The new Ontarian Islamic Party

[Rue]

When I respond many say, too long. However I write with passion on behalf of any people unfairly stereotyped this time Muslims for the exact same reasons I defend Christians or Jews or Zionists or anyone else wrongfully stereotyped.

Now to further respond to Quebec he stated:  "It is legal for you, if you're a Muslim, to have many sexual slaves, as the religion was codified during the times where the first Muslims were raping their way through the Middle East and North."

Jews and Christians did the same thing and evolved past it and so have most Islamic nations. In fact go to the 2014 Global Slavery Index. Traditional slavery is in fact illegal in 167 states many of which are Muslim necessarily meaning the above statement would be inaccurate in one sense...and that sense being "traditional" slavery where people were considered "legal property".

However "modern-day "slavery exists of course but certainly not just in Muslim countries and not  based on the Koran but socio-economic conditions having to do with criminal legal systems and labour laws.

If you want to have a debate or discussion about slavery go to: https://www.antislavery.org/slavery-today/modern-slavery/. What I can tell you is that  sex trafficking,  prostitution, forced labour is not because of or solely created by Muslims. Here it may interest you to know we have 6,500 in Canada: https://globalnews.ca/news/2731827/there-are-6500-slaves-in-canada-nearly-46-million-worldwide-charity/. Do you blame that on Muslims?

Next to answer the rest of your comments I would prefer a Muslim do it so please go to:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/omar-alnatour/muslims-are-not-terrorist_b_8718000.html

 

" 1. Non-Muslims make up the majority of terrorists in the United States: According to the FBI, 94% of terrorist attacks carried out in the United States from 1980 to 2005 have been by non-Muslims. This means that an American terrorist suspect is over nine times more likely to be a non-Muslim than a Muslim. According to this same report, there were more Jewish acts of terrorism in the United States than Islamic, yet when was the last time we heard about the threat of Jewish terrorism in the media? For the same exact reasons that we cannot blame the entire religion of Judaism or Christianity for the violent actions of those carrying out crimes under the names of these religions, we have absolutely no justifiable grounds to blame Muslims for terrorism.

2. Non-Muslims make up the majority of terrorists in Europe: There have been over one thousand terrorist attacks in Europe in the past five years. Take a guess at what percent of those terrorists were Muslim. Wrong, now guess again. It’s less than 2%.

3. Even if all terrorist attacks were carried out by Muslims, you still could not associate terrorism with Islam: There have been 140,000 terror attacks committed worldwide since 1970. Even if Muslims carried out all of these attacks (which is an absurd assumption given the fact mentioned in my first point), those terrorists would represent less than 0.00009 percent of all Muslims. To put things into perspective, this means that you are more likely to be struck by lightening in your lifetime than a Muslim is likely to commit a terrorist attack during that same timespan.

4. If all Muslims are terrorists, then all Muslims are peacemakers: The same statistical assumptions being used to falsely portray Muslims as violent people can be used more accurately to portray Muslims as peaceful people. If all Muslims are terrorists because a single digit percentage of terrorists happen to be Muslim, then all Muslims are peacemakers because 5 out of the past 12 Nobel Peace Prize winners (42 percent) have been Muslims.

5. If you are scared of Muslims then you should also be scared of household furniture and toddlers: A study carried out by the University of North Carolina showed that less than 0.0002% of Americans killed since 9/11 were killed by Muslims. (Ironically, this study was done in Chapel Hill: the same place where a Caucasian non-Muslim killed three innocent Muslims as the mainstream media brushed this terrorist attack off as a parking dispute). Based on these numbers, and those of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the average American is more likely to be crushed to death by their couch or television than they are to be killed by a Muslim. As a matter of fact, Americans were more likely to be killed by a toddler in 2013 than they were by a so-called “Muslim terrorist”.

When a drunk driver causes a car accident, we never blame the car manufacturer for the violent actions of that driver. This is because we understand that we cannot blame an entire car company that produces millions of safe vehicles just because one of their cars was hijacked by a reckless person who used it to cause harm. So what right do we have to blame an entire religion of over 1.6 Billion peaceful people because of the actions of a relatively insignificant few?

I will not deny that terrorism is a real threat, it definitely is. However, it is extremely incorrect to associate the words “Muslim” and “terrorist” when literally all the facts implore you to do otherwise. The only way that we as Americans can defeat terrorism at home and across the world is by accurately targeting its root causes. There have been 355 mass shootings in the United States this year and falsely blaming Muslims for the San Bernardino shooting will do absolutely nothing to address this serious problem. It is time that we begin addressing terrorism on an educated and factual level.

As an American Muslim, I plead you all to deeply consider the facts mentioned here the next time you see a news headline about Muslims and terrorism. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that”. We cannot allow the disparity in media coverage to blind us from the facts and turn us into hateful people, we are smarter than that."

 

[QuebecOverCanada]

1 hour ago, Rue said:

1-In regards to 1: You contradicted yourself. You state not all Muslims are Islamists then go on to state every Muslim who follows the religion supports Islamists. Those two assertions contradict one another. Go find out who Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, CEO of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD) and co-founder of the MRM is.  He Jis a physician and former U.S. Navy officer whose parents fled Syria. Go to http://thefederalist.com/2017/01/30/muslim-reformer-speaks-battle-islamism-pc/   and  https://muslimreformmovement.org/about/.

2-I think you and Turningrite and others to a great disservice to reformist Muslims making statements as if they do not exist. Its wrong. Please go to: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7009/muslim-reform-movement.

And just so you know I do not speak for him or any Reformist Muslims and suggest they all think the same way here is another Reformist Muslim who is critical of Dr. Jasser: https://imamtawhidi.com/zuhdijasser1/

3-The point is you really need to make an effort to stop assuming you know what all Muslims think and that they all have the same beliefs. Please go to https://muslimreformmovement.org/about/.

4-Please go find out who Nonie Darwish is.  Go find out who Raheel Raza or Salim Mansour are...go to https://raheelraza.wordpress.com/page/2/. Go find out who Irshad Manji is. I can sit here and list hundreds of Muslims across the world and here in Canada who  evidence you clearly have no clue what you talk about. Please do not pretend they do not exist.

5-Interestingly in defence of 1 you stated exactly what an extremist fundamentalist does to justify not debating, you stated: " It's the undeniable truth, you can't say I'm wrong on that; I know the texts, I read some of them. " You pose as an authority beyond question. That is precisely what fundamentalists do and who you claim to criticize and you engage in this very fundamentalism. No of course you are not infallible any more than any other human is. Undeniable truth?  Really? Get real. The Koran is not written in chronological order and so to understand it you would need to understand that the order to read its verses is not what is listed in the Koran. You have to be an expert on when each verse was written regardless of where you find them in the Koran and understand the Koran is what we call fluid in concept. It evolved and many of its passages add to, amend, or completely change the ones written before them and if you don't know what order to read them in you will necessarily read them out of context.

Next unless you read and write Arabic fluently, and depend on translation from Arabic to English you can't possibly understand much of the context and meanings that can not easily transfer from Arabic to English. Arabic uses one word for many different words in English and so its easy to mistranslate them.

How could you possibly state:" I know the texts, I read some of them/" What a silly, presumptuous and ignorant thing to say. To start with Muslim scholars who spent far more time than you have struggled and died without ever understanding all there is to know about the Koran. It is a complex form of writing often allegorical in content and subject to many possible interpretations and because its second hand, i.e., is not first hand written by Muhammed but written after the fact we can never know what he actually said or may never have said  but has been claimed to have said.

6- Next, what do you mean you read "some" of the verses. How could you possibly understand the Koran reading only "some verses". Were you even aware the verses you read may be subject to other verses you did not read and therefore not what you think they mean because you don't understand their true context? Well? Only a fool would claim to understand the Koran after reading some of its verses in English. Get real.

You know how I know you are yet another arm chair expert on Islam who reads a few articles on internet and  presto is an Islamic scholar? Easy. Your description of Islam being a religion of war and how you define Jihad and peace.

You sure as hell are no Muslim that I know. hate you?

1- You're totally wrong. You have totally misunderstood my point, to your advantage to make me look to say that all Muslims are Islamists, where I stated clearly that all Muslims weren't Islamists, but that all Islamists were Muslims. I even have a sentence saying that all Muslims weren't Islamists. You fully ignore that because you have no argument and that I really know much about your religion. The scripture of the Holy Quran states that Muslims must pursue Jihad so that all humans become believers, Kuffars are out of this Earth, so that Heaven may happen. You totally misrepresented my point voluntarily, and shame on you and your shaming tactics. It doesn't work. Are you yourself a Muslim? Because misinterpreting sentences of the unbeliever is a tactic called 'taqiyah' or in Arabic called 'dissimulation', or to hide your real intents to the non believers and to dissimulate your hatred while in fact you believe in those intents.

2- Islam has no clergy whatsoever, no religious leaders are considered above the Imam most of the time, and if there is one above life the Mufti, it hasn't that much of an impact compared to the Pope with the Catholics. So if an organism states it wants to reform Islam, well it is pure propaganda and useless, since all muslims follow what their imam says rather than what the organism says about the Imams or Islam in general. So your argument is pointless and downright ignorant.

3- You can't say I can't know the beliefs of Muslims,, I know them very well, had a Muslim gf and have lots of Muslims friends, all the ideas of the Islamic ideology is stated word by word in the 'holy Quran', and most of the Muslims take the holy text literally, since the holy text tells the believers to act according to what it is written, rather than being a moral story like in the Bible. Another fundamental difference you won't ever call out, because reasons multiculturalism.

4- In Islam, you have to hide your intentions under a precept called taqiyah when you're a minority and you would be ostracized socially, so you have to hide your faith. It's exactly what they did in Turkey  before going full islamism. Same thing in Tunisia. And you're happy. 

5- LOL word salad, I love the fact that everytime someone calls out Islam and its principles, someone comes and says that 'you don't understand arabic so it's a translation error' or 'the quran isn't in chronological order', so that erases all criticism of Islam. Keep going. You're going to convince some naive ones, but not me.

6- I'm sure you haven't read the Torah wholly yourself but can formulate criticism against Judaism, with knowledge, guts feeling, historic facts. Your argument in plain wrong. I haven't read the Bible fully and still can formulate criticism against Christianity. You are making such a fool out of yourself, you're incredibly bad at argumenting and so predictable. I had the exact same arguments spat to me by literal islamists I met on college campus.

 

Make your replies shorter, I have to work during the day and have better to do than debate an Islamist.

Edited January 24, 2019 by QuebecOverCanada

[QuebecOverCanada]

1 hour ago, Rue said:

 

3. Even if all terrorist attacks were carried out by Muslims, you still could not associate terrorism with Islam:

How could someone do that? A terrorist attack carried by a Muslim? That's so rare of an occurrence. Do not amalgamate people.

[turningrite]

4 hours ago, Rue said:

I am going to stop there. Clearly you make  a sweeping generalized assumption about all Muslims and their beliefs without doing proper research. I hope that is also short enough for you not to  have to read. I appreciate when I respond taking the time to debate someone and show him I am listening to what he says, some people on this forum would prefer I not, and simply make sweeping generalizations in short sentences. I won't.

 

Apparently, you didn't read my post or if you did you're trying to sensationalize your objections to anybody who doesn't support your views. I made my points of reference quite clear in noting the very real and substantial differences between Western ideals that flow from the Reformation and Enlightenment, particularly relating to the separation of church and state and the right to criticize religious institutions and orthodoxy, and modern Islamic social and political ideology as delineated in the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (1990), a document supported by almost four dozen Muslim-majority countries representing the vast majority of the world's Muslims. (The Cairo Declaration is easy to find online.) Do you have a substantive argument to counter this dichotomy? All you've offered is a weak and generalized rebuttal based on your own anecdotally-justified perceptions. You need to do better. Please provide references to documents and/or organizations that promote a more moderate and Westernized form of Islam that are seen as generally influential among Muslims.

Edited January 24, 2019 by turningrite

[Rue]

17 hours ago, turningrite said:

Apparently, you didn't read my post or if you did you're trying to sensationalize your objections to anybody who doesn't support your views. I made my points of reference quite clear in noting the very real and substantial differences between Western ideals that flow from the Reformation and Enlightenment, particularly relating to the separation of church and state and the right to criticize religious institutions and orthodoxy, and modern Islamic social and political ideology as delineated in the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (1990), a document supported by almost four dozen Muslim-majority countries representing the vast majority of the world's Muslims. (The Cairo Declaration is easy to find online.) Do you have a substantive argument to counter this dichotomy? All you've offered is a weak and generalized rebuttal based on your own anecdotally-justified perceptions. You need to do better. Please provide references to documents and/or organizations that promote a more moderate and Westernized form of Islam that are seen as generally influential among Muslims.

Oh but I have read your first response I challenged and now this one and did provide a reference for you.

In your first post I challenged you stated and I quote:

"There has been no similar evolution in Islam, particularly if one is to cite the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (1990) as broadly indicative of the gulf between Islamic and Western social and political thought. Radical fundamentalism, of course, is clearly a challenge to the Western ideals of individualism and the separation of church and state, but fundamentalist ideas also permeate mainstream Islamic thought and belief.  I've met only a couple truly secularist Muslims, for instance, one who renounced her religion after moving to the West and the other was gay. I think that unless and until an alternative form of Islam emerges that accommodates Western values and beliefs, intractable cultural differences will render it difficult to easily integrate Islam into the Western mainstream..."

Like Quebec in his responses to me you use your own perception and personal anecdotes " I've met only a couple truly secularist Muslims..." as the basis to make a sweeping claim there is no reformist movement in Islam.  You claim and I quote "no similar evolution in Islam.."  and you stated "until an alternative form of Islam emerges that accommodates Western values and beliefs..." which suggest NOT such alternative in Islam exists.

Now you respond and try back pedal and use the reference, " Please provide references to documents or organizations that promote a more moderate and Westernized form of Islam..." which I most certainly did in response to your first post. Then you switch the reference by changing it with this addition "that at are generally influential among Muslims".

So when I showed you reform Muslims exist, you now insist I  ALSO show you they are "generally influential among Muslims". What bullshit.

How would I measure how influential anyone is to anyone else. Am I psychic. This is precisely the bullshit I am challenging. You don't know what anyone thinks until you ask them.

The only way to measure how influential Muslim reformists are would be to take polls or ask them. How would I do that? Oh do explain your bull shit addition.

My point was Muslim reformists exist yours was they did not. When I showed you they exist, you now argue yah but are they influential..see I do read what you write. I do read how when you are shown reformists exist, and are given a site for that, you don't admit they exist, you switch it to demanding I show you how influential they are.

Tell me how do you go about measuring which political beliefs are influential other than basing it on who you know that are Muslim? Get phacking real. Making assumption based on Muslims you know is nonsense. That is a subjective limited basis and its that kind of limited basis that enables people like you and Quebec to  make sweeping stereotypes of what people think.

What I clearly stated and what I state again is, I speak directly to people one on one to determine on an individual basis where they stand. I do not assume because one is extreme or the other reformist, all of the people in their religious or ethnic group thinks the exact same way. That was the point I was challenging.

You really want to play semantics with me and switch what I said to avoid what you failed to show, and act as if your original point was not that reform movements exist in Islam but they are not influential? Really. If that is YOUR contention now that these reformist groups are not influential, PROVE IT. Don't  play with me and postulate something new and then demand I prove it. More to the point when you are shown to be wrong, just move on. Don't slip and slide out from your original statement with a back door additional qualification...oh you bet I read.

Next, you can't have it both ways. Don't complain my posts are too long for you to read and then deny what I write at the same time.

 

 

 

[Rue]

19 hours ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

How could someone do that? A terrorist attack carried by a Muslim? That's so rare of an occurrence. Do not amalgamate people.

You missed the point the writer was making. The writer's point was to assume everyone from the same group thinks the same way or is the same, because everyone else in the group is, is not necessarily accurate. That clearly is something you do not understand. You believe generalizations and assuming everyone is the same is beyond question. That by the way has nothing to do with amalgamating people, it has to do about generalizing about people. Amalgamating people and stereotyping people are not the same in concept and maybe a problem exists in that until you get a good command of the language you use to generalize others you should be more careful. One of the problems using languages is all of us have become sloppy in what we write regardless of our mother tongue. May I suggest "amalgamate" in French is the same in English and refers to taking two distinct elements and mixing them into one unit.

When you assume all people think the same because others of the same group they are in think that way you stereotype and generalize which means you  engage in creating an  oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing in this context, Muslims. You haven't merged anything to create one unified concept. In fact you have no idea what Islam is let alone its many sub-divisions and sects so it is impossible for you to amalgamate them to create a new unified concept of Islam for them all. What you engage in is a false belief in what Jihad refers to and for that matter basic concepts of Islam.

[Rue]

20 hours ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

1- You're totally wrong. You have totally misunderstood my point, to your advantage to make me look to say that all Muslims are Islamists, where I stated clearly that all Muslims weren't Islamists, but that all Islamists were Muslims. I even have a sentence saying that all Muslims weren't Islamists. You fully ignore that because you have no argument and that I really know much about your religion. The scripture of the Holy Quran states that Muslims must pursue Jihad so that all humans become believers, Kuffars are out of this Earth, so that Heaven may happen. You totally misrepresented my point voluntarily, and shame on you and your shaming tactics. It doesn't work. Are you yourself a Muslim? Because misinterpreting sentences of the unbeliever is a tactic called 'taqiyah' or in Arabic called 'dissimulation', or to hide your real intents to the non believers and to dissimulate your hatred while in fact you believe in those intents.

2- Islam has no clergy whatsoever, no religious leaders are considered above the Imam most of the time, and if there is one above life the Mufti, it hasn't that much of an impact compared to the Pope with the Catholics. So if an organism states it wants to reform Islam, well it is pure propaganda and useless, since all muslims follow what their imam says rather than what the organism says about the Imams or Islam in general. So your argument is pointless and downright ignorant.

3- You can't say I can't know the beliefs of Muslims,, I know them very well, had a Muslim gf and have lots of Muslims friends, all the ideas of the Islamic ideology is stated word by word in the 'holy Quran', and most of the Muslims take the holy text literally, since the holy text tells the believers to act according to what it is written, rather than being a moral story like in the Bible. Another fundamental difference you won't ever call out, because reasons multiculturalism.

4- In Islam, you have to hide your intentions under a precept called taqiyah when you're a minority and you would be ostracized socially, so you have to hide your faith. It's exactly what they did in Turkey  before going full islamism. Same thing in Tunisia. And you're happy. 

5- LOL word salad, I love the fact that everytime someone calls out Islam and its principles, someone comes and says that 'you don't understand arabic so it's a translation error' or 'the quran isn't in chronological order', so that erases all criticism of Islam. Keep going. You're going to convince some naive ones, but not me.

6- I'm sure you haven't read the Torah wholly yourself but can formulate criticism against Judaism, with knowledge, guts feeling, historic facts. Your argument in plain wrong. I haven't read the Bible fully and still can formulate criticism against Christianity. You are making such a fool out of yourself, you're incredibly bad at argumenting and so predictable. I had the exact same arguments spat to me by literal islamists I met on college campus.

 

Make your replies shorter, I have to work during the day and have better to do than debate an Islamist.

The length of my responses is in direct ration to the length of yours.

In regards to 1 you in fact also stated: "every Muslim who follows the religion supports Islamists." In your latest response to me you ignore that these are the words you wrote I challenged which is dishonest of you and it is those words I challenged because they stereotype all Muslims as Islamists which I proved to you is not the case.

In regards to 2, Mullahs and Imams are indeed Muslim clergy and for you to try deny they are speaks loudly to 3.

In regards to 3, you clearly show in all your responses to me you base your knowledge on Islam to a reference to your "Muslim friends" or what I think is clear, going onto Wikepedia and reading definitions and then presto thinking that makes you an expert on Islam. You show that for example in comment 4, where you make a sweeping generalization about the concept of taqiyah. Yes that comment does state Muslims can mislead in comments to non Muslims. The key to understanding that concept, is not to read it literally from its context as you have and give it an unlimited context of usage but to understand the circumstances it is limited to being used in. It does not and never meant it is permissible whenever and all the time for Muslims to lie to non Muslims. That is false. Its an ignorant thing to say. It has specific usage for specific circumstances which clearly you do not understand and do not care to understand. It is an example of how you take a concept second hand you read, and have no idea what it means or how it is to be applied and that is because you show contempt or arrogance, i.e., you assume you can understand it from reading it on Wikepedia or claiming you have Muslim friends.

In regards to 5, you use the phrase word salad. Yah I do not doubt when I state things you disagree with they come across to you as cucumbers and tomatoes. Arabic is a very complex language. To understand the Koran, you have to understand the language it was written in and the change of the structure of the language from the days in which the Koran was written until today.

When the Bible was translated its meanings and contexts were of course distorted or misrepresented. To translate from ancient Hebrew to Roman and Greek and then later to English or from the ancient language of Jesus, Armaic to Hebrew to Greek and Roman led to many misrepresentations which Biblical scholars still today wrestle with when they revise the versions of translation of the New and Old Testaments. The fact you ridicule this is par for the course.

6-When I criticize  Judaism, Islam, Christianity, I do so with utmost respect and humility and never with the assumption my opinions are undeniable truth and can not be questioned. My opinions are subjective and in fact I use unlike you, the same objective criteria for all these religions. I don't remove passages out of their context. I offer alternative forms of interpretation with respect. I examine these verses and sayings as allegories subject to an infinite number of meanings.

In fact in Judaism we created a Talmud, a book of instruction to criticize the Bible and all Jewish written works because in our religion, there is no one meaning. We are supposed to take anything in the Bible, Talmud, Kabbalah,  written essays of Jewish scholars and constantly challenge and debate and raise new and possible meanings. There is no one meaning.

These works are said to be layers of the onion. Each time we peel back a layer of meaning is another and another, and like an onion, when we peel back the layers are eyes tear.

This concept you have that when you read a Koran verse or for that matter a Bible verse, it has only one fixed meaning you claim it has, is called extremist fundamentalism, the rigid, one meaning only literal interpretation you and the extremists you claim to criticize share.

Make no mistake, I do not claim to be or understand Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, but I read about them in their holy books and I listen to what their followers and leaders and scholars say about them. I listen. I don't claim I know. I am no religious leader. I am a hard working shmuck and all I know is when I walk in a Mosque, Hindu Temple, Christian Church, synagogue, I show respect to its leaders and followers and no I don't claim to agree with everything they say or do but I show respect. I show respect and I find common themes and I have been quite comfortable in all kinds of places of worship. The only one I was not comfortable in I believe celebrated the existence of for want of a better word what some call Lucifer or Satan and that is a God or figure or symbol I am not comfortable with as it is antithetical to everything I believe. I do not like organized religions. I like to think all religions were created to spread positive energy to  heal the world and help us learn to be better people and control  our primitive urges to kill, rape, steal, cheat.

I believe all religions were created to help us learn to control the negative in ourselves.

That is all. When I read your sweeping labels about Muslims I challenge them.

As well for you to call me an Islamist is infantile. Unlike you I lived in a world, a real world, not Wikepedia, where I saw people die, talking like you, convinced their version of truth was the only one and thus it fueled them to blow up innocent people, both Muslims and Jews. I learned by picking up the body parts a Muslim and Jew smell the same, feel the same, ooze the same, have the same colours when they burst out of a body and hit a wall.

That's my concept of equality. I learned people blow up exactly the same. So when you spew your stereotypes of Muslims this is what I know-I know that Muslim extremist terrorists kill more Muslims than they do Jews. They also want people like you preaching what you think Islam is, to make them think all non Muslims are as close minded as you-this then alienates these Muslims from people like you and causes them to turn to and believe these terrorists in their own community who say, the non Muslims hate you.

So I ask, who do you aid when you write as you do? You are a walking incitement of falsehoods about Muslims that incites hatred and misunderstanding of Muslims. That I now is what Muslim terrorists want. What I also know is this country, Canada has very real people called Muslim reformists, peaceful, open minded, educated, tolerant people who have the same values as most of us and these people came to Canada to get away from extremist Islam. Hell I don't care if you do not believe me.

By the way I don't make statements like "some of my best friends are Muslim". In fact I have experienced hatred from Muslims. I have been spat on, had mothers throw buckets of feces and urine at me, had young boys and girls spit on me who were Muslim and? And? Does it mean I hate Muslims?  Should I hate all Germans, Ukrainians, Russians  because of what some of them did to my family? Should I have all Christians because some still think I am a descendant of a killer of Christ and am  going to hell for not believing in salvation through the personification of God through Jesus?

Right.

Too long. Hell don't read it. Go through life limiting your perception to simply 10 second sound bites on the cell phone.  The thing is, the world is not a threatening place and neither are Muslims. What threatens you is your own inability to get passed rigid simple stereotypes of what you think is out there. Its a salad to you lol. Hell I think salads are something to eat and enjoy especially with the right dressing. You...well it sounds like you choke on them.

[turningrite]

6 hours ago, Rue said:

Oh but I have read your first response I challenged and now this one and did provide a reference for you.

In your first post I challenged you stated and I quote:

"There has been no similar evolution in Islam, particularly if one is to cite the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (1990) as broadly indicative of the gulf between Islamic and Western social and political thought. Radical fundamentalism, of course, is clearly a challenge to the Western ideals of individualism and the separation of church and state, but fundamentalist ideas also permeate mainstream Islamic thought and belief.  I've met only a couple truly secularist Muslims, for instance, one who renounced her religion after moving to the West and the other was gay. I think that unless and until an alternative form of Islam emerges that accommodates Western values and beliefs, intractable cultural differences will render it difficult to easily integrate Islam into the Western mainstream..."

Like Quebec in his responses to me you use your own perception and personal anecdotes " I've met only a couple truly secularist Muslims..." as the basis to make a sweeping claim there is no reformist movement in Islam.  You claim and I quote "no similar evolution in Islam.."  and you stated "until an alternative form of Islam emerges that accommodates Western values and beliefs..." which suggest NOT such alternative in Islam exists.

Now you respond and try back pedal and use the reference, " Please provide references to documents or organizations that promote a more moderate and Westernized form of Islam..." which I most certainly did in response to your first post. Then you switch the reference by changing it with this addition "that at are generally influential among Muslims".

So when I showed you reform Muslims exist, you now insist I  ALSO show you they are "generally influential among Muslims". What bullshit.

How would I measure how influential anyone is to anyone else. Am I psychic. This is precisely the bullshit I am challenging. You don't know what anyone thinks until you ask them.

The only way to measure how influential Muslim reformists are would be to take polls or ask them. How would I do that? Oh do explain your bull shit addition.

My point was Muslim reformists exist yours was they did not. When I showed you they exist, you now argue yah but are they influential..see I do read what you write. I do read how when you are shown reformists exist, and are given a site for that, you don't admit they exist, you switch it to demanding I show you how influential they are.

Tell me how do you go about measuring which political beliefs are influential other than basing it on who you know that are Muslim? Get phacking real. Making assumption based on Muslims you know is nonsense. That is a subjective limited basis and its that kind of limited basis that enables people like you and Quebec to  make sweeping stereotypes of what people think.

What I clearly stated and what I state again is, I speak directly to people one on one to determine on an individual basis where they stand. I do not assume because one is extreme or the other reformist, all of the people in their religious or ethnic group thinks the exact same way. That was the point I was challenging.

You really want to play semantics with me and switch what I said to avoid what you failed to show, and act as if your original point was not that reform movements exist in Islam but they are not influential? Really. If that is YOUR contention now that these reformist groups are not influential, PROVE IT. Don't  play with me and postulate something new and then demand I prove it. More to the point when you are shown to be wrong, just move on. Don't slip and slide out from your original statement with a back door additional qualification...oh you bet I read.

Next, you can't have it both ways. Don't complain my posts are too long for you to read and then deny what I write at the same time.

 

 

And despite your deluge of words, including puerile rhetoric (i.e. "Get phacking real."), you continue to fail to respond in any concrete or factual context to my principal contention. You have not referenced any broadly-based or influential Muslim document or movement that attempts to publicly reconcile the differences between Islamic ideology and Westernism. There are quite likely moderate Muslims who privately accept Western perspectives. Too often, however, those who try to raise criticisms of Islamic ideology must seek protection for so doing, as reportedly has the young Saudi women who was recently accepted for resettlement by Canada. More famously, Muslim critics of mainstream Islamic thought and practice, like Irshad Manji and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, have publicly expressed their views at the risk of facing serious backlash and even danger for so doing.  

[Rue]

Turning Rite you stated there were no reformist Muslims. Now you've deflected from your failed assertion and moved on to the argument, ok, they exist but these moderates have no influence. You do need to get real. Deflecting like that because you were shown to have made a false assertion and then whining because I told you to get real about that speaks for itself.

Neither you or I know how much influence moderate, progressive and reformist Muslims will have on their religion. Its a work in progress just like Christianity, Judaism, and all other religious ideologies continue to evolve.

I have never argued that the majority of Muslims today are reformists, progressives, moderates. In fact I have stated in past posts the majority of Muslims today remain illiterate and so the struggle for Islam to evolve will require Muslims learn to read and write and therefore be able to develop critical thinking skills on an individual basis to determine for themselves as individuals how to interpret the Koran. As more Muslims learn to read and write, so will their critical reasoning processes evolve and changes to the interpretation of the Koran will evolve no different than what happened in Judaism and Christianity.

I challenged you on a false assertion you now have deflected from rather than admit was false.

I then went on to challenge Quebec for his stereotypes of all Muslims being Islamists and his role playing as a Muslim scholar claiming to be an authority on what all Muslims believe. His assertions are based on his having "Muslim friends" and reading what he thinks makes him an expert on the internet.

How about you? What was your point. This forum has more than been aware that Muslim extremist fundamentalists control many Muslims and instill fear in them and in fact engage in violence and terrorism against Muslims in fact in higher numbers than they do non Muslims. So tell me  is it logical to  label these Muslims who are victims of Muslim extremists, the same as Muslim extremists? You think that is brilliant dialogue that will acknowledge the problems in the Muslim world and encourage Muslims to join with non Muslims in the same approach (battle) against not just Muslim extremists but all extremists? 

That's why I have taken so much time. I have spent many posts challenging Muslim terrorism. I will spend the same amount of time defending Muslim progressive reformists particularly those in Canada who do indeed share the same Canadian values as myself and probably you. Surely I and you should have the logic and decency to do that otherwise we resort to the same extremist and rigid dogma terrorists do. This all or nothing conceptualization of Muslims is what is puerile as is making the overstatement and obvious statement no one debates that Muslim extremism coerces and has the ability to impose much fear on many Muslims.

As for contending most Muslims are fundamentalists opposed to Canadian values and want to turn everyone Muslim that may be true for some Muslims but not others. If you or Quebec make the assertion the majority of Muslims are fundamentalists opposed to Canadian values, back it up with some objective methodology. Telling me you have friends who are Muslims is bullshit.

[turningrite]

8 hours ago, Rue said:

 Telling me you have friends who are Muslims is bullshit.

How would you know who I know or don't know? Are you psychic? You've now fallen into the trap of pursuing an 'ad hominem' critique so I'm not sure  there's any point in further responding to you. And, again, you have not in any concrete fashion responded to the issues I've posed although you do appear to be dissembling at this point, suggesting that you will spend time "defending Muslim progressive reformists." Who and where are these people? Where are their scholarly works and the movements that support and defend them? I've named a couple of fairly prominent Muslim progressive critics, who've raised their voices at considerable risk to themselves. So far, though, I haven't seen any evidence of an emerging Muslim version of the Enlightenment in the West, or elsewhere.

Edited January 25, 2019 by turningrite

[Rue]

On 1/25/2019 at 12:39 PM, turningrite said:

How would you know who I know or don't know?

That is precisely the point. Coming on this forum and basing your assumptions based on "your friends are Muslim" is bullshit. It can't be proven by you. More to the point just how many Muslims do you know that would then enable you to make the sweeping pronouncements you do about ALL Muslims? Yah yah, some of my best friends are Quakers.

You asked for evidence of Muslim reformists. I gave you evidence. Now you changed the subject to arguing you don't believe these reformists are influential.

Don't whine to me that I engage in ad hominem attacks.. either back up what you say or move on. I never postulated or raised any comment as to the degree of influence of Muslim reformists today in the Muslim world. That would be illogical. It is a movement in progress. It evolves as we speak just as reform movements in other religions do the same.

You are the one postulating reformist Muslims have no influence.

I am saying there is no objective methodology to prove their degree of influence one way or the other and that you have presented zero evidence to prove the Muslim reformists who do exist have no influence and therefore your comment Muslim reformists have no influence is necessarily baseless and subjective.

This I will say. Muslim reformists exist.

They exist, they speak out and  risk their lives. Even if I give specific names like Kasim Hafeez, Adnan Oktar,  Mohamed Zoabi, Toufik Hamid,  Naveed Anjun, you have no clue who they are, what they put on the line and whether they are influencing anyone.

So yes I acknowledge they exist and what they do.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 28, 2019 by Rue

[QuebecOverCanada]

3 hours ago, Rue said:

1)That is precisely the point. Coming on this forum and basing your assumptions based on "your friends are Muslim" is bullshit. It can't be proven by you. More to the point just how many Muslims do you know that would then enable you to make the sweeping pronouncements you do about ALL Muslims? Yah yah, some of my best friends are Quakers.

2)You asked for evidence of Muslim reformists. I gave you evidence. Now you changed the subject to arguing you don't believe these reformists are influential.

1) The point you were making at first to us was to 'talk to Muslims and you'll see, they have moderates thus please don't amalgamate the Islamists with the Muslims'. I said I was in constant contact with them. Even today, just came back from work, guess what, I spoke to at least half a dozen Muslims at work just today. If the point you repudiate being that I have Muslim friends. don't start with the usual BS that 'you don't ever talk to Muslims so stfu', because your argument is as weak as mine.

2) We did not just ask for Evidence of Muslim Reformists.

We want you to acknowledge the fundamental principles of Islam. Do you agree that Jihad is a fundamental part of the religion? Do you agree that the Sacred Texts in Islam incite to violence and those texts are taken literally by the Muslims much more than the Sacred Texts in Judaism and Christianity, since these two latter religions have a clergy an reformed themselves?

 

[turningrite]

4 hours ago, Rue said:

1.) That is precisely the point. Coming on this forum and basing your assumptions based on "your friends are Muslim" is bullshit. It can't be proven by you. More to the point just how many Muslims do you know that would then enable you to make the sweeping pronouncements you do about ALL Muslims? Yah yah, some of my best friends are Quakers.

2.) You asked for evidence of Muslim reformists. I gave you evidence. Now you changed the subject to arguing you don't believe these reformists are influential.

 

1.) And, where, exactly, do I say that my "friends are Muslim" in any of my posts in this string? (Citation please!) When searching the sting, the closest I could come to any such reference on my part is where I state that "I've met only a couple truly secularist Muslims, for instance, one who renounced her religion after moving to the West and the other was gay." Of course I've met Muslims. I've lived in Toronto for decades, including throughout most of my working years. I've never claimed in this string to have close Muslim friends, although I have worked and socialized quite harmoniously with many. I believe you're simply trying to be derogatory by accusing me of paternalism. If so, you can cut it out because I believe making such statements renders your position defamatory. 

2.) No, I gave you the names of some Muslim reformists, who've raised their heads above the crowd at great risk to themselves. Although your posts are tediously verbose, it's my recollection that you've only provided personal observations relating to people you know or have met. My question is why we haven't seen the emergence of a Muslim movement in the West, broadly supported by Muslim community leaders, that affirms Enlightenment-derived values like secularism, religious co-existence and the separation of church and state? We're often told that we in the West must accommodate Islam, but should not Islam be equally expected to accommodate Western values and perspectives, at least in the West?

Edited January 28, 2019 by turningrite

[Rue]

1 hour ago, turningrite said:

1.) And, where, exactly, do I say that my "friends are Muslim" in any of my posts in this string? (Citation please!) When searching the sting, the closest I could come to any such reference on my part is where I state that "I've met only a couple truly secularist Muslims, for instance, one who renounced her religion after moving to the West and the other was gay." Of course I've met Muslims. I've lived in Toronto for decades, including throughout most of my working years. I've never claimed in this string to have close Muslim friends, although I have worked and socialized quite harmoniously with many. I believe you're simply trying to be derogatory by accusing me of paternalism. If so, you can cut it out because I believe making such statements renders your position defamatory. 

2.) No, I gave you the names of some Muslim reformists, who've raised their heads above the crowd at great risk to themselves. Although your posts are tediously verbose, it's my recollection that you've only provided personal observations relating to people you know or have met. My question is why we haven't seen the emergence of a Muslim movement in the West, broadly supported by Muslim community leaders, that affirms Enlightenment-derived values like secularism, religious co-existence and the separation of church and state? We're often told that we in the West must accommodate Islam, but should not Islam be equally expected to accommodate Western values and perspectives, at least in the West?

In regards to one yes I was half assed accusing you of sounding paternalistic using your personal subjective knowledge of Muslims as a basis to make an assumption about all Muslims.

No you never said that in fact Quebec not you has been the one pushing that angle.

Also in fairness to you, you stated:  "There are quite likely moderate Muslims who privately accept Western perspectives." I should have acknowledged that which I did not. So in fairness to you I apologize for that. More to the point other than that  very narrow point about not generalizing all Muslims which you clearly retracted from and I did not acknowledge which is clearly my mistake. You also went on to state after the above:  " Too often, however, those who try to raise criticisms of Islamic ideology must seek protection for so doing, as reportedly has the young Saudi women who was recently accepted for resettlement by Canada. More famously, Muslim critics of mainstream Islamic thought and practice, like Irshad Manji and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, have publicly expressed their views at the risk of facing serious backlash and even danger for so doing. "

So in fact I acknowledge that and stand by it. In fact I stand by every other comment you made for what it is worth other than the one narrow generalization point which I now retract as you clearly backed off of it and I failed to acknowledge. Genuine apology for that.

Next I agree with this comment you made:

"My guess is that any Islamic Party that might emerge in Ontario or Canada would instead seek to obtain public funding for religious schools for members of the community they represent, just as Waldman presumably sought public funding for Jewish schooling."

I do not think any religious school should be paid by taxpayer's money .I personally myself believe state and religion should be kept separate and not mixed. I do however unlike some do believe a history of religion and religion class comparing religions should be part of the social science curriculum if for no other reason it still has such a strong impact on peoples' cultures fuels hatred and misunderstanding so  I think is crucial to  teach what religions have IN COMMON.

I am  going to save my comments for Quebec not you and you have my apology. That was a genuine one. I lumped you in on my responses.

I actually agree 100% with everything else you stated but I debate specific issues at times. Now cool it before I start chanting up on a roof.

 

 

 

[Rue]

4 hours ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

1) The point you were making at first to us was to 'talk to Muslims and you'll see, they have moderates thus please don't amalgamate the Islamists with the Muslims'. I said I was in constant contact with them. Even today, just came back from work, guess what, I spoke to at least half a dozen Muslims at work just today. If the point you repudiate being that I have Muslim friends. don't start with the usual BS that 'you don't ever talk to Muslims so stfu', because your argument is as weak as mine.

2) We did not just ask for Evidence of Muslim Reformists.

We want you to acknowledge the fundamental principles of Islam. Do you agree that Jihad is a fundamental part of the religion? Do you agree that the Sacred Texts in Islam incite to violence and those texts are taken literally by the Muslims much more than the Sacred Texts in Judaism and Christianity, since these two latter religions have a clergy an reformed themselves?

 

In regards to 1: your continuing to refer to Muslims and now " half a dozen Muslims" you work with as the basis to claim you are an authority on Islam is illogical and at this point absurd/

You engage in what is called the "friend argument" and I will simply explain what it is and not waste any further time referring to it:

"The friend argument is an argument used by people who want to claim knowledge about and/or sympathy with a group, by referring to their "friends" belonging to this group. It is commonly used to clear and absolve oneself from suspicion of racism, xenophobia or other kinds of prejudice. It is a particular form of the "Not prejudiced, but..." statement.

The friend argument is one of the laziest ways to try to worm out of accepting the responsibility for endorsing prejudice. The idea is that someone cannot be prejudiced if they have friends of that demographic; if they had a real prejudice against that full group, then none of them would be okay to hang around, and conversely, then that member of said group would no longer be their friend.

Having a friend who belongs to a demographic that one hates isn't incompatible with a prejudice against that demographic - and this is the key to the fallacy.fri"

 

In regards to 2: speak for yourself. Turning rite's sole argument with me is a very narrow one and far different from yours. 

I am not a Muslim. Only a Muslim can tell you if Jihad is a fundamental part of their religion. It is illogical for you to expect me to explain a Muslim's beliefs. That would be patronizing and disrespectful. I don't claim to know what Muslims believe you do and I am saying to you, its clear from what you state, you are arrogant and lacking in humility to think you can pose as a Muslim scholar who understands what Muslims believe and how they interpret their Koran.

I do know you do not understand what JIHAD means and think it means war.

What I warned you of is that the words you quote are Arabic and their meaning is not limited to just one meaning, let alone the one you give it. Jihad in Arabic has different meanings depending on the context of the sentence and words before and after the sentence in which it is used. JIhad refers to a struggle or striving towards or great effort made to achieve something praiseworthy. It is often used by people like you to have one meaning, armed war against non Muslims.

I also know people like you go on the internet and read that there are 109 or 164 verses of violence in the Koran. Then you read their English translation and presto you claim to be an authority on what they mean and then in your case would have me believe you know 6 Muslims let alone all 6 are Muslim scholars who then taught you the entire Koran which you are now an expert on. Lol.

What I also told you is that in addition to not understanding Arabic and so how when reading Arabic a word like Jihad is fluid and has more than one meaning, I told you that you need to read that word or passage not in isolation but in proper order and context with other words and passages to properly understand it. Not only that but to read the Koran you would not just read its passages but numerous essays and commentaries on the passages you read to truly get their meaning.

I also told you the Koran is not in chronological order. It was placed in order of largest to smallest chapters. If you read the Koran as it is traditionally listed it will make no sense. You need to understand its chronological order to then understand how later passages deleted, changed, clarified, amended earlier passages and if you don't read the verses or passages or surahs in proper order, you will be reading passages that Muhammed later rejected or changed. Would you have me believe you read the full 114 verses of the Koran in chronological order understanding their inter-connection and the context behind each word? Lol. Next please don't tell me you read the Koran. You went on the internet and skimmed some articles. It would take  many years to try read the Koran let alone all its commentaries. Only an arrogant individual lacking in humility would read the Koran let alone Bible and claim they understand it and are an authority on it.

Read 2:191 . Oh yah its violent. Read it. Sounds violent...I mean the passage gives Muslims permission to use force when those around them are persecuting them and trying to expel them from where they live  So is that where you stop reading?  Did you go on to read the verse also  clearly states that if and when the aggressors or persecutors stop the aggression/persecution, then the Muslims MUST ttop the fighting.   Did you read 2:190 and then 2: 192? How could you understand 2: 191 without reading the verses before and after it? For example,   Verse 2:192  goes on to state that Allah is forgiving and merciful and so Muslims because they must be as Allah is must also  be forgiving and merciful toward those who do not engage in aggression or persecution. The passage when removed from its true meaning is of course violent and could be used by a violent person to justfy violence. The difference between us is you write off Muslim as only being violent and only have one violent meaning, I do not.

I also said you are ignorant of Arabic. No you can not understand the Koran relying on an English translation you read on the internet.  For example, the word ‘fitnah’ in verses 2:191 and 2:193 is wrongfully assumed by people like you to mean “disbelief”  when it means ‘persecution’

I also know the fact you only refer to the Koran shows you can't understand it. For example with verse or suragh 2:191, you also must  read the commentary of Ibn Kathir that contextualizes the verse  because when you do it then explains its actual meaning which is far different than the literal one give all the passages in the Koran like 2:191 you claim are violent.

I have read on this forum time and time again people claiming to be scholars on Judaism, the Torah, the Kabalah, The Talmud and take passage after passage out of context. They know who they are. I also have read people quote the Gospels to justify hating others and killing.

I was taught to step into a Christian church, a Seikh Temple,a  Mosque,  a Buddhist temple, a Hindu Temple, and feel the same thing. I show deference. I don't have to understand everything or even agree with everything. I don't accept sexual segregation between the genders in worship, calling gays immoral, teaching women they must listen to men, etc. I don't claim to worship fundamentalist or extremist beliefs. I also don't claim to  know the things you know. So that is why I argue that you and I do not understand Islam as we claim to just like we don't understand all religions. We know very little. Only an ignorant man thinks he knows. Someone with any semblance of knowledge knows that knowledge reminds him he is ignorant and can never stop thinking, learning, questioning.

You are already an expert on Islam. Me. No. I am not an expert on anything. I just have opinions like you and love a debate. What I do know is some people use Islam for terrorism. They use the Koran as a weapon just as others use guns, or other holy books. Their choice to be violent, and to try rationalize that violence as being a religious expression is bullshit. No religion says to be violent. What I do know is its tempting to call all Muslims violent. It's much harder to call them humans and that the violent ones among them, the inhuman ones are not the same as the others and in fact kill more Muslims than they do non Muslims.

Its easy to hate. I leaned over putting body parts in bags. It would be easy to hate Muslims. I have been spit at by Jewish settlers and Muslims. What I represent is in many respects hated, naïve and not welcomed. It's what make Canadian soldiers come home with ptsd wondering why did they bother?

I now say to you, before you walk away from Muslims you think you have all figured out, learn the difference between an innocent Muslim civilian and a  Muslim  terrorist because if you can't you are a terrorist just like the Muslims you think you know and hate. Learn that difference because no one gave Canadian soldiers a chance to understand when they went to Afghanistan the innocent civilians they were supposed to protect from terrorists would be raped by people they were told were also civilians they must protect  and so were told to walk away from as they raped these kids.

You think I sound righteous? I am speaking from as low a point as it gets to take to learn equality and that is when you pick up body parts  or are told to stand down and do nothing when you know what you see is wrong.   Use your gift of choice to read, discern and be more mindful before you slap the labels on anyone. Those labels are illusionary man. They are bullshit. They are used to manipulate you into hating to provide the fuel to empower terrorism. The more you hate the more you pump up Muslim terrorists and feed Muslims to them for dinner.

Or is that the point and should I call you  Osama or would you like a British sounding name like Bertrand or Montgommery. That Trudeau logo is kind of latent in confusion as to your jihad.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 29, 2019 by Rue

[Argus]

Rue is right about how the Koran and other texts are confusing and disordered. What he fails to mention is that most of the passages which invoke brotherhood and friendship with non-Muslims are early on (in chronological order) when he was in Mecca. Much of that winds up being superseded by some very unpleasant stuff later when he moved to Medina. Of course, I don't pretend to be an expert on the Koran. But here is what I do know

Most of the world's Muslims have repeatedly told PEW research they wish to live in a Muslim state governed by Islam. As a secularist  I don't regard that as particularly 'moderate'. If a western Christian said that we'd call them a fundamentalist religious fanatic..

There are 50 Muslim majority states. 

Number in which women and men have equal rights: 0
Number in which homosexuality is legal:                       0
Number in which non-Muslims are treated equally:     0
Number in which blaspheme or apostasy are legal:    0

 

[Rue]

You know I can not disagree with what you said Argus. he second part is a fact. Also and again I can not pose as a Muslim scholar from the little I know yes many later passages of the Koran read as violent. Absolutely. However there are numerous commentaries on them that may not lend them to their literal violent meanings and we do not take that into consideration in dialogue.

That said the human rights records of Sharia Law states are not an example of moderate views no and that is why people who are Muslim left those countries aside from economic reasons of course.

I played devils advocate for the sake of debate and fairness. I defer to Muslims now on the violence theme itself.

As for any religion mixing with politics its dangerous yes. However I do not think Israel being a Jewish state in the Zionist sense prevented or prevents Muslim  Israelis from all the legal rights alhough of course on this forum you still hear the b.s. of Israel being an apartheid state when Muslims have all the rights no Jew or Christian has in th ese Sharia law states. That is nother topic.

Also I do no thing because the Queen of England is also head of the Anglian church either Muslim or Jewish citizens of England fear her.

So you understand my point quite well. I am for fair play in discussion no denying extremism exists in Islam or other religions.

I think Turningrite understood my point and I did not read his post which made me debate some stuff I di dnot need to.

Next I agree with readers who say religious parties have been around particularly Christian ones like the Christian Heritage Party. To me hey are part of the democratic right to express political conscience. I think the best way to deal with them is in open debte. Am I worried Muslims are taking over Ontario? At this point no. If they move to Wa Wa Ontario maybe.

 

[Argus]

On 1/29/2019 at 1:21 PM, Rue said:

You know I can not disagree with what you said Argus. he second part is a fact. Also and again I can not pose as a Muslim scholar from the little I know yes many later passages of the Koran read as violent. Absolutely. However there are numerous commentaries on them that may not lend them to their literal violent meanings and we do not take that into consideration in dialogue.

I think that, given time, and a cutoff from a continuing stream of tens of thousands of people from the middle east and other states which have extreme cultural and social views, and a cuttoff of money and imams coming from Saudi Arabia, North American Muslims can be come as moderate and secular as most Christians, and discount the violent and intolerent stuff. But right now almost all our Muslims came from the nations which have extremely intolerant views. And those views are reinforced every year with 100,000 fresh Muslim citizens coming in.

On 1/29/2019 at 1:21 PM, Rue said:

As for any religion mixing with politics its dangerous yes. However I do not think Israel being a Jewish state in the Zionist sense prevented or prevents Muslim  Israelis from all the legal rights alhough of course on this forum you still hear the b.s. of Israel being an apartheid state when Muslims have all the rights no Jew or Christian has in th ese Sharia law states. That is nother topic.

The security situation in Israel has deteriorated as a result of the Muslim states refusing to accept that anyone but Muslims can rule anywhere in the middle east. Before the Intifada, lots and lots of Palestinians worked in Israel proper, and Israeli Muslims were freeer. But the need to crack down on terrorism has made things worse for both groups as well as Israeli Jews. And again, there is the cultural/religious issue of Muslims (in general) hating Jews. That doesn't come from the behaviour of Israel. It comes from their religious texts. Malaysia's 'liberal', 'moderate' president talks about Jews the way someone in the KKK does. Antisemitism is HUGE in Malaysia, and they don't even have any Jews!

 

 

[Saudi Monitor]

9 hours ago, Argus said:

there is the cultural/religious issue of Muslims (in general) hating Jews. That doesn't come from the behaviour of Israel. It comes from their religious texts. 

 

 

Lies, in order to advance a particular political agenda. It does indeed come from the behavior of Israel. No one is focused on hating Jews nor interested in killing them because they are Jewish. In fact history is my testimony of how the Jews thrived for centuries in the muslim world while they where persecuted in the west.

The fact of the matter is, the  Zionizt apartheid state in Palestine is a state established on a project to take land inhabited by people living on that land and giving it to another people who were mostly transplanted there at the time from Europe. And I reject the notion that any group (be they Jewish, Muslim or otherwise) has the right to claim land that is inhabited by others as its own. As long as political Zionism is rejected and put aside and discredited, I favor a confederate solution for Palestine that will include Israel, an autonomous capital city of Jerusalem, along with states in Gaza and the West Bank. 

[Goddess]

7 hours ago, Saudi Monitor said:

Lies, in order to advance a particular political agenda. It does indeed come from the behavior of Israel. No one is focused on hating Jews nor interested in killing them because they are Jewish. In fact history is my testimony of how the Jews thrived for centuries in the muslim world while they where persecuted in the west.

The fact of the matter is, the  Zionizt apartheid state in Palestine is a state established on a project to take land inhabited by people living on that land and giving it to another people who were mostly transplanted there at the time from Europe. And I reject the notion that any group (be they Jewish, Muslim or otherwise) has the right to claim land that is inhabited by others as its own. As long as political Zionism is rejected and put aside and discredited, I favor a confederate solution for Palestine that will include Israel, an autonomous capital city of Jerusalem, along with states in Gaza and the West Bank. 

It's not lies to advance a political agenda.  If anyone has an agenda it's the Hamas government (which is a terrorist organization).  And they don't hide their agenda:

 

Quote

 

Hamas Charter (1988)

Main article: Hamas Covenant

• Article 7 of the Hamas Covenant provides the following quotation, attributed to Muhammad:

The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree (evidently a certain kind of tree), would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.^[148]

• Article 22 states that the French revolution, the Russian revolution, colonialism and both world wars were created by the Zionists or forces supportive of Zionism:

You may speak as much as you want about regional and world wars. They were behind World War I, when they were able to destroy the Islamic Caliphate, making financial gains and controlling resources. They obtained the Balfour Declaration, formed the League of Nations through which they could rule the world. They were behind World War II, through which they made huge financial gains by trading in armaments, and paved the way for the establishment of their state. It was they who instigated the replacement of the League of Nations with the United Nations and the Security Council to enable them to rule the world through them. There is no war going on anywhere, without having their finger in it.^[329]

• Article 32 of the Covenant refers to an antisemitic forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion:

Today it is Palestine, tomorrow it will be one country or another. The Zionist plan is limitless. After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying.^[148]

Statements by Hamas members and clerics to an Arab audience

In 2008, Imam Yousif al-Zahar of Hamas said in his sermon at the Katib Wilayat mosque in Gaza that "Jews are a people who cannot be trusted. They have been traitors to all agreements. Go back to history. Their fate is their vanishing."^[175][330]

Another Hamas legislator and imam, Sheik Yunus al-Astal, discussed a Koranic verse suggesting that "suffering by fire is the Jews' destiny in this world and the next." He concluded "Therefore we are sure that the Holocaust is still to come upon the Jews."^[175][330]

Following the rededication of the Hurva Synagogue in Jerusalem in March 2010, senior Hamas figure al-Zahar called on Palestinians everywhere to observe five minutes of silence "for Israel's disappearance and to identify with Jerusalem and the al-Aqsa mosque". He further stated that "Wherever you have been you've been sent to your destruction. You've killed and murdered your prophets and you have always dealt in loan-sharking and destruction. You've made a deal with the devil and with destruction itself – just like your synagogue."^[331][332]

On August 10, 2012, Ahmad Bahr, Deputy Speaker of the Hamas Parliament, stated in a sermon that aired on Al-Aqsa TV:

If the enemy sets foot on a single square inch of Islamic land, Jihad becomes an individual duty, incumbent on every Muslim, male or female. A woman may set out [on Jihad] without her husband's permission, and a servant without his master's permission. Why? In order to annihilate those Jews. ... O Allah, destroy the Jews and their supporters. O Allah, destroy the Americans and their supporters. O Allah, count them one by one, and kill them all, without leaving a single one.^{[333][334][335][336]}

In an interview with Al-Aqsa TV on September 12, 2012, Marwan Abu Ras, a Hamas MP, who is also a member of the International Union of Muslim Scholars, stated (as translated by MEMRI):

The Jews are behind each and every catastrophe on the face of the Earth. This is not open to debate. This is not a temporal thing, but goes back to days of yore. They concocted so many conspiracies and betrayed rulers and nations so many times that the people harbor hatred towards them. ... Throughout history – from Nebuchadnezzar until modern times. ... They slayed the prophets, and so on. ... Any catastrophe on the face of this Earth – the Jews must be behind it.^[337]

On December 26, 2012, Senior Hamas official and Jerusalem bureau chief Ahmed Abu Haliba, called on "all Palestinian factions to resume suicide attacks ... deep inside the Zionist enemy" and said that "we must renew the resistance to occupation in any possible way, above all through armed resistance." Abu Haliba suggested the use of suicide bombings as a response to Israel's plans to build housing units in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.^[338]

In an interview on Lebanese television on July 28, 2014, Hamas spokesman Osama Hamdan repeated the blood libel myth:

We all remember how the Jews used to slaughter Christians, in order to mix their blood in their holy matzos... It happened everywhere.^[339]

 

Statements by Hamas members and clerics to an international audience

In an interview with CBS This Morning on July 27, 2014, Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal stated:

We are not fanatics. We are not fundamentalists. We are not actually fighting the Jews because they are Jews per se. We do not fight any other races. We fight the occupiers.^[340]

On January 8, 2012, during a visit to Tunis, Gazan Hamas PM Ismail Haniyeh told The Associated Press on that he disagrees with the anti-Semitic slogans. "We are not against the Jews because they are Jews. Our problem is with those occupying the land of Palestine," he said. "There are Jews all over the world, but Hamas does not target them."^[341] In response to a statement by Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas that Hamas preferred non-violent means and had agreed to adopt "peaceful resistance," Hamas contradicted Abbas. According to Hamas spokesman Sami Abu-Zuhri, "We had agreed to give popular resistance precedence in the West Bank, but this does not come at the expense of armed resistance."^[342]

In May 2009, senior Hamas MP Sayed Abu Musameh said, "in our culture, we respect every foreigner, especially Jews and Christians, but we are against Zionists, not as nationalists but as fascists and racists."^[343] In the same interview, he also said, "I hate all kinds of weapons. I dream of seeing every weapon from the atomic bomb to small guns banned everywhere." In January 2009, Gazan Hamas Health Minister Basim Naim published a letter in The Guardian, stating that Hamas has no quarrel with Jewish people, only with the actions of Israel.^[344] In October 1994, in a response to Isreael's crackdown on Hamas militants following a suicide bombing on a Tel Aviv bus, Hamas promised retaliation: "Rabin must know that Hamas loves death more than Rabin and his soldiers love life."^[345]

Statements on the Holocaust

Hamas has been explicit in its Holocaust denial. In reaction to the Stockholm conference on the Jewish Holocaust, held in late January 2000, Hamas issued a press release that it published on its official website, containing the following statements from a senior leader:

This conference bears a clear Zionist goal, aimed at forging history by hiding the truth about the so-called Holocaust, which is an alleged and invented story with no basis. (...) The invention of these grand illusions of an alleged crime that never occurred, ignoring the millions of dead European victims of Nazism during the war, clearly reveals the racist Zionist face, which believes in the superiority of the Jewish race over the rest of the nations. (...) By these methods, the Jews in the world flout scientific methods of research whenever that research contradicts their racist interests.^[346]

In August 2003, senior Hamas official Dr Abd Al-Aziz Al-Rantisi wrote in the Hamas newspaper Al-Risala that the Zionists encouraged murder of Jews by the Nazis with the aim of forcing them to immigrate to Palestine.^[347]

In 2005, Khaled Mashal called Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's December 14, 2005 statements on the Holocaust that Europeans had "created a myth in the name of Holocaust"^[348]) as "courageous".^[349] Later in 2008, Basim Naim, the minister of health in the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority government in Gaza countered holocaust denial, and said "it should be made clear that neither Hamas nor the Palestinian government in Gaza denies the Nazi Holocaust. The Holocaust was not only a crime against humanity but one of the most abhorrent crimes in modern history. We condemn it as we condemn every abuse of humanity and all forms of discrimination on the basis of religion, race, gender or nationality."^[350]

In an open letter to Gaza Strip UNRWA chief John Ging published August 20, 2009, the movement's Popular Committees for Refugees called the Holocaust "a lie invented by the Zionists," adding that the group refused to let Gazan children study it.^[351] Hamas leader Younis al-Astal continued by saying that having the Holocaust included in the UNRWA curriculum for Gaza students amounted to "marketing a lie and spreading it". Al-Astal continued "I do not exaggerate when I say this issue is a war crime, because of how it serves the Zionist colonizers and deals with their hypocrisy and lies."^[352][353]

In February 2011, Hamas voiced opposition to UNRWA's teaching of the Holocaust in Gaza. According to Hamas, "Holocaust studies in refugee camps is a contemptible plot and serves the Zionist entity with a goal of creating a reality and telling stories in order to justify acts of slaughter against the Palestinian people."^[354][355] In July 2012, Fawzi Barhoum, a Hamas spokesman, denounced a visit by Ziad al-Bandak, an adviser to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, to the Auschwitz death camp, saying it was "unjustified" and "unhelpful" and only served the "Zionist occupation" while coming "at the expense of a real Palestinian tragedy". He also called the Holocaust an "alleged tragedy" and "exaggerated".^{[356][357][358][359]} In October 2012, Hamas said that they were opposed to teaching about the Holocaust in Gaza Strip schools run by the UN Relief and Works Agency. The Refugee Affairs Department of Hamas said that teaching the Holocaust was a "crime against the issue of the refugees that is aimed at canceling their right of return"

 

 

 

[turningrite]

12 hours ago, Goddess said:

It's not lies to advance a political agenda.  If anyone has an agenda it's the Hamas government (which is a terrorist organization).  And they don't hide their agenda:

 

According to Trudeaupian 'evolutionary convergence' logic, they're just misunderstood and will eventually be seen as wonderful people.

Hint: I don't buy it.

Edited February 1, 2019 by turningrite

[Argus]

9 hours ago, Saudi Monitor said:

Lies, in order to advance a particular political agenda.

PHhht.

My point is this, though. You can search for as long as you like through the 50-odd countries of the world governed by Islamic parties and you will not find one as moderate and amenable as Pakatan Harapan in Malaysia. And yet even here we find a rich and vibrant core of energetic Jew-hating. Not just Israel-hating, although of course the two dispositions sometimes merge imperceptibly. But Jew-hating. And remember, the Malays have no cause to hate Israel, other than one which is devolved from the religious basis which underpins the country and society. No Malays were displaced from what we have come to call ‘Palestine’ in 1948. Jerusalem is 4,490 miles distant from that hideous bookshop at Langkawi airport.

The hatred, then, is not contingent. It is truly an article of faith and you will find it in all Islamic countries, and now in those countries where Islamic immigrants have made their home. The left will tell you it ain’t so. It’s time the left woke up.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/01/even-in-moderate-malaysia-anti-semitism-is-rife/

JERUSALEM (RNS) — Experts on world anti-Semitism have long known that Arabic-language media outlets and social media are full of anti-Semitic cartoons, articles and opinion columns that portray Jews and Israelis as evil monsters.

https://religionnews.com/2018/03/27/ignorance-feeds-anti-semitism-in-the-arab-world/

The use of Nazi imagery, the newspaper caricatures of Jews with fangs and exaggerated hook noses, even the Arab textbooks with their descriptions of Jews as evil world conspirators -- all of that, Arab leaders often insist, reflect a dislike for Israelis and Zionism but not for Jews and Judaism. Yet in many Muslim countries the hatred of Jews as Jews, and not only as citizens of Israel, has been nurtured through popular culture for generations.

Anti-semitism is deepening among Muslims

School textbooks in Syria make uncomfortable reading. Jews, pupils are told, reject Allah’s divine truth, their state is illegitimate, Israeli occupation of Arab lands is a crime. A 25-year-old Syrian, whatever his views of Bashar al-Assad, whatever his personal misery, will have been brought up with these unquestioned views and some will have drawn the conclusion: it is impossible, indeed wrong, to live side by side with Jews.

We are seeing the results of this in Europe today. Antisemitism is on the rise, especially in countries that took in large numbers of migrants from Arab countries.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/muslim-migrants-behind-rise-in-antisemitism-rxdsjx2vt

 

[Saudi Monitor]

Besides the Jews thriving in the Muslim world for centuries from the persecution in the west, let me remind you not all Jews are Zionist and not all Jews support the actions of Israel. People who do not support genocide do not support it regardless of who it is against.

Quote

 Moreover, the Golden Age of Jewish history is in fact known as the period of Muslim rule in Spain . Islam allowed the Jews to flourish in Spain , with the example of the renowned philosopher Moses Maimonides, (Musa ibn Maymun) who wrote Guide to the Perplexed."Judaism probably welcomed the conquest of Spain by the Muslims in 711. With the Muslim conquest began a Golden Age of freedom and tolerance for Jews. They freely entered the fields of government, science, medicine, and literature." ⁶ Spain was home to by far the largest and most brilliant Jewish community in Europe ; elsewhere, the Jews were hounded and persecuted. 

You guys can go on about and accuse the victims, the indigenous people of being terrorists and support Israel's colonization, ethnic cleansing and mass killing of civilians, but never for one moment speak of the reality that Israel is a Zionist colonialist apartheid state born of terrorism. This indeed illustrates that some Americans still have the same psychology as they had when they were engaging in their genocide of the indigenous people of the Americas.

Edited January 31, 2019 by Saudi Monitor

[Goddess]

1 hour ago, Saudi Monitor said:

You guys can go on about and accuse the victims, the indigenous people of being terrorists and support Israel's colonization, ethnic cleansing and mass killing of civilians, but never for one moment speak of the reality that Israel is a Zionist colonialist apartheid state born of terrorism.

 I've never lived next door to people who were continually trying to kill me, so I find it difficult to judge Israel.

[DogOnPorch]

18 minutes ago, Goddess said:

 I've never lived next door to people who were continually trying to kill me, so I find it difficult to judge Israel.

 

Especially ones whose leadership actually incited the Final Solution...