I've had the same concerns for a while now: http://71.18.16.165/2006/07/targets-positioning-assets.html

Posted by: Richard Evans at July 26, 2006 10:05 AM

---

Banning Muslim immigrants is a band-aid solution that will accomplish little:

1) What does a Muslim look like? It's pretty easy to hide one's religious affiliation when attempting to enter a nation. A regular Muslim is not likely to bother, but a terrorist could easily pass himself off as a Lebanese Christian or even a Jew.

2) Racial profiling simply criminalizes an entire population, creating more possible sympathizer or at the very least a population where terrorists can easily operate (as they are no longer differentiated from regular citizens)

3) Islamic extremist groups have already expressed interest in recruiting Anglo-Saxons to their cause. Some are courting the extreme right (eg the Aryan Nations) while others are recruiting the "angry loner" types. The obvious advantage is that a WASP with a local accent will easily evade all the "profiling" and do more damage due to their knowledge of the local culture.

Stephen Harper knows all of this, which is why he quickly KO'd any idea of placing relgion-based or race-based restrictions on immigration. Hillbilly profiling solutions cannot substitute for proper intelligence gathering and infiltration. Instead of playing to the fears of the masses, why not increase funding for CSIS, the RCMP and other agencies that are properly trained to combat terrorist networks.

Posted by: Cynapse at July 26, 2006 10:40 AM

---

"In World War II, people were left in war-ravaged Europe for fear of Axis spies using a flow of refugees as a means of infiltrating Allied countries. Today, people caught up in the fighting in Lebanon are coming to Canada instead of being left in that mess."

Were the people left in war-ravaged Europe citizens of the country they were trying to return to?

Posted by: balbulican at July 26, 2006 11:47 AM

---

Canada, Islam in conflict: Leger Poll (Ottawa, July 25)

A majority of Canadians hold a negative view of Muslim countries. Surprisingly, in Quebec for example, 67% have a negative view.

So it would seem one writer here, fortunately for Canada's sake, is in the minority.

A moratorium on Muslim immigration is not difficult to execute. Obviously not allowing in those from Muslim dominated countries would take care of most of the problem. Further, Canada could adopt more stringent screening processes like Denmark and Germany have for example.

Recruitment of Anglo Saxons? Ha, 1500 years would prove otherwise. And I doubt skinheads have anymore love of Muslims than they do for Jews.

"racial profiling simply criminalizes an entire population..."

I'd say chopping off peoples heads does a better job of that. Not to mention certain suras in the Quran. And did I mention Mohammad's life example?

The rest of your post makes even less sense and isn't worth commenting on.

Posted by: Irwin Daisy at July 26, 2006 12:39 PM

---

1) The Aryan nations are not skinheads

2) The Aryan Nations leadship HAS been speaking to radical Islamacists. White supremacists like Jared Taylor (American Rennaisance) and Nick Griffin (BNP Party) have been speaking to Jews

3) "I'd say chopping off peoples heads does a better job of that. Not to mention certain suras in the Quran. And did I mention Mohammad's life example?" - What does any of this have to do with what I said? Stay on topic.

4) "A majority of Canadians hold a negative view of Muslim countries. Surprisingly, in Quebec for example, 67% have a negative view." - Meaning what? Blind discrimination is therefore ok?

My post doesn't make sense to you because you refuse to look at the situation as being anything besides a simplistic racial campaign. If you want to beat up on Muslims that's one thing, but it has little to do with fighting terrorism. But since you clearly know something that Israeli intelligence, Stephen Harper, the FBI, etc do not, why not inform them that the solution to the terror problem is as simple as banning Muslim immigration ... since "no one likes them anyway"

Posted by: Cynapse at July 26, 2006 12:48 PM

---

Stay on topic? As I said, your posts, including your lack of logic and facts are not worth commenting on.

Posted by: Irwin Daisy at July 26, 2006 01:04 PM

---

That's because you don't understand them. Not my fault. You pull that "lack of logic" line every time your grade-3 level solutions are countered by reality. Better do some googling on those "facts" I lack yet somehow posted.

And Irwin I'm quite serious about your tendency to racialize everything:

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/003957.html

Posted by: Cynapse at July 26, 2006 01:10 PM

---

I get nervous when I read stories about creeps like Professor Ghazi Falah...and that extremely kooked political science prof at UBC. These are the 'academic elite' of our Islamic immigration..I have no doubt they think less of me than I do of them.

I wasn't shocked when I read the chat transcripts of the women related too the Toronto terror plot. The hate filled diatribes were as as bad as anything one would read on some white supremacy board. Maybe even worse.

A majority of muslim immigrants have had it pounded into their brains since kindergarten that they're the chosen ones...and we are less than human. We on the other hand, are now generations of Trudeau indoctrinated Happy poeple.. Oblivious to the disdain that some, not all, immigrants have for us.

Posted by: Levesque at July 26, 2006 01:22 PM

---

Of course you're serious. People of your ilk always pull out the race card as a last resort, attempting to stifle any debate, at the same time attempting to take the moral high ground. However, Islam is not a race, further proving the ill-logic of what one might loosely refer to as your mind.

Posted by: Irwin Daisy at July 26, 2006 01:45 PM

---

It is very easy to turn the taps off as the government did it to the UK and other European countries back in the 70's

Posted by: ian at July 26, 2006 01:45 PM

---

It's not about "racial profiling", it's about "terrorist profiling". Big difference. The fact that at the moment the greatest threat comes from olive-skinned retards doesn't make it a racial issue.

Posted by: potato at July 26, 2006 01:55 PM

---

It seems common sense to profile people from the source of whatever the threat is whether it's country, ethnicity, religion or broadly racial. With terrorism it's very wide in scope, these dangerous bastards can be anywhere, we have imported them bag and baggage with their hatred and old fights along with them. How can anyone think any security organization does not profile? They do, they don't talk about it. The media, the ones who are engaged in covert activities love the term "racial profiling" and it's always used as a last refuge for scoundrels.

Posted by: Liz J at July 26, 2006 03:22 PM

---

Irwin: the survey numbers you cite are wrong. You are referring, I presume, to this report. Among its findings: Across Canada as a whole, a majority (63%) of the population reported a generally positive view of Muslims. Granted, less so than Christians (81%) and Jews (79%), but a majority nevertheless. In Atlantic provinces together, 82% positive, 11% negative. In Ontario, 68% positive, 16% negative. In Quebec, 40% (not 67%) negative, versus 53% positive. In fact, in every region surveyed, more people had generally positive views rather than negative ones.

In a second survey, 67% of Quebecers perceive the relationship between Muslim nations and Western nations as negative. Perhaps that's where you got the figure from.

Of course, surveys and statistics tell us only so much. I agree with Cynapse -- even if a majority held negative attitudes towards Muslims (which they do not), it still wouldn't justify discriminatory immigration policies.

Posted by: A at July 26, 2006 03:59 PM

---

Levesque: you equate the hate-filled online rants of a few Muslim women with those commonly found in white supremacist websites -- fair enough, as both are equally despicable. But if you then argue that these women are somehow representative of the average Muslim (as you insinuate in your very next paragraph), then to follow your peculiar logic, you'd better be willing to argue as well that white supremacists bloggers are equally representative of the average white Canadian too. Unless, of course, you hold Canadians of Muslim faith to a different standard to that of other Canadians. Then you wouldn't be hypocritical, merely prejudiced.

Posted by: A at July 26, 2006 04:21 PM

---

Liz J: Please refrain from paraphrasing that overused and oft-abused Samuel Johnson line. It's been (mis)applied, usually without merit or context, to both liberals and conservatives so often as to drain it of all meaning and punch.

The problem with profiling people based on 'country, ethnicity, religion or broadly racial' background arises when only a single criterion is used in the profile. It may still feel superficially like 'common sense,' but it's far too broad to be useful for security purposes, and also a slippery slope for law enforcement. Additionally, it is hugely offensive to the target group, and shames all of society for allowing it. Subjecting all Muslim persons who pass through our borders to 'special screening,' because they're Muslim and hence possibly terrorists, is no different than police officers randomly pulling over black males because they're black and hence possibly gang members. Single-dimension 'profiles' (whether based solely on race, faith, or whatever) aren't threat profiles at all--they're just reflections of our own prejudices and insecurities.

Posted by: at July 26, 2006 07:00 PM

---

A: Try to comprehend...Canadian White supremicists aren't a product of the national education system. Islamofascists (born outside of Canada,but immigrating here)are a direct product of their national education systems. Nowhere did I say that a majority of muslim immigrants are Islamonazis...I stated that they have all have been indoctrinated to the principles. Whether they liked it or not.

You should do research on overseas Islamic schools. Especially at the primary level.

Posted by: Levesque at July 26, 2006 08:20 PM

---

Levesque, it would be helpful if you could cite some evidence to support your apparent claim that the average Muslim immigrant to Canada has received a hate-filled national education system, has been consciously or unconsciously indoctrinated by anti-Westernism, and therefore qualifies for the label 'Islamofascist'.

What do you think of Indonesia, which despite being home to more Muslims than any other country and having a sizeable Islamic school system, has not only managed to create a stable, secular democratic republic, but has also developed a state ideology (which all primary school children learn) known as Pancasila, which among other things emphasizes social justice, human dignity, and civility?

What about the Lebanese state education system, in which the Ministry of Education has mandated a uniform curriculum comprising compulsory classes like Arabic, English/French, Math, History, Sciences, Music, Art, and Computers, among others?

What about my friend W, who was born in Afghanistan, attended the primary and secondary state school system there, emigrated at 17 to Canada, earned a B.A. at U of Toronto, and has now been accepted to Oxford U in England to study sociology and human rights?

Are all these examples (some factual, some anecdotal) simply exceptions to the Muslim majority of which you speak? Is the fact that (knock on wood) none of my Muslim friends have yet to denounce my wicked Western ways, but instead have welcomed me into their homes and lives, simply an anomaly in your theory? And when you say things like 'We on the other hand...' and 'Oblivious to the disdain that some, not all, immigrants have for us,' what do you mean by 'we' and 'us'? Because it sickens me to think that you presume to speak in any way on my behalf.

Posted by: A at July 26, 2006 09:52 PM

---

9/12 driving in the car @ the 400/401 interchange in Toronto, and I happen to tune into an Urdu language radio call in program. I hear a kid (10ish) call in. I turn to my wife, "Did that kid just say what I think he said?" "He praised Allah for Osama bin Laden and wished death on America." The host said nothing. He never cut the kid off or interrupted his 2 minute rant. He had no comments, just took the next call. Lots more of similar sentiments in the next calls. My wife made me switch the channel.

One of our Pakistani friend told me his Urdu/Punjabi speaking detective friend paid a visit to TO's newspaper editors. They were told to tone it down or they were in danger of hate crimes prosecution.

Sure, 90% of Muslims in Canada are great people. I gave our Afgani friends their first Christmas in Canada 8 months ago. Wonderful people. However, there is a radical 10% who are allowed to spew dangerous stuff. This is a present day, global phenomena. It is the worst sort of moral relativism to say that this affects all religions equally. It hasn't even affected Islam equally. There are large Muslim sects that appear to be unaffected by this, except that they are victims as opposed to perpetrators.

The world has many problems. One of them is a radicalized and violent strain of Islam that is gaining in influence and ability. From the Philipines to Thailand to Nigeria to New York to France to Israel this obvious to everyone.

There is none so blind as those who refuse to see.

Posted by: PlaidShirt at July 27, 2006 10:57 AM

---

In a multi-cultural, open and free society, there are few social and cultural controls to prevent anti-social behaviour. It's mainly criminal justice, enforcement and intelligence. Post WW II we let in numerous Nazis. They stayed here, hidden for decades. However, they came here to hide and leave their old life behind them. What if they had been sent to continue the struggle?

The first principle of contamination control is CATS, Control At The Source. If proper screening isn't done in the immigrant's/refugee's source country then we are creating a big problem. As an immigrant sponsor, let me tell you proper screening isn't done. The security clearances are a joke. Our overseas RCMP & CSIS are understaffed. Immigration Canada decisions are influenced strongly by the local centres of power.

Simple question; did Canada give a more thorough interview and screening to refugees from the Soviet Union then we gave to those from other countries? Yes because they were a potential source of spies for the Soviets.

Now we are dealing with a non-nation state threat.

Posted by: PlaidShirt at July 27, 2006 11:09 AM

---

A:

The Leger poll findings are not "wrong" (insert arrogant know-it-all here). Unless of course you know more about this poll than the pollster and the Hamilton Spectator. In fact it says that only 25% of Canadians show any favourable view towards Muslims at all.

What I'm saying is that more and more Canadians are becoming negative towards Islam, and so they should.

CSIS and the RCMP can't deal with the troubles we already have from the existing Muslim population, let alone adding more through immigration. I'm also saying that the 17 accused are 'homegrown.' From that, one can certainly observe that Islam is a fertile ground for creating terrorists regardless of where they were born or live. That's why I believe a moratorium on Muslim immigration is critical. Canada needs time to understand and integrate Muslims already here and to weed out potential terrorists and the ideologues who motivate them.

I've known enough kind hearted and decent Muslims. But every one was a non-practicing Muslim only by birth. When you take kids and teach them from the Quran, of course they will be prone to violence. "Strike off their heads" (Quran 8:12) and hundreds more verses order the true followers of Mohammad to do just that.

Posted by: Irwin Daisy at July 27, 2006 02:32 PM

---

I apologize -- you correctly quoted the Hamilton Spectator (actually, the Canadian Press), who stated that "a majority [52%] of Canadians hold a negative view of Muslim countries." However, the CP article itself was misleading, because that particular Leger survey question (bottom of p.1) actually referred to views of the relationship between Western democracies and Muslim nations, which is hardly the same thing as views of Muslim nations, or Muslims themselves. Indeed, according to the same Leger poll (top of p. 2), 63% of Canadians view Muslims themselves positively, 24% negatively. So, I will concede that you were right in directly quoting the Canadian Press, but you are wrong to state that "only 25% of Canadians show any favourable view towards Muslims at all" and also wrong to conclude that "more and more Canadians are becoming negative towards Islam, and so they should." A more accurate conclusion might be that "while a majority of Canadians hold a dim view of the West's relationship with Muslim states, an even larger majority nevertheless hold a generally positive view of Muslims themselves."

You make it sound as though Muslims are a completely foreign and unassimilable culture, when in fact they've happily lived in, integrated into, and embraced Canadian society since the mid-1800s. Now, if there are indeed terrorists among us plotting to blow up my country's subways or kill my fellow citizens, then I happily encourage the RCMP, CSIS, etc. to go out and take them down. But stopping Muslim immigration altogether, simply because they're Muslim, and Canada is having difficulty integrating them? That's precisely the type of xenophobic thinking that led to Canada's 1923 Chinese Exclusion Act, which many at the time thought was needed to stem the tide of 'Asiatic' immigrants threatening to overwhelm the country. Only a month ago did PM Harper issue a formal apology for that shameful period of Canadian history. Are you ready to go down that road again?

Posted by: A at July 27, 2006 03:43 PM

---

No Name Post, July 26, 2006, 07:pm : The terrorism we are dealing with today is coming from radical factions of Islam. It's not prejudicial to make that statement, it's a fact. If security are not screening, (profiling), people from counties that sponsor and breed terrorism they are not doing their jobs. "a slippery slope for law enforcement"?? If a white person commits a crime the cops will not waste time looking for a black person and vice versa. One very glaring problem for law enforcement lies in the judicial system, well stacked with ideologies of the Left. Thank you for your haughty request re the quote from Samuel "Dictionary" Johnson, always helpful to have things sorted by an expert. Freedom of speech can often be insufferable but so can insufferable gall, even on blog ramblings.

Posted by: Liz J at July 27, 2006 03:52 PM

---

Oh, and Irwin, since you seem so fond of citing passages of the Qur'an out of context, I thought I'd do the same with the Christian Bible. You cited specifically a passage of Qur'an Ch. 8, Al-Anfal, which deals with the conduct and spoils of war, so I shall do likewise and cite Deuteronomy 20:10-18(New International version), which also deals with the conduct and spoils of war. I've helpfully CAPITALIZED my favourite parts. To wit:

"When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, PUT TO THE SWORD ALL THE MEN IN IT. AS FOR THE WOMEN, THE CHILDREN, THE LIVESTOCK AND EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE CITY, YOU MAY TAKE THESE AS PLUNDER FOR YOURSELVES. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.

However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, DO NOT LEAVE ALIVE ANYTHING THAT BREATHES. COMPLETELY DESTROY THEM—-the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—-as the Lord your God has commanded you. Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God."

I was raised Catholic, went to Catholic school, wore the uniform and everything. Can't say that I have an insatiable urge to smite my enemies with the edge of my sword, though. But I suppose you'd say that Islam is inherently more violent than Christianity, right? Because fanatical Islamic terrorists derive all their anger and resentment and hatred and bloodlust from the Qur'an, and it has nothing to do with aggressive Western foreign policies or anything secular like that. Or maybe I'm just not a true follower of the Lord our God.

Posted by: A at July 27, 2006 04:05 PM

---

Liz J: You're right, "The terrorism we are dealing with today is coming from radical factions of Islam" is not a prejudicial statement. But it is prejudicial (not to mention hugely inefficient and generally ineffective) to use a security/threat profile whose sole criterion is "Muslim."

Here is the Ontario Human Rights Commission's definition of racial profiling: "any action undertaken for reasons of safety, security or public protection that relies on stereotypes about race, colour, ethnicity, ancestry, religion, or place of origin rather than on reasonable suspicion, to single out an individual for greater scrutiny or different treatment." A more narrow definition, used by a study published in the Canadian Review of Policing Research, is "a racial disparity in police stop and search practices, customs searches at airports and border-crossings, in police patrols in minority neighbourhoods and in undercover activities or sting operations which target particular ethnic groups."

Racial profiling is not about pulling over blacks (or whites, or Asians) when a crime involving a black (or white, or Asian) suspect is committed. Racial profiling occurs when blacks are disproportionately stopped at random, in the absence of a crime having been committed in the immediate vicinity or time, on the stereotyped assumption that blacks are just more likely to be up to no good. And this is no Liberal media fantasy -- it actually happens (summary of findings, p. 73).

Likewise, stopping Muslims at the airport just because they're Muslim IS a form of racial profiling, because no immediate crime has been committed requiring customs agents to look for suspects. They are stopped on the presumption of future crimes, not present ones. And it's a slippery slope, because it gives law enforcement agents a carte blanche to arrest and detain anybody they want, since they can always claim the stop was justified by some nebulous "profile".

Posted by: at July 27, 2006 04:30 PM

---

Link above refers to "Final Report - Professor Scot Wortley - 15 September 2005" (PDF), available at www.police.kingston.on.ca

Posted by: at July 27, 2006 04:33 PM

---

This stuff is going on and leads to my suspicions expressed below..

In order to finance the training of these *volunteers,* as well as the seemingly endless barrage of rockets that have rained down on Israeli cities, Hezbollah has established an extensive fundraising infrastructure in the United States, as well as in Canada, South America, Europe, Africa, and the Middle East.

Supplementing the nearly $100 million Hezbollah reportedly receives from Iran, Hezbollah operatives in the U.S. have engaged in a litany of criminal activities, including credit card fraud, cigarette smuggling, counterfeiting, drug running, and organized retail theft, that provide millions to the Shiite terrorist organization.

*snip*
Despite Al-Mabarrat-USA’s direct link to a Fadlallah-controlled organization, to date, the U.S. branch continues to operate unfettered.

In fact, the organization appears to have gained a level of credibility in the U.S. as the Detroit Free Press reported earlier this month that *many Muslims in the region have donated to Al-Mabarrat.*

MyRepublicanBlog

= TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at July 27, 2006 04:37 PM

---

Plot to undermine our Economy?

Or is this just a BIG rip-off in a small town?

A popular hotel, beer parlour , restaurant, nightclub and adjacent liquor sales outlet all suddenly now stand boarded up and closed here in Courtenay B.C.

I wondered about how this happened when all those businesses were doing a brisk business.

Speaking with someone connected with the city, I learned the following.

The whole hotel complex had been under new ownership for the last three or four months.

Suddenly, the new owners evaporated, left town, vanished. They left, I am told with a bundle , because none of the bills had been paid.

Politically incorrect part…. Brace yourself! Before everything closed , I noticed while attending the restaurant and club that the new owners were Arabian. No idea if they were Shia, Sunni, or Iranian or Palastinian of course, but the thought did occur that this was a fast way to raise great amounts of money for say, a fundamentalist cause and damage your enemy economy at the same time.

OK, you could suggest that I am overly suspicious, yet everything fits so well, there just seems to be a very real possibility that this could be happening in other small towns in Canada.

Grand larceny on a grand scale? Knowing the MSM, we the peons, would be the last to know about it.

Lawyers, notaries public, law enforcement and investigative professionals who read this could possibly find out if this pattern of rip-off has jumped recently in Canada. Those of you who have access to crime trends sites on the net could let us know if hotels and small complexes are being foreclosed due to fraud more frequently than average. This non-violent stuff never shows up in the press.

My city contact said the new complex owners had suggested they were in the Middle East precious gems business and the impression that they had great wealth was unmistakable.

I know, I know. All this is simply word of mouth and there is no documentation. This is in fact only a possible theory. However, I risk reprimand in mentioning it, because if this is happening in other places in Canada, there is no harm in being alerted. A conspiracy theory to be sure, but there is great logic behind it and what*s the harm in debunking it if this happens to just an isolated incident?

In fact, I hope someone can assure us with authority, that this is not a growing trend in Canada. = TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at July 27, 2006 04:40 PM

---

"A": It is Arabs who have been a part of Canadian culture since the 1800s, not Muslims. They are not one and the same. In fact, as has been discussed in some other posts, there is somewhat of a war emerging now between Arabism and Islam. Muslims intentionally use the terms interchangeably in order to further obfuscate the issue in Western cultures so that they can continue to "Islamify" them behind the curtains, with the intended result looking like France, Britain, Dearborn, or Montreal.

Not all Arabs are Muslims, and not all Muslims are Arabs. They overlap but are not pseudonymous. Iran and Palestine are Muslim states. Egypt and Saudi Arabia are Arab states. You can see the clear difference in ideals with their respective treatments of Israel at this very moment.

The point of what I'm saying is, most of the very-decent people whom we've all met and call Muslims are not, in fact, Muslims. They're not even non-practicing Muslims. They are Arabs or they are atheists/agnostics/deists/secularists, who have no real ties to Islam, and in many cases they or their parents left their home countries because they despised Islam. Why do you suppose so many Iranians avoid using the term "Iran" and instead call themselves "Persian?" Persia is an Arabic icon. Iran is a non-Arab, Muslim state. And to finally get to the relevance of this reply, so is Lebanon to a rather large extent, being under the control of the Iranian Hezbollah.

Islam - not Arabism - is fundamentally at odds with democratic capitalism. Whereas western law was largely built on a mix of altruistic and individualistic Christian and Judaic principles, Islam insists upon Sharia law where the only true form of altruism is martyrdom. It does not tolerate other religions, or indeed any dissent at all. Trying to convert a muslim is an offense punishable by death. So is depicting the prophet Muhammad in a drawing. So is a woman revealing virtually any part of her body in public. So is being a Jew. These aren't just in the Qu'ran, this is a form of law actually practiced in Muslim states. Read about the events in Somalia during the last few weeks.

Christianity (and Judaism to a lesser extent) have both preached violence in the past and had to be involved in a lot of bloody wars before they moderated themselves. Islam, however, is excessively brutal, and has so far escaped the forces which moderated other religions and is now being shielded from those forces by the multicultural left. This is breeding ground for sleeper cells and other terrorist activity. There's a very real danger to letting in all these refugees and I hope that we have the resources to deal with the inevitable trouble that it will stir up.

Does this mean that there are no decent Muslims in Canada? Of course not! Just that, statistically, Muslims are an order of magnitude more likely to be terrorists than anybody else in Canada, and we should therefore be paying extra-close attention to them. There is no evidence to support the assertion that terrorist profiling creates more terrorists, and no basis for referring to it as "racial" profiling other than to play identity politics and stifle honest debate.

Posted by: Aaron G at July 27, 2006 09:37 PM

---

A:

So I've taken the "Strike off their heads" verse out of context have I? Well then, the 17 who wanted to strike off the head of our PM must be out of context as well, huh? And by your reasoning all the video taped beheadings from Iraq are simply out of context, right?

You're right, there is a lot of violence in the Old Testament. Ever heard of the new one?

Posted by: Irwin Daisy at July 28, 2006 12:07 PM

---

Aaron, thanks for your thoughtful reply.

There is also a need to distinguish between Muslim states and Muslim people. Muslim states tend to adopt more radical/fundamental forms of Islamic law, due in part to the lack of separate between religion & state, and hence the ease with which the state may employ harsh religious laws as a tool of oppression.

Islam - not Arabism - is fundamentally at odds with democratic capitalism.

Not so, at least not in all cases. Again, this depends on whether we're speaking of Muslim states or Muslim people. As an example of the latter, Indonesia is overwhelmingly Muslim, yet also a (nascent and still somewhat wobbly) democratic republic with capitalist intentions. More accurately, you could say that the radical strains of Islam that some Muslim states adopt are fundamentally at odds with democratic capitalism.

Likewise, not all practitioners of Islam insists on Sharia law. For a homegrown example, in 2004, the moderate Council on American-Islamic Relations Canada urged the Ontario Government to bar the specific use of Sharia law in voluntary faith-based family arbitration. While they supported faith-based arbitration, they recognized that Sharia law could be used to oppress women and others. This is a nice example of moderate Muslim groups striking a balance between maintaining their faith and supporting Canadian values.

Islam, however, is excessively brutal...

Again, I would argue that mainstream Islam, especially as practised by those in Canada, is hardly brutal at all. According to the 2001 census, 579,640 Canadians self-identified as Muslim, and I can only assume based on reported crime data that the vast majority of those observe their faith, attend service, etc., yet also hold down regular jobs and raise families without causing any trouble. The fact that the category 'moderate Muslims' even exists at all indicates that the average Muslim Canadian is tolerant and peace-loving.

I suspect something similar goes overseas. If Afghanistan were populated uniformly by fanatics all intent on overthrowing democratic capitalist societies, then there'd be no military force strong enough to even enter the country, as the entire Afghan population would rise up in arms against it. But most Afghani citizens appear to want the same simple things everybody else wants: to have enough to eat, earn a living, raise a family, etc. Isn't this even the official line of Canada, the US, the UK and others, that the average Afghani or Iraqi person is hard-working and decent, and that the role of our military forces is to weed out the radicals in their midst?

Last point, I promise...

...letting in all these refugees...

Technically, the Lebanese evacuees are not refugees. They are Canadian citizens by birthright or immigration. The fact that many had not lived in Canada for some years does not take away from this.

Posted by: A at July 28, 2006 02:08 PM

---

[sigh] No, Irwin, the videotaped beheadings from Iraq, in and of themselves, are not "simply out of context." It would be out of context, however, if someone were to play one of those video clips and then claim that it alone is sufficient prima facie evidence that all followers of the Qur'an are "prone to violence."

You're right, there is a lot of violence in the Old Testament. Ever heard of the new one?

That was exactly my point, Irwin! Citing the Bible out of context would mean ignoring all the positive teachings in the New Testament and focusing only on the violent stuff in the Old Testament, just as citing the Qur'an out of context meant ignoring all of its positive teachings (believe it or not, they're there if you care to look for them) and focusing only on violent phrases like "Strike off their heads." I really don't know how to make it any clearer than this.

Posted by: A at July 28, 2006 02:37 PM

---

For posterity (since this thread has been catalogued) I will say this to A:

'Out of context' has been a meme used by Islamic teachers for quite some time. The problem is they can't prove the sura 'in context' simply applied to a particular period of time or if it applies to all time. And they have all too few verses to refute the hundreds of verses that call the Islamite to violence against the Infidel. Hence, Muslims are still cutting off the Kaffir's head in 2006. Perhaps you should tell them they're taking their own book out of context?

The second part of your argument, if you so loosely call it that, is ridiculous. "That" was not your point, otherwise you would have made it.

Other than appearing some 500 years after the NT, the Quran has no new testament and no reconcilliation. It is violent and demands violence of it's adherents through and through. Oh, with the occasional 'positive teaching', as the imams like to use 'out of context' to deflect the questions about violence.

Posted by: Irwin Daisy at July 31, 2006 01:03 PM

---