Canada, oh, oh, … Canada

There is a motion coming up for vote in our the land of our wonderful neighbors and best friends to the north, Canada. It says in entirety:

M-103
Systemic racism and religious discrimination

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should:

( a) recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear;

( b) condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination and take note of House of Commons’ petition e 411 and the issues raised by it; and

(c) request that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage undertake a study on how the government could

( i) develop a whole of government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia, in Canada, while ensuring a community-centered focus with a holistic response through evidence-based policy making,

( ii) collect data to contextualize hate crime reports and to conduct needs assessments for impacted communities,

and that the Committee should present its findings and recommendations to the House no later than 240 calendar days from the adoption of this motion, provided that in its report, the Committee should make recommendations that the government may use to better reflect the enshrined rights and freedoms in the Constitution Acts, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

So … what’s not to like? First, let me say that I’ll be talking about Islam and not any individual Muslim. Individual Muslims come in the usual varieties— the good, the bad, and the ugly. I’m not referring to them. I’m talking about the ideology of Islam.

In my usual fashion, let me take a closer look at the resolution. I’ll start with the title:

Systemic racism and religious discrimination

First, this begs the question by assuming, not showing but assuming, that “systemic racism” and “religious discrimination” are both important problems in Canada.

Second, and more important, it also assumes that it is the job of the government to cure its citizens of these purported thought-crimes.

While these assumptions may indeed be true, they have not made the slightest attempt to support them. They have assumed them root and branch.

The motion continues:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should:

(a) recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear;

Now we’ve added a new job for the government. They’re planning to keep people from being afraid.

Note that they are not investigating whether it might actually be rational to be afraid of a resurgent Islamic jihadism, after the bloody atrocities in Nice and Orlando and Paris and Brussels and Charlie Hebdo et cetera ad nauseam … no, no, instead they plan to “quell” the fears, to put water on the fire, to tell people everything is for the best in this best of all possible worlds, nothing to be afraid of here, move along, folks …

The lunacy continues:

(b) condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination and take note of House of Commons’ petition e 411 and the issues raised by it; and

Another job is added, with “Islamophobia” curiously equated with racism and religious discrimination. Now, I understand and will certainly condemn “systemic racism” and “religious discrimination”. And although they are important, I doubt they are at the top of most Canadian’s priorities.

But what, pray tell, is this mysterious “Islamophobia” that we’re supposed to fight and condemn?

It sounds like the rest of the “phobias”, like say homophobia. In common parlance, the term “phobia” means a greatly exaggerated and baseless fear of something which is likely harmless. Homophobia, the baseless fear of homosexuals, is a great example. Homosexuals are no threat to other people. Like heterosexuals, the overwhelming majority of homosexuals are just fools whose intentions are good. So having a big fear of them is obviously a “phobia”, because they pose no danger.

So I’ll start by noting that calling it “Islamophobia” ASSUMES that Islam is likely harmless. So the word itself contains an entire point of view … but is it valid?

Suppose some gay guy looks on the internet and he sees that orthodox Muslims with the blessing of their holy men are THROWING GAY PEOPLE OFF THE TOPS OF HIGH BUILDINGS TO THEIR DEATH, while Muslim mobs cheer. This worries and frightens him.

canada-muslim-ii

Or suppose some woman sees a video on the web showing orthodox everyday Muslims with the blessing of their leaders and the authorization of their courts bury a woman up to her neck in the ground, whereupon the Muslim mob picks up stones, special small stones so they don’t kill her instantly, and they stone her to death in the most painful way imaginable. When she sees that, she feels afraid.

And understandably so. When I see that kind of despicable savagery, I get afraid … and as far as I can tell I’m neither a woman nor gay.

Here is the important question—is their fear upon seeing those examples of Islamic justice an example of “Islamophobia”?

I say hell, no. I say anyone who is not fearful of the resurgence of the centuries-long Islamic attempt to violently topple the West is dangerously complacent. That is not a “phobia” of any kind—it is a perfectly reasonable response to endless, mindless barbarism.

And this is the core of my objection. The Canadians are setting off on an expedition to fight something they’ve never defined, a vague concept called “Islamophobia”.  This contravenes a very basic principle of good law. This is that a law needs to be “bright line” meaning that you can tell when you cross that line. You know when you’ve committed a crime.

But with the criminalization of “Islamophobia”, where is the bright line? What is Islamophobia? How does it differ from “religious persecution”? Where does a reasonable fear of a savage seventh-century ideology turn into something called “Islamophobia” that is to be avoided? How can we tell a logical fear from a “phobia”?

Without that bright line, without a clear definition of what “Islamophobia” actually is, it is clear that this is just another attempt by Muslims to head off any criticism of their fanaticism. It serves no other purpose. It does not lead to greater harmony. It is a callous and cynical attempt to criminalize discussing the problems with Islam.

Not only that, but carving out a special exemption for Muslims called “Islamophobia” is a sick joke, given that Muslims are the most Christianophobic of all religions. Their holy book, the Koran, tells them flat out not to take Christians as their allies …

Qur’an Sura 5:51—O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends (allies). They are friends (allies) one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends (allies) is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.

… how phobic can you get?

But of course, if you speak out against Christianophobia you’re speaking directly against the Koran, and if you do that a bolt of liberal lightning will strike your fundamental orifice and set your hair on fire to punish your intolerable Islamophobia …

Now, do some folks have an irrational fear of Muslims? Sure. Sadly one group of people who suffer from that are the Sikhs, because their religion requires that they wear turbans. And because there are indeed people on this planet who “hate all ragheads”, Sikhs get attacked thinking they are Muslims.

But that irrational fear, however bad, should not be allowed to divert attention from the very real and rational fear of Islam, the fear that to their eternal regret Europe is experiencing now and for a long time … I see today that Angela Merkel is offering to PAY the Muslim refugees to go home.

The irony meter just melted.

Here’s the sad reality.

When Muslims are in the minority, they are always going on about “Islamophobia” and the “Religion of Peace” and how their precious human rights are being violated.

And when Muslims are in the majority … there are no human rights, particularly for women and gays.

Don’t believe me? Look at the treatment of women and gays in Muslim-majority countries. Iran. Saudi Arabia. Yemen. Somalia. Sudan. Egypt. Iraq. Libya. Afghanistan. Pakistan. Crushing daily oppression interspersed with episodes of painful death, it is a fourteen-century-long history of human tragedy.

I advise all these bleeding Canadian hearts to seriously think about how women and gay people are treated in those countries before getting all high and mighty about “Islamophobia”. Fears of Islam are not some damn “phobia”. Adults fear Islam for a very real reason—Muslims in those countries do not believe in human rights. They do not believe in the equality of men and women. They do not believe in the presumption of innocence. They keep sex slaves. They kill people for the heinous crime of leaving the religion. They murder their own daughters for dating Christians.

Short version? Islamic ideals and laws are completely antithetical to our Western ideals and laws. This would be tolerable although unpleasant … except they want to convert the rest of the world to their ideals and laws by killing us if we disagree.

For fourteen centuries Islam has tried to overthrow the West by violence, and there is no sign of any letup in that endless war. To the contrary, the Islamic murders have grown more and more violent, widespread, and pervasive over the last fifty years. Over 20,000 people were killed world-wide by Islam-driven terrorists in 2016 alone …

Anyone who is not seriously concerned about that endless war is living in a dream, no matter how many decent, kind, wonderful Muslim friends they might have …

w.

PS—I always ask that if you comment, please QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU ARE DISCUSSING. That way we can all understand what your subject might be.

PPS—For my Canadian friends, yes, I’m aware that you’re not responsible for this madness. It’s just more of the TDS, the Trudeau Derangement Syndrome. There’s an old saying that “fish rots from the head down”, and sadly this is an excellent example …

NOTE: The Koran that I use for reference is here. In addition to several authoritative translations of each Sura, if you click on the Arabic it gives a word by word translation.

Advertisements

79 thoughts on “Canada, oh, oh, … Canada

  1. It’s not a phobia nor is it paranoia if the bastards are actually out to get you.

    I truly am unable to get into the minds of the so-called progressive, liberal left. Perhaps it’s because their minds are so totally closed that there can be no light in or out.

    Thanks for saying what I think in a manner I wish I could speak.

    g

    Like

  2. There is more than one Islam – Sunni, Shia, Alawites, … I don’t consider a Shia Iran a particularly friendly nation, but the bulk of the hate has been created by Wahhabists, a school of thought promoted by our Saudi friends. They are obsessed with purity; they rather confine girls in a burning school than letting them out insufficiently dressed.

    Liked by 1 person

    • In the time of the Shah pre-1979, I was backup manager for few weeks of a multi-million $ project of geophysical exploration of Iran by our airborne survey contracting wing.
      This did not give me enhanced ability to comment, but it did expose me to Iranian people, close and high level. Informally, evening meals at homes of officials. Formally, exercise of diplomacy in commercial dealings.
      Almost all of the people I met were friendly, helpful, considerate. I had not expected otherwise.
      But these relationships, though enjoyed, have nothing of substance to do with these Canadian matters.
      That is a crippling objection to this Canadian proposal. You cannot use personal level interactions to solve problems that have emerged from centuries of growth of national ways.
      Racism is not present. Iranians are not a race. Religion is the major in issue, as it has caused more conflict deaths globally than any other systems. Past religious wars between any religions have been settled by violence, not by diplomacy.

      Last, we had a friendly Iranian colonel, nice bloke. His first guidance was that 6 men workers from another country had recently been executed for being too friendly to some Iranian women. Religious retributions can come from any religion and they will be seen appropriate to its followers. No point in playing blame, it is the way people are.

      But this Canadian move is about as pathetically inept as can be imagined.

      Like

    • The problem is assimilation.
      I’ve read that if the parents join our culture the children do too.
      If the parents keep the evil ways of the homeland…watch out for the kids.
      How can you assimilate a 20 yo who, since he was a young child, has fallen on his face prostrate 5x/day and asked his God to give him guidance to be a better Muslim?
      He’s been told since a young boy the ways of Islam.
      Jews come from pigs and monkeys and must be exterminated.
      Women exist for men’s pleasure and must never dishonor their masters.
      Gays are deplorable and may be disposed of in any manor.
      Christians are infidels and inferior to all Muslims.
      Slavery is promoted.
      His religious leaders may tell a 10yo girl to, “Strap on a vest and go kill the infidels.”
      Or, “Take a knife and stab and hack at the infidels trying to kill as many as possible.”
      Or, “Go to a nightclub and gun down all the gays there.”

      How do you assimilate a lifetime of hate?

      Really, it’s more like 1400 years of hate but the last 100 years they’ve run amok!

      Like

  3. The boy Trudeau is as dumb as they come, yet the people voted him into office. Why is that? This disgusting religion is a threat to all free people, yet the barking mad left will promote and encourage these extremists in all western countries.
    Go on Youtube and look at Sam Harris reference the polling response from Muslims in all the Western countries. These people actually want to live under Sharia law and so many show little respect for our laws at all.
    And they have the hide to call us Islamophobes? Our fears are as accurate and rational as you could find and the left’s ignorance and stupidity is just mind boggling.

    Like

  4. You are lucky that you don’t live in Australia. We aren’t allowed to speak the plain truth because of Section 18C of the Race Discrimination Act.

    Like

  5. So that’s the new Canadian flag!

    I’ve found a Canadian link for you:
    http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/barbara-kay-how-long-until-my-honest-criticism-of-islamism-constitutes-a-speech-crime-in-canada

    It quotes from the mentioned petition:

    Recently an infinitesimally small number of extremist individuals have conducted terrorist activities while claiming to speak for the religion of Islam. Their actions have been used as a pretext for a notable rise of anti-Muslim sentiments in Canada.

    These violent individuals do not reflect in any way the values or the teachings of the religion of Islam. In fact, they misrepresent the religion. We categorically reject all their activities. They in no way represent the religion, the beliefs and the desire of Muslims to co-exist in peace with all peoples of the world.

    ‘infinitesimally small number’ and it goes downhill from there.
    The article has a photo of a placard saying “Islam means peace”.
    First it means submission. The peace comes later after everyone left is Muslim. In theory. Show me the peace.

    Buddhism flourished in India, then the Muslims invaded. Beware invaders in general. Look what happened to the Indians in North America; they showed the pale faces around, let them stay, helped with Thanksgiving, and next thing you know, they act like they own the place.

    Here’s another article, about Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who deserves a Nobel Peace Prize:
    http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/robert-fulford-can-islam-be-reformed-who-will-or-even-can-be-a-muslim-martin-luther

    She thinks Islam needs to be reformed. Nice thought. Good luck with that.

    And here is a well reasoned article about why Islam needs reform and why counting terrorist attacks by immigrants is asking the wrong question:
    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444823/national-security-immigration-muslims-screen-sharia-supremacism-islam-ideology-religion

    Still, there is no road map of how to get there, and the movement has to start from inside Islam. They have to want it. Not much sign of that. Sure, there are peaceful Muslims, but they are silent.

    Like

  6. This is incorrect

    ” Look at the treatment of women and gays in Muslim-majority countries. Iran. Saudi Arabia. Yemen. Somalia. Sudan. Egypt. Iraq. Libya. Afghanistan. Pakistan. Crushing daily oppression interspersed with episodes of painful death, it is a fourteen-century-long history of human tragedy.”

    The human tragedy long predates Islam. The same words could be said of Christian countries for more centuries and until a few years ago. And let’s leave aside Japan, China, India in their own traditional ways of dealing with women.

    Ps Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, where most Muslims live, all have been led by women already

    Like

    • Maurizio Morabito (@omnologos) February 11, 2017 at 11:35 pm

      This is incorrect

      ” Look at the treatment of women and gays in Muslim-majority countries. Iran. Saudi Arabia. Yemen. Somalia. Sudan. Egypt. Iraq. Libya. Afghanistan. Pakistan. Crushing daily oppression interspersed with episodes of painful death, it is a fourteen-century-long history of human tragedy.”

      The human tragedy long predates Islam. The same words could be said of Christian countries for more centuries and until a few years ago. And let’s leave aside Japan, China, India in their own traditional ways of dealing with women.

      Gotta say, I despise this claim of moral equivalence, as though Islam were just Christianity in funny hats.

      When is the last time a Christian country burned a man alive in a cage, filmed it, and broadcast it?

      When is the last time a Christian country buried a woman up to her neck and stoned her to death?

      When is the last time a Christian country killed a cartoonist for drawing the wrong person?

      When is the last time a Christian country chopped off someone’s hand for theft?

      When is the last time a Christian country slit a prisoners throat, put it on TV, and boasted about it?

      When is the last time a Christian country killed people for wanting to leave Christianity?

      When is the last time a Christian country used female prisoners of war as permanent sexual slaves?

      When is the last time a Christian country threw gay people off the roof to their deaths?

      All of these things are going on today in Islamic countries.

      So please, don’t even try that moral equivalence bullshit with me. I wouldn’t buy it even if you paid me. I recognize that Christians have their faults, but they are miles from Muslims.

      For example, the Koran expressly authorizes the keeping of female prisoners of war as sexual slaves. Sounds like 7th century barbarism, you say? Bad news. Why do you think Boko Haram just stole all the schoolgirls in Nigeria? For their use as sexual slaves. In 2017. And you may have noticed that almost no Muslims have said a word about it. They can’t complain, because sexual slavery is SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE KORAN. Hard to argue with God …

      Yes, the Bible contains some horrendous things … but by and large, Jews and Christians got over them. We gave up stoning people ever since Jesus said “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”. We don’t kill people for wearing cotton/polyester blends. And even though both Jews and Christians believe in the Bible, nobody is put to death for working on Sunday despite the clear instructions in Exodus.

      We don’t do those things anymore, Maurizio … but the Muslims do. And not just occasionally or randomly. They do them as national laws, as widespread practices, as things that don’t raise any protest in the Muslim world.

      They are NOT just Christians in funny hats, my friend. Twenty thousand dead from Islamic terror last year … not something to just gloss over with some false claim of cultural equivalence …

      All the best to you,

      w.

      Like

  7. “a clear definition of what “Islamophobia” actually is”

    I have it already. You too. It is irrational fear. For example, it makes Sikhs a target, and it uses antisemitic phrases against Muslims.

    The rest, isn’t Islamophobia. Simple.

    As with the climate debate, ask the person what kind of evidence would make them change their mind. If no answer makes sense, they’re Islamophobic.

    Like

    • Maurizio Morabito (@omnologos) February 11, 2017 at 11:43 pm

      “a clear definition of what “Islamophobia” actually is”

      I have it already. You too. It is irrational fear. For example, it makes Sikhs a target, and it uses antisemitic phrases against Muslims.

      The rest, isn’t Islamophobia. Simple.

      Where is the bright line? At what point does reasonable fear of a brutal ideology become Islamophobia?

      Maurizio, this claim of rampant “Islamophobia” is nothing but an attempt to silence opponents of Islam. It is a way to use words to deny the real threat of Islam.

      In a world where Islamic terrorists killed over 20,000 people in 2016, a world where Muslims throw gays off of roofs and bury women up to the neck and stone them to death, how can you claim that ANY fear of Islam is irrational?

      w.

      Like

  8. Hi Willis: you write: ‘Look at the treatment of women and gays in Muslim-majority countries. Iran. Saudi Arabia. Yemen. Somalia. Sudan. Egypt. Iraq. Libya. Afghanistan. Pakistan.’ I know next to nothing about gays, but in some of those countries conditions for women – I’m thinking Afghanistan, Libya in particular – were better in the recent past than they are now, and would likely have remained so had it not been for the western-backed removal of the secular governments which previously ran them. I’m not disagreeing with you, just pointing out that Muslim majority doesn’t necessarily mean social relations are necessarily dominated by Koranic law. Christians too, some of them, are capable of repression of women and gays, just as some Muslims are.
    Personally I gave up on religion when I was 11 years old and have never looked back.

    Like

    • you say that some “Christians are capable of repression of women and gays”

      When was the last time Christians stoned a woman to death for the crime of being the victim of rape?

      When was the last time Christians threw gays off of buildings to kill them?

      What is happening in Muslim-majority countries is not merely “repression” where you can claim that some Christians are just as bad.

      As for the claim that it’s the fault of the west for knocking out the prior secular government. That could be applicable for Iraq and Libya, but what about all the other countries that have not had their governments overthrown? What’s the excuse for them?

      Like

  9. Maurizio Morabito (@omnologos) February 11, 2017 at 11:43 pm

    As with the climate debate, ask the person what kind of evidence would make them change their mind.

    OK, I’ll bite. I’ll ask. What kind of evidence would make you change your mind and decide that Islam is NOT just Christianity in funny hats?

    How about the still-observed Koranic verse that says it is perfectly fine to have sexual slaves … would that make you see that islam is fundamentally different?

    How about 20,000 killed by islamic terror in just one year? Would that convince you that Islam is not just another religion?

    What will it take?

    w.

    Like

  10. Willis, thank uou for a thoughtful post. Here in the UK we have the very articulate Pat Condell who makes frequent Youtube videos about this and other problems in our society. I can recommend many of his videos to you, but a start could be this one in which he encourages Muslims to reject jihad: https://youtu.be/Oz267A6jhbw

    I wonder if this embed will work:

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Willis I agree with what you have written where I have a difference is with what was not written. I have have a problem with the use of over arching terms to classify people of a region or religion i.e. Hispanics, Asians, Christians, Muslims, etc .. the use to define these groups assumes a high level of homogeneity that does not exist. Within each grouping are different dimensions of beliefs, thoughts, culture, mores, etc that differ..

    In the case of the Muslims, as you pointed out, the Orthodox Muslim follows the literal interpretation of the Koran. And yes there are whole countries that have adopted this intrepretation through Sharia Law as the law of their country. There are also other groups of Muslims who do not adopt the literal intrepretation and do not obey Sharia Law.. Unfortunately by lumping all Muslims into the same bucket the moderate Muslims are either given favor, as with the Canadian motion coming for a vote, or they are feared, shunned, or whatever for the beliefs they do not hold or practice.

    What I would hope to see is a better job of vetting (ala Trump extreme vetting) that goes a bit deeper into the actual beliefs of the individuals and less into giving favor or disfavor due to belonging to a larger group that holds a wide spectrum of beliefs..

    Since this is a comment and I don’t want it to become full blog, I will refrain from using examples of differences for the Asians, Hispanics, Christians, etc. Suffice it to say within each group there are vast differences, and in the case of religious groups the orthodox or fundamentalists are very different from the reformed, moderate, or liberal practices.

    I very much enjoy your blogs and have found them to provoke thought and consideration. In most cases I find that you have come to many of the same conclusions as I, and you articulate them in a manner that provides me with more clarity of my own thoughts.. I guess that has more to do with traveling on this planet for seven decades….

    Carpe Diem,

    Art

    Like

    • how are people supposed to see the difference between the “Sharia Law” variations of Islam and whatever you define as the version that is willing to co-exist with others?

      In Christianity, the break was clear (and outright war between the different versions took place before they agreed to co-exist).

      the layman has no way of seeing the difference you are trying to tell us is there. We fully accept that individuals will vary in how strongly they adhere to the teachings of the church, but we are not seeing the different Islamic branches identifying themselves, let alone differentiating their teachings.

      David Lang

      Like

      • First off I was speaking of national policies and the manner in which laws are written which tends to sweep groups of people into one bucket, rather then going to the behaviors, beliefs, etc of the individual or sub-group.

        To your point as a layman.. I will relate an experience I had.. at one point we lived in a predominately Jewish area.. our family is not Jewish. It didn’t take to long to figure who was Orthodox, Reformed, or cultural. Not too many announced what they were, but as you got to know them it was apparent who kept Kosher, which Synagogue they attended, and the holidays they celebrated.

        This requires us to get out and know our surroundings whether they are the natural surroundings (which I prefer) or the neighborhood.. to do this will entails a bit of discomfort as you learn, and sadly I believe the aversion to discomfort keeps too many from learning and experiencing their surroundings.. and then adopting a belief system that doesn’t recognize the differences around us.

        Mushrooms are a good example, some are great sautéed in red wine and garlic, some will take you to a different level of reality, and some will kill you.. as a layman you have to either trust those entrusted in separating out the mushrooms, or you study your surroundings, learn the differences, and explore…

        Art

        Liked by 1 person

        • Sorry David Lang .. I meant to be sure my above comment was addressed to you and I failed to do, and I am not adept enough to figure out how to edit my above comment.

          Art

          Like

        • My problem is that if the Muslims themselves don’t differentiate, then they provide other people with no handles to use to differentiate.

          All we are left with is to look at the countries they are coming from and what the rules there are, and assume that the people are probably pretty close to the predominate beliefs of the countries they come from (to the point where it’s arguably up to them to show they are different, they are the ones asking to come)

          In your example of the different groups of Jews, they have the different labels and the different synagogs will identify themselves.

          As long as the Muslims don’t clarify their beliefs to the point that they themselves identify the differences, it’s unreasonable to expect others to easily figure it out.

          Like

          • Muslims DO differentiate. There are Shia, Sunni, Sufi, Wahhabi, and who knows how many other kinds. And if the jihadists can’t find infidels to kill, they make do with heretics. How many suicide bombers have blown up in mosques lately?

            Islam means “submission”, and with submission comes peace — but only from the brand of Islam you submitted to, and even then, only until they realize you aren’t very good at it.

            Like

          • To David Lang:
            “My problem is that if the Muslims themselves don’t differentiate, then they provide other people with no handles to use to differentiate.”

            Yes they do differentiate themselves by their actions, beliefs, and associations, just like those of other faiths.. for example if someone is a member of the Westboro Baptist Church you would know they were anti-gay, anti-Muslim, anti-Jew, anti-Catholic and a have used violence and disruption to put forth their beliefs.. however we don’t ascribe their actions to all Baptists or to a larger extent Christians.. the same holds true for Muslims, they tend to hold the beliefs of the mosque they attend or the Imam they follow.. some of the actions that differentiate the level of Muslim faith is prayer and the insistence of prayer rooms or time off for prayer, while that is not a sole determinate it is one indicator more questions should be asked.. there are many other actions or beliefs that should trigger further examination..

            “All we are left with is to look at the countries they are coming from and what the rules there are, and assume that the people are probably pretty close to the predominate beliefs of the countries they come from (to the point where it’s arguably up to them to show they are different, they are the ones asking to come)”

            If this were the case we would also be banning travel from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, and other countries where there are active radical elements.. so far we haven’t because the US government believes they are able to rely on the these country’s governments to provide them with sufficient information to determine those coming from this countries don’t pose an unusual threat.. The reason for the 7 countries listed on the travel ban was not due to religion it was due to the fact that these countries had active radical elements AND either failed governments, the government had lost control of large segments of the country, or in the case of Iran the government would actively promote sending jihadists to the US…

            So to get back to my original point; by using broad terms for religious or cultural groups you either punish those who aren’t a threat or you allow those who do present a threat the freedom to carry out their actions.

            Going to my Mushroom example it the government were to allow deadly mushrooms into the food supply we would call for a mushroom ban and lose confidence in the government’s ability to keep us safe. Since government does and has vetted the mushrooms so they don’t enter the food supply we have confidence in the system and are willing to buy mushrooms. In the case of allow Muslim extremism into the country, the government has failed, and in the case of Canada will fail, by treating all Muslims as one group. I believe that Trump is working through his “extreme vetting” process to cull out the dangerous people from those who don’t present a threat to the communities, or for that matter women or gays. Which if successful will allow Muslims with moderate beliefs to continue to practice their faith which is more mainstream, as they do not practice those parts of the Koran that promote violence toward women, gays, or non-believers…

            I do hope you are enjoying a wonderful day..

            Art

            Like

          • Art February 12, 2017 at 1:05 pm

            To David Lang:

            “My problem is that if the Muslims themselves don’t differentiate, then they provide other people with no handles to use to differentiate.”

            Yes they do differentiate themselves by their actions, beliefs, and associations, just like those of other faiths.. for example if someone is a member of the Westboro Baptist Church you would know they were anti-gay, anti-Muslim, anti-Jew, anti-Catholic and a have used violence and disruption to put forth their beliefs.. however we don’t ascribe their actions to all Baptists or to a larger extent Christians.. the same holds true for Muslims, they tend to hold the beliefs of the mosque they attend or the Imam they follow.. some of the actions that differentiate the level of Muslim faith is prayer and the insistence of prayer rooms or time off for prayer, while that is not a sole determinate it is one indicator more questions should be asked.. there are many other actions or beliefs that should trigger further examination..

            I have a more fundamental problem. Consider the position of women in the Koran. They are second-class citizens. They are discriminated against in all parts of the book, except where they are being put on some unimaginably high pedestal of purity.

            That doesn’t get cured or changed by going to a different mosque. It is inherent in all parts of the religion and reflected in hundreds of ways in the social culture.

            Now, I don’t mind people coming to the US if they wish to shed that belief of immutable female inferiority. I don’t mind people coming here because they want to change.

            But far too often, Muslims move to the West and far from wanting to take advantage of the opportunity, they want to CHANGE THE WEST TO AGREE WITH THEIR SICK KORANIC IDEALS.

            Look for example at the agitation for Western societies to adopt the anti-human, anti-woman, anti-justice Sharia law. You see it happening in the US, Canada, Europe, and everywhere there is a significant Muslim minority.

            Seriously, I do NOT want to allow in even one more person who believes in that sickness.

            So while I agree with you that there are differences between the Muslim sects, there are also profound and very disturbing similarities between the different Muslim sects, like the deeply ingrained idea of female inferiority, and the desire to substitute their perverted beliefs for things like the Bill of Rights …

            w.

            Liked by 1 person

    • I have many Muslim friends and agree care must be taken to not lump all in one basket. However, the issue is the large % (typically over 30%) within the present population in different countries and likely an even larger % of more recent visitors that have the extreme views. If you lived in a community with 30% of your neighbors desiring to kill you because of what you do, you would likely move, or try to have them removed. The best present solution is to consider each individual separately, and try to determine their beliefs. Those that are a clear problem need to go, and new entries put on hold until the issue is better under control.

      Like

    • Art, thanks for a thoughtful comment. You are right to say:

      In the case of the Muslims, as you pointed out, the Orthodox Muslim follows the literal interpretation of the Koran. And yes there are whole countries that have adopted this intrepretation through Sharia Law as the law of their country. There are also other groups of Muslims who do not adopt the literal intrepretation and do not obey Sharia Law.

      That is true. Those Muslims are called “heretics” and are punished severely by the orthodox Muslims.

      But the problem is deeper. The real issue is that Islam never had a Reformation. Jews and Christians had reformations that swept away the barbaric ancient practices. But Islam never did.

      As a result, if you are any kind of a Muslim, you have to believe that the Koran is the literal inerrant word of God. You don’t get to pick and choose which verses are holy and which are not.

      Now, some Muslims do decide to personally ignore some of the verses in their own lives. And this is good.

      But the problem is, they can’t speak out publicly against say sexual slavery, because it is expressly allowed by the Koran. They may not practice it, the majority of Muslims don’t … but they can’t condemn ISIS for doing it because keeping sexual slaves is expressly permitted by the Koran.

      You also say:

      What I would hope to see is a better job of vetting (ala Trump extreme vetting) that goes a bit deeper into the actual beliefs of the individuals and less into giving favor or disfavor due to belonging to a larger group that holds a wide spectrum of beliefs..

      The problem is that the most fundamental beliefs of Islam are totally contrary to Western views. It’s not just some surface differences. Over 70% of Muslims worldwide, for example, believe that the wife should always obey the husband just like the Koran says … no amount of “extreme vetting” will cure that, and call me stupid, but I DON’T WANT PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE WOMEN ARE INFERIOR TO IMMIGRATE HERE. We’ve got enough of that sh*t here already, we don’t need more.

      Nor do I want people here who support Sharia Law. It is inhumane … but despite that, a majority of the Somali refugee community in Minnesota say they want to replace the US judicial system with Sharia Law. Call me crazy, but I DON’T WANT PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN SHARIA LAW TO IMMIGRATE HERE.

      It’s not a question of religion. It is a question of anti-human and anti-woman beliefs. It’s not about God, but about how we treat each other. We don’t chop off hands. We don’t say you need two women’s testimony in court to contradict one man’s testimony. We don’t kill people who want to leave their religion. We don’t marry girls off at nine years old. Those are all Koranic practices, not western practices.

      And me, I don’t want people coming here who do believe in those barbarities … which rules out a majority of the Islamic world, NOT because they are Muslims, but because they are savages whose “Holy Book” prescribes horrible practices and demeaning women and chopping off hands and killing people for leaving the “religion” and keeping sexual slaves. I don’t want people who believe in those things to come here, and more than that, I don’t want their Book.

      Since this is a comment and I don’t want it to become full blog, I will refrain from using examples of differences for the Asians, Hispanics, Christians, etc. Suffice it to say within each group there are vast differences, and in the case of religious groups the orthodox or fundamentalists are very different from the reformed, moderate, or liberal practices.

      Sadly, there are no “reformed” practices in Islam because there’s never been an Islamic reformation. Well, that’s not quite true. Baha’ullah tried to reform Islam, to get rid of the barbaric bloody anti-human practics … but all that happened were the Baha’is ended up splitting off from Islam. And predictably, his followers, aka “reformed Muslims”, have been persecuted and killed en masse by orthodox Muslims ever since.

      It kinda put a damper on further attempts at an Islamic reformation …

      Best to you, thanks for the thoughts,

      w.

      Like

      • Willis thanks for the thoughtful reply.. wish I could figure out how to copy and differentiate quotes.. as you made many good points I’d like to repond.

        That limitation on my part will keep this succinct; yes a reformation is needed, and yes we have allowed too many immigrants in who wish to change our legal system to Sharia Law.. However our current laws do not allow banning any religion from entry so while I don’t want any of the people in who you describe above to immigrate to our country we are left with a vetting process that screens out the above through means other than belonging to a religion. Israel has a very strong vetting process for allowing people to enter the country, as a visitor or immigrant, while we may not be able to legally apply all of the techniques I am sure there are many we are able to apply..

        BTW are you sending us more wet weather?? we could use more snow in the Rockies.. keeps our ski industry alive and well..

        Art

        Like

        • Art, thanks as always for your thoughts.

          Yes, we cannot discriminate on the basis of religion. However, I see no reason why we cannot discriminate on the basis of beliefs. For example, “Given a choice, would you rather be governed by Sharia Law or the Constitution”. Yes, that’s obvious, but we understand the art of writing questionnaires that reveal underlying beliefs.

          And I agree about Israel. I’ve long said that we should look to the Israelis for the way to do security, both for the country and the airlines. For example, we have to get over the objections to “profiling”. I mean, given limited resources, should we spend our time investigating an elderly white woman in a wheelchair or an obviously nervous young man who is obviously from the Middle East? Screw the PC bullshit on this one. I want the security people to focus WHERE THE PROBLEM IS, which is young Muslim men.

          And when they complain they are being singled out, I’d say yep … it’s because guys who look like you and believe like you are the ones killing people. I’d tell them I’m sorry, but they’re unlucky to look and believe and have a culture like people who are killing people, so they’ll just have to be inconvenienced a bit.

          Regards,

          w.

          Like

          • Willis I couldn’t agree with you more.. this pretend screening at airports has been going on for sometime.. My mother who was in her 80’s and dressed like it was the 1950’s was continually pulled out of line for extra inspection.. must be working cuz we haven’t had one 80 year old woman blow anything up or shoot up a group of folks.. I am sure that is what some brilliant mind at HHS is thinking…

            Have a wonderful week and I look forward to your next article..

            Art

            Like

  12. In one of Tommy Robinsons videos it shows an article written by a muslim in a Birmingham UK newspaper,I think it was the 80s,on how to corrupt and groom young Sikh girls.It was actually printed in a local paper,any wonder the Sikhs are afraid.It is not just white girls groomed.Not many people realise the ‘racist’ EDL had Sikh,Gay and Jewish sections.

    Like

  13. Definition of Islamophobia: The great danger of discrimination against Muslims we must detect and root out, right after someone-who-has-nothing-to-do-with-Islam shouts “Allahu Akbar” while killing as many infidels as possible.

    In the Muslim-minority West they march and carry signs saying “Stop Islamophobia Now”. In Iran they dress a bit differently and their signs say “Death to America”.

    As Brigitte Gabriel observes: “The peaceful majority are irrelevant” when the violent factions drive the agenda:

    Liked by 1 person

  14. The problem with radical Islam is that it isn’t radical. It is simply literal Quran and Sharia. The more moderate Muslims are from their perspective apostate heretics. As we are finding as Mosul is liberated.

    Like

  15. A big worry is the western education system has been taken over by liberal left progressives and basically critical thinking is not allowed under fear of suppression. Just look at what happened when Milo tried to speak at Berkeley, riots against free speech, while in the sixties they demonstrations for free speech.

    I refer to Trudeau, an egotistical elitist, as dear leader.

    Like

  16. Canada is proudly multi-cultural. The US used to call itself “the melting pot”. In Canada people were supposed to be proud of their heritage. Each has its pros and cons, as does immigration itself.

    One of the cons of immigration is the people who come to the new country and bring their old country values and hatreds with them. Like honor killings of women who don’t keep the old country mores. And also those who take the old country hatreds as far as terrorism.

    In Canada’s case, Air India Flight 182 is a good example. An immigrant Sikh badgered the airline check-in girl into accepting unaccompanied luggage. 329 people were killed.

    Canadian terrorism is very multi-cultural. See the list here:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Canada

    Liked by 1 person

  17. You’ve seen the we-are-all-immigrants placards. Here is a very nice answer to that:
    http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/02/12/dinesh-dsouza-primary-duty-government-protect-own-citizens

    “An immigrant is somebody who has made a decision of the will to choose America,” he said. “Immigrants want to come to this country because they believe in America. They want the kind of life that America makes possible.

    “A refugee is someone who just wants to get away from some problem, a civil war, a famine, something that’s going on in his or her own country.

    “So the difference can be summarized in that the immigrant wants to come here. The refugee simply wants to get out of there.”

    For those who will go to the trouble to translate this article, here is a report from two women who visited Saudi Arabia for three days:
    http://www.vg.no/nyheter/meninger/saudi-arabia/tre-dager-som-kvinne-i-saudi-arabia/a/23922868/

    Apartheid, segregation, women are separate but not equal. Separate lines at the bank, separate elevators, and women are not allowed to do hardly anything without a male guardian. Some are lucky and have understanding guardians; others are prisoners in their own life.

    Like

  18. One can add the toilet requirement of wiping anal area with fingers and water to the many odd Koranic requirements contributing to Islamic OCD. BUT at least they (per Koran) are not allowed to spit into the toilet (the left foot right foot entry-exit dance also allows for extra credit unless urine drops soil the underware). Starbucks has indicated that they will hire 10,000 refugees in the next 5 years. However, if I ever see any personnel that are possibly Islamic serving at any Starbucks in my area, I plan on vacating the premises based on potential hygiene violations alone and that doesn’t include the potential for diseases like TB which Obama failed to screen refugees for (which use to be a routine immigration requirement).

    http://www.myreligionislam.com/detail.asp?Aid=6096
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3537652/Swindon-takeaway-chef-prepared-food-wiping-bottom-bare-hands-doesn-t-use-toilet-paper-cultural-reasons.html
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/30/starbucks-promises-hire-10000-refugees-open-letter-response/
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/02/1565-refugees-diagnosed-active-tb-2012-three-times-more-reported/

    Like

  19. It’s getting late to add further comments to this thread. But reading the many interesting observations, there is one point that hasn’t much been mentioned.
    Are things getting better, or worse?

    I might point out that during my ‘three score and ten’, I count myself lucky to have visited many Muslim countries and also Muslim communities in countries (Russia, China, India, South Aftrica) where Muslims are much in a minority. I first hitchhiked to Turkey (from the UK) when I was 16 (a lnog story). I have counted a number of Muslims as friends (OK, only the laid back, beer drinking ones). I have accumulated many books on Islamic art & architecture. I still sometimes put on an Umm Kulthum CD.

    So what went wrong? Well, maybe this thoughtful thread (from 2010, but still working!) is a start:-
    http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/48901/how-veil-conquered-cairo-university-jamie-glazov
    I note in addition that the head covering of women in Turkey in the 1960s & 70s, was unusual – only much to be seen out in the sticks. Kemal Atatürk had done a fine job secularising Turkey in the 1930s. Today? His reforms are being trashed, one by one. We have had outrages already in Istanbul, which I still believe is one of mankind’s greatest cities. How long before we have a major jihadi attack on the Mediterranean holiday resorts?
    Just wait.

    Interesting that here in the UK, even the hijab used to be unusual, even in cities with large Muslim communities (Leicester, Bradford, Rochdale). The Niqab would certainly get curious eyes turning. Pretty much only to be seen with visiting Arab princesses shopping in Harrods in London, The Burka? Don’t be silly! I don’t recall EVER seeing a burka until after one particular date.
    What date?

    Why, that would be 11th September 2001.

    So, sorry, but my own lying eyes suggest to me that the hordes of Niqab and Burka wearing women (and even children – try finding justification of that in the Koran!) here in the UK are making a statement. And it is a statement that I contemptuously refute. Although all the appeasing politicians and “refugees welcome” brigade chose studiously to ignore it.

    But the thread started with the Canucks. Why not end with a comment from that great Mann baiter and wonderful writer, Mark Steyn?
    http://www.steynonline.com/7293/the-barbarians-are-inside-and-there-are-no-gates

    Like

    • A fitting summary of future prospects from Steyn’s article:
      “The west cannot win this thing with a schizophrenic strategy of targeting things and people but not targeting the ideology, of intervening ineffectually overseas and not intervening at all when it comes to the remorseless Islamization and self-segregation of large segments of their own countries. And, if they’re still willing to tolerate Mutti Merkel’s mad plan to reverse Germany’s demographic death spiral through fast-track Islamization, then Europeans aren’t serious. In the end, the decadence of Merkel, Hollande, Cameron and the rest of the fin de civilisation western leadership will cost you your world and everything you love.”

      Like

  20. Re Turdeau Derangement Syndrome. Be careful to avoid any perceived hostility as even a third party can report a hate crime and this is to be taken as evidence, as advised by the police college in the UK. We have extradition arrangements with the US and Europe. Not sure about Canada. The advice in their training leaflet is Orwellian. Page 1.21 defines the ‘crime’. Google ‘hate crime police UK and about 5 pages come up where every force has set up a special unit to tackle careless speech. http://www.report-it.org.uk/files/hate_crime_operational_guidance.pdf

    I am reminded of a dinner party some years ago when my friend had some colleagues from a partner university in the PRC as guests. They told us about the awful times under Chairman Mao and my friend asked “How did you survive?”. They and I answered at the same time “Keep quiet”. I never thought it would be the liberals who would be listening. Perhaps the Turdeauists are planning gulags in the Arctic wilderness.

    Like

    • Steve, thanks for the comment. You say:

      Be careful to avoid any perceived hostility as even a third party can report a hate crime and this is to be taken as evidence, as advised by the police college in the UK. We have extradition arrangements with the US and Europe.

      If anyone wants to arrest my sorry corpus for “hate speech” I’d likely use bad words and double my possible sentence. I simply cannot worry about that kind of petty harassment. Hey, I’m a guy who kidnapped Ronald Reagan and blackmailed the Japanese Ambassador, I have more skeletons than closets to put them in.

      If they want me they know where to find me.

      w.

      Like

  21. …( i) develop a whole of government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia, in Canada, while ensuring a community-centered focus with a holistic response through evidence-based policy making,…

    Wow!! You don’t get more politically correct than that! Wait a second while I copy it down for my CV…

    Now, let us consider this point “…I’m talking about the ideology of Islam….”

    I got stuck there. You see, the problem is that there both is, and isn’t, an ‘ideology of Islam’.

    Unlike, say, the Catholic religion, Islam, like Judaism, has no definitive spiritual head. The different branches rely on different interpretations of their Holy Book. So there can be many interpretations. The Ismailis, for instance, do not interpret the Koran as the final answer, and are non-violent, while the Shias and Sunnis are usually at each other’s throats when they are not murdering unbelievers.

    Christians are also People of the Book, and, though the message of Christ in the writings which have been approved as central to the religion typically includes forbearance and love, it is quite possible to extract some messages of violence from the New Testament with a little creative interpretation. You don’t even need that to find exhortations to killing and violence in the Old Testament.

    However, current Catholic doctrine does not, for example, follow Leviticus 20:13 in the way that your illustration shows Muslims doing. Why is this? It is because the religion has changed with the culture of the times.

    I wish that people would stop seeing this as a matter of ‘religion’. It is a matter of culture. Killing your daughter because she kissed a person from the wrong tribe is a perfectly acceptable, indeed, approved, practice in some cultures – and not in others. And each side could interpreter its Holy Book to justify such a thing if it wished. The difference is that we do not follow Deuteronomy 21:18-21 in our culture, while the Pakistanis do in theirs.

    What we have here ids not a religious issue, but a cultural issue. It’s a shame that worship of ‘multiculturalism’ has blinded us to the problems that emerge when two different cultures clash…

    Like

  22. Western society is islamophobic just as oil is hydrophobic. It’s not a fear, it’s a fundamental immiscibility of islam and liberal values.

    Like

  23. Don’t laugh but in Britain one can already spend up to seven years in jail for, effectively, ‘upsetting’ someone. Even worse, one can be charged by a third party.

    So if someone were ‘arguing’ with you in a ‘forceful manner’ then, regardless of your opinion, I, as a ‘third party’ witness to the exchange could now press charges leading to your ‘opposition’ potentially spending up to seven years in jail.

    Madness. Complete Insanity.

    You call me a backwards ass red neck. I call you whatever and a third party witness gets me up to seven years in jail because it was disturbed by what I had said to you?

    Time for a change?

    Liked by 1 person

  24. (From Wikipedia) The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 inserted Section 4A into the Public Order Act 1986. That part prohibits anyone from causing alarm or distress. Section 4A states:

    (1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he— (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

    So, basically, I call you a California Xyz and someone in Texas can accuse me of causing you ‘distress”. Just how do we quantify this ‘distress’ (alarm? harassment? ~ nonsense concepts)

    You are quite right in suggesting that law must have a bright line. The law must be clear or …

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thanks, 3×2, that is horrendous. Talk about crimes, that law is criminal.

      I put this at the feet of the judicial system. When they get a law like that, rather than their usual pursillanimous action of making a decision for one side or the other side, or “interpreting” the law one way or another, the courts should just say:

      This law is unenforceable due to the lack of a bright line definition of the prohibited act. Since there is no way for a citizen to know if she is breaking this law or not, it is hereby declared null and void.

      Period.

      w.

      Like

  25. …You call me a backwards ass red neck. I call you whatever and a third party witness gets me up to seven years in jail because it was disturbed by what I had said to you?…

    I haven’t got the slightest idea of who you two are, but I am deeply offended by your calling someone ‘Whatever’. This is a sacred word in my religion, and may not be spoken, written or in anyway referred to, on pain of execution, banishment from the religion and a fine not exceeding $50….

    Liked by 1 person

  26. What would make a man convert to Islam?

    –Quick and easy process. Just recite the Shahada.
    –Avoid paying Obamacare penalty.
    –Freedom to tell a loud mouth feminist to shut-up.
    –Have more than one wife that will obey, keep their mouth shut and submit. If you want a divorce you can sell them or whak ’em.
    –Demand rights to interest free loans.
    –Claim your rights to ‘victimhood’ so you get preference and protection through increasing government policies.
    –Get frequent ‘breaks’ in the workplace.
    –Get unquestioned support from other Muslims.
    –Have a bunch of young sex slaves.
    –Never worry about a spouse running up your credit card or needing to buy her a car or a huge variety of clothing and shoes.
    –Never have to worry about being politically correct, Your religious beliefs cannot not be questioned.
    –Have all the social justice warriors in your pocket.
    –Would be perfectly acceptable to grab a “woman” by the pussy just to make sure that it really is not a man in disguise. Maybe this should be the norm nowadays.

    Like

  27. You may like to read this report on the UK’s current freedom of speech, put in place by Mrs May when she was Home Office minister. Americans can also report the perceived unfriendliness by the head of the Church of England when he said Trump and Brexit voters were fascists, among other unfriendly insults. Just go on the police website. No evidence or name required or personal offence. It could be your auntie in Iowa who didn’t realise she was a fascist.

    http://facts4eu.org/news.shtml

    Like

  28. Let me ‘splain this for our Northern Neighbors. Islam is systemically racist, therefore it’s adherents are criminals. There, ain’t that easier than lying to your self’s?

    Like

  29. Willis,

    Congratulation, on using the phrase ‘beg the question’ correctly. I always have trouble using it correctly. I also enjoyed the panglossian reference to this, the best of all possible worlds.

    Tom G

    Like

    • Thanks. It bothers me greatly when “beg the question” is used to mean “brings up the question”. Grrr …

      And I’m glad you liked the reference to Pangloss … I toss odd references in because I enjoy them myself, and it’s always good when someone else enjoys them as well.

      w.

      Like

  30. I’ve been watching for comment on this topic in the online Canadian national newspapers. There’s been surprisingly little. Now there is a most excellent comment from Rex Murphy:

    http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/rex-murphy-m-103-is-a-political-billboard-pick-a-side-and-advertise-your-virtues

    teaser: “[…] As a suffix, phobia has been getting more than a workout in recent years, and has long since wandered away from its stable connotation […]”

    Like

  31. Treat the symptom or treat the disease? Curing Islamophobia by limiting free speech is treating the symptom and it won’t work. So what are the root causes of Islamophobia? Islamic terrorism, fear of limits on free speech, fear of Sharia law, for a start. If the governments made a stronger case that they will protect citizens from terrorism by vetting immigrants and refugees more thoroughly, that would help. If governments would assure us that free speech will not be limited, and that Sharia law is absolutely not happening even a little bit … instead it looks like the proponents of motions like this intend the opposite.

    “So I’ll start by noting that calling it “Islamophobia” ASSUMES that Islam is likely harmless. So the word itself contains an entire point of view … but is it valid?”

    Another approach would be to convince us that Islam is harmless. It goes against the evidence since the Iran revolution. Before that it was the happy diversity that Muslims are supposed to provide us — at least on the surface, maybe we were just naively innocent.

    This article shows how hard that approach will be. It talks about women’s rights from ancient Persia to current Iran:
    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/02/iranian_women_before_and_after_the_islamist_takeover.html

    Nevertheless, there is a women journalist and feminist who is willing to try to show that the Koran is not the source of Muslim women’s discrimination. She had studied the Koran and written a book which looks to be fascinating and it may even prove her point. We’ll see.

    I’ve just started reading it. So far it is informative and entertaining. The Islamic texts include the Koran by Mohammed and also other things written after his death. The Koran is very heavy reading. She argues that most Muslims have not read it, they have read bits and pieces of it, the pieces that support what they want to do, and they have probably misunderstood those. The fundamentalists and extremists do not know the Koran. This I can believe; we see the same thing with the Bible. The texts written after Mohammed’s death are much stricter.

    The treatment of women in Saudi Arabia, that a tribal custom, not in the Koran. The treatment of women in general in Islam, that’s from Aristotle and other Greeks, after Mohammed’s death and not in the Koran. You can see why this will be an interesting read.

    We don’t hear much from so-called moderate Muslims. Maybe this book will show us that they do exist and are ordinary people, not to be feared, that it is possible to be an optimist and not just a cynic. We’ll see.

    Like

  32. Religions are arbitrary, it’s no more than a way of life. People who are religious overestimate the importance of it. Through history they accumulated too many prerogatives and considered this as normal.

    Like

  33. I’ve finished reading the “If the Oceans Were Ink” book mentioned above, so I might as well comment on it here. As the subtitle suggests, it’s a look at what some of the more controversial passages in the Koran say. It’s certainly not an organized study of the Koran and it’s certainly not academic or authoritative about their meanings. It is more about the friend mentioned in the subtitle. The friend happens to be an expert on the Koran and the Hadith. The author is a woman journalist who grew up in Muslim countries and is a secular feminist. She desperately wants to be told the good side of Islam. The friend happens to be one who does see the good side of Islam, and he is a good person, but he does not always tell her what she is hoping to hear, especially regarding the treatment of women. He claims Mohammed was very liberal for his time. But his time was Peak Goodness and no change will come from the Koran side. On the other hand, many things which are cultural additions to Islam could change — eventually, slowly.
    But Sharia Law is not optional. She does not convert to Islam although she remains sympathetic.

    So if you are secular and respect Islam, you should read this book to learn more about it. Cultural Tourism. Everybody else should read starting with the last chapters, starting at Chapter 14, to go directly to the answers to the questions you are most interested in: why Islam as a faith is supposed to be mostly harmless and why Political Islam is dangerous and how it goes against the message of the Koran.

    It’s emphasized in this book that the Koran is written as poetry, for a particular time and place. Poetry is hard enough to understand even without the problems of how to translate it. Add to that that if Mohammed said something about (say) Jews in one section, he is talking about a specific event, and to generalize that statement to be applied for all time and all places misses the spirit of the Koran. Yet, to us what is important about the Koran is how the believers interpret it and how they act on it, and that is not at all encouraging.

    Like

    • The spirit of the Qur’an is subjugation of all humans to islamic authority. Yes, I have read the Qur’an and the Hadith, I have studied Shari’a and how it is applied to muslim and infidel today. I repeat for all the world to see, I do not submit.

      Like

You are invited to add your comments.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s