Canadian Politics Today

Beyond Canada => The World => Topic started by: JMT on February 02, 2017, 08:09:07 pm


Title: The Islamic World
Post by: JMT on February 02, 2017, 08:09:07 pm
The Islamic world is something of a mystery and fascination for the west.  Islam creates many strong feelings among people as a result of recent history.  What are your feelings on the religion of peace (or do you even believe that it is)?
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: guest4 on February 02, 2017, 08:54:24 pm
I'm not a fan of religion but I respect the right of everyone to believe how they please as long as they aren't hurting others.  Every religion fails that test at some point in time.   In Islam's case, I think ISIS and similar groups are giving that religion a bad rap; prior to the growth of these groups, Muslims and Islam were barely on the radar for most Western people, let alone an existential threat.   


Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: JMT on February 02, 2017, 08:56:35 pm
What do you think it is about Islam that breeds a larger percentage of violent extremists? 
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: guest4 on February 02, 2017, 09:45:04 pm
Is there proof that Islam produces a larger percentage of violent extremists, compared to other demographics?      I tried to find out, but all I could get was that in Western countries/regions, right-wing terrorism was more prevalent and more deadly than Islamic, which suggests that a certain percentage of non-Islamic people are also prone to extremism - but who know if it's the same percentage.   

As for what I think drives extremism, I'd say it's anger and frustration with the current state of affairs, and fear for the future.   In the Middle East, I think poverty would add to that sense of anger, frustration, and fear.   

Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: Blueblood on February 02, 2017, 09:46:11 pm
What do you think it is about Islam that breeds a larger percentage of violent extremists?

About 1000 years of back and forth with Europe till the Ottoman Empire collapsed.  It's nothing but a simple grasp for power and influence.  Since 1683 the Islamic world has been severely weakened by the west.  And then ww1 was the death blow.
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: Blueblood on February 02, 2017, 10:00:56 pm
I'm not a fan of religion but I respect the right of everyone to believe how they please as long as they aren't hurting others.  Every religion fails that test at some point in time.   In Islam's case, I think ISIS and similar groups are giving that religion a bad rap; prior to the growth of these groups, Muslims and Islam were barely on the radar for most Western people, let alone an existential threat.

You might want to read up on the battle of Tours and both battles of Vienna 1527 I believe and 1683.  It was very much an existential threat.
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: JMT on February 02, 2017, 10:06:49 pm
Is there proof that Islam produces a larger percentage of violent extremists, compared to other demographics?

It certainly seems that way, but I could be wrong.  I don't say that to denigrate Islam or Muslims in any way.  I'm just curious.  I understand some of the historical difficulties, but I'm wondering if there's something else.
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: guest4 on February 02, 2017, 10:35:22 pm
You might want to read up on the battle of Tours and both battles of Vienna 1527 I believe and 1683.  It was very much an existential threat.

That could be, but I was talking about the present.   I don't see Islam as an existential threat to Canada or the States, or even Europe and Britain.    Yes, there have been some terrorist attacks in the West, but they are confining their most deadly activity to the Middle East.  People who leave the region to go to Europe or to come to North America are trying to escape war; they are not invading or waging war.    Countries who are waging war start out with military personnel, not immigrants and refugees. 

If in 10 years they've combined forces in the Middle East and started over-running nearby countries, in the manner Russia is doing right now, I'd call that a threat.   I might even call it an existential threat if it looked like they were going to succeed in Europe, and turn their attention to North America.   
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: guest4 on February 02, 2017, 10:54:38 pm
It certainly seems that way, but I could be wrong.  I don't say that to denigrate Islam or Muslims in any way.  I'm just curious.  I understand some of the historical difficulties, but I'm wondering if there's something else.

I agree its hard to know, since the media focuses so heavily on any attack involving someone who looks like they could be Muslim, and almost ignores attacks by people who don't look Muslim.   

The other day I was looking at a Pew Survey about homosexuality and it's relative acceptance around the world.  One correlation to non-acceptance of homosexuality was the degree of religiosity in the society - the more religious, the less accepting of homosexuality, regardless of religion.   There were some exceptions both ways, but it was an interesting connection.  I wouldn't be surprised if there were a similar correlation to the status of women within a society, and perhaps also to extremism, violent or not.

   
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: Blueblood on February 02, 2017, 11:00:44 pm
You might want to read up on the battle of Tours and both battles of Vienna 1527 I believe and 1683.  It was very much an existential threat.

That could be, but I was talking about the present.   I don't see Islam as an existential threat to Canada or the States, or even Europe and Britain.    Yes, there have been some terrorist attacks in the West, but they are confining their most deadly activity to the Middle East.  People who leave the region to go to Europe or to come to North America are trying to escape war; they are not invading or waging war.    Countries who are waging war start out with military personnel, not immigrants and refugees. 

If in 10 years they've combined forces in the Middle East and started over-running nearby countries, in the manner Russia is doing right now, I'd call that a threat.   I might even call it an existential threat if it looked like they were going to succeed in Europe, and turn their attention to North America.

By keeping a lid on nutbars whatever colour or mindset they have to be makes the world a better place.

Most are fleeing a war zone and some terrorists embed themselves with the refugees for safe passage, apparently there was a gestapo agent found in the 1939 boat that got turned away.

The key with countries is to keep them as weak as possible and the USA is quite efficient at it. 
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: cybercoma on February 03, 2017, 05:38:19 am
"The Muslim World" is such a weird term when you have places like Malaysia, Turkey, Kosovo, and Pakistan that are Muslim and have had female leaders, but then you have countries like Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan (under the Taliban) who are completely oppressive. There's more difference between Muslim countries themselves than there is between the rest of the world and some of the more progressive ones. That's why I find that moniker, The Muslim World, so strange.
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: guest4 on February 03, 2017, 07:33:38 am
By keeping a lid on nutbars whatever colour or mindset they have to be makes the world a better place.

Call me naive, but I think eliminating situations in which nutbars can flourish is a better option than simply keeping a lid on them.  However, one calls for long-term planning, understanding what motivates nutbars and possibly even compromise; the second just takes ever bigger guns.

Most are fleeing a war zone and some terrorists embed themselves with the refugees for safe passage, apparently there was a gestapo agent found in the 1939 boat that got turned away. 
In Europe, I can see that embedding terrorists within refugees who can travel overland as a workable strategy, although I'm not sure how much evidence there is that's happening.   For countries which select refugees from camps where they've been housed for years at a time and undergo several levels of vetting, not so much.

That's interesting about the Gestapo agent.   Was he trying to escape the war, or to become more hands-on?

The key with countries is to keep them as weak as possible and the USA is quite efficient at it. 
An interesting viewpoint, certainly, and we see where that has lead us in the Middle East.  I suspect that people don't generally take kindly to being kept 'weak', and especially so when it's a foreign entity.   History does suggest it only works for a relatively short time.   On the other hand, I don't know that humans have tried any other method of 'getting along' other than war, conquering and oppression - aka keeping actual and potential opponents weak. 




Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: Blueblood on February 03, 2017, 11:59:56 am
@dia

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/us-government-turned-away-thousands-jewish-refugees-fearing-they-were-nazi-spies-180957324/

The USA didn't want to take that risk...

As for the USA keeping believed opponents weak, they might not like it but it is keeping the USA quite powerful.  As Tyrian Lannister says "your entering the great game, and the great game is terrifying."

As with nutbars, power draws nutbars to levers of power like moths to a flame, nutbars see compromise as weakness unfortunately and it's best to keep a lid on them before problems happen.  The world learned a great deal from ww2 and that is why the USA and ussr were keeping each other in check.
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: SirJohn on February 04, 2017, 02:25:04 pm
"The Muslim World" is such a weird term when you have places like Malaysia, Turkey, Kosovo, and Pakistan that are Muslim and have had female leaders, but then you have countries like Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan (under the Taliban) who are completely oppressive. There's more difference between Muslim countries themselves than there is between the rest of the world and some of the more progressive ones. That's why I find that moniker, The Muslim World, so strange.

And yet there is a certain similarity in the growth of extremism and violence in all Muslim countries, and the way they actively discriminate against women and religious minorities.
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: cybercoma on February 04, 2017, 04:18:47 pm
there is a certain similarity in the growth of extremism and violence in all Muslim countries
That's demonstrably untrue
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: SirJohn on February 04, 2017, 04:23:26 pm
That's demonstrably untrue

I would invite you, then, to demonstrate it.
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: eyeball on February 26, 2017, 03:21:21 pm
What do you think it is about Islam that breeds a larger percentage of violent extremists?
Western interference. Everything else pales to insignificance.

Sent from my E6560T using Tapatalk

Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: JMT on February 26, 2017, 08:13:53 pm
Western interference. Everything else pales to insignificance.

It is said that during the Crusades Salidin's men started out as perfect gentlemen, even in battle.  That changed as the Crusades went on.  It's never changed since, apparently.
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: eyeball on February 26, 2017, 08:48:52 pm
Oh for Christ's sake...it sure didn't take long to steep current affairs in the 4th century did it?

So is this DOP or dummydriver I'm responding to?
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: Omni on February 26, 2017, 10:00:47 pm
Oh for Christ's sake...it sure didn't take long to steep current affairs in the 4th century did it?

So is this DOP or dummydriver I'm responding to?
I would say if it gets a little spacy,it's the former, if it simply remains bigoted, it's the latter, however either seem equally capable of expressing both characteristics.
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: JMT on February 26, 2017, 11:16:47 pm
Oh for Christ's sake...it sure didn't take long to steep current affairs in the 4th century did it?

So is this DOP or dummydriver I'm responding to?

Uhh, I was agreeing with you.
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: Blueblood on February 26, 2017, 11:22:39 pm
It is said that during the Crusades Salidin's men started out as perfect gentlemen, even in battle.  That changed as the Crusades went on.  It's never changed since, apparently.

I'm in the middle of doing some studying up on the crusades in my spare time and it is actually quite fascinating.  It was funny how close Europe came prior to the first crusade to being over run.  The battle of tours was pivotal in western civilization and the conspiracy theorist in me can draw a parallel as to why September 11 was picked as the date of the terror attacks as apparently it wasn't a good day for the invaders of Malta and the lifting of the siege of Vienna by the poles.  It's also a possible reason why Eastern Europe is putting up fences to deal with the refugees.
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: eyeball on February 27, 2017, 09:13:47 am
Uhh, I was agreeing with you.
My apologies.
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: wilber on February 27, 2017, 12:42:00 pm
It is said that during the Crusades Salidin's men started out as perfect gentlemen, even in battle.  That changed as the Crusades went on.  It's never changed since, apparently.

The Crusaders were never gentlemen, they massacred thousands when Jerusalem fell during the First Crusade.

Quote
The massacre was not insanity but policy, as stated by Fulcher of Chartres: They desired that this place, so long contaminated by the superstition of the pagan inhabitants, should be cleansed from their contagion. The Crusaders intended Jerusalem to be a Christian city–and strictly a Latin Christian city. This is a day the Lord made, wrote Raymond of Aguilers. We shall rejoice and be glad in it.


Saladin's gentleman gloves came off when during the Third Crusade, Richard III executed 2700 prisoners after the Siege of Acre and Saladin responded in kind.
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: JMT on February 27, 2017, 12:53:09 pm
The Crusaders were never gentlemen, they massacred thousands when Jerusalem fell during the First Crusade.

I know - I didn't say that.
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: SirJohn on February 27, 2017, 02:44:00 pm
I agree its hard to know, since the media focuses so heavily on any attack involving someone who looks like they could be Muslim, and almost ignores attacks by people who don't look Muslim.   

If people were blowing up markets in Toronto or planting car bombs in LA you can bet the media would focus on it. The kinds of constant bloody religion based violence by Muslims is massively greater than any other religious inspired violence in the world both in sheer quantity and brutality.
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: SirJohn on February 27, 2017, 02:45:01 pm
"The Muslim World" is such a weird term when you have places like Malaysia, Turkey, Kosovo, and Pakistan that are Muslim and have had female leaders, but then you have countries like Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan (under the Taliban) who are completely oppressive. There's more difference between Muslim countries themselves than there is between the rest of the world and some of the more progressive ones. That's why I find that moniker, The Muslim World, so strange.

I'd like to hear about these progressive Muslim countries...
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: SirJohn on February 27, 2017, 02:54:17 pm
It is said that during the Crusades Salidin's men started out as perfect gentlemen, even in battle.  That changed as the Crusades went on.  It's never changed since, apparently.

It is said? By whom? Recall that Muhammed himself was a conqueror in the name of Islam and that he took the wives and daughters of his enemies as slaves, including, in one notorious case, a nine year old girl. He also made rules regarding how slaves were to be taken and kept, and of course, his followers beheaded many enemies who refused to bow before them. Saladin was merciless with enemies in the Muslim world, as he was with those who were not Muslims. Islam expanded by the Sword into previously Christian and Hindu areas, slaughtering tens of millions who resisted or would not convert.

That Saladin did not slaughter the entire non-Muslim population of Jerusalem was not due to mercy but realpolitik getting in the way of what he wanted to do. The only way he could get the surrender of Jerusalem was to negotiate. Otherwise it would have been fight to the death, and the rulers of Jerusalem threatened to slaughter all the Muslims then in the city and destroy all Muslim holy relics and buildings, including the dome of the rock.



Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: SirJohn on February 27, 2017, 03:05:10 pm
The Crusaders were never gentlemen, they massacred thousands when Jerusalem fell during the First Crusade.


Saladin's gentleman gloves came off when during the Third Crusade, Richard III executed 2700 prisoners after the Siege of Acre and Saladin responded in kind.

Saladin never had any gentlemen gloves. When Sudanese regiments in Cairo revolted against him he had their survivors and their wives and children burned to death. He was a ruthless warlord, and you don't get to draw together all the different local Muslim leaders by being kind and gentle.
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: Omni on February 27, 2017, 03:06:28 pm
I'd like to hear about these progressive Muslim countries...
Ever been to Bangladesh, Qatar, the UAE, Jordan, Kosovo, Egypt? Those are only the ones I have been in, there are of course others. Ever heard of Benazir Bhutto? A little travel can open one's eyes.
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: JMT on February 27, 2017, 04:01:43 pm
It is said? By whom?

Historians, based on the written accounts of his prisoners and opponents.
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: SirJohn on February 27, 2017, 07:10:52 pm
Ever been to Bangladesh, Qatar, the UAE, Jordan, Kosovo, Egypt? Those are only the ones I have been in, there are of course others. Ever heard of Benazir Bhutto? A little travel can open one's eyes.

She was related to an important political leader, and her party had her take over for him because of her name and in spite of her gender.
You think of these countries as moderate, do you? There are gay bars there and women have the same rights as men and infidels have the same rights as Muslims?
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: SirJohn on February 27, 2017, 07:11:23 pm
Historians, based on the written accounts of his prisoners and opponents.

His prisoners? Even the ones he burned to death?
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: cybercoma on February 27, 2017, 07:35:24 pm
I'd like to hear about these progressive Muslim countries...
No you wouldn't. Who are you kidding. You've been told countless times about it and it means nothing to you.
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: JMT on February 27, 2017, 07:47:41 pm
His prisoners? Even the ones he burned to death?

Third Crusade.  He changed at that point.
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: Omni on February 27, 2017, 09:30:20 pm
She was related to an important political leader, and her party had her take over for him because of her name and in spite of her gender.
You think of these countries as moderate, do you? There are gay bars there and women have the same rights as men and infidels have the same rights as Muslims?
I don't know about your gay bars as they are not something I would seek out no matter what country I was in. And that is nothing against gays,  it's just that I prefer ladies. And yes they have a ways to go but I can pretty much deduce from your attitude that you haven't had the benefit of the travel I have which was quite informative. And with regard to women, I worked next to women in Iran in the airline business and they worked hard, partied just as hard, and were stunningly beautiful. Don't beklieve everything Breitbart tells you.
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: ?Impact on February 27, 2017, 09:58:30 pm
it's just that I prefer ladies
I'm quite partial to the lasses myself
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: Omni on February 27, 2017, 10:15:13 pm
I'm quite partial to the lasses myself
If you ever get to Kish Island you'll see some fine examples.
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: SirJohn on March 02, 2017, 06:31:50 pm
No you wouldn't. Who are you kidding. You've been told countless times about it and it means nothing to you.

Maybe because my standard of what a 'progressive' state is doesn't include the kind of laws and values prevalent in Muslim states.
Neither does yours, but you're being very elastic in your interpretation of the word.
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: SirJohn on March 02, 2017, 06:34:18 pm
Third Crusade.  He changed at that point.

No, sorry, those weren't Christians he burned. Saladin succeeded in uniting the many different nations/warlords/tribes of the area to confront the Christians, but he didn't do it all by sweet talk and gentle smiles any more than Mohamed dd. His goal was expanding Islam, and all Islam stood for. And the rules of war under Islam are fairly clear in being able to ****/enslave enemy women and behead enemy men.
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: SirJohn on March 02, 2017, 06:37:29 pm
And yes they have a ways to go but I can pretty much deduce from your attitude that you haven't had the benefit of the travel I have which was quite informative

I don't really understand that kind of an argument. You can see I'm judgmental as hell. I'm quite judgmental about everything I see HERE. Why in the hell would you think I wouldn't be just as judgmental about what I see elsewhere?

I don't have to go to Kandahar to know Afghanistan is a shithole filled with some of the world's most primitive people. Are there some nice people there? There are nice people everywhere, but that's not going to be relevant to my judgement of the place.
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: guest7 on March 02, 2017, 07:40:47 pm
Ever been to Bangladesh, Qatar, the UAE, Jordan, Kosovo, Egypt? Those are only the ones I have been in, there are of course others. Ever heard of Benazir Bhutto? A little travel can open one's eyes.

I would visit Bangladesh, but I wouldn't blog there.  I probably wouldn't in some of the other places you mentioned, either.
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: Omni on March 03, 2017, 11:25:46 pm
I don't really understand that kind of an argument. You can see I'm judgmental as hell. I'm quite judgmental about everything I see HERE. Why in the hell would you think I wouldn't be just as judgmental about what I see elsewhere?

I don't have to go to Kandahar to know Afghanistan is a shithole filled with some of the world's most primitive people. Are there some nice people there? There are nice people everywhere, but that's not going to be relevant to my judgement of the place.
Ignorance is bliss as the saying goes. And it leads to tarring one particular race/color with the same brush. But you are entitled to your "judgement"
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: SirJohn on March 06, 2017, 12:30:00 pm
Ignorance is bliss as the saying goes. And it leads to tarring one particular race/color with the same brush. But you are entitled to your "judgement"

And some see it as noble to not judge however obvious the judgement should be, and to make excuses for the poor behaviour of people and nations based strictly on them not being White. I personally don't understand that sort of sentiment. It seems patronizing and priggish.
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: Omni on March 06, 2017, 12:37:49 pm
And some see it as noble to not judge however obvious the judgement should be, and to make excuses for the poor behaviour of people and nations based strictly on them not being White. I personally don't understand that sort of sentiment. It seems patronizing and priggish.
Judging due to race, color,religion seems a lot worse than "priggish"
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: SirJohn on March 06, 2017, 02:52:37 pm
Judging due to race, color,religion seems a lot worse than "priggish"

Then why do you do it?
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: Omni on March 06, 2017, 02:55:48 pm
Then why do you do it?
Simply pointing the finger at those who do.
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: guest4 on March 06, 2017, 03:12:56 pm
And some see it as noble to not judge however obvious the judgement should be, and to make excuses for the poor behaviour of people and nations based strictly on them not being White. I personally don't understand that sort of sentiment. It seems patronizing and priggish.

Just because some people fail to write off an entire group of people because of poor behavior by some of them doesn't mean excusing them because they're white.

Blaming and punishing everyone in a group for the actions of some of them is illogical and unjust.   It is the result of lazy thinking, and reflects and inability or unwillingness to see people as individuals, and instead just dumping them all into a group judged as "bad".



Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: guest7 on March 06, 2017, 09:22:30 pm
Parallel arguments.   Obviously blaming an entire group of people for the actions of a few is wrong.  Refusing to acknowledge the actions of the few for fear of upsetting the entire group, (or more to the point, the hippies that claim to look after them) is just as wrong.

No offence intended to any potential hippies on here.
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: guest4 on March 06, 2017, 10:18:58 pm
Parallel arguments.   Obviously blaming an entire group of people for the actions of a few is wrong.
And yet you only object when you also want to say ....

 
Quote
Refusing to acknowledge the actions of the few for fear of upsetting the entire group, is just as wrong.
Who is doing that?  And if they are, what makes you think its due to fear?


Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: guest7 on March 07, 2017, 12:04:24 am
And yet you only object when you also want to say ....

 Who is doing that?  And if they are, what makes you think its due to fear?

I think you haven't been reading my posts if you think I don't object to tarring with same brushing.  Although it is true I like to argue, and I prefer to take a contradictory position to lefties.  That's difficult, given my views generally, but I tough it out.  I always assume that the people who would tar an entire group with the same brush actually know they are wrong.  The opposite is true with hippies. 

Fear is just a figure of speech when used in that way.  They don't want to upset certain people.  I don't think they are scared of it.  They actually really just don't want to.   

When they refuse to acknowledge something, it's usually due to bigotry and stubbornness.  The sort of people who actually want you to believe the burka is a choice.  That their feminism doesn't give them the right to criticise another culture.  Those who think letting an actual Muslim speak about Islam is a mistake, so ban her, if she isn't going to toe the line.  The people who think that giving offense is fine, so long as they agree with to whom you are giving it.  (that last isn't just Muslims, of course.  It includes a lot of groups. )  The people who think that terrorism is okay until it kills more people than lightning.
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: guest4 on March 07, 2017, 08:19:46 am
I think you haven't been reading my posts if you think I don't object to tarring with same brushing.  Although it is true I like to argue, and I prefer to take a contradictory position to lefties.  That's difficult, given my views generally, but I tough it out.  I always assume that the people who would tar an entire group with the same brush actually know they are wrong. 
 
Do they?  I don't even think they're aware that that is what they are doing. 

Quote
Fear is just a figure of speech when used in that way.  They don't want to upset certain people.  I don't think they are scared of it.  They actually really just don't want to. 
I'd say it's context.

Quote
When they refuse to acknowledge something, it's usually due to bigotry and stubbornness.  The sort of people who actually want you to believe the burka is a choice.
C says "Ban the burka!" - and give no thought to the unintended consequences of such an action ... such as limiting women who wear it (by choice or not) from going to school, going to work, going to a store.
L says "It is a choice for some; removing choice is not the answer because it reduces the freedom of the people you say you are trying to save".   

I've yet to have a ban-the-burka-type person explain just how banning the burka actually *helps* a woman who isn't allowed to leave the house burka-less.  It seems the most important thing to some people is that they not be subjected to the sight of a woman in a burka!  Out of sight, out of mind.  Out of sight, the problem no longer exists.   

Quote
  That their feminism doesn't give them the right to criticise another culture.  Those who think letting an actual Muslim speak about Islam is a mistake, so ban her, if she isn't going to toe the line. 
This I haven't seen, so cannot comment on it.  I see the opposite, actually:  unless one is willing to vilify Muslims and Islam, one is 'supporting fgm, supporting child-marriage and pedophilia, supporting gay-killing' etc. 

Quote
The people who think that terrorism is okay until it kills more people than lightning.
You will need to check your comprehension skills.   Nobody thinks terrorism is "ok", but fear-of-other makes people do things like shoot someone because they look like they are Muslim.   Given that this fear is stoked by certain groups and certain politicians, despite the reality of actually being injured or killed by a Muslim terrorist, sometimes the more rational among us think pointing out that other things are much more likely to kill you - such as lightning - might help.   

Of course, we should know that an irrational fear doesn't respond to rationality; indeed, they conclude something stupid like "oh they think terrorism is ok because more people die from lightning strikes".

Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: guest7 on March 07, 2017, 07:03:34 pm
 
Do they?  I don't even think they're aware that that is what they are doing. 

I always assume so.  If they don't, there must be a reason.  Either a person knows right from wrong or they don't.

I'd say it's context.

I'd say it was a figure of speech.

C says "Ban the burka!" - and give no thought to the unintended consequences of such an action ... such as limiting women who wear it (by choice or not) from going to school, going to work, going to a store.
L says "It is a choice for some; removing choice is not the answer because it reduces the freedom of the people you say you are trying to save".   

I've yet to have a ban-the-burka-type person explain just how banning the burka actually *helps* a woman who isn't allowed to leave the house burka-less.  It seems the most important thing to some people is that they not be subjected to the sight of a woman in a burka!  Out of sight, out of mind.  Out of sight, the problem no longer exists.   

I would never advocate banning the Burka.  I'm pro choice.  As in many other instances where choices are made, I don't need to agree with the reasons behind an individual's choice.  If a woman says she wants to wear a burka, then she should be allowed to. (Within reason.  Driver's licence, passport, public service, no)  That won't change my mind about whether or not she really wants to.


This I haven't seen, so cannot comment on it.  I see the opposite, actually:  unless one is willing to vilify Muslims and Islam, one is 'supporting fgm, supporting child-marriage and pedophilia, supporting gay-killing' etc. 

Just villify those Muslims who support it.  And those who are ambivalent about it.  That's what I do.


You will need to check your comprehension skills.   Nobody thinks terrorism is "ok", but fear-of-other makes people do things like shoot someone because they look like they are Muslim.   Given that this fear is stoked by certain groups and certain politicians, despite the reality of actually being injured or killed by a Muslim terrorist, sometimes the more rational among us think pointing out that other things are much more likely to kill you - such as lightning - might help.   

Of course, we should know that an irrational fear doesn't respond to rationality; indeed, they conclude something stupid like "oh they think terrorism is ok because more people die from lightning strikes".

The problem with the lightning analogy is that there is no chance of being killed by lightning, unless you go where a thunderstorm is.  Then the chances increase dramatically. 
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: SirJohn on March 09, 2017, 07:55:44 pm
So on another web site you all know, I posed what I regarded as a suggestion for discussion about whether the Muslim world as a whole can be divorced from the violence in the name of Islam we see almost daily there. It's even stated as a question. It was immediately deleted and I was suspended for suggesting that Muslims bear any guilt for the violence done in the name of Islam. Here it is.


"Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews."

Here's the problem with this sort of comparison. The above was clearly included so that people couldn't use their hatred of Israel as an excuse to accuse all Jews of the same sort of behaviour Israel engages in.

In the context of Islam it's clearly designed to prevent people from accusing Muslims as a group, of being responsible for acts of terror. But they are.

You see, most Jews outside Israel are fairly liberal in nature. I can see why it would be unfair to ascribe guilt for Israel's behaviour to them.

But the Muslim world as a collective embraces some viciously hateful religious ideologies towards non-Muslms as contained in their holy books. Among those is Jew hatred, and hatred of women, and in particular, women and any shred of expression of their sexuality. Someone wrote recently that half the Koran is about how to deal with and treat non-Muslms. I'm not sure if that's true or not but I've certainly seen enough passages about that subject. So if your community embraces these themes of extreme misogyny, of hatred towards Jews and non-Muslims, are you guiltless when some individuals from within your community takes this hatred as a guide and permission to commit acts of violence in the name of Allah?
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: ?Impact on March 09, 2017, 08:53:35 pm
Someone wrote recently that half the Koran is about how to deal with and treat non-Muslms. I'm not sure if that's true or not but I've certainly seen enough passages about that subject.
I suggest reading the Quran, not selected passages you are quoted by a hate site. There is a lot in many ancient scripture that is pure garbage, nothing unique to Islam. There is also a lot of wisdom as well.
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: JMT on March 09, 2017, 09:38:46 pm
If it makes you feel better, I won't delete it.

I think you're wrong, but that's a separate issue.
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: guest4 on March 09, 2017, 11:59:19 pm
I wondered where that went - it was in response to the 'Ottawa Protocol', correct?   I couldn't respond when I initially saw it, cause I was at work ... hard to understand why it would be a banning offense, though. 
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: ?Impact on March 10, 2017, 06:35:33 am
hard to understand why it would be a banning offense, though.
The SS force are not to be trifled with.
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: SirJohn on March 10, 2017, 09:41:20 am
If it makes you feel better, I won't delete it.

I think you're wrong, but that's a separate issue.

I didn't think you would. I think it is something which should be discussed. Progressives are quick to lay the blame on the greater community often enough when there are social problems with individuals. I don't understand the logic in saying that the greater Muslim community bears no responsibility for embracing a lot of hateful tenets. It's not like they don't believe in them either (many/most). Polls have repeatedly shown that in many Muslim countries 80%-90% believe blasphemers, apostates and the like should be executed. If your society embraces that kind of hard core religious view then how can you entirely divorce it of any blame for other followers taking such beliefs to their most obvious conclusion?
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: cybercoma on March 10, 2017, 12:24:39 pm
I don't understand the logic in saying that the greater Muslim community bears no responsibility for embracing a lot of hateful tenets.
Because your premise is faulty. You're saying "the greater Muslim community embraces a lot of hateful tenets." You want every Muslim to be responsible for the acts of radical extremists, when the vast majority of them in the West don't support that and are in fact escaping that. Refugees and immigrants are fleeing the radicals and terrorists. You're entire premise is like this. You're a conservative: why don't you take responsibility for the radical rightwing extremists who shoot up Mosques or torture and murder transgender people? It's like asking when you stopped beating your wife. It's a loaded question, kind of like Kellie Leitch's ridiculous pop quiz for immigrants.
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: SirJohn on March 10, 2017, 02:53:32 pm
Because your premise is faulty. You're saying "the greater Muslim community embraces a lot of hateful tenets." You want every Muslim to be responsible for the acts of radical extremists, when the vast majority of them in the West don't support that and are in fact escaping that. Refugees and immigrants are fleeing the radicals and terrorists. You're entire premise is like this. You're a conservative: why don't you take responsibility for the radical rightwing extremists who shoot up Mosques or torture and murder transgender people? It's like asking when you stopped beating your wife. It's a loaded question, kind of like Kellie Leitch's ridiculous pop quiz for immigrants.

But you're narrowing the focus to just the West. When I refer to the greater Muslim community I'm talking about the billion and a half Muslims living out there in mostly Muslim countries. This is where the religious extremism is bred and grown, and feeds off the rigid interpretations of the Quran popular in much of the Muslim world. If you agree with those tenets, and nod your head sternly when the Imam tells you that blasphemers must die, how can you be blameless when someone kills someone they consider a blasphemer? If we see that in some countries over 90% agree that death is the appropriate punishment for people who draw cartoons of the prophet, and then people from those countries fly to Denmark to try to kill the cartoonist, do we just call those terrorists freaks who have nothing to do with Islam?

As for my taking responsibility for some clown who shoots up a mosque, I've never said or suggested a single thing which could be construed as supporting violence against anyone in Canada, nor is the society in which I am a member filled with such suggestions which are widely accepted.
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: Omni on March 10, 2017, 03:12:37 pm
But you're narrowing the focus to just the West. When I refer to the greater Muslim community I'm talking about the billion and a half Muslims living out there in mostly Muslim countries. This is where the religious extremism is bred and grown, and feeds off the rigid interpretations of the Quran popular in much of the Muslim world. If you agree with those tenets, and nod your head sternly when the Imam tells you that blasphemers must die, how can you be blameless when someone kills someone they consider a blasphemer? If we see that in some countries over 90% agree that death is the appropriate punishment for people who draw cartoons of the prophet, and then people from those countries fly to Denmark to try to kill the cartoonist, do we just call those terrorists freaks who have nothing to do with Islam?

As for my taking responsibility for some clown who shoots up a mosque, I've never said or suggested a single thing which could be construed as supporting violence against anyone in Canada, nor is the society in which I am a member filled with such suggestions which are widely accepted.
And how can you be blameless when you call the guy who murders 6 people in a mosque simply a "clown" when you yourself strive to stir up anti Muslim sentiment?
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: SirJohn on March 10, 2017, 04:16:53 pm
And how can you be blameless when you call the guy who murders 6 people in a mosque simply a "clown" when you yourself strive to stir up anti Muslim sentiment?

What would you like me to call him? Even the cops haven't broadcast a motive yet, and the idiot called cops and turned himself in right afterwards because he felt guilty.

And I don't strive to stir up anti Muslim hatred. I strive to inform people about the deficiencies of our immigration system and the problems of bringing in so many people who are unable to look after themselves and whose persistent clinging to their backward, religiously inspired social values I see as a threat to our otherwise tolerant society.

That is stirring up awareness of something I consider an important issue. And you can't do it without pointing out how backward those values are.

But that is a long way from saying things like "yes, you know, people who question Christian theology must be executed," or "Those who question that Jesus is the son of God  must be killed" which is the sorts of things we see from members of Muslim societies in much of the world.
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: cybercoma on March 10, 2017, 04:44:43 pm
And how can you be blameless when you call the guy who murders 6 people in a mosque simply a "clown" when you yourself strive to stir up anti Muslim sentiment?
It's not even about that. He is blameless for the deeds of radical rightwing extremists. That's my point. I've never blamed him here or at MLW of being responsible for radicals who are conservatives because it doesn't make any sense.

But you're narrowing the focus to just the West. When I refer to the greater Muslim community I'm talking about the billion and a half Muslims living out there in mostly Muslim countries.
The difference is that I recognize that Muslims are butchering each other. As just one example, Afghanistan and Iran were beautiful, even progressive places until extremists took over their institutions. They still have peaceful people living there who don't support the radicalism, despite the fact that dissent can get you killed.

The problem that I have with the policies that you advocate when it comes to immigration from "the Muslim World" is that you're slamming the doors on people who are trying to escape from a society and from politics that probably appall them more than it does you....since, you know, their lives are directly and dramatically affected by it.

Muslims fought on our side in the Middle East. Muslims were killed by radicals for fighting on our side. So this is not a Muslim problem and those Muslims sure as hell don't need to own the actions of radicals they oppose any more than you  need to own the actions of radical right wingers.
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: SirJohn on March 11, 2017, 11:12:37 am
It's not even about that. He is blameless for the deeds of radical rightwing extremists. That's my point. I've never blamed him here or at MLW of being responsible for radicals who are conservatives because it doesn't make any sense.

But they're not a part of the conservative body. They're so far out there no recognized conservative organization would want to have anything to do with them. The terrorists/guerrilas/islamists don't live in isolation. They got to mosques in the centre of town, and hear Imams telling them what reinforces their beliefs. Occasionally we hear about some of the more nasty sermons delivered here in Canada. How often do you think sermons like that get delivered in Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Iran?


Quote
The difference is that I recognize that Muslims are butchering each other. As just one example, Afghanistan and Iran were beautiful, even progressive places until extremists took over their institutions.

So maybe people should have condemned those extremists and fought them back then. I wonder what would have happened if Jimmy Carter had not persuaded the Shah of Iran to give up. Could he have crushed the dissent and retained power? Not that he was any great prize, but he did advocate progressive policies, which was one of the main reasons the mullahs turned on him.

Quote
The problem that I have with the policies that you advocate when it comes to immigration from "the Muslim World" is that you're slamming the doors on people who are trying to escape from a society and from politics that probably appall them more than it does you....since, you know, their lives are directly and dramatically affected by it.

I don't mind those people coming in, provided they can support themselves. What I don't want coming in are all those harsh religious doctrines which you suggest they are fleeing. Which is why I advocate screening. Yet everyone on the Left seems to hate that idea.
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: kimmy on March 11, 2017, 01:23:26 pm
Tarek Fatah of the Muslim Canadian Congress--  one of those progressive Muslims who is sometimes accused of being an "Uncle Tom" for daring to criticize regressive Muslims-- retweeted this video from an ex-Muslim talking about Canadian imams preaching death for apostates.

https://twitter.com/TarekFatah/status/837024177156722689

These aren't exclusive examples... many imams in western countries have been caught on video saying awful things... but my point is that these guys say this stuff, in Canadian mosques, and the congregation reacts ... with silence.   Either agreement, or I imagine in many cases just uncomfortable awkwardness... but either way, it goes unchallenged.

Every once in a while one of these stories hits the mainstream-- like the recent Toronto Masjid controversy, where somebody found sermons imploring Allah to slay the Jews on their website-- and we get an apology "gosh, that totally does not reflect our values!" and Aymen Elkasawry gets disinvited from speaking there again and the sermons get quietly removed from the Masjid website.  But... the sermons were on the website for months, and surely Elkasawry wasn't speaking to an empty room when he gave them.  And Elkasawry himself says he totally mis-spoke and that he totally loves all people of all faiths, even though the wording he used is pretty unambiguous.  For me I have a hard time believing that Elkasawry or the Masjid are actually sorry for the content of the sermons... I think they're just sorry that people found out about them.

And these sermons didn't get "outed" by concerned members of the congregation. They got "outed" because someone from a Jewish website did some looking at the Masjid website during the recent anti-Muslim protest outside the Toronto Masjid mosque.

It seems most Canadian Muslims are willing to turn a blind eye to problems within their own community, for whatever reason.

 -k
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: cybercoma on March 11, 2017, 06:12:31 pm
I don't mind those people coming in, provided they can support themselves. What I don't want coming in are all those harsh religious doctrines which you suggest they are fleeing. Which is why I advocate screening. Yet everyone on the Left seems to hate that idea.
Maybe people are confused by your comments since there already is screening. So you're criticizing the government for not doing something that it already does.
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: Omni on March 12, 2017, 01:34:35 am
I suspect that most of this breathless form of paranoia emanates from those who have never been much more than a few blocks away from their white, pasty faced insulated communities. It's amazing what a little international travelling can do to enlighten you and relieve you of that fear. The financial effects of Trump's illegal travel ban, which he dangles in the hopes will capture the votes of the "uneducated" which he said he claims he loves, are already being felt as the tourism business drops significantly. Hotel rooms in New York have apparently suffered the most. Who the hell would want to fly all the way from Europe for instance only to be refused entry because they may have a skin tone that's a little swarthy, or a name a little beyond Smith or Jones? So guess where they are coming to? Canada's tourist industry is already saying "thanks Trump, (you idiot)"     
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: SirJohn on March 12, 2017, 11:15:31 am
Maybe people are confused by your comments since there already is screening. So you're criticizing the government for not doing something that it already does.

The only screening for immigrants is a harried clerk going over their paperwork and doing a quick computer check to see if they have a criminal record or are on a terrorist watch list. That's it.
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: Omni on March 13, 2017, 12:11:32 am
The only screening for immigrants is a harried clerk going over their paperwork and doing a quick computer check to see if they have a criminal record or are on a terrorist watch list. That's it.
Refugees hoping to come to Canada are screened by UNHCR in the interim country they have fled to. If successful they are referred to and interviewed by a Canadian immigration officer, and then reviewed by CSIS. Some immigrants do get fast tracked because they are highly qualified in some profession, usually with regard to the financial sector, but not only that, and where there is a need for such people. Sometimes xenophobia does get in the way of reality.
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: cybercoma on March 13, 2017, 06:44:22 am
Refugees hoping to come to Canada are screened by UNHCR in the interim country they have fled to. If successful they are referred to and interviewed by a Canadian immigration officer, and then reviewed by CSIS. Some immigrants do get fast tracked because they are highly qualified in some profession, usually with regard to the financial sector, but not only that, and where there is a need for such people. Sometimes xenophobia does get in the way of reality.
Not to mention there's certain criteria they need to meet at all before they're even eligible to apply to Canada. In most cases, Canada only takes skilled people with families. That's before they can even be put forward to come to Canada.
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: SirJohn on March 13, 2017, 11:57:18 am
Refugees hoping to come to Canada are screened by UNHCR in the interim country they have fled to.

We were talking about immigrants. But the UNHCR does not 'screen' anyone. How do you imagine they would do that? They interview them, but mostly asking for their names, where they came from, and other details. The UNHCR is not equipped or trained to find out what the general cultural values are of the people they feed. Why would they even care?

Quote
If successful they are referred to and interviewed by a Canadian immigration officer, and then reviewed by CSIS.

And again, just how do you imagine anyone is 'screening' these people? I mean, seriously. They had to bring in tens of thousands in a couple of months. Most have no documents supporting who they say they are. You can't ask the Syrian goverment and you can't travel to places like Alepo, or any of the towns and villages in the contested region. Just what screening do you think there is anyway? Do they do the Vulcan Mind Meld on them?

And again, I am not talking about people who are terrorists but people with deeply misogynistic and hateful religious beliefs. Those are not screened in any way, shape or form, for either refugees or immigrants. You know this. You've argued against any value screening. Yet you continue to pretend we 'screen' people for some weird reason.
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: SirJohn on March 13, 2017, 12:04:50 pm
Not to mention there's certain criteria they need to meet at all before they're even eligible to apply to Canada. In most cases, Canada only takes skilled people with families. That's before they can even be put forward to come to Canada.

Skilled people? We take people who say they're skilled, but we don't check that out in any way. Hey, did you know I have seven PHDs? Yup. Bought them all on the internet. The papers look real good, too!

In most of our source countries corruption is endemic. Why go to a university in Pakistan and get a degree when you can bribe the clerk in the office to print you up a degree for $10? Or hey, just buy it from this guy! https://qz.com/406701/the-pakistani-man-accused-of-making-millions-from-fake-degrees-paid-26-cents-in-tax-last-year/ (https://qz.com/406701/the-pakistani-man-accused-of-making-millions-from-fake-degrees-paid-26-cents-in-tax-last-year/)  or these people!

A degree certificate also ensures better visa status and could be the difference between an expatriate getting a family visa or not.

Which is why, the UAE is a bustling market for these fake degrees.

What makes them so unique is that the certificates are actually issued by a real university. This is why attestation is also possible.

However, the buyer just pays up and has never attended the university or an exam.


http://www.emirates247.com/news/buy-an-mba-degree-for-dh20-000-2011-01-30-1.348764 (http://www.emirates247.com/news/buy-an-mba-degree-for-dh20-000-2011-01-30-1.348764)

It's not like anyone is going to check out their claims. All Canada does is hurriedly look through the paperwork, after all.
But let's say the degree is real. So? If you don't speak English very well you're probably not going to be hired anyway.
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: cybercoma on March 13, 2017, 01:50:14 pm
Or if you have a foreign sounding name, you won't even get a call, regardless of your skills. That's a problem with systemic racism,  not the applicants themselves.

Also, most of our source countries are in Southeast Asia, yet you of course use UAE and Pakistan as examples. I wonder why.

Philippines (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/91-209-x/2013001/article/11787/tbl/tbl3-eng.htm) is our largest source country, followed by China and India. Considering China and India have nearly half the world population, this shouldn't be surprising at all. They were the second and third largest source countries in 1981 as well. UAE doesn't even register in the top 10, meaning there were less than 4,900 immigrants from there out of the 250,000 or so we accept in a year (against a Canadian population of 35,000,000). Pakistan was the 6th highest ranked country of origin though. There was a "society crippling" 7000 of them admitted in 2011, half of them under family class, meaning they were being reunited with relatives who have to sponsor and fund them.

To say your fears are overblown is an understatement; your criticisms are greatly exaggerated.
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: Omni on March 13, 2017, 02:16:31 pm

. You've argued against any value screening. Yet you continue to pretend we 'screen' people for some weird reason.

I don't "pretend" I research before making assumptions. I am happy that there is screening in place, I just don't agree that the Kellie Leitch version of it will accomplish anything beyond wasting time.
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: ?Impact on March 13, 2017, 06:01:48 pm
We were talking about immigrants. But the UNHCR does not 'screen' anyone. How do you imagine they would do that? They interview them, but mostly asking for their names, where they came from, and other details. The UNHCR is not equipped or trained to find out what the general cultural values are of the people they feed. Why would they even care?

Concerning refugees, you should check this out (http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/refugees/welcome/overview/security.asp).

Certainly not perfect, but I would like to know what more is reasonable to expect.
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: SirJohn on March 15, 2017, 04:06:17 pm
Or if you have a foreign sounding name, you won't even get a call, regardless of your skills. That's a problem with systemic racism,  not the applicants themselves.

And yet there seem to be an awful lot of people with foreign sounding names employed in our major cities. Someone must be hiring.

Quote
Also, most of our source countries are in Southeast Asia, yet you of course use UAE and Pakistan as examples. I wonder why.

Because this area produces the least economically successful immigrants. And because the topic title is "The Islamic World" which doesn't lend itself easily to discussion of India, the Philippines and China.

Quote
Philippines is our largest source country, followed by China and India. Considering China and India have nearly half the world population, this shouldn't be surprising at all.

It should be given China produces the NEXT least economically successful immigrants.

Quote
They were the second and third largest source countries in 1981 as well. UAE doesn't even register in the top 10, meaning there were less than 4,900 immigrants from there out of the 250,000 or so we accept in a year (against a Canadian population of 35,000,000).

I'm not sure what you think your point is. Iran is our fourth biggest source country, and Pakistan our fifth. Then comes Syria. Also in the top 25 are Afghanistan, Morocco, Egypt, Algeria, Bangladesh, and Iraq. All from a region which produces religious fanatics who are also  the least economically successful immigrants.

http://canadaimmigrants.com/canada-immigration-by-source-country-2015/ (http://canadaimmigrants.com/canada-immigration-by-source-country-2015/)

Quote
half of them under family class, meaning they were being reunited with relatives who have to sponsor and fund them.

There should be virtually NO family class immigration unless the sponsor agrees to fund them in all things, including health care, for the remainder of their lives in Canada. The instant they fail, the sponsored family member must leave Canada. This business of letting in thousands of foreign seniors to use our health care system is insanity.
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: cybercoma on March 15, 2017, 05:35:24 pm
Iran is our fourth biggest source and it's a fraction of the people that come from our third biggest source and nowhere even remotely close to the second or first countries.

My point is you blow a lot of hot air about a problem that isn't anywhere near as big as you make it out to be.
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: SirJohn on March 15, 2017, 06:45:35 pm
Iran is our fourth biggest source and it's a fraction of the people that come from our third biggest source and nowhere even remotely close to the second or first countries.

My point is you blow a lot of hot air about a problem that isn't anywhere near as big as you make it out to be.

We don't have a record of how many Muslims immigrate to Canada each year. At least 50,000 from the above countries, but certainly more. After all, there are a lot of Muslims in India and the Philippines, as well as Nigeria, another country in the top 25. The Muslim population in Canada is doubling every 7-10 years and has been since 1971. In the last household survey, in 2011, there were just over 1 million, or 3.2% of the population. By the next survey, in 4 years, that will likely be 6.5%. And by the one after that? 13%? We're talking very substantial numbers here, and with a cultural value set which was born in the harsh cultures of the middle east and has not shown signs of substantial changes. By way of comparison Muslims make up 11% of the population in France.

Does that mean by 2031 we'll have to have soldiers with automatic weapons guarding every Jewish school, temple and community centre here like they do in France? Are we going to have regular riots too?

Maybe not. But why should we take the chance given that this region also produces the least economically successful immigrants of all our source regions?
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: SirJohn on March 15, 2017, 06:54:35 pm
Concerning refugees, you should check this out (http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/refugees/welcome/overview/security.asp).

Certainly not perfect, but I would like to know what more is reasonable to expect.

I've seen it. But first of all it's only referring to the refugees in Syria, not to immigrants in general. Second, It's clearly nothing more than soothing blather. If you look beneath the soothing words and exercise your mind you'll realize that. For example, I'm sure you'll be pleased that they do health screening. But uh... for what? That screening clearly does not stop us from accepting refugees with severe and permanent disabilities and other health issues which will place a high burden on social and health services. We know this because of all the reports of refugees being treated in hospitals, including for blindness, severe psychological illnesses and other disabilities, as example: http://www.vancouversun.com/health/mental+illness+disabilities+struggle+some+syrian+families/11779813/story.htm (http://www.vancouversun.com/health/mental+illness+disabilities+struggle+some+syrian+families/11779813/story.htm)

Again, they say they interview refugees. That's nice. But what do they ask? They check out any documents? Presuming they have any documents. But how do they do that? Do they go to the Syrian government to ask? Well, obviously no. So this is largely meaningless. Especially since fake documents are all over the place over there - as I just posted.

They did security screening? All that means, and they say it right there, is checking their names against databases. So if they're not on a known terrorist watch list they're good to come over.
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: Omni on March 15, 2017, 09:32:58 pm
I've seen it. But first of all it's only referring to the refugees in Syria, not to immigrants in general. Second, It's clearly nothing more than soothing blather. If you look beneath the soothing words and exercise your mind you'll realize that. For example, I'm sure you'll be pleased that they do health screening. But uh... for what? That screening clearly does not stop us from accepting refugees with severe and permanent disabilities and other health issues which will place a high burden on social and health services. We know this because of all the reports of refugees being treated in hospitals, including for blindness, severe psychological illnesses and other disabilities, as example: http://www.vancouversun.com/health/mental+illness+disabilities+struggle+some+syrian+families/11779813/story.htm (http://www.vancouversun.com/health/mental+illness+disabilities+struggle+some+syrian+families/11779813/story.htm)

Again, they say they interview refugees. That's nice. But what do they ask? They check out any documents? Presuming they have any documents. But how do they do that? Do they go to the Syrian government to ask? Well, obviously no. So this is largely meaningless. Especially since fake documents are all over the place over there - as I just posted.

They did security screening? All that means, and they say it right there, is checking their names against databases. So if they're not on a known terrorist watch list they're good to come over.
The method of screening both refugees and immigrants to Canada has been explained a number of times here, but xenophobia does run deep it seems. It's something you seem to want to argus over endlessly. Oh sorry, spelling error.
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: ?Impact on March 16, 2017, 10:36:16 am
The Muslim population in Canada is doubling every 7-10 years and has been since 1971. In the last household survey, in 2011, there were just over 1 million, or 3.2% of the population. By the next survey, in 4 years, that will likely be 6.5%. And by the one after that? 13%?

I love how you use math to justify your lack of logic. I suppose in 2071 Canada will be 225% Muslim.
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: SirJohn on March 16, 2017, 03:04:46 pm
The method of screening both refugees and immigrants to Canada has been explained a number of times here, but xenophobia does run deep it seems. It's something you seem to want to argus over endlessly. Oh sorry, spelling error.

I'm sorry you don't understand the difference between immigration and refugees. Maybe you could find someone smarter to explain it to you.

But I doubt it.
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: SirJohn on March 16, 2017, 03:09:24 pm
I love how you use math to justify your lack of logic. I suppose in 2071 Canada will be 225% Muslim.

Do you not understand arithmetic? Do the big numbers hurt your brain?

1971 33,430 0.1% of population

1981 98,165 0.3%

1991 253,265 0.9%

2001 579,600 1.8%

2011 1,054,945 3.2%

2021 2.100,000 6.5% projected

2031 4.5,000,000 13% projected

Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: Omni on March 16, 2017, 03:13:45 pm
I'm sorry you don't understand the difference between immigration and refugees. Maybe you could find someone smarter to explain it to you.

But I doubt it.
I query the source of the regulations, I suspect I could guess where you get yours.
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: ?Impact on March 16, 2017, 05:35:28 pm
Do you not understand arithmetic? Do the big numbers hurt your brain?
I undertand math very well thank you. The problem is you don't seem to understand logic. As I pointed out, if you continue that cycle you will get to 225% of the population being Muslim in 2071. The problem is not math, it is your lack of logic. You cannot extrapolate such a simple metric and expect it to hold, that is beyond foolishness it is plain impossible.
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: SirJohn on March 17, 2017, 02:48:44 pm
I undertand math very well thank you. The problem is you don't seem to understand logic. As I pointed out, if you continue that cycle you will get to 225% of the population being Muslim in 2071. The problem is not math, it is your lack of logic. You cannot extrapolate such a simple metric and expect it to hold, that is beyond foolishness it is plain impossible.

If I'd ever taken that position, perhaps, but I never did. I haven't suggested we carry forward with the progression to infinity. However, there is nothing which indicates, nothing I have read, which suggests that the progression is slowing.  It's virtually certain that the numbers will have risen to 6.5% by next assessment in four years. Beyond that is, of course, less certain, but if the current progression remains unchanged, including Muslims in Canada having a lot more kids than others, and a continuing influx of Muslims from abroad, there's no reason to think their numbers won't continue to grow rapidly. Why should there be without change? This is a progression which has been going on for over forty years now, after all.
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: Black Dog on March 21, 2023, 05:12:32 pm
Today in poorly aged things

If I'd ever taken that position, perhaps, but I never did. I haven't suggested we carry forward with the progression to infinity. However, there is nothing which indicates, nothing I have read, which suggests that the progression is slowing.  It's virtually certain that the numbers will have risen to 6.5% by next assessment in four years. Beyond that is, of course, less certain, but if the current progression remains unchanged, including Muslims in Canada having a lot more kids than others, and a continuing influx of Muslims from abroad, there's no reason to think their numbers won't continue to grow rapidly. Why should there be without change? This is a progression which has been going on for over forty years now, after all.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D1EH6SwWkAAahAr.jpg)

Quote
After Christianity, Islam was the second most commonly reported religion in Canada in 2021, with nearly 1.8 million, or 1 in 20, people. In 20 years, the share of the Muslim population in Canada has more than doubled—up from 2.0% in 2001 to 4.9% in 2021.
Title: Re: The Islamic World
Post by: Coolio on November 06, 2023, 11:19:52 am
Do you not understand arithmetic? Do the big numbers hurt your brain?

1971 33,430 0.1% of population

1981 98,165 0.3%

1991 253,265 0.9%

2001 579,600 1.8%

2011 1,054,945 3.2%

2021 2.100,000 6.5% projected

2031 4.5,000,000 13% projected

The official numbers for 2021 would be 1,775,715. However, that figure does not include the undercount, and is from 2.5 years ago. My guess is the current population is closer to 1.9 million Muslims or roughly 4.8% of the population.

The Islamic population is going to start to plateau soon.  There has been significant push-back in America, and especially in some European countries (France, UK, Germany, etc.) about admitting more immigrants from Islamic countries, due to the social problems that come with it.  I know that this could very well be a major election issue, given the current polotical climate.