant.ca/slider/international-students-find-challenges-in-adjusting-socially-amidst-other-cultures

http://www.immigroup.com/news/top-10-problems-immigrants

http://iqra.ca/2010/major-concerns-facing-canadian-muslims/

Now here is a summary of the kind of issues immigrants and refugees face:

1-an inability to speak or write  English of French sufficiently to be able to carry out certain jobs;                                                                                                                                2-a lack of any transferable vocational or work skills;                                                                                                                                                                                           3-large numbers of children but no means to support them and necessarily causing housing issues;                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       4-pre-existing mental and physical illnesses; associated with coming from conflict zones;                                                                                                                                       5-weather and climate;                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            7-lack of availability of certain foods;                                                                                                                                                                                                                        8-general anxiety and stress of adjustment;                                                                                                                                                                                                         9-rejection/ refusal to acknowledge, tolerate other cultural, political, religious,values, i.e., entrenched views as to pre-marital sex, sex, sex education,  homosexuality, women being subordinate to men                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            10-alcoholism, domestic violence, drug addiction, gambing, promiscuity, criminal behavior co-related to feelings of inferiority, lack of control                                                           11-a decline in lifestyle or class or status as compared to old country which can be further exasperated by being forced to live with fellow immigrants who in the old country would be considered inferior or the enemy and now are considered equal and/or more advantaged;                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                12-feelings of entitlement, i.e., the belief that refugee status or immigrant status crates an entitlement to automatic benefits;                                                                                     13-feelings of anger, betrayal when entitlements in 12 are not forthcoming;                                                                                                                                                                14-perceived, real and/or imagined intolerance by others on an individual or collective basis  or by society as a whole;.

All of the above are not specific to any one group of new Canadians.

The problem today is the new legal creation of the definition of  refugees as opposed to  immigrant, enables a certain class of persons to jump to the head of the admission line  and unlike immigrants do not have to qualify on a criteria basis that predicts how likely they will be able to succeed in Canada.

As a result there is incentive for potential immigrants who can not conform to the standard immigration criteria to lie and create stories to fit within the refugee definition.

There's no point pretending this is not so. If you had a disease that means you die in your country but can be treated in Canada with its medicare, and you know you won' qualify for immigration status, of course you will lie to get in and get that medical care. If you are an economic migrant with no hope of work in Africa of course you will lie and make up a refugee story to jump the line and avoid failing to qualify under the regular route. A starving person walking by an apple pie put outside to cool, will steal it.

Few immigrants coming the regular route these days are unaware of the struggles they will face coming to Canada. Refugees like such imigrants are coached by relatives, and illegal smugglers (coyotes) and immigration consultants/lawyers.

Where we have a real problem is with refugees who have mental or physical illnesses or are of such an age where its unlikely they can overcome these barriers to get work once they come to Canada. We've set them up for failure. They necessarily end up on welfare in ghettos and their children depend on the state and find themselves in neighbourhoods full of crime from gangs and  drugs due to the isolation and adjustment issues.

Refugees, genuine refugees most always have some sort of emotional or mental illness or physical illness as a result of the stress,chaos, and poor diet before coming o Canada which means higher rates of cancer, diabetes, heart disease, tooth decay causing heart disease, deafness, blindness. It doesn't mean they can't make it but its unrealistic to think they come all shiny and bright and ready to be our next Tim Horton's employee of the month.

Its a serious social commitment taking in people injured from the stress of conflict. You can't just dump such people in the middle of Toronto or Vancouver as Trudeau did and expect such people to flourish. Its not because they are lazy they fail, its because they have barriers not properly identified which they can't overcome..

Now what Argus and others are warning is, that in a portion of extremist refugees and immigrants are people coming to Canada  but not wanting to assimilate.

How wide spread that is-is the question and maybe Argus has gone too far in his generalizations but so it is also the same in r everse if we say anyone asking questions abou immigration being problematic automatically is an extremist and hates immigrants..

We do  know in the past Jews, Ukrainians Dukhabors, Japanese, Chinese, Italians, Jamaicans, Lebanese, Irish when they came in their waves, faced the identical criticism Muslims are now. One  argument is all these groups were either Christian or part of religions that were willing to live within a greater Christian context and did not question that greater Christian context of values. Take for example the Vietnamese Boat people or Sri Lankan boat people. People did not want them in Canada. They said nasty things but neither of these groups has destroyed fundamental Canadian values as many suggested they would. It is true the LTTE Tigers, a terrorist group used Toronto Sri Lankan refugees as a source to raise funds at one point which fueled the war back in Sri Lanka and that problem was not properly identified by Canada for years and its the same concern now with Muslims in Canada who like Sri Lankans may be recruited or are being pressured to finance terrorism overseas.

That said, is it far to say all Muslims coming here reject the greater Christian context of Canada that they come into? Is it that wide-spread. As well we must ask. are the values they may not agree with Christian or in fact  non Christian modern values associated with how we define wealth, material value, human value, sex behaviour outside conventional religion. It's probably more likely to be the latter because fundamental Muslims have no problem forming coalitions with fundamentaliust, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Siekhs  in regards to protesting abortion, sex education in class rooms, gay rights, feminism, sexual values perceived as promiscuous.

What we also know is that humans tend to have a behavioural pattern of after being discfriminated against and surviving it, to now feel they have the right to pass on that kind of discriminagtory behaviour  on others and expect those targeted with their bad behaviour to deal with it just like they did. In fact new Canadians are for that r eason very intolerant of other new Canadians they perceive came after them and haven't paid their dues. The phenomena of visible minority Canadians with heavy accents criticizing other Canadians for not being true Canadians is a common Canadian phenomena today. Immigrants and new Canadians are not necessarily welcoming of other immigrants. Its not the exclusive domain of white Canadians as some on this forum claim it is.

Unfortunately negative behaviour is passed on but it can and has been stopped when we can challenge people to understand on an individual and group level through education that we have choices to pass on negative and positive behaviour its not a given.

So in the debate on new Canadians, I would argue with all the above in mind, its acceptable, its o.k., its needed that we openly discuss what qualities in all Canadians including new ones we find positive and negative. This notion we can not criticize negative behaviour in immigrants because it automatically makes us bigoted against them and extremist does NOT help immigrants. They need us to be straight and up front as to the kinds of values and behaviour we welcome and reject in them so its one less barrier of misunderstanding for them and it makes it easier for them to know what is expected of them..

Enough with the negative generalizations but yes let's identify qualities we all want in Canadians and will make us compatible with one another. That's a discussion we need.. Canada has spent over 150 years saying what a Canadian is NOT, not what we are.

We basically define a Canadian with qualities other than Canadian ones. Why?

Here's some Canadian traits or values;

1-the aboriginal concept of holistic relationship, i.e., we are a nation of nations and within each nation or collective are sub-sollectives and so on;

2-government medicare-we believe in it because when Canada was built, the weather and climamte was harsh and we knew if we were to survive, we had to share shelter and medical supplies;

3- as per 2, our believe in cooperatives or government initiating socialist or collective rights concepts;

4-our rejection of extremely chauvinistic or patriotic displays, i.e., this came about for two major reasons; i-we rejected the individual identity of rebellion of the Americans next door who rejected monarchy-instead we saw ourselves not as individuals like Americans, but subjects of the monarchy, i.e., our identity was subordinate to the greater whole of society's identity symbolized by the monarchy; ii-we then remained quite and modest as to avoid angering the US into attacking us after having one war with the;

5-our dislike of guns-Canada was founded by aboriginals who did not use guns-when the British and French came, while thy shot each other and some aboriginals as part of their colonial war, for the most part all interaction was done by Police who did not carry guns-gun crimes, murder by guns was just not usual-the idea one had to shoot their way to gain property rights as in the US was something we rejected;

6-our relationship to blacks from Africa rejected slavery earlier-some of our earliest Canadians after 1867 were black-our concept of blacks contained racism but not as pronounced as in the  US where apartheid remained until the civil rights movement;

7-our preference for moderate middle of the road politicians with no strong views-to this day Canadian politicians of all parties head to the middle of positions and take on the same characteristics and approaches to government-even our so called Conservatives engage in government spending and concepts socialist in concept-even he most ardent of free enterprise free market supporters agrees with regulations of banks, industry-we like government involvement and are willing to a point to pay taxes;

8-our concept of military is still very much British including a rejection of open bravado and arrogance and the expectation a Canadian soldier is to be honourable and not oppressive;

9-the idea we should be liked by everyone not Canadian, i.e., peacekeepers, mediators, polite people who like everyone and want to help and save everyone;

10-a lack of awareness or a taking for granted that there will always be unlimited amounts of fresh water, oil, gas, natural resources;

11-a dependence on driving cars as the principle means of transportation and so much so that we place driveways and garages in front of our houses not behind and design all our cities to cater to car travel not walking, bicycles or mass transit;

12- further to 10, a collective tendency to pollute at a higher rate than most people in the world.

Those are just some of the traits we have and they can be good, bad, or somewhere in between but they are very much part of the Canadian context.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Cum Laude]

3 hours ago, Altai said:

People should always remember a rule about their body while using drugs. When you give something artificial to your body, your body will reduce and finish its own production. So anti-depressan are giving people some hormones of happiness and relaxation like as dopamine or serotonin and people feel good when they use it first. Then in time their body slow down its own mechanism to produce these hormones and everything is going to be much worse.  They are being addicted and using these artificial drugs never compensate natural-original production and they are being much worse than initial stage if they try to stop using it. 

That is true. Big Pharma has a good portion of the population, under their thumb, but not rolling stones.

[Argus]

2 hours ago, mowich said:

Would you be so kind as to post links to specific articles that will provide some basis in fact for what you wrote in the post above. 

The fact is that the overwhelming majority of immigrants to our country are assimilating with little difficulty and that the extremist views you mention are to be found in the hearts and minds of homegrown Canadians.

Given a poll recently posted here showed that the number of Muslim women in Canada wearing hijabs has increased by ten percent to over 50% since the last poll taken, and that the number wearing buqas or niqabs has doubled, I don't have any doubt whatsoever that the 'extremist views' are in the hearts of immigrants.

But maybe you're one of those who defines extremism with a certain elasticity. Ie, White Christian Canadian who is dubious about gay marriage = homophobic extremist. Brown, Muslim immigrant who thinks gays should be imprisoned, but isn't willing to personally commit violence against them = moderate.

Edited February 4, 2017 by Argus

[Rue]

20 hours ago, Cum Laude said:

That is true. Big Pharma has a good portion of the population, under their thumb, but not rolling stones.

No it was not true at all.  The comments you agree with called an SSRI reputable inhibitor a hormone. That is sheer nonsense. It claimed anti-depressants make people happy. That is sheer nonsense. Ignorance about mental illness, depressive illness and how drugs work to manage certain illnesses is nothing that should be applauded. One of four Canadians will suffer from a depressive illness that may require pharmaceutical intervention. Alternative teratments such as yoga, exercise, diet are all crucial and necessary but for some pharmaceutical intervention means the difference literally been life and death or life or a life of quality or a life severely hampered by symptoms that could otherwise be controlled.

Its a false and ignorant statement to suggest anti depressants are happy pills or a crutch or a hormone. That is sheer ignorance. We do not live in the stone age. We have the ability today to understand mental illness and talk about it in an open and intelligent matter. This past Jan.25,  we had some good Canadians working with Bell to encourage people to donate to mental health causes and talk about mental illness. I forget the red haired athlete Olympian who champions that cause off he top of my head but she is someone I admire for spreading education.

Big pharma spends millions on research. It has to put its drugs through some complex trials before they can be released on the market place and many or not. The conspiracy about big Pharma overcharging is based on not understanding the amount of research that is spent to get a drug off the ground and into public use and how most drugs r researched never hit the market. Its easy to think of drugs as evil. We've seen class action law suits when the side effects of drugs were not properly predicted. We hear stories daily of how psychiatrists over-medicate. The fact is we have a shortage of psychiatrists and so the ones we have do not have time to do what they would like to do and often crisis manage and yes some will rely on drugs more than say psychotherapy it does not mean they don' t try get their patients to engage in physical activity, diet, education, meditation, etc. That's just not true. What is true is an over-worked gp or psychiatrist will issue a prescription if they feel their patient is in crisis because they don't have time to do anything else.That's more a reflection of modern urban life where people are isolated and disconnected from their communities and spiritual values. Blaming big pharmas for that is stupid. In every topic are two sides. For people who have a lease on life, extra time, a life without pain, the medications you may be ridiculing are valuable to them.

That said and back to the topic simplifying the mental illness of rage killers as being a cause of anti-depressants is past stupid. There is absolutely no data, none, that shows rage killers are what they are and do what they do  because they are on anti-depressants-that is fabricated bull crap.

 

 

 

Edited February 4, 2017 by Rue

[Rue]

Back to the topic yet again. I challenge myself as I do others to discuss Muslims without making complete generalizations about ALL Muslims for the same reason its wrongt o do it about ALL immigrants ALL refugees, ALL Christians, ALL gays, ALL Jew, ALL Women, ALL Trump Supporters, ALL Trudeau supporters, etc.

Why is it we ALL generalize when we discuss things on forums. (said tongue in cheek)

[CITIZEN_2015]

21 hours ago, Argus said:

Given a poll recently posted here showed that the number of Muslim women in Canada wearing hijabs has increased by ten percent to over 50% since the last poll taken, and that the number wearing buqas or niqabs has doubled, I don't have any doubt whatsoever that the 'extremist views' are in the hearts of immigrants.

But maybe you're one of those who defines extremism with a certain elasticity. Ie, White Christian Canadian who is dubious about gay marriage = homophobic extremist. Brown, Muslim immigrant who thinks gays should be imprisoned, but isn't willing to personally commit violence against them = moderate.

I do see a lot more hejab wearing immigrants in Canada compare to 25 years ago. The question is whether that is considered against Canadian values? Some may say yes as Canada is a Christian country and hejab is unseen of and some say no as Canada is a multi-cultural country. I would say it is a freedom of choice and a woman has the right to choose and since Canada stands for freedom and choice and women's rights then that is not against Canadian values. I don't have great issues with hejab BUT I DO have issues if they try to impose hejab wearing (or any other thing they may believe in) on other Muslims or non-Muslims. So far in Canada unlike Europe there is little evidence of that. That said we must improve our immigration polices and be selective on who we admit especially when it comes to refugees. 

[Argus]

8 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

I do see a lot more hejab wearing immigrants in Canada compare to 25 years ago. The question is whether that is considered against Canadian values?

The Hijab and niqab are symbols of adherence to a severe Koranic view of women as dangerous in terms of their sexuality and needing to be controlled and hidden away from society. Those who believe in such things almost certainly believe in a whole array of similar stupid social and cultural views which most certainly don't reflect Canadian values.

I remember when the NDP got the wife of Maher Arar to run as a candidate, no doubt congratulating themselves on getting such a high profile ethnic person to show how inclusive they were. But she wore the hijab, and when asked about the party's gay rights beliefs she said that of course she would support no such thing. Whoops.

Edited February 4, 2017 by Argus

[CITIZEN_2015]

13 minutes ago, Argus said:

The Hijab and niqb are symbols of adherence to a severe Koranic view of women as dangerous in terms of their sexuality and needing to be controlled and hidden away from society. Those who believe in such things almost certainly believe in a whole array of similar stupid social and cultural views.

There have been very few hejab wearing women I have known in my life. One was my classmate from Kuwait who we did our assignments together (we were in the same team). I was nervous at first how to behave and not accidentally touch her or shake hand with her at first but later on I realized she is like anyone else just with extra hejab. The second was my tenant and same story.

I don't believe you have known many hejab wearing people in your life either if any at all so your statement is based on speculation rather than fact.  If you stand for freedom of choice and women's rights (even though we both see hejab as a symbol of oppression) then you should have no issues if hejab is her choice rather than imposition by family or culture (which for those living in Canada in most cases is her choice). And certainly should be tolerated or even accepted in a true multi-cultural society.

Edited February 4, 2017 by CITIZEN_2015

[dialamah]

Why is there a debate on Muslims and what they wear, when this thread was about a shooting of Muslims in Quebec city?   

[CITIZEN_2015]

Because I see that as a likely major factor when it comes to backlash against Muslims as some may see it a threat to Canadian values. Some idiot nutshell may even go too far to correct the situation (like attacks on Muslim women reported during Harper Federal campaign last year)

[Argus]

28 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

I don't believe you have known many hejab wearing people in your life either if any at all so your statement is based on speculation rather than fact.  

No, my statement is based upon what Muslims say, and what their religion dictates. Those who wear the hijab are following the dictates of the religion. It isn't a fashion choice.

[Argus]

16 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Why is there a debate on Muslims and what they wear, when this thread was about a shooting of Muslims in Quebec city?   

Because you raised the issue by trying to blame the shooting on what people were saying about Islam, which caused those people to defend themselves.

[dialamah]

Just now, Argus said:

Those who wear the hijab are following the dictates of the religion. It isn't a fashion choice.

What about the woman who've come out and said they've chosen the hijab *against* the wishes of their family and knowing full-well that it isn't a requirement of Islam?

[Argus]

1 minute ago, dialamah said:

What about the woman who've come out and said they've chosen the hijab *against* the wishes of their family and knowing full-well that it isn't a requirement of Islam?

Why would they wear this garment every day, everywhere they go for the rest of their life if it wasn't the wishes of their families or a requirement of Islam? Perhaps to show their devotion to Islam? Or their belief in what Islam means...

[dialamah]

Just now, Argus said:

Because you raised the issue by trying to blame the shooting on what people were saying about Islam, which caused those people to defend themselves.

 

So let's not discuss what might have motivated the killer, a White Canadian kid with involvement in anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, anti-feminist White Nationalist online groups?   Because right-wing ideology is irrelevant when Muslims are killed by a right-winger, while Islamic ideology is paramount when non-Muslims are killed by Muslims?

 

[dialamah]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

Why would they wear this garment every day, everywhere they go for the rest of their life if it wasn't the wishes of their families or a requirement of Islam? Perhaps to show their devotion to Islam? Or their belief in what Islam means...

 

If their parents or husband isn't saying to them:  "You must wear the hijab or else!" and they understand that it's also not a requirement of Islamic teachings, then it's their choice.  And yes, it's probably because they think it shows their devotion to Islam - but that's still their choice.   What do you not get about that?   Do you object to a Catholic nun who decides she'll follow an order that still requires the full habit?

 

[CITIZEN_2015]

44 minutes ago, Argus said:

No, my statement is based upon what Muslims say, and what their religion dictates. Those who wear the hijab are following the dictates of the religion. It isn't a fashion choice.

To correct your statement - what SOME Muslims say and I think it is debatable even among Muslims themselves if hijab is dictated or is a requirement of that religion.

[Argus]

19 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

To correct your statement - what SOME Muslims say and I think it is debatable even among Muslims themselves if hijab is dictated or is a requirement of that religion.

Perhaps, but its use is still religious in nature. There is no other reason to wear it.

[dialamah]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

Perhaps, but its use is still religious in nature. There is no other reason to wear it.

Mennonite women wear a bonnet, a symbol of their modesty and submission to their religion and their husbands.   Do you find that objectionable as well?

[Argus]

1 minute ago, dialamah said:

Mennonite women wear a bonnet, a symbol of their modesty and submission to their religion and their husbands.   Do you find that objectionable as well?

There are a few tens of thousands of Mennonites, and they're completely non-violent. The same goes for the Amish and Hutterites. So I don't concern myself with them.