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

[Rue]

15 minutes ago, betsy said:

 

If Muslims go by the laws of the country......

...............then, Canadian laws pertaining to marriage, divorce, inheritances, etal.,

MUST be followed!

Their practices in non Muslim states have no uniform code of practice or imposition Its  a fragmented approach defined by each Imam and Mullah on a case by case basis.

 For example a Muslim will be told, you want 4 wives in Canada, its illegal and they will explain that and  say the 3 additional marriages remain a private matter. There was an attempt by Dalton McGuinty to allow Muslims to opt out of family laws of Ontario and go to Muslim religious courts regarding marriage matters but that blew up in his idiot face when Mormons and Ultra Orthodox Jews demanded similar rights. Separating religion from state when it comes to family law or sometimes criminal law or health law can be very difficult  and complex. You can have family and criminal laws imposed on you if they go against your religion but not necessarily medical practices that could save a life or not prolong a life of someone who is brain dead.

Edited June 13, 2017 by Rue

[dialamah]

17 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

What Muslims and Allies engage in when trying to pretend Islam is something it is not.

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

 

So your contention is that Muslims are being persecuted?

From your link:

Quote

Taqiya (Arabic: تقیة‎‎ taqiyyah/taqīyah, literally "prudence, fear, caution,^[1][2] carefulness, wariness)^[3] is an Islamic principle that is Shi'ite in origin,^[4][5] and refers to precautionary dissimulation or denial of religious belief and practice in the face of persecution.

1

 

Or perhaps it's just more anti-Islam rhetoric; again from your link:

Quote

 concept whose meaning has varied significantly among Islamic sects, scholars, countries, and political regimes, it nevertheless is one of the key terms used by recent anti-Muslim polemicists."^[18] Islamic scholars claim that taqiyya is only permissible under duress, and that the inflationary use of the term qualifies as "a staple of right-wing Islamophobia in North America" (Mohammad Fadel 2013), or "Taqiyya libel against Muslims"^[19] while their critics accuse them of practicing "taqiyya about taqiyya" (Raymond Ibrahim, 2014).^[20]

1

 

Edited June 13, 2017 by dialamah

[DogOnPorch]

51 minutes ago, dialamah said:

So your contention is that Muslims are being persecuted?

From your link:

 

Or perhaps it's just more anti-Islam rhetoric; again from your link:

 

 

Since you like Raymond Ibrahim...

http://www.meforum.org/2094/taqiyya-revisited

Islam is always under attack. From all sides in and out. A concept known as Fasad (mischief making)...look it up. 

So is Sharia still just for Muslims, Dhimmi?

[DogOnPorch]

2 hours ago, Rue said:

Geez. I thought it had something to do with Xena and how she used to go around beating up straight men except for Hercules in that one cross over episode.

You have to love a Greek Godess with a New Zealand accent. 

 

 

Xeno = Stranger 

 

[dialamah]

24 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Since you like Raymond Ibrahim...

http://www.meforum.org/2094/taqiyya-revisited

Islam is always under attack. From all sides in and out. A concept known as Fasad (mischief making)...look it up. 

 

Taqqiya in the quran was for a specific purpose.  If there are people claiming to be Muslim who use taqqiya to justify lying at any time for any reason, then they aren't really Muslim.   Isn't that how your argument goes for those Muslims who practice peaceful Islam?  

So is Sharia still just for Muslims, Dhimmi?

Dhimmi is historical, according to the wiki article you linked.  If we can't hold historical behavior against Christians, I don't see why its ok to hold historcal behavior against Muslims.

[DogOnPorch]

3 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Taqqiya in the quran was for a specific purpose.  If there are people claiming to be Muslim who use taqqiya to justify lying at any time for any reason, then they aren't really Muslim.   Isn't that how your argument goes for those Muslims who practice peaceful Islam?  

 

 

Dhimmi is historical, according to the wiki article you linked.  If we can't hold historical behavior against Christians, I don't see why its ok to hold historcal behavior against Muslims.

Originally, taqqiya only applied to Shia Islam....all being apostates and marked for death. Since the days of 'historical use', it has found traction in the modern world in countering modern societies' objections to the barbaric aspects of Islam.

You're free to insist that Sharia Law only applies to Muslims, Dhimmi. It's a lie, however...which is in this case is taqqiya.

[DogOnPorch]

Like if I said: Eid is a horrific Islamic holiday celebrating Abraham and Issac where innocent animals get cruelly slaughtered in the streets....

You'd reply...how? Would you agree or try to protect Islam?

My crime, under much Islamic jurisprudence, would be fasad....for mentioning Eid unfavorably.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasad

 

Edited June 13, 2017 by DogOnPorch

[dialamah]

29 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

Like if I said: Eid is a horrific Islamic holiday celebrating Abraham and Issac where innocent animals get cruelly slaughtered in the streets....

You'd reply...how? Would you agree or try to protect Islam?

My crime, under much Islamic jurisprudence, would be fasad....for mentioning Eid unfavorably.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasad

 

I agree that cruelly killing innocent animals for a religious festival is wrong. 

 And, almost unheard of - Islam is certainly the only religion that feasts on animal meats for their religious festivals.   Sure, we kill turkeys for Christmas and Thanksgiving, after raising them in horrific conditions, but that's different because ... well, it's not on the streets, right?

http://www.mercyforanimals.org/hor

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2247849/The-truth-free-range-turkeys-Christmas-dinner.html

http://www.mintpressnews.com/torture-and-terror-why-thanksgiving-is-tough-for-turkeys/173729/

Then there's innocent chickens and innocent cows and innocent pigs, also raised in horrific conditions - saving money while feeding the masses - but since it happens behind closed doors and it's 'not for religion' it's ok to ignore that while criticizing a religion we particularly dislike.  https://www.aspca.org/animal-cruelty/farm-animal-welfare/animals-factory-farms

 

 

 

Edited June 13, 2017 by dialamah

[DogOnPorch]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

I agree that cruelly killing innocent animals for a religious festival is wrong. 

 And, almost unheard of - Islam is certainly the only religion that feasts on animal meats for their religious festivals.   Sure, we kill turkeys for Christmas and Thanksgiving, after raising them in horrific conditions, but that's different because ... well, it's not on the streets, right?

http://www.mercyforanimals.org/hor

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2247849/The-truth-free-range-turkeys-Christmas-dinner.html

http://www.mintpressnews.com/torture-and-terror-why-thanksgiving-is-tough-for-turkeys/173729/

Then there's innocent chickens and innocent cows and innocent pigs, also raised in horrific conditions - saving money while feeding the masses - but since it happens behind closed doors and it's 'not for religion' it's ok to ignore that while criticizing a religion we particularly dislike.  https://www.aspca.org/animal-cruelty/farm-animal-welfare/animals-factory-farms

 

 

 

 

Predictably, you defend Islam by using a double negative. Two negatives only make a positive in mathematics.

[dialamah]

1 minute ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Predictably, you defend Islam by using a double negative. Two negatives only make a positive in mathematics.

When one systematically talks about those "horrible people over there", while ignoring, excusing or dismissing their own identical behavior, there's a word for that too.   See if you can figure it out.

 

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, dialamah said:

When one systematically talks about those "horrible people over there", while ignoring, excusing or dismissing their own identical behavior, there's a word for that too.   See if you can figure it out.

 

 

You did exactly as predicted. 

Enjoy.

[dialamah]

Just now, DogOnPorch said:

You did exactly as predicted. 

Enjoy.

 

Could win money on the predictability around here.   You'd be one of the top performers.  

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, dialamah said:

Could win money on the predictability around here.   You'd be one of the top performers.  

 

I'm unlikely to change my mind about your death cult, Islam...no.

[Boges]

5 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Could win money on the predictability around here.   You'd be one of the top performers.  

Calling Member Kettle black is against forum rules Pot!

[Boges]

I think banning people from the country based on their dress is a troll topic. 

I would like to ask any tolerant freedom loving person how they can defend the religious practice of covering their face because it may draw lust in men? And how that can be seen as something we want to welcome in this country?

Edited June 13, 2017 by Boges

[dialamah]

10 minutes ago, Boges said:

 

I would like to ask any tolerant freedom loving person how they can defend the religious practice of covering their face because it may draw lust in men  

 

I agree that it's a ridiculous notion, and it makes me angry that so many people hold such stupid notions.  

Quote

and how that can be seen as something we want to welcome in this country.

Because I was raised to believe that discriminating against people based on their religion is wrong, regardless of how ridiculous I consider their beliefs.  

Covering one's face to control lust in men is as stupid an idea as telling women they need to wear longer skirts or shorts and show less cleavage or shoulders to control lust in men.    If the people who object to the niqab because of it's misogynistic implications aren't also objecting to statements like "Look at how she's dressed; she's just asking for it" or "Well, what did she expect going to a bar/party dressed like that" or policies of "Girls at school have to dress in a manner that won't distract the boys with their bodies" then they are hypocrites.

 

Edited June 13, 2017 by dialamah

[Boges]

2 minutes ago, dialamah said:

If the people on this forum who object to the niqab because of it's misogynistic implications aren't also objecting to statements like "Look at how she's dressed; she's just asking for it" or "Well, what did she expect going to a bar/party dressed like that" or policies of "Girls at school have to dress in a manner that won't distract the boys with their bodies" then they are hypocrites.

I don't think anyone is doing that there. 

Here's an example of that with 3 shit stain police officers in Toronto, accused of raping a co-worker, who's defence attorney used the "You wanted it" argument. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/toronto-police-sexual-assault-trial-cross-examination-1.4156746

 

[dialamah]

2 minutes ago, Boges said:

I don't think anyone is doing that there. 

 

Really?  You don't think the OP, an avowed Christian, doesn't hold the belief that women should be expected to dress modestly, because you know - men can't handle seeing female skin without potentially losing control?

 

7 minutes ago, Boges said:

 

Here's an example of that with 3 shit stain police officers in Toronto, accused of raping a co-worker, who's defence attorney used the "You wanted it" argument. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/toronto-police-sexual-assault-trial-cross-examination-1.4156746

 

1

Yeah, that's pretty sad.   We're definitely better than many other countries when it comes to not blaming women for men's sexual misbehavior, but it's still an issue far too often.

 

 

[DogOnPorch]

40 minutes ago, Boges said:

Calling Member Kettle black is against forum rules Pot!

 

Folks are free to express what the find admirable about Islam; however, nobody has managed to mention a single thing that they find DO find admirable...about Islam.

So...unless it's a secret that nobody is letting the ol' Dog in on...I'm willing to go out on a limb and say there is NOTHING admirable...about Islam.

 

Edited June 13, 2017 by DogOnPorch

[DogOnPorch]

44 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Really?  You don't think the OP, an avowed Christian, doesn't hold the belief that women should be expected to dress modestly, because you know - men can't handle seeing female skin without potentially losing control?

 

Yeah, that's pretty sad.   We're definitely better than many other countries when it comes to not blaming women for men's sexual misbehavior, but it's still an issue far too often.

 

 

 

And yet, you would like MORE Islam for Canada. 

[dialamah]

I predict that you'll deny these things, as if they could not exist within Islam or be followed by even a single Muslim.

• Charity is a requirement, and for every Muslim I know, is applicable to Muslim and non-Muslim alike.
• Loaning/borrowing money is highly frowned upon, and charging interest even more so.    
• Taking care of one's family so the State doesn't have to, nor do they need to live on the street or in poverty.
• For many (not me, specifically) the focus on family life as being the basis of society and most important element in any individual's life.
• To protect human life, even the life of an enemy.
• To show mercy to animals.
• To allow others freedom to worship God in their own way.

Let me see if I can predict your arguments against the above:

Charity is only a requirement for other Muslims (I'm sure you'll quote something somewhere to "prove" this, just as I could have quoted something to "prove" otherwise)

Loaning/borrowing money happens all the time in Muslim-majority countries (I'm sure it does, but that's not what Islam teaches)

Taking care of one's family (probably something about beating wives or practicing FGM to refute this, as if making a law, even a religious law, guarantees that everyone will follow it).

Family first as basis of society (same argument as above)

Show mercy to animals (slaughter of cattle for Eid, which ignores every culture's dissonance between what they believe and what they actually practice)

To allow others freedom to worship (ISIS, which is an organization rejected by Muslims worldwide).

So, GO!  

(Qualifying Statement:  There are many bad things taught within Islam.  Recognizing the good does not mean the bad is invisible to me.) 

 

 

 

[DogOnPorch]

Quote

Charity is a requirement, and for every Muslim I know, is applicable to Muslim and non-Muslim alike.
Loaning/borrowing money is highly frowned upon, and charging interest even more so.    
Taking care of one's family so the State doesn't have to, nor do they need to live on the street or in poverty.
For many (not me, specifically) the focus on family life as being the basis of society and most important element in any individual's life.
To protect human life, even the life of an enemy.
To show mercy to animals.
To allow others freedom to worship God in their own way.

 

1. Zakat is a tithe collected by mosques and distributed by same to needy Muslims...it's a tithe...not true charity. In the West, some Zakat is towards non-Muslim beneficiaries that ultimately benefit Islam.

2. Sharia banking is fine in Sharia states. In the West, it leads to unfair mortgages, loans and such. Interest is a two-way street.

3. Family values are important in the West. They're just not Islamic family values where women are property.

4. Family life is also important to Westerners. Not a value exclusive to Islam.

5. Dhimmitude and Jizya must be accepted to be "protected" as a 2nd class citizen under Sharia.

6. Islam is extremely anti-animal. Mohammad even ordered all dogs be killed. Halal method butchers animals by bleeding out...a terrifying prospect for any creature. But, apparently being terrified as the creature dies does something to the meat.

7. Again...the only way you're practicing your Infidel religion under Sharia is as a Dhimmi. A second class citizen. You pay the tax...but still might get murdered (see Coptic Christians).

 

Edited June 13, 2017 by DogOnPorch

[dialamah]

Just now, DogOnPorch said:

 

1. Zakat is a tithe collected by mosques and distributed by same to needy Muslims...it's a tithe...not true charity. In the West, some Zakat is towards non-Muslim sources that ultimately benefit Islam.

2. Sharia banking is fine in Sharia states. In the West, it leads to unfair mortgages, loans and such. Interest is a two-way street.

3. Family values are important in the West. They're just not Islamic family values where women are property.

4. Family life is also important to Westerners. Not a value exclusive to Islam.

5. Dhimmitude and Jizya must be accepted to be "protected" as a 2nd class citizen under Sharia.

6. Islam is extremely anti-animal. Mohammad even ordered all dogs be killed. Halal method butchers animals by bleeding out...a terrifying prospect for any creature. But, apparently being terrified as the creature dies does something to the meat.

7. Again...the only way you're practicing your Infidel religion under Sharia is as a Dhimmi. A second class citizen. You pay the tax...but still might get murdered (see Coptic Christians).

 

Ya see?   You reject anything that might show Islam in a different light.   This is an unreasoning fear of Islam, aka Islamaphobia.

 

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, dialamah said:

Ya see?   You reject anything that might show Islam in a different light.   This is an unreasoning fear of Islam, aka Islamaphobia.

 

 

You're free to point-out where I got it wrong...but I didn't...so good luck.

[dialamah]

7 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

You're free to point-out where I got it wrong...but I didn't...so good luck.

I accept your surrender.