Given that all Muslims are Muslims, that does strongly suggest that they all think a certain way about at least a few things, and that note about a secular state is very much the Muslim position.
Ya, it's time to be honest about Islam...
- Thread starter CDNBear
- Start date
Question it all you like
Malaysia immediately springs to mind although, for the life of me, I can't figure out what your point is (if you even have one). Over half of so-called "Muslim" countries are secular so this idea that Muslims will take over and enforce their "standards" is somewhat laughable. The reality is that fundamentalism is to be feared far more than Islam and fundamentalism stems from a fear of modernity. It just so happens that Islam happens to be a dominant religion in emerging societies but fear of modernity and, hence, fundamentalism knows no religious boundaries nor does human rights abuses. That is why they (human rights abuses) have occurred in Christian countries, Buddhist countries and even secular countries (I could name lots if you so desire). We only have to look south of our own border to see Christian fundamentalist that have little, if any, concerns for some people's rights.
Given that all humans are human, that does strongly suggest that they all think a certain way about at least a few things.
Sorry, meaningless drivel!
Last edited:
Yes, actually, it does, as long as we're talking about normal humans, we'd have to leave out people like psychopaths. You're thinking too shallowly. There are human behaviours that are common across all cultures, we all have the same basic survival and growth needs, we respond similarly to similar events, and so on. The drivel is yours, and for that you should be sorry.
Did you miss the point?
Have you taken a walk through some of their laws? Not very secular, and "Islamification, is on the rise. While some in the judiciary are pushing to have Syriaha replace Common Law.
Not when you examine policy and law. There's no set time table of conversion, some will take longer, while other do it in a single coup.
But all evidence, shows that when the population becomes predominantly Islamic, Islamic law seeps into policy and thus fundamentalism, joins the fray.
Shall we examine the freedom of speech and the illegality of using the word "Allah" in any way that does not respect him and Islam?
I agree, and Islam for some reason, seems to hold on to fundamentalism like a life line.
Agreed, but only one seems to make them state sanctioned and legal.
I agree, but then again, law enforcement actively seek Christian fundamentalist that break the law. Not assist them with the law.
Last edited:
Of course not. You don't like people that believe differently than yourself. It's pretty clear.
LOL, you could say the same thing about the US and they are supposed to be secular.
Nope, sorry. Since places like Kosovo don't seem to fit in your mythical world, "all" the evidence doesn't support your position. Fundamentalism doesn't automatically follow religious belief. I understand how this is difficult for some to understand (especially people like Dexter who have a hate on for religions) but the simple reality is that Islam is not the problem. Like Christianity during the dark ages, it is a tool used by some to exert control. Your position is akin to blaming the candy a child molester uses to lure a kid.
Sure. What are the laws in Kosovo, Indonesia or Malaysia?
The simple fact of the matter is that you are trying to lump all segments of Islam together and in doing so, your argument completely falls apart. It's like saying the Catholic Church should be abolished because of Jim Jones' or David Koresh's action.
Ya that must be it. Project much? I'll take that as a great big yes, you missed the point.
Ya, you could, but you'd be misguided, as to the civility and depravity.
Give it some time. Do you remember what happened the last time the Muslims in that region were given control?
I'm well aware of that.
You're right, it isn't the problem. It's the pillar that props up the problem.
Exactly. Here we are in the 21st century though. But thank you for recognizing that Islam is still in the darkages, which is pretty much my point.
You're kidding right? I'd love to see that expanded upon.
You're talking about a young country, give it time. But would be a pleasant exception to the norm eh.
Where Sharia has crept into the legal code and growing slowly more powerful. Where homosexuality is a crime, adultery is punishable by death, and marital rape is just peachy. Where they actually have a Sharia Police".
Where 58% of the population feel stoning an adulterer to death is a good idea. While the countries legal and state trend is towards a more Orthodox Interpretation of Islam. Now do I really have to dig up the penal code in Malaysia nd show you the illegality of homosexuality and so on?
Seriously Cannuck, stop being obtuse.
Save for Kosovo, and partly Turkey, every Islamic state, is now or are showing signs of, an increase in fundamentalism.
You can choose to ignore this if you want. But you've only got two examples of the opposite of the current trend.
For your comparison to be accurate, I would have had to have cited a sect of, and advocated the abolishing thereof. Where as I have not cited a sect, but the whole of Islam, the correct comparison would have been "It's like saying Christianity should be abolished because of the Spanish inquisition."
I don't advocate abolishing anything. I advocate the fact that Islam, fundamentally, is a stark contrast to our way of life. Which it is. I'm of the opinion, that Islam should be banned in North America.
Of course it isn't going to be. Our freedoms are paramount. So my position, is actually to keep an honest dialogue going, so that Islam, can not ever be allowed to infest our political policies.
Now, if that were a hair brained idea and stretch of the imagination, there wouldn't have been an attempt to adopt Sharia law in Ontario in the recent past.
Last edited:
I don't care if you believe in a myth or not. Until your belief interferes with someone else's rights. Like a woman's right to abortion,a little boy's right not to be raped by a preacher, my right not to be subjected to laws based on religion. Or the fact that religious leaders tend to murder anyone that does not agree with them. Other than that I could care less if you kiss the ground, throw roses at the sun or drink poisoned kool aid.
And a person lack of belief means I do not have to tolerate being berated, insulted, denied employment and on and on because of having a religious belief
As to religious leaders killing - In what direction is the meant?? Have not seen much of that in Canada.
Abortion - You have Libs, Cons, NDP on both sides of that debate. It is a religious debate in some cases, and a moral debate for others.
Clearly you have the opinion that any person without any religious belief approves of abortion. Yeah Right -
No Christian Religious texts approves raping a child - Please point out one that does?????
As to laws based upon religion - The whole country - US - Western Europe is based upon the Judeo - Christian beliefs system
that evolved over the centuries. So I guess the whole legal system should be thrown out and rewritten.
Your whole reply is really off the wall.
You're free to believe whatever you wish. That changes nothing. Your problem is that you can't differentiate between cause and effect. You falsely assume that the problems in Middle Eastern, Asian, and African Islamic nations are caused by Islam and are utterly incapable of backing up your claim with anything substantive. Your position ignores all the other human rights violations from all the other non-Islamic nations in these areas.
All one has to do is look at Central and South America and their horrible track record involving human rights (with a predominantly Christian population) and it's quite clear to anyone that chooses to open their eyes that Islam hasn't cornered the market on abusive governments.
I find it quite amusing that you like to use the same tactics as folks like Ahmadinejad. He likes to point out the worst of western society and hold it up as an example. You're in fine company indeed.
Sorry, ignorance is the pillar that props up the problem. Ignorance is an ongoing problem in the developing world (and on this web forum it would appear).
Who cares. It wasn't until Lawrence v Texas in 2003 had the effect of invalidating similar laws throughout the United States that purported to criminalize sodomy between consenting same sex couples. You seem to suggest that these Islamic boogie men are centuries behind us enlightened folk. That's too funny.
Religious folks of all stripes like to push their agendas. Hell, Atheists love to push theirs as well. It's called democracy. Sorry you have such a problem with it.
And a person lack of belief means I do not have to tolerate being berated, insulted, denied employment and on and on because of having a religious belief
It does if your beliefs do not permit you to work on certain days that are normal working days for that company.
As to religious leaders killing - In what direction is the meant?? Have not seen much of that in Canada.
Read a history book or two. Many natives were murdered by religious leaders for not converting to christianity. Ever hear of the Salem witch trials? How about the Spanish Inquisition?
No Christian Religious texts approves raping a child - Please point out one that does?????
I never said that it was in any text. However there are many court documents proving that preachers have raped little boys with little or no punishment from their church. Even many at the top of the catholic hierarchy have been convicted of pedophilia. Ever hear of residential schools?
Clearly you have the opinion that any person without any religious belief approves of abortion. Yeah Right -
Not what I said. I said you do not have the right to deny a woman an abortion because your church does not approve of it.
As to laws based upon religion - The whole country - US - Western Europe is based upon the Judeo - Christian beliefs system
that evolved over the centuries. So I guess the whole legal system should be thrown out and rewritten.
A good portion of it should be and some has. Like the law we once had preventing stores from opening on sunday because of someone's religion. Not all religious people have sunday as their holy day either, so what about them.
You are simply an apologist for religious fanatics that have committed crimes that even their holy book condemns.No different than a muslim supporting terrorists.
It does if your beliefs do not permit you to work on certain days that are normal working days for that company.
As to religious leaders killing - In what direction is the meant?? Have not seen much of that in Canada.
Read a history book or two. Many natives were murdered by religious leaders for not converting to christianity. Ever hear of the Salem witch trials? How about the Spanish Inquisition?
No Christian Religious texts approves raping a child - Please point out one that does?????
I never said that it was in any text. However there are many court documents proving that preachers have raped little boys with little or no punishment from their church. Even many at the top of the catholic hierarchy have been convicted of pedophilia. Ever hear of residential schools?
Clearly you have the opinion that any person without any religious belief approves of abortion. Yeah Right -
Not what I said. I said you do not have the right to deny a woman an abortion because your church does not approve of it.
As to laws based upon religion - The whole country - US - Western Europe is based upon the Judeo - Christian beliefs system
that evolved over the centuries. So I guess the whole legal system should be thrown out and rewritten.
A good portion of it should be and some has. Like the law we once had preventing stores from opening on sunday because of someone's religion. Not all religious people have sunday as their holy day either, so what about them.
You are simply an apologist for religious fanatics that have committed crimes that even their holy book condemns.No different than a muslim supporting terrorists.
No, that's what you think my problem is. And you did miss the point.
Ya, because you choose to ignore the evidence. Look Cannuck, I can't force you to see it. I can only present it, what and how you, examine, is simply up to you.
Actually no I don't. But that would be a different topic.
Never made the claim it did. But the abuses and crimes that take place in South America, aren't being condoned and justified by any other book, then the School of the America's handbook.
Is that like the new Godwin law?
Agreed.
Quite.
Not you apparently.
Yes, yes indeed it is, you just made my case for me, thanx. While we head to a more civilized society, Islam is going in the opposite direction. Seriously, thank you for that set up.
Your comment, following mine, which was...
Along with the fact that you simply ignored anything I posted that interrupted your beliefs, only further proves to me, that you refuse to acknowledge anything that doesn't support your imagination or ideology. Which is fine dude. We need opposing views to keep it honest and real.
I have a question for you Cannuck, why should I embrace Islam?
Last edited:
Yet again, you seem to want to argue apples and oranges. You are comparing a society to a religion. You fail to grasp the simple fact that Islam is not Afghanistan, Iran or Sudan and vice versa.
Additionally, you ignore the fact that these societies, that you fear so much, are developing and that is what is what is causing the strain (not Islam). I liken the situation in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia to the American south (50 - 100 years ago) that needs to be dragged into the new world kicking and screaming. While those in the south used the Bible to support segregation and human rights abuses most people (present company excluded) wouldn't blame Christianity as a whole for the actions of the KKK for example.
Because you want to??? That would be the only reason I can see why you would.
The number one rule of problem solving is to identify the problem. On this count, you have failed miserably. Don't take it too hard. Most people get a little confused when the topic turns to religion. Like so many others, you see religious devotion as a cause and not an effect. Unfortunately, your world view dominates and that is one of the reasons the Middle East is in the mess it's in.
So you say.
Actually, no. That was your comparison, I just used it against you is all. But thanx for acknowledging your error.
While Islam helps shape them.
:roll:, ya Saudi Arabia, Iran, and so are developing countries. The bulk of the rest are developing, still, because of their archaic governance, run by Islam.
The part you fail to realize, that while your example is fairly accurate, the problem is, we are moving as a society, (including Christianity, which for the most part has been on the supporting side of this journey) towards greater freedoms. While Islamic states show a tendency to go the opposite direction. That's not developing, the devolving.
But your confusion may stem from the fact that you fail to recognize that Islam the state, is not discernible, nor separate from Islam the religion. Where as, in the US, since that was your choice. The Constitution removes the threat of imposed religious practice.
Do you think this adds to your argument?
Way to not answer the question. Perhaps if I ask it like this...
What are the benefits of Islam?
:roll:
Oh yes, I must have failed because you asked for laws, I gave you laws, that you ignored. You make comparisons that end up supporting my case, and then say that I'm comparing apples to oranges. I ask a question that gave you room to dodge, you take the dodge. You feel the need to project and make assumptions about me, where I have not.
Ya, you're right, I've failed miserably.
Last edited:
So because I observe my religion - and certain days are important to me to practice and affirm my faith - I then should be subject to harassment, ridicule and more because other have to work that day.
It appears you pick and choose what is right and wrong according to your own belief system and everyone should adhere to that
I then would conclude that the Charter and other Rights as affirmed by Law are in your mind not relevant
Yes there has been systematic abuse - Was that ordered by Church Officials - No - was it covered up Yes - Is it wrong yes - Should they all go to Jail - Yes -So your point is???
Quote
Not what I said. I said you do not have the right to deny a woman an abortion because your church does not approve of it.
I do have the right to an opinion - I do have the right to express it as long as it is not causing incitement or racial hatred. Again your view of my rights are not to be considered as equal to yours -
Quote
A good portion of it should be and some has. Like the law we once had preventing stores from opening on Sunday because of someone's religion. Not all religious people have Sunday as their holy day either, so what about them.
My favourite - 7/24 shopping has been shown to be disruptive to many families - So pick a day - Sunday was then the obvious choice as most, not all but most Canadians were of a Faith that went to church on what day - HHMM Sunday -Why pick that day - That was a no brainer
Quote
You are simply an apologist for religious fanatics that have committed crimes that even their holy book condemns. No different than a Muslim supporting terrorists.
Show me where I meet these so called standards that you assume I have - Where's the Beef in that - Show me posting where I have set this a personal standard - I will wait for a long time for that, of that I am most positive.
Interesting article for you and a quote from Christopher Hitchens brother Peter
http://life.nationalpost.com/2010/08/19/brothers-at-arms-peter-hitchens-talks-about-his-faith-and-his-atheist-sibling-christopher/
“These were exactly the kind of people who are now the new atheists; they are recognizably the same. The same passions, the same ideals and the same belief in their own goodness — which is always the most fatal thing.”
“Atheists will always say it’s not in our nature to persecute people we don’t agree with, to force our will on others, to stamp things out. But eventually atheists will find an intellectual justification for censorship and persecution.”
Here are some stats. I'm not trying to persuade in favour of one direction or another, but maybe those afraid of Islam extremists can post their views on these..
2008 & 2009 Surveys and Polls
Most recent polls and surveys done in many of prominent Muslim countries show that the balance of forces in the world of Islam has shifted dramatically against al-Qaida's global jihad and its local manifestations. Here are seven examples:[177]
2008 & 2009 Surveys and Polls
Most recent polls and surveys done in many of prominent Muslim countries show that the balance of forces in the world of Islam has shifted dramatically against al-Qaida's global jihad and its local manifestations. Here are seven examples:[177]
- Gallup conducted tens of thousands of hour-long, face-to-face interviews with residents of more than thirty-five predominantly Muslim countries between 2001 and 2007. It found that – contrary to the prevailing perception in the west that the actions of al-Qaida enjoy wide support in the Muslim world – more than 90% of respondents condemned the killing of non-combatants on religious and humanitarian grounds [177]
- The not-for-profit group Terror Free Tomorrow carried out a public-opinion survey seeking to establish why people support or oppose extremism; it found that fewer than 10% of Saudis had a favourable opinion of al-Qaida, and 88% approved of the Saudi authorities pursuing al-Qaida operatives [177]
- In Pakistan, despite the recent rise in the Taliban's influence, a poll conducted by Terror Free Tomorrow in Pakistan in January 2008 tested support for al-Qaida, the Taliban, other militant Islamist groups and Osama bin Laden himself, and found a recent drop by half. In August 2007, 33% of Pakistanis expressed support for al-Qaida; 38% supported the Taliban. By January 2008, al-Qaida's support had dropped to 18%, the Taliban's to 19%. When asked if they would vote for al-Qaida, just 1% of Pakistanis polled answered in the affirmative. The Taliban had the support of 3% of those polled [177]
- Pew Research surveys in 2008 show that in a range of countries – Jordan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Lebanon, and Bangladesh – there have been substantial declines in the percentages saying suicide-bombings and other forms of violence against civilian targets can be justified to defend Islam against its enemies. Wide majorities say such attacks are, at most, rarely acceptable [177]
- The shift has been especially dramatic in Jordan, where 29% of Jordanians are recorded as viewing suicide-attacks as often or sometimes justified (down from 57% in May 2005). In the largest majority-Muslim nation, Indonesia, 74% of respondents agree that terrorist attacks are "never justified" (a substantial decline from the 41% level to which support had risen in March 2004); in Pakistan, that figure is 86%; in Bangladesh, 81%; and in Iran, 80% [177]
- A poll conducted in Osama bin Laden's home country of Saudi Arabia in December 2008 shows that his compatriots have dramatically turned against him, his organisation, Saudi volunteers in Iraq, and terrorism in general. Indeed, confidence in bin Laden has fallen in most Muslim countries in recent years [177]
- In Iraq, people of all persuasions unanimously reject the terror tactics against Iraqi civilians of "al-Qaida in Mesopotamia". An ABC News/BBC/NHK poll revealed that all of those surveyed – Sunni and Shi'a alike – found al-Qaida attacks on Iraqi civilians "unacceptable"; 98% rejected the militants' attempts to gain control over areas in which they operated; and 97% opposed their attempts to recruit foreign fighters and bring them to Iraq [177]
Excellent food for thought mentalfloss. I must make note of one detail, and this is in no way meant to dismiss your post, sincerely. But the collated polls are all about "terrorism" type violence. Not about moral crimes, as dictated by the Quran.
Can I get your opinion on this?
Revealed: UK’s first official sharia courts -Times Online
Please note the included element from the criminal code, and the weight of enforcement being applied by the State. This is the creeping I have referred to in past posts. This is my worry about Islam and the lefts seemingly weak kneed approach, which seems to be all about appeasement.
Can I get your opinion on this?
Revealed: UK’s first official sharia courts -Times Online
Please note the included element from the criminal code, and the weight of enforcement being applied by the State. This is the creeping I have referred to in past posts. This is my worry about Islam and the lefts seemingly weak kneed approach, which seems to be all about appeasement.
That's pretty interesting.
That was initially proposed in 2008 - has any of it come into fruition since then?
Obviously, it poses the dilemma as to whether or not we should even have a multi-tiered court system. I would think we shouldn't because if a non-islamic individual is involved in some criminal case against an islamic individual how would one even go about deciding which system to try them under? And how exactly, do the judgement criteria differ?
There's the whole mob mentality that would see this as an uprising coming from our unavoidable influx of islamic immigrants, but I think that viewpoint is a bit overstated. The specifics of any 'alternative litigation' need to be considered first before deciding whether those new rules can co-exist with our own.
That said, while we have a responsibility to show equal consideration of interests of the diverse cultures in this new melting pot, that consideration cannot be used to sacrifice what I would argue are some really important universal principles which developed nations already employ.
In short, if these new court systems impede on a nation's ability to determine laws that defend the actions of a "reasonable person" - they shouldn't be employed. We need to figure that out first before deciding to implement that system or not.
Last edited:
Ya, all of it.
From what I gather, it's strictly voluntary, but again, we're talking about creeping influence.
But if we examine some of the rulings, as well as the whole structure of Islamic legal structure, you can see how it does not show signs of co-existence. Whereas that of the Jewish courts, that have operated in England, Canada and the US for decades, have never entered the realm of criminal law, and have shown to be a benign influence, while practically mirroring the common law of the land.
And for the record, I'm not in favour of Native tribunals, over cases involving the criminal code. On civil matters, sure, I think differing cultural communities should be allowed to conduct business, by tradition, so long as business in general, isn't contrary to the criminal code or law of the land.
My point exactly sir. I have a profound and deep sense of freedom. But I find myself placed in a position, where I come into conflict within, because I love what our respective nations have become, through the exercise of freedom, fought and paid for with blood in some cases. While on the other hand, to preserve that freedom, someones will have to be subjugated.
I just had a thought, what would we be discussing, back in 1935? With rumours of genocide, and mass murders. If only the internet was around then eh?
I agree, but sadly, they now exist.
How long before Canada, a country who political element has a tendency to emulate Europe, adopts Sharia law in some form.
Again, creeping influence.
I have a very disturbing vision of them using one of those Television court shows to promote their sharia law......but then they would run the risk of being laughed of the airwaves or not finding sponsors:roll::lol: