Asylum System "not sustainable" - Immigration Minister

[Goddess]

On 9/22/2018 at 8:13 PM, dialamah said:

I think the anti-Muslim rhetoric started in Europe

I don't think you know very much about what's going on in Europe.  Europe has done everything possible to appease Muslims and it is not working.  Like, really really not working.  Thus, the recent surge of burka and hijab banning.

For instance in France,

This is just a little snippet of what's going on in schools.  There a lot more going on in the streets, workplaces, and cities of Europe IN ADDITION to this.

The inclination to appease Islamic extremists, readiness to "understand" suicide jihadists, acceptance of victim rhetoric from aggressors, and a desperate eagerness to applaud the "good" side of all of this has not saved Europe from Islamic extremism.

 

[Argus]

That appears to be from Bruce Bawer, who seems a credible and respected source.

Edited September 24, 2018 by Argus

[Goddess]

2 minutes ago, Argus said:

Do you have a source for this, Goddess?

Oh sorry, I forgot to put the source.  

It's from "While Europe Slept" by Bruce Bawer.

I don't agree with his pro-American take on politics but he does put it all together in a nutshell what has happened in Europe, the problems they are facing and how some countries like Norway, Denmark and France are trying to combat extremism after allowing it for so long.

[Argus]

14 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Oh sorry, I forgot to put the source.  

It's from "While Europe Slept" by Bruce Bawer.

I don't agree with his pro-American take on politics but he does put it all together in a nutshell what has happened in Europe, the problems they are facing and how some countries like Norway, Denmark and France are trying to combat extremism after allowing it for so long.

Yes, I googled some text and found him. He appears to be a reasonably credible person. Apparently he moved to Europe because of frustration with American Christian fundamentalism in hopes of finding more liberalism. Instead he found things even worse in Europe because their politically correct culture was ignoring the zealousness of Islamic extremism which was far worse than what he had encountered in the US. 

Here is further support for what he is quoting from the report here. And this is a notable part of the cite:

In a particularly interesting observation, Obin notes that it is the schools that have reached accommodations with the extremists that are most plagued by violence against girls, Jews, and teachers. Schools that refuse to tolerate the intolerable have coped much better with the problems described in the report. As a result, Obin calls for a policy of no compromise with Islamist demands.

https://www.weeklystandard.com/olivier-guitta/the-islamization-of-french-schools

Unfortunately, while the leaders of Germany, France and the UK have all stated multiculturalism has been a vast failure in discouraging integration, our present political and media elites are still enthusiastic supporters of the concept.

Edited September 24, 2018 by Argus

[Goddess]

55 minutes ago, Argus said:

 

 

Unfortunately, while the leaders of Germany, France and the UK have all stated multiculturalism has been a vast failure in discouraging integration, our present political and media elites are still enthusiastic supporters of the concept.

I view supporters of appeasing Islamic extremism to be "useful idiots" to Islam.  I agree with Mr. Bawer's assessment of why this is:

Notice how this mufti's remarks are excused with"Well, he didn't really MEAN that....."  

 

Edited September 24, 2018 by Goddess

[turningrite]

21 hours ago, dialamah said:

1.) You are the one who said "they don't exist". 

2.) I provided proof they exist. 

3.) I'm not the the one who lost. 

1.) You continue to be ridiculous. Please copy and paste the entry in which you content that I actually said this. I pointed out that the situation you cite "is so exceptional as to render your argument ridiculous" and I note that in my considerable experience, growing up a Catholic and attending Catholic schools, I'd never encountered a nun who covered her face. And I challenged you to indicate that you'd ever seen a nun wearing facial covering. The reality is that the one media citation you provide serves at best as an "exception that proves a rule." Perhaps you might brush up on rhetorical logic.

2.) Again, it's an exception that proves a rule. As I said, the example is so unique and rare as to establish the case that facial covering is not a general characteristic of the attire worn by nuns.

3.) Clearly you did lose. I challenge you to leave your home today, locate a nun wearing facial covering and take a picture of her and then return and post it under this topic. You might want to take a winter coat with you, though, as well as changes of clothing for all the other seasons as you likely won't return home for a very, very long time. But, in order to make the rules here realistic, I'll give you 48 hours to post such a picture that also includes details on the location of the photo as well as its time and date. If you can't do so, you'll concede your loss in this debate.

[turningrite]

54 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I view supporters of appeasing Islamic extremism to be "useful idiots" to Islam. 

 

It's unfortunate that not enough people seem to realize this. I think the only solution is to pursue an entirely secularist agenda. Neither pandering nor appeasement will work. Organized religions are inherently chauvinistic, so promoting or encouraging as a valid societal benefit a broad interpretation of religious 'rights' must be discouraged. A functioning and peaceful diverse society requires the adoption of secularism as an underlying principle.

Edited September 24, 2018 by turningrite

[Goddess]

20 hours ago, Argus said:

So no group is better than any other group?

I think he should ask his wife which group she would rather live under - Western society or Islamic society where she can never leave the house without wearing a blanket over her entire body and head.  You know, since neither one is better than the other, it should be a very difficult choice for her to make.

This kind of thinking scares me because I wonder how many other Western men ALSO think it would and should, be no problem for women to live under those circumstances. Women are fucked. Even our Western men won't stick up for us. 

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Goddess said:

I view supporters of appeasing Islamic extremism to be "useful idiots" to Islam. [/quote]

The same people were telling us how wonderful and friendly the Soviets were forty years ago.

Quote

Notice how this mufti's remarks are excused with"Well, he didn't really MEAN that....." 

In fact, 'they don't really mean it' is basically the way the Left feels about Islam. You can quote all the hateful stuff that is in the Koran and which Muslim nations around the world dully follow, but since most on the Left are secularists who don't take religion seriously (except that they disdain Christian fundamentalists) they just dismiss it with "Well, they don't really believe that." Even where you're dealing with someone wearing a burka, a terribly uncomfortable garment that shuts you away from the world, from the sun and breeze, even where they wear that every day, the Islam apologists will insist they donl't really believe the fundamental tenets of their own religion. And by the way, look here, see what nasty things the Old Testament says!

The same people who loath Christians who don't support gay marriage will gleefully embrace devout Muslims whose religion says gays should be executed, because "oh, they don't really believe that". It's like most people on the left cannot imagine anyone being devout enough to accept such religious teachings, except for maybe a few fanatics.

This part - could be written directly about some of the people in this conversation.

Confronted with the fact that it's indeed such a belief - albeit of a particularly dark and twisted variety - that impels Islamists, their immediate impulse is to be dismissive: No, that can't be it. It must be something else. It must be something we can relate to - poverty, oppression, colonialism.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 24, 2018 by Argus

[Argus]

1 hour ago, turningrite said:

 The reality is that the one media citation you provide serves at best as an "exception that proves a rule." Perhaps you might brush up on rhetorical logic.

I question the one media citation, if it's the one about the nun on a plane. Given one of the passengers listed was 'Frodo Baggins" and I can't find this story in any American publication.

[turningrite]

Just now, Argus said:

I question the one media citation, if it's the one about the nun on a plane. Given one of the passengers listed was 'Frodo Baggins" and I can't find this story in any American publication.

Maybe it's fake news. But for sure the situation is so unusual that even if it did occur it doesn't alter of impact the reality that overwhelmingly nuns do not and have not for a very long time (i.e. generations or even centuries) covered their faces.

[Argus]

On 9/21/2018 at 11:45 PM, dialamah said:

The thing is, we've managed to move past our own "barbaric" culture, dragging fundamental Christians kicking and screaming along with us, even when Christians comprised well over half of our population. 

We never had a barbaric culture as barbaric as that taught by the Koran. Nobody ever had their hand cut off for thievery here, and nobody was ever executed for blasphemy or trying to leave their Christian religion. Nor was anyone ever executed for adultery or homosexuality.

Quote

I fail to see how 3.2% of Muslims are going to be able to 'drag us backwards", especially given that the 'extreme' ones are a small percentage of that 3.2%. 

Muslims were 3.2% of the population in 2011. It's 2018. Since the Muslim population has been essentially doubling about every 7-10 years, they're probably up past 6% now.

1971 - too few to mention
1981 - 98,165
1991 - 253,260
2001 - 580,000
2011 - 1,053,945
2021 - 2,000,000? (note, even without natural births our present intake of Muslims through immigration/refugees is about 100,000 per year.)

 

Edited September 24, 2018 by Argus

[dialamah]

2 hours ago, Goddess said:

Islamic society where she can never leave the house without wearing a blanket over her entire body and head.  

Funny; my sister lives in an "Islamic society" and doesn't even cover her head, never mind her face.  She certainly doesn't wear a "blanket" over her body.  Even one of her sisters-in-law, raised Muslim in Egypt, goes bareheaded in Western clothing, in public!  The rest wear a headscarf in public; none wear burkas or niqabs.

Its ridiculous and hyperbolic statements like the above that persuades so many people that the Muslim Alarmists aren't quite in touch with reality and their claims of "cultural disaster because Muslims" lack credibility. 

Edited September 24, 2018 by dialamah
Better wording

[dialamah]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

We never had a barbaric culture as barbaric as that taught by the Koran. Nobody ever had their hand cut off for thievery here, and nobody was ever executed for blasphemy or trying to leave their Christian religion. Nor was anyone ever executed for adultery or homosexuality.

Muslims were 3.2% of the population in 2011. It's 2018. Since the Muslim population has been essentially doubling about every 7-10 years, they're probably up past 6% now.

1971 - too few to mention
1981 - 98,165
1991 - 253,260
2001 - 580,000
2011 - 1,053,945
2021 - 2,000,000? (note, even without natural births our present intake of Muslims through immigration/refugees is about 100,000 per year.)

 

The 3.2% is from 2011.

In 2016, the last year for which I could (quickly) find figures, it was 4%, an increase of less than 1% over 7 years.  

Note too, that the concern is over extremists driving this change, not regular Muslims (or so its claimed) ie. women who wear niqabs/their menfolk.  That is a very tiny percentage of all Muslims in Canada.

But hey, if you enjoy practicing hyperbole and BS to support your Alarmist agenda, who am I to stop you?  Its a free country, after all, where we don't stop people from believing any kind of ridiculousness they want, even if it's intended to stoke fear and outrage over a particular group.

Edited September 24, 2018 by dialamah
Better wording

[Goddess]

45 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Funny; my sister lives in an "Islamic society" and doesn't even cover her head, never mind her face.  She certainly doesn't wear a "blanket" over her body.  Even one of her sisters-in-law, raised Muslim in Egypt, goes bareheaded in Western clothing, in public!  The rest wear a headscarf in public; none wear burkas or niqabs.

Its ridiculous and hyperbolic statements like the above that persuades so many people that the Muslim Alarmists aren't quite in touch with reality and their claims of "cultural disaster because Muslims" lack credibility. 

 

Are you seriously telling us that NO women in Islamic cultures  wear burkas and niqabs?  Seriously?  

Your sister and her family don't wear one, so therefore your conclusion is that NO women wear them? That's your argument?

You might want to google that......this is just for 1 country - Egypt, since you used that as your basis for saying no women  wear it.

 

[dialamah]

12 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Are you seriously telling us that NO women in Islamic cultures  wear burkas and niqabs?  Seriously?  

Oh I forgot how limited your ability to comprehend the written word actually is.

Let's recap:

Here I define who I am talking about:

Funny; my sister lives in an "Islamic society"

Next, I describe her lack of "extremist" dress in an Islamic society

and doesn't even cover her head, never mind her face.  She certainly doesn't wear a "blanket" over her body. 

I then talk specifically about her sisters-in-law:

Even one of her sisters-in-law, raised Muslim in Egypt, goes bareheaded in Western clothing, in public!   

I understand that its the next line confused you, despite there being no indication that I had stopped talking about my sister and her sisters-in-law, so I will simplify it for you:

The rest of her sisters-in-law wear a headscarf in public; none of her sisters-in-law wear burkas or niqabs.

Of course, this was in response to your statement that a woman living in an Islamic society must always wear a blanket over her head and body.  

he should ask his wife which group she would rather live under - Western society or Islamic society where she can never leave the house without wearing a blanket over her entire body and head. 

Pointing out to you that women do leave the house without "wearing a blanket over their body and head" doesn't mean "nobody" does.  It does mean that your claim that women "can never" leave the house unshrouded in Islamic society is wrong.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

The 3.2% is from 2011.

In 2016, the last year for which I could (quickly) find figures, it was 4%, an increase of less than 1% over 7 years.  

There are no official figures for 2016. The stats canada reports which ask about religion are only done every ten years.
By the way, if the number in 2011 was roughly one million, and we brought in over 100,000 last year alone, that is a 10% increase on 1011 JUST FOR 2017, just from immigration, without any accounting for births here. And again, it's not like we just started bringing in Muslims in 2017. There were 100,000 in 2016, too, and we'll bring over 100,000 this year...

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

Note too, that the concern is over extremists driving this change, not regular Muslims (or so its claimed) ie. women who wear niqabs/their menfolk.  That is a very tiny percentage of all Muslims in Canada.

To the Left an extremist is a Christian who is opposed to gay marriage.

Muslims who are opposed to gay marriage are moderates. Muslims who believe gays should be killed are still moderates. It's only those who want to do it themselves who qualify as extremists, apparently. You are a textbook example of the secular westerner who simply does not believe Muslims believe their own religious texts. You dismiss all the calls for death for blasphemers, adulterers, atheists, apostates, etc. with an impatient wave of the hand, dismissing the very idea that anything more than a 'tiny percentage' of Muslims believe in that. Yet when polls are taken in our 'source' countries for immigrants it shows that 70%-80%-90% of people believe these very things. Apparently, though, the instant they come here they no longer believe in their religion. Even if they wear scarfs or sheets everywhere they go every day of their lives to show that they DO.

 

 

[dialamah]

28 minutes ago, Argus said:

There are no official figures for 2016. The stats canada reports which ask about religion are only done every ten years.
By the way, if the number in 2011 was roughly one million, and we brought in over 100,000 last year alone, that is a 10% increase on 1011 JUST FOR 2017, just from immigration, without any accounting for births here. And again, it's not like we just started bringing in Muslims in 2017. There were 100,000 in 2016, too, and we'll bring over 100,000 this year...

Sorry, meant to say that Canada's population in 2016 was 36,290,000 and that is the latest figures I could find

So, in 2011 there were 1,053,945 Muslims in Canada.  Assuming, as you do, that 100,000 per year remained steady, then by 2016 there were 1,553,945.  Canada's population in 2016 was 36,290,000.   That works out to about 4% of the population, an increase of .80 percent, roughly.  

Part of the problem I see with your calculations is that you don't seem to be accounting for Canadian population growth, outside of Muslims immigrating.   Canada has been accepting between 250,000 to 300,000 immigrants per year since about 2002, and between 200,000 and 250,000 between 1992 and 2002.   If we're bringing in 1 Muslim person for every 1.5 or 2 or even 3 "others", then Muslims are not going to be increasing their numbers against the 'rest of Canada' at anything near the rate you suggest.  If anything, I would say their percentage of population would be reduced as Canada's population increased, unless their immigration levels increased significantly and they comprised more than half of all immigrants.

So, your assumptions and conclusions just don't seem credible to me.

1 hour ago, Argus said:

Yet when polls are taken in our 'source' countries for immigrants it shows that 70%-80%-90% of people believe these very things.

Not quite.  These believes are specific to Muslims who believe that Sharia should be the law of the land.  The perentage of Muslims who believe Sharia should be the law of the land ranges from 12% of the population to 91%.  Thus, the survey tells us this:

Quote

Among those who want sharia to be the law of the land, in 10 of 20 countries where there are adequate samples for analysis at least half say they support penalties such as whippings or cutting off the hands of thieves and robbers.

Pakistan is the most supportive of Sharia Law and corporal punishment at 91% and 88% respectively.  Thus, 80% of the population believes that death to blasphemers/whippings and removing of hands for thievery is acceptable.   In Egypt the numbers are 74% for Sharia Law, and 70% of them believe in corporal punishments: 51% in total.  In Tunisia, it's 56% pro-Sharia, and 50% of those for extreme punishments, for 25% of the total Muslim population.

And, as I have said before - that's bad.  Still, there appears to be a huge difference among Muslims about all of this, a fact you seem to forget often and it's not nearly as pervasive as you keep claiming.  Remember that it's this kind of hyperbole and misstating of surveys is why I keep calling BS on your claims.  

Quote

Apparently, though, the instant they come here they no longer believe in their religion. Even if they wear scarfs or sheets everywhere they go every day of their lives to show that they DO.

You, and others, keep assuming that you are such an expert on other people that you can determine, with certainty, that what someone is wearing defines exactly what they believe.  

Quote

You are a textbook example of the secular westerner who simply does not believe Muslims believe their own religious texts. You dismiss all the calls for death for blasphemers, adulterers, atheists, apostates, etc. with an impatient wave of the hand, dismissing the very idea that anything more than a 'tiny percentage' of Muslims believe in that. 

Funny, no matter how often I provide cites and data to back up what I say that contradicts your claims, you continue to claim I'm saying completely different things.   

Quote

You are a textbook example of the secular westerner

Except, I don't say what you keep claiming I say.  I refuse to be buffaloed by you or anyone else into becoming a "Muslim Alarmist".  Use facts, drop the scare-mongering and hyperbole, and maybe we'd find some common ground somewhere.  

Or maybe not.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

So, in 2011 there were 1,053,945 Muslims in Canada.  Assuming, as you do, that 100,000 per year remained steady, then by 2016 there were 1,553,945.

But that's just the increase through immigration. It does not count the numbers from births here, and Muslims tend to have a lot more kids than secular Canadians.

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

Part of the problem I see with your calculations is that you don't seem to be accounting for Canadian population growth, outside of Muslims immigrating.   Canada has been accepting between 250,000 to 300,000 immigrants per year since about 2002, and between 200,000 and 250,000 between 1992 and 2002.   If we're bringing in 1 Muslim person for every 1.5 or 2 or even 3 "others", then Muslims are not going to be increasing their numbers against the 'rest of Canada' at anything near the rate you suggest.  If anything, I would say their percentage of population would be reduced as Canada's population increased, unless their immigration levels increased significantly and they comprised more than half of all immigrants.

There is logic to what you're saying. But how much of a gain they make depends on how many are coming + their natural birth rate here vs immigration from others + their and our birth rates. Ours is very low. I don't know that anyone has taken an analyses of the birth rate of immigrants from, say, China. So we can't know exactly how much of a gain in % terms. But we do know Muslims' absolute numbers have been doubling every 7-10 years, and that is well above any rate at which Canada as a whole is growing.,

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

And, as I have said before - that's bad.  Still, there appears to be a huge difference among Muslims about all of this, a fact you seem to forget often and it's not nearly as pervasive as you keep claiming.  Remember that it's this kind of hyperbole and misstating of surveys is why I keep calling BS on your claims.  

But here's what you fail to take into account. When you say that those who don't support Islamic law are numerous, you fail to take into consideration that the rules get made by the zealots, not by those who shrug and are moderates. There weren't a lot of Nazis, but they controlled Germany absolutely. It didn't matter if most Germans were nice when those nice people weren't willing or able to fight the nasty ones. And in the Islamic world it's the zealots who are progressing steadily ahead and the moderates who are fading back, unwilling to commit to the same degree the zealots are.

You bring up Pakistan and point out there are a lot of 'moderates' there. But they simply DO NOT MATTER. They have no say. They have no voice. They're too scared. The moment anyone even suggests, for example, that maybe the blaspheme laws should be modified they're killed or forced to retract. There are 57 members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. Now according to your way of figuring, there are loads of moderates among them. But not a single member state treats women equally to men, or allows homosexuality, or indeed treats non Muslims equally to Muslims. Not one. So much for your moderates.

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

You, and others, keep assuming that you are such an expert on other people that you can determine, with certainty, that what someone is wearing defines exactly what they believe.

You and other secularists continue to presume that someone so devoted to a religion they'll wear special garb everywhere they go every day of their lives doesn't take that religion seriously. Or at least, not the parts you don't like. If you're devoted enough to Islam to wear  hijabs, never mind burkas, then you take it DAMN seriously. And you don't throw parts of it out because it conflicts with western cultural values. If you wear a KKK outfit I am fairly sure you're a racist. If you wear a Nazi outfit, I am fairly certainly hate Jews. And if you wear Muslim garb I'm fairly sure you believe in Islam.

And Islam is uncompromising in how to treat kafirs and in the unequal treatment of women. To believe otherwise is self-delusion.

[Michael Hardner]

19 hours ago, Argus said:

1. Why compare us to the US?  

2. Maybe people have little interest in gay rights, but they still don't want to import people who want to kill gays.  

3. So maybe we don't want to import people who think it's okay to beat women, and that women shouldn't be allowed out of the house without permission. 

1. Because it breaks this approach of self-satisfying ourselves with our liberal 'progress' and using it to justify treating people from 'inferior' countries as deserving quarantine.

2. Maybe... but the desire to find the gap between acceptable and non-acceptable morals seems to be driven by finding a reason why US/European folks are better than others in the first place.

3. You can question their attitudes, and keep them out if they are extreme.  Most Canadians are fine with that as am I.

 

[Michael Hardner]

19 hours ago, Argus said:

1. Because an argument was used without justification in the past does not imply that it can't be used correctly EVER.  

2. Further, the Catholics didn't have a doctrine ...

1. Then give me a test that tells me the use of this is justified in a certain era, and not being used because of the prejudices of that time.

2. In any time, it's about people treating groups as being essentially inhuman.  Posters on here regularly paint certain religions as inherently poison and unreasonable.  Using the logic and facts of the day didn't solve the problem of suspicions of JFK in 1960 and it doesn't solve the problem of suspicions of immigrants today.  

If you want to herald facts and logic to fix a problem, then apply it first to people who are irrationally against immigration based on prejudice and bad information.  Canadians have already spoken on the question of screening immigrants.  We have a bigger problem in public figures, politicians and media who demonize immigrants and create a climate where violence can happen.  Deal with that first.

[Goddess]

15 hours ago, dialamah said:

It does mean that your claim that women "can never" leave the house unshrouded in Islamic society is wrong.

So how come when someone posts a story about a bad Muslim, you jump all over them because one bad Muslim doesn't mean they are all like that, but when you post a story about one good Muslim (your sister) it means they are all good and none of them have ever used the burka or niqab to subjugate women?  

Which I'm sure, as you know........is untrue.

So what is your point?  That Islamic societies do NOT subjugate women?  I think we all know that is not true, as well.

Guess what?  Your sister doesn't represent all Muslims any more than an extremist represents all Muslims.

 

Edited September 25, 2018 by Goddess

[Goddess]

15 hours ago, dialamah said:

Of course, this was in response to your statement that a woman living in an Islamic society must always wear a blanket over her head and body.  

Which I never said.  Re-writing what I wrote so you can argue, again, I see.  Perhaps its you with the reading comprehension problem.

Edited September 25, 2018 by Goddess

[DogOnPorch]

22 minutes ago, Goddess said:

So how come when someone posts a story about a bad Muslim, you jump all over them because one bad Muslim doesn't mean they are all like that, but when you post a story about one good Muslim (your sister) it means they are all good and none of them have ever used the burka or niqab to subjugate women?  

Which I'm sure, as you know........is untrue.

So what is your point?  That Islamic societies do NOT subjugate women?  I think we all know that is not true, as well.

Guess what?  Your sister doesn't represent all Muslims any more than an extremist represents all Muslims.

 

 

Taqiyya and Kitman are real concepts from the Quran and Hadiths. It's a Muslim's duty to lie to the Infidel in order to further Islam's desired conquest of the World.

[Goddess]

11 hours ago, Argus said:

But here's what you fail to take into account. When you say that those who don't support Islamic law are numerous, you fail to take into consideration that the rules get made by the zealots, not by those who shrug and are moderates. There weren't a lot of Nazis, but they controlled Germany absolutely. It didn't matter if most Germans were nice when those nice people weren't willing or able to fight the nasty ones. And in the Islamic world it's the zealots who are progressing steadily ahead and the moderates who are fading back, unwilling to commit to the same degree the zealots are.

You bring up Pakistan and point out there are a lot of 'moderates' there. But they simply DO NOT MATTER. They have no say. They have no voice. They're too scared. The moment anyone even suggests, for example, that maybe the blaspheme laws should be modified they're killed or forced to retract. There are 57 members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. Now according to your way of figuring, there are loads of moderates among them. But not a single member state treats women equally to men, or allows homosexuality, or indeed treats non Muslims equally to Muslims. Not one. So much for your moderates.

Here's what Bruce Bawer had to say about "moderates: