Women Who Cover Their Faces Shouldn't Be accepted To Enter Canada!

[Goddess]

12 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Poor choice.

She has been shunned by her extended family. I don't think THEY think of her as a Muslim.

Any guess as to why?

Yup.  Maybe that's why I like her. 

We shun-ees need to stick together.

Edited June 9, 2017 by Goddess

[DogOnPorch]

6 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Yup.  Maybe that's why I like her. 

We shun-ees need to stick together.

 

Islam has a way to deal with homosexuality....and it ain't pray that gay away.

[overthere]

On 6/8/2017 at 1:40 PM, Argus said:

There are levels, you know. And as someone in one of those cites I posted pointed out, a fundamentalist Quaker or a fundamentalist Jain is not very dangerous compared to a fundamentalist Muslim.

I see.  All devout Muslims are dangerous.  All devout Christians are not.

I'll have to write that down.  Oh look I just did.

[overthere]

On 6/8/2017 at 5:11 PM, DogOnPorch said:

 

None Shall Pass!

Get back here, I'm not done with you yet!

[Guest]

40 minutes ago, overthere said:

I see.  All devout Muslims are dangerous.  All devout Christians are not.

I'll have to write that down.  Oh look I just did.

I have to disagree with that.  Not all fundamentalist Muslims are dangerous.  Why, there's a fellow in Iceland...

[Argus]

12 hours ago, overthere said:

I see.  All devout Muslims are dangerous.  All devout Christians are not.

I'll have to write that down.  Oh look I just did.

What does a devout Muslim believe? That's the heart of the discussion. If he believes in implementing Sharia, in the inferiority of women, in the sanctity of Islam's prophet and message to the point he believes violence is justified, then yes, he's dangerous, whether he commits violence himself or not.

You will not find Quakers or Jains justifying violence. You will have no difficulty finding Muslims doing so.

Edited June 10, 2017 by Argus

[Rue]

On ‎2017‎-‎06‎-‎08 at 7:09 PM, Omni said:

Maybe one day I'll get around to reading that Quran. Which version would you suggest to start with since you seem to be the expert here?

There is no "version". You mix it up with the Christian Bible's numerous versions. As well since you don't speak ancient Arabic no doubt you will be reading the English translation. Here's a hint,  its not in chronological order. Verses written much later on which over-ride earlier written verses may appear in the Koran long before the older verses they over-ride. So at the best of times reading the Koran is chaotic and confusing. Then again it should also be kept in mind Muhammed would smoke hash hish,then retire to bed and talk in his sleep in a stoned stupor, and his wife would then write down what he said on leaves. These leaves were then allegedly rewritten onto parchment and this serves as the origins of his words the Koran reports.

As well Arabic has many words that can mean more than one thing and so context not the words themselves need to be understood and in a man who is stoned, trying to guess the context of his rantings can get quite challenging. Like wow man..

This is why most Muslim scholars can not agree on what the Koran says.

I doubt you'll get past a few paragraphs without converting to Islam from the sounds of your approach to life.

Do yourself a favour-read a comic book.  I might suggest The Spectre or the Phantom Stranger. 

Edited June 10, 2017 by Rue

[Omni]

3 minutes ago, Rue said:

Do yourself a favour-read a comic book.  I might suggest The Spectre or the Phantom Stranger. 

Or maybe I'll consult netflix and watch a movie, or two.

[DogOnPorch]

7 minutes ago, Rue said:

.

Do yourself a favour-read a comic book.  I might suggest The Spectre or the Phantom Stranger. 

 

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

http://www.larrygonick.com/

[Rue]

26 minutes ago, Omni said:

Or maybe I'll consult netflix and watch a movie, or two.

You'd be better off.  I have never met a Muslim who read the Koran and did not get confused as to the infinite number of meanings each passage could have. Its not for the faint of heart. It requires  an ability to see  many things at once. Everyday  Muslims read it in singular context. Its unusual they will try take it on with multiple meanings. Not because they don't want to, but because there are no reference tools to assist in doing that.

The Old Testament has guides and references. You can use the Talmud and Rabbiah commentaries and its still confusing. In fact in most Torahs you depend on the Rabbiah commentaries to try even attempt to understand some of the many possible meanings. There is no limit in how many meanings each sentence could have and the Talmud provies a basis to keep questioning on an infinite basis the search for these meanings. The New Testament can also be complex and often the version of it changes how its understood. If you read the King James version with the Modern American version its very different.

With the Koran, we depend on Muslim scholars to try assist with the reading of it. They need to know ancient Arabic. They also have no one school of thought or way to translate. There are no centralized specific trained schools of thought you to a Muslim university to study. Each Imam and Mullah could in theory invent their own interpretation code. Obviously the version practiced in Saudi Arabia is not necessarily the one in Libya or Morrocco. There are regional dialects of Arabic language  that can change the meaning of the Koran not to mention different cultural values that have nothing to do with the Koran that are constantly being superimposed on it.

So I am not being flippant with you. Although you know I love to.  Seriously, from an academic perspective its a challenge to read. Also rying to figure out which verses over-ride which verses by itself is complicated enough.

Here's the point without being flippant, its not so much the Koran that is the problem-its the humans who interpret it. The Bible, the Koran, they are books. Its how they are interpreted by specific humans that leads to the problems if any. The very head covering isn't even in the Koran.

There are some beautiful peaceful references in the Koran that are ignored by some and not by others. Its quite possible to take the Koran and use it to reference a peaceful approach to life. The fact that extremist fundamentalists have hijacked it is a shame. I say it again. Arabic is a language that lends itself to poetry. It has a fluid movement to it like water in a river. It has a musical quality that lends itself to ballads. Its ironic its been hijacked into a warrior religion. How such a flexible and fluid language has been used to create codes of intolerance is beyond me but with due respect fundamentalists in all religions can do this with their religions.

What we really debate here are the men who have taken the Koran and turned it into a rigid code to justify terrorism the same way we would challenge how the Aryan Brotherhood or KKK use the Bible. Its not as some pose the question acceptable for Muslims to be intolerant since others are. All forms of intolerance are to be challenged. Saying there are ignorant Christians does not justify ignorant Jews or Muslims. etc. I have gotten into major debates at how the Old Testament is used by a cell of Zionists called religious Zionists and tthey number about 25 to 50,000 of whom many live on the West Bank  and use the Old Testament in a very rigid inflexible way. I can't stand their rigidity. However I find it more of a daunting obstacle with fundamentalist Muslims who can not play the Islamophobia card to justify their views. 

Fundamentalism or more accurately described, the literal approach to reading where you take only one meaning out and rule out all others is for me a problem. It lends to extremism and rigid inflexible thought processes that cause intolerance and terrorist beliefs.

I think its important to say there is no reason Islam could not be used as a peaceful basis of life. Maybe one day it can be by its majority of followers. Until then peaceful progressive Muslims should be supported. 

Edited June 10, 2017 by Rue

[Argus]

27 minutes ago, Rue said:

With the Koran, we depend on Muslim scholars to try assist with the reading of it. They need to know ancient Arabic. They also have no one school of thought or way to translate. There are no centralized specific trained schools of thought you to a Muslim university to study. Each Imam and Mullah could in theory invent their own interpretation code. Obviously the version practiced in Saudi Arabia is not necessarily the one in Libya or Morrocco. There are regional dialects of Arabic language  that can change the meaning of the Koran not to mention different cultural values that have nothing to do with the Koran that are constantly being superimposed on it.

Are there any interpretations practiced today, anywhere, that say being gay is acceptable, or that women are equals?

[overthere]

6 hours ago, Argus said:

What does a devout Muslim believe? That's the heart of the discussion. If he believes in implementing Sharia, in the inferiority of women, in the sanctity of Islam's prophet and message to the point he believes violence is justified, then yes, he's dangerous, whether he commits violence himself or not.

You will not find Quakers or Jains justifying violence. You will have no difficulty finding Muslims doing so.

Because all Muslims are the same, right? They must be to support your belief system.

[Argus]

Just now, overthere said:

Because all Muslims are the same, right? They must be to support your belief system.

Did I say that? Is English a second or third language to you? I I think I made it pretty clear by using the word "if" in a conditional sentence, that I was not referring to all.

[overthere]

On 6/9/2017 at 10:27 AM, DogOnPorch said:

 

Islam has a way to deal with homosexuality....and it ain't pray that gay away.

Being queer in Uganda will get you dead pretty quick.  Uganda is 84% Christian.  Sorry if that deflects your world view just a tiny bit.

[overthere]

2 minutes ago, Argus said:

Did I say that? Is English a second or third language to you? I I think I made it pretty clear by using the word "if" in a conditional sentence, that I was not referring to all.

Your inference is crystal clear, don't diminish yourself or  your argument by changing it now.

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, overthere said:

Being queer in Uganda will get you dead pretty quick.  Uganda is 84% Christian.  Sorry if that deflects your world view just a tiny bit.

 

It always amuses me when Islam's defenders use a negative to defend a negative.

I'm an atheist.

[overthere]

1 minute ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

It always amuses me when Islam's defenders use a negative to defend a negative.

I'm an atheist.

I'm not defending Islam, I'm pointing out that hatred and intolerance are practiced often and right now by Christians too.  The bigots always reveal themselves.

[Omni]

4 minutes ago, Argus said:

Did I say that? Is English a second or third language to you? I I think I made it pretty clear by using the word "if" in a conditional sentence, that I was not referring to all.

I'd say you're way too far down the rabbit hole now to suggest/hope the placement of an "if" here or an "or" there is going to dissuade anyone from not seeing xenophobia.

[Argus]

7 minutes ago, overthere said:

Your inference is crystal clear, don't diminish yourself or  your argument by changing it now.

You people on the left insist on reading your own opinions into my words rather than reading the words. Given you know nothing about me you should stop trying to analyze the secret meaning of my words and just take them at face value.

[Argus]

10 minutes ago, overthere said:

Being queer in Uganda will get you dead pretty quick.  Uganda is 84% Christian.  Sorry if that deflects your world view just a tiny bit.

And here's where you and I differ. I think we should be screening those people if they want to come to Canada, too. I don't give any society a break when it comes to its members wanting to come here. I want them all screened if they come from societies were hate and violent intolerance, inspired by whatever, is prevalent.

 

[DogOnPorch]

30 minutes ago, overthere said:

I'm not defending Islam, I'm pointing out that hatred and intolerance are practiced often and right now by Christians too.  The bigots always reveal themselves.

 

No...you're not defending Islam by calling me names. Not at all.

I argue with Christians here at MLW...but oddly enough it isn't about how Christianity is a victim and needs to plant a bomb to teach us all a lesson. Christians (here) tend to engage in things like denying continental drift to support Young Earth Creationism...wacky...but peaceful.

You're also free to support Islam...I've said this many times. If tossing gays off of roof-tops or imprisoning them or whatever is your prerogative...Islam is the cult for you.

As for Uganda....garden paradise that it is...its anti-gay bill was a private member's bill by one man (David Bahati) supported by a Jim Jones-like group called The Fellowship...aka The Family. As for the bill...it was overturned and put under review due to...President Museveni worrying about foreign reaction to the Act and who also said that any newly introduced bill should not criminalize same-sex relationships between consenting adults.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/ugandas-attorney-general-wont-appeal-anti-gay-law-ruling-1407946971

So there...

Edited June 10, 2017 by DogOnPorch

[Guest]

57 minutes ago, overthere said:

I'm not defending Islam, I'm pointing out that hatred and intolerance are practiced often and right now by Christians too.  The bigots always reveal themselves.

Sure. It's all a matter of degree.  Buddhists kill Muslims in Burma. 

Edited June 10, 2017 by bcsapper

[GostHacked]

So, since we have a problem with covering the face......   let's talk about ..

[Rue]

On ‎2017‎-‎06‎-‎10 at 5:10 PM, Argus said:

Are there any interpretations practiced today, anywhere, that say being gay is acceptable, or that women are equals?

Yes, i.e.,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/29/progressive-muslims-launch-gay-friendly-women-led-mosques_n_1368460.html

Would they be mainstream? Of course not.

The progressive MUSLIMS in Canada that are feminist or gay that I know can be threatened with their  lives by fellow Muslims yes.

You'd have to ask them but that is why I support them and am loath to stereotype them as part of other Muslims who want them killed.

Is it Islamophobic to say there are extremist fundamentalist and conservative Muslims that are the mainstream no. Is it Islamophobic to say these extremists and fundamentalists want to impose fascist Sharia law, no. Just don't ask me to turn my back on modern progressive Muslims who are trying to challenge them.

I am a classic Reform Jew in that sense we feel we have to turn to progressives in other religions and form alliances if we are all to survive and evolve past these terrorists and extremists.

I believe that because the holocaust showed me how gentiles turned their back on Jews and how many assisted kill Jews, but it also has stories of gentiles dying to save Jews and hiding them, etc. For the sake of those righteous gentiles, I can not and should not write off an entire Christian people. How can I? That would ignore the righteous who died. In Israel they remember the righteous gentiles, Muslim, Christian, etc. That is the reason I won't write off an entire people..

Doesn't mean  I apologize for Islamic extremism. It does mean I remember and pay homage to Muslims who donated land to Jews fleeing the holocaust and fought in the Israeli Army and were some of its best and bravest soldiers.

I do not mean to be preach but I think its possible to challenge with all our might Muslim terrorism without writing off all Muslims as bad people. I am not under-estimating the wide-spread extremist in Islamic societies and the challenges ahead. I don't think we should understate religious terrorism or fail to identify it as Muslim terrorism but its important as well to distinguish the innocent from the guilty. Simply hating a Muslim because others of their religion are terrorist to me is illogical. Its tempting to do when one is angry and reacting to immediate painful violence, yes.

[Rue]

6 hours ago, GostHacked said:

So, since we have a problem with covering the face......   let's talk about ..

Did you have a point. Your picture does not explain it.  Can you even explain what the cover is used for? Are you suggesting this woman is using it because she believes in sexual values that say her face needs to be covered up because its too provocative for men? Well? Finish your analogy. You are being intellectually dishonest. The problem is not with women covering their face-its with the extremist values of specific Muslims who don't quote the Koran but impose sexual fascism on women.

Interesting how you deliberately change the topic-why? Are you telling me you think the people challenging face covering are doing so in regards to women who cover their face for cosmetic reasons or because they think they gave a contagious cold ? Is that the analogy you want to use because its dishonest. Its not what's being challenged and you are well aware of that.

Now finish what you started please. Explain what the mask is being used for and point out the people on this forum other than you who can not distinguish between Muslim sexist fascist concepts that require a head to be completely covered and the above. Please finish it.