Jagmeet Singh is a hypocrite

[ZulFiqar786]

The prophet also had more than four wives. So, do we go by the Qur'an that states no more than four, or the sunnah that allows for more. Whatever rules God imposed on Muhammad, the rules he imposed on the Muslim community are in the Qur'an and the Ahadith.

The Holy Qur’an itself exempts the Prophet (peace be upon him) from the four-wife limitation rule (Sura 33: 50) where it states: “and a believing woman who gives herself to the Prophet and whom he wants to take in marriage. (O Prophet), this privilege is yours alone to the exclusion of other believers.”

 

[White_Unifier]

The Holy Qur’an itself exempts the Prophet (peace be upon him) from the four-wife limitation rule (Sura 33: 50) where it states: “and a believing woman who gives herself to the Prophet and whom he wants to take in marriage. (O Prophet), this privilege is yours alone to the exclusion of other believers.”

Exactly. So clearly we have to go not by what He did, but by what His words command. And as per the Tunisian law, Qur'an 4:3 and 4:129 are quite clear. A man must not take more than one wife.

Now the Qur'an also shuns divorce, so certainly it would not require a man who has more than one wife to divorce his later wives since two wrongs don't make a right. however, he's still not supposed to take a second wife in the first place if we take the Qur'an at face value.

You guys do understand that Singh is a friggin Sihk. Don't you?

Oh yes. Carry on

 

[ZulFiqar786]

You guys do understand that Singh is a friggin Sihk. Don't you?

It’s spelled Sikh*, and Jagmeet Singh is in fact an Amritdhari Sikh who prefers the dumalla style turban. Bet you didn’t know that.

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

Oh yes. Carry on

Just checking.

 

[White_Unifier]

I was just making the point that many religions become corrupted over time and people refuse to take the texts of their religions at face value, Qur'an 4:3 and 4:129 being cases in point. Since I don't profess Islam, I don't need to defend any particular scholarly interpretation. Instead, I can just take it at face value and accept what it says.

I remember reading how historically, Muslims were embarrassed by the reference in the Qur'an to the earth orbiting the sun. Only after it became more widely accepted that the earth revolves around the sun did Muslims start to embrace that passage.

 

[ZulFiqar786]

Exactly. So clearly we have to go not by what He did, but by what His words command. And as per the Tunisian law, Qur'an 4:3 and 4:129 are quite clear. A man must not take more than one wife.

Now the Qur'an also shuns divorce, so certainly it would not require a man who has more than one wife to divorce his later wives since two wrongs don't make a right. however, he's still not supposed to take a second wife in the first place if we take the Qur'an at face value.



Oh yes. Carry on

Where does the Holy Qur’an “shun” divorce? Divorce is allowed in Islam. There’s an entire chapter of the Qur’an entitled ‘Divorce’ (Sura 65).



As for Tunisian law, how is that an authoritative source on the correct understanding of the Holy Qur’an? Is Tunisia the only Islamic country and the dozens of others where polygamy is allowed, including Saudi Arabia, un-Islamic?

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

I've always leaned toward no religion.
In my book you get to have lots of sex. Eat whatever you want. (Including blue smarties) and drink beer.
Come join my cult.

 

[White_Unifier]

Where does the Holy Qur’an “shun” divorce? Divorce is allowed in Islam. There’s an entire chapter of the Qur’an entitled ‘Divorce’ (Sura 65).



As for Tunisian law, how is that an authoritative source on the correct understanding of the Holy Qur’an? Is Tunisia the only Islamic country and the dozens of others where polygamy is allowed, including Saudi Arabia, un-Islamic?

'Shun' does not necessarily mean 'prohibit.' The Qur'an strongly discourages divorce even if it does not prohibit it outright.

Also I agree that Tunisia is not an authoritative interpreter any more than any other Muslim state. But it does show that at least one state has understood 4:3 and 4:129 to enjoin monogamy.

I've always leaned toward no religion.
In my book you get to have lots of sex. Eat whatever you want. (Including blue smarties) and drink beer.
Come join my cult.

I have an addictive personality. I need to live under a set of strict rules!

 

[ZulFiqar786]

You have to understand the historical context of modern Tunisia and other North African countries which were colonized by the French and inherited the secular French legal code which doesn’t allow polygamy. Then the modern Tunisian State needed a new narrative to justify its apparent secularity and emulation of the French and Western European jurisprudence and hence deliberately created this new interpretation of the Holy Qur’an as being against polygamy. Otherwise historically the Muslims have never understood the Qur’an as being against polygamy until modernism emerged among the Muslims beginning in the 19th century.

Also you talked about how religion changes over time. That is certainly true in the sense that due to external influences adherents of a faith tradition begin to reinterpret their sacred text in order to conform to the changing social and political reality of the world they live in. But this is not being sincere to the spirit of the Text, which is best understood by its initial followers. For example, the Bible itself permits polygamy and bigamy (Exodus 21: 10), and as I mentioned earlier, King Solomon himself had hundreds of wives and concubines. But today neither Jews nor Christians practice polygamy.

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

The only thing I understand is that religion is give and take. If I, say, help a little old lady across the street. Then God, say, should give me the Lotto Max winning numbers.

Give and take folks.

 

[White_Unifier]

You have to understand the historical context of modern Tunisia and other North African countries which were colonized by the French and inherited the secular French legal code which doesn’t allow polygamy. Then the modern Tunisian State needed a new narrative to justify its apparent secularity and emulation of the French and Western European jurisprudence and hence deliberately created this new interpretation of the Holy Qur’an as being against polygamy. Otherwise historically the Muslims have never understood the Qur’an as being against polygamy until modernism emerged among the Muslims beginning in the 19th century.

Also you talked about how religion changes over time. That is certainly true in the sense that due to external influences adherents of a faith tradition begin to reinterpret their sacred text in order to conform to the changing social and political reality of the world they live in. But this is not being sincere to the spirit of the Text, which is best understood by its initial followers. For example, the Bible itself permits polygamy and bigamy (Exodus 21: 10), and as I mentioned earlier, King Solomon himself had hundreds of wives and concubines. But today neither Jews nor Christians practice polygamy.

Yes, the Bible permits polygamy. But the Gospel clearly praises monogamy as the preferred choice.

Also, is the word of God written just for one generation? If we accept that the Qur'an was intended to serve people over many generations, then we can imagine God making statements that he does not expect the people of Muhammad's time to understand, such as the Qur'anic verse concerning the earth revolving around the son. Are you suggesting that, like the early Muslims, today's Muslims should continue to downplay that verse in embarrassment? Or is it preferable for modern Muslims to embrace it as later Muslims have once it became more widely accepted that the earth orbited the sun?

The only thing I understand is that religion is give and take. If I, say, help a little old lady across the street. Then God, say, should give me the Lotto Max winning numbers.

Give and take folks.

Oh if only it were so easy, eh.

 

[ZulFiqar786]

Yes, the Bible permits polygamy. But the Gospel clearly praises monogamy as the preferred choice.

Also, is the word of God written just for one generation? If we accept that the Qur'an was intended to serve people over many generations, then we can imagine God making statements that he does not expect the people of Muhammad's time to understand, such as the Qur'anic verse concerning the earth revolving around the son. Are you suggesting that, like the early Muslims, today's Muslims should continue to downplay that verse in embarrassment? Or is it preferable for modern Muslims to embrace it as later Muslims have once it became more widely accepted that the earth orbited the sun?



Oh if only it were so easy, eh.

The Word of God is meant for multiple generations, but the first generation that receives that Word is the one that best understands the meaning of the Text. For example, Prophet Moses was the one who received the Torah at Mt. Sinai, and his generation of Israelites practically implemented its laws and regulations for successive generations to emulate. Similarly, the Holy Qur’an revealed to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) who practically demonstrated and interpreted its injunctions, for all successive generations to understand. Now this is in the sphere of law, otherwise the Word of God is not only concerning law, but contains many other revelations about the nature of the cosmos, moral teachings and predictions about the future (apocalypse). But insofar as law is concerned, the first generation that receives the Text naturally has the more accurate understanding of it because despite it meant to be universal, the Text is revealed in a particular time within a particular social and intellectual context. Nevertheless, in the Religion of Islam, the laws of the Qur’an and Ahadith are akin to statutory law, but Islamic judges engage in what is called Ijtihad (independent reasoning) to make decisions about matters on which the statute law is silent. In normative Sunni Islam, the sources of law in respective order are 1. Qur’an 2. Sunna 3. Concensus of the community and 4. Analogical reasoning (Qiyas) or Ijtehad.





Regarding the heliocentric model and the fact that the Earth orbits the sun, this is never explicitly mentioned in the Holy Qur’an, which at most says that these various bodies in the heavens like the sun and moon are each moving in an orbit without describing that orbit. Now it is definitely true that the sun too has its own orbit since it revolves around the center of the Milky Way galaxy. All the stars and planets in the universe are perpetually in motion. However, this is a revelation regarding the nature of the universe and is not in the sphere of law. As time goes on, Muslims read the Qur’an and discover new subtle truths, but as far as laws go, we refer back to the original Muslim community to understand how they understood and practically implemented them. Statutory laws cannot be reinterpreted, nor can permanent moral values.

 

[taxslave]

I'm not a fan of Ezra Levant. He does more harm than good.

Notice how when Liberals disagree with someone, that someone is spewing hate. But when they agree with a form of "hate speech" it's a "free expression of dissent".

I'm not a fan either. I think he is an idiot but regardless he has the right to speak his mind. And the fact that the left expends so much energy trying to silence him must mean they are afraid of what he has to say.

Jagmeet Singh isn’t a hypocrite. He is a great political leader who will not only become the NDP leader for sure, but hopefully someday Prime Minister too. Now don’t get me wrong, I like Trudeau a lot and wouldn’t mind a Liberal government under Trudeau for decades to come. I’m not a leftist but rather more of a liberal centrist with a libertarian streak. That means I prefer low taxes, small government, privatization as much as possible, maximum civil liberty, and overall a free market with free trade and an open door immigration policy. But I recognize that Jagmeet Singh is the strongest voice against racism and bigotry at the moment, and these are the most pressing issues of the day. As a fellow South Asian, I’m naturally inclined to Jagmeet Singh and sincerely hope he becomes more influential in politics. He’s still relatively young, 38 years old, and I can see he has a bright future in federal politics. We need more young, cosmopolitan, racial minority, charismatic figures like him. The NDP will pass into oblivion if it chooses anyone else besides Jagmeet. The NDP needs to acquire the support of people like me, young, Middle Class, South Asian visible minority, cosmopolitan, from the growing Peel Region of Ontario. Otherwise the NDP has no future, simple as that. At present, the NDP old timers are resistant to Jagmeet Singh for two reasons: 1. They simply don’t want a South Asian in command of their party, they use the excuse “Quebec won’t accept him”, but in reality, they themselves aren’t ready for a non-White at the helm, and 2. They claim Jagmeet isn’t radical leftist enough. But that’s actually a good thing. We need someone like Jagmeet to mainstream the NDP and bring it closer to the center, especially on economic issues.

ROFLMFAO. Do tell how can you say that he or any dipper for that matter will make a great PM?

 

[ZulFiqar786]

ROFLMFAO. Do tell how can you say that he or any dipper for that matter will make a great PM?

Well it will be great and worth it just to see Jagmeet Singh as Prime Minister to see the reaction of the bigoted old White people to know that the prime minister of their country is a brown skinned, East Indian, turbanned and bearded Amritdhari Sikh who at all times carries a kirpan (dagger) on his person. Just for that alone I truly hope and pray Singh becomes PM.

 

[taxslave]

4: 129 says you cannot treat your wives with absolute justice *even if you keenly desire to do so*


This is pointing to a universal truth about human nature that we are flawed and imperfect that cannot be completely fair, just and objective, even when we intend to try our best. It can no way be construed as a ban on polygamy. Similarly, it is human nature that parents, despite their best effort, cannot treat all of their kids the same, and there will always be some element of favoritism, perhaps for the first born, which is again due to human nature. Does this mean that people should be forbidden from having multiple children? No that would be absurd. Polygamy is actually necessary at times, especially when there is a great sex ratio imbalance, due to war or other factors. Many times there is an excess of women and not enough men for each woman to find a husband to marry. Women who remain unmarried despite wanting to experience a healthy family life become depressed and suffer from all sorts of psychological problems. This results in many social problems. Polygamy is the only solution. Furthermore, polygamy is the natural state of the male mind which prefers multiple partners to having a single one for the rest of one’s life. According to the Bible, King Solomon had hundreds of wives, but Islam has limited it to four wives for practical considerations.

Do tell, why is OK for a man to have multiple wives but not OK for a woman to have multiple husbands? After all a normal woman can wear out 2 or 3 men in one evening of fun & games.

 

[ZulFiqar786]

Do tell, why is OK for a man to have multiple wives but not OK for a woman to have multiple husbands? After all a normal woman can wear out 2 or 3 men in one evening of fun & games.

It’s just not our way. We have our own idea of a family with the husband being the head and his wife or wives being subservient to him in the role of mothers and house wives.




Why doesn’t your society eat dogs like the Koreans? Why only restrict yourself to beef and chicken? Why not eat insects like the Chinese? After all it's actually more nutritious than red meat, since no cholesterol or fat?

 

[AMKiller]

Well it will be great and worth it just to see Jagmeet Singh as Prime Minister to see the reaction of the bigoted old White people to know that the prime minister of their country is a brown skinned, East Indian, turbanned and bearded Amritdhari Sikh who at all times carries a kirpan (dagger) on his person. Just for that alone I truly hope and pray Singh becomes PM.

You call other's bigots when you are spewing divisive rhetoric because it'll make you smile.

For the record, I got no problem with a Sikh as PM but Singh won't be that guy.

I got no problem with any immigrant becoming PM, well, unless they're a Muslim because Islamic beliefs and ideology are not compatible with western values.

 

[petros]

Which taste better? Bugs or dog?

 

[AMKiller]

It’s just not our way. We have our own idea of a family with the husband being the head and his wife or wives being subservient to him in the role of mothers and house wives.




Why doesn’t your society eat dogs like the Koreans? Why only restrict yourself to beef and chicken? Why not eat insects like the Chinese? After all it's actually more nutritious than red meat, since no cholesterol or fat?

Why is it ok for a Muslim man to marry a woman of another faith but not a Muslim woman to marry a man of another faith?

It's been proven that cholesterol isn't bad for you but a high carbohydrates diet and sugar are the real culprits.

 

[ZulFiqar786]

Why is it ok for a Muslim man to marry a woman of another faith but not a Muslim woman to marry a man of another faith?

It's been proven that cholesterol isn't bad for you but a high carbohydrates diet and sugar are the real culprits.

Because the family tends to follow the religion of the father/husband. He is the dominant figure and leader of the household. A Muslim man can’t just marry any woman of any faith, it has to be a Jewish or Christian woman only since those religions are closer to Islam in terms of theology. The objective for this dispensation is the hope that the Jewish or Christian wife will eventually convert to Islam after living in an Islamic household and getting used to the beauty of the Islamic lifestyle and the simple Islamic creed of radical monotheism as opposed to trinity, which is an intellectual compromise with pagan polytheism.


Chinese people eat insects they say they are high in protein and nutritious. I'm sure they even find it delicious. But just because something is nutritious or delicious doesn't mean its worthy of being food for human beings. This is why we Muslims don't eat impure things like pork, but also dogs, cats, vermin, insects, reptiles, crows, etc. I follow the Hanafi school of Islam and we don't even eat any seafood apart from fish similar to Judaism; to me eating crabs, lobster, oyster, clam, etc., is like eating insects from the sea. I sometimes glance at lobsters in a tank in a grocery store and it disgusts me that how can people eat this thing.