tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9976149053758939182024-02-10T01:25:47.935-08:00Kafir CanadaOpposing the "broad strata of our community."Kafir Canadahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15933522252609517559noreply@blogger.comBlogger62125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-997614905375893918.post-58906933489851540852007-12-13T20:58:00.000-08:002007-12-13T21:42:46.731-08:00Islamic Circle of North America<span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:georgia;">For the story of Aqsa Parvez, the </span><a style="font-family: georgia;" href="http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/toronto/archive/2007/12/13/muslim-leaders-denounce-aqsa-parvez-murder-as-un-islamic.aspx">National Post</a><span style="font-family:georgia;"> turns to one Mohammad Al-Nadvi to downplay Islam as a cause of her death. Why does the </span><a style="font-family: georgia;" href="http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20071213/muslim_girl_death_071213/20071213?hub=TorontoHome">media</a><span style="font-family:georgia;"> turn to such people for points of view? I'm not attacking this point of view with an ad hominem here -- I'm not even attacking the point of view at all; I think the role Islam played in this case is fairly well established (given the amount of evidence we have to work with) by the details of Aqsa's life given by her friends, but will be established more definitively one way or another as the trial moves a long. So, anyway, let's look at just a tidbit of Al-Nadvi's connections.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">He's a "</span><a style="font-family: georgia;" href="http://www.icnacanada.ca/ourteam.php">Central Department Head</a><span style="font-family:georgia;">" of the Islamic Circle of North America. The ICNA describes themselves </span><a style="font-family: georgia;" href="http://www.icna.org/icna/about-icna/index.php">here</a><span style="font-family:georgia;"> as "working for the establishment of Islam in all spheres of life." Not just the religious sphere of life? All spheres? The only way I can understand this is that they are saying that are a revolutionary Islamist political group. Maybe they're just bad with words though. But, let's see a little more. Joe Kaufman</span><a style="font-family: georgia;" href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=EA623D17-2B74-47DB-93CA-023F896EECE5"> looks at how</a><span style="font-family:georgia;"> the ICNA sent money to Hamas, another revolutionary Islamist (and terrorist) group which seeks the exact same thing as the ICNA does, as according to their self-styling anyway. Coincidence, then? I doubt it.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">But is it a coincidence that when media covers some number of views on any story relating to Islam, they always seem to include the totalitarian Islamist one? Again, I doubt it. What, you say? Conspiracy? No, not at all. The media is just credulous to anyone who gets out there as a "cultural" group. And these Islamist groups are doing just that. We need someone in Canada doing the same thing that Joe Kaufman does in the States.</span></span>Kafir Canadahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15933522252609517559noreply@blogger.com17tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-997614905375893918.post-45929513008769244882007-12-12T18:22:00.001-08:002007-12-13T20:34:38.961-08:00Jason Kenney on CIC/Steyn; Elmasry Defends Hezbollah TerroristsI believe <a href="http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5jDhwXPr5NHRg3oL6g54mA15SASuQ">this to be the first time</a> a politician has spoken on the <a href="http://kafircanada.blogspot.com/2007/12/cic-against-mark-steyn.html">Canadian Islamic Congress/Steyn affair</a>. It's Conservative<a href="http://www.jasonkenney.com/"> Jason Kenney</a>:<br /><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">"To be attacking opinions expressed by a columnist in a major magazine is a pretty bold attack on the basic Canadian value of freedom of the press and freedom of expression," Kenney said in an interview. "I think all Canadians would reject that kind of effort to undermine one of our basic freedoms."</blockquote>This isn't the first time there has been some interaction between Jason Kenney and the CIC. Mohamed Elmasry, the president of the CIC, <a href="http://usa.mediamonitors.net/layout/set/print/content/view/full/36594">previously described</a> Jason Kenney as a man who subscribes to "dubious ideologies." But what establishes Kenney as such? In Elmasry's mind, it is because <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/08/22/hezbollah-nazi.html">Kenney said</a>: "The world was wrong to negotiate with [the Nazis] then, and it would be wrong to negotiate with Hezbollah today." Hezbollah is a terrorist group, yet Elmasry defended them when he got the chance, and equivocated them with every other political party and described them as "legitimate." This is the man leading the Canadian Islamic Congress which purports to represent the Canadian Islamic community in its entirety.Kafir Canadahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15933522252609517559noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-997614905375893918.post-4564538959967238212007-12-11T16:43:00.000-08:002007-12-12T13:35:52.326-08:00Murdered for not Wearing Hijab<span style=";font-family:georgia;font-size:100%;" >Today in Mississauga, a 16-year-old girl <a href="http://www.mississauganews.com/article/9341">was apparently murdered</a> yesterday by her father because she wouldn't wear the hijab. </span><span style=";font-family:georgia;font-size:100%;" >"She was really into fashion" her friend described her, as I believe most teenage girls are. However, being like most girls wasn't good enough for Aqsa Parvez's father Muhammed, it seems:</span><blockquote style="font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;"><span style="font-size:100%;">Friends of Aqsa Parvez said she feared for her life in the days prior to her murder.<br /><br />The 16-year-old Applewood Heights Secondary School student was strangled on Monday morning inside her family's Longhorn Trail home.<br /><br />Friends of the teen say she feared for her life and had been embroiled in a cultural dispute with family members in the weeks before her death.<br />...<br />The victim's 26-year-old brother, Waqas Parvez, is charged with obstructing police.<br />...<br />The News spoke with several students at Applewood today. They said their friend, known by those close to her as "Axe," feared her father and had argued with him over her desire to shun the hijab, a traditional shoulder-length head scarf worn by females in devout Muslim families.<br />...<br />Carla Gianetti said Parvez's father imposed several restrictions on his daughter, all in the name of religion.</span></blockquote><span style=";font-family:georgia;font-size:100%;" >The <a href="http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/story/4092019p-4690201c.html">Canadian Press</a> has room for <a href="http://kafircanada.blogspot.com/2007/11/bit-more-on-elmasry.html">Mohamed Elmasry</a> of the Canadian Islamic Congress (the now infamous <a href="http://kafircanada.blogspot.com/2007/12/cic-against-mark-steyn.html">Mark Steyn persecutors</a>): "I don't want the public to think that this is really an Islamic issue..." Strange comment, seeing that this was apparently done in the "name of religion", that being Islam. And Elmasry in the past <a href="http://www.canadianislamiccongress.com/ar/opeds.php?id=1562">called</a> author Irshad Manji, who also refuses to wear hijab, "anti-Islam", promoting the same attitude toward women who see Islam differently that seems to have led to this girl's death. But I don't blame Elmasry for trying. This comes at a time when him and his CIC are complaining that kafirs like Mark Steyn are endangering Muslims, but this incident shows the opposite: It's Muslims <a href="http://kafircanada.blogspot.com/2007/12/whos-actually-endangering-muslims.html">who are hurting</a> Muslims in Canada. Has the opposite ever happened, has any Muslim in Canada ever been killed by the <a href="http://www.canadiandemocraticmovement.ca/Article861.html">supposedly</a> oppressive non-Muslim majority for their choice to wear the hijab?<br /><br />And, from <a href="http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/story/4092019p-4690201c.html">the same Canadian Press article</a>, quoting Atiya Ahsan from the <a href="http://www.ccmw.com/">Canadian Council of Muslim Women</a>: "If you know that your girl is good and she practises her faith, she's not hopping around in what we consider lewd behaviour, then for heaven's sakes you know, let the girl have a chance..." Another strange comment. I mean, is not what's being said here: If the opposite is the case, that she isn't practising Islam, then, don't let the girl have a chance?<br /><br />Here's something else to think about; the dark irony in being throttled into wearing the hijab: If another girl was strangled by her father for this reason yet lived, and so was frightened into wearing the hijab, what do you think the chances of anyone else seeing the bruising around her neck when it is covered by the hijab? And I do suspect this is the case: This incident was found out because it went to death; I don't doubt that there are many more cases where children are abused into wearing the hijab which are never uncovered.<br /><br />But then you have <a href="http://www.montrealmuslimnews.net/voice.htm">the addendum</a> from these apologetics: "...</span><span style=";font-family:georgia;font-size:100%;" >most Muslim women in this country wear the hijab as a result of their own choice..." But who is actually saying that Muslim women don't wear the hijab as a result of their own choice? The real question is why do they choose to wear it? Is undue pressure from their fathers, even violent pressure, a factor in that choice? I don't doubt it, as this very story illustrates. And indeed, <a href="http://isnahigh.org/handbook/information.htm#UNIFORM%20POLICY">there are</a> schools in Canada that force girls to wear the hijab lest they be barred from attending. And many girls are sent to these schools by their parents: What possible recourse do they have then? And I add for good measure: I couldn't say the contrary, that there is even a single school in Canada that forces girls to <span style="font-style: italic;">not</span> wear the hijab.</span>Kafir Canadahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15933522252609517559noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-997614905375893918.post-86090847863010985152007-12-08T18:41:00.000-08:002007-12-08T19:25:40.388-08:00Did he do it for the "lulz"?<span style="font-family:georgia;">Mark Steyn <a href="http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmY1YjBlNGE0OWRiODcxZjU0NGQ1NjU5ODhmYmU2NDE=">responds</a> to a review of his debacle <a href="http://www.highclearing.com/index.php/archives/2007/12/08/7517">from one</a> Jim Henley. Henley quotes only one sentence from Steyn's article: "</span><strong style="font-family: georgia; font-weight: normal;">Just look at the development within Europe, where the number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes" and calls this statement "frank bigotry" on Steyn's part. Unfortunately for Henley, these were actually the words of Norwegian imam <a href="http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/search?q=krekar">Mullah Krekar</a>, not Steyn. You might think that Henley would then make a post about the "frank bigotry" of Mullah Krekar instead.</strong><strong style="font-family: georgia; font-weight: normal;"> But no, the imam gets a free pass, and Mark Steyn is still liable for the rest of his article, which is really just showing the why and how behind the imam's statement -- that's why it is used as the final and concluding statement of the piece.</strong><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">And this gets to the absurdity of the CIC and HRC's <a href="http://kafircanada.blogspot.com/2007/12/cic-against-mark-steyn.html">case against</a> Mark Steyn. According to these accusers of him, he is subjecting Canadian Muslims to "hatred or contempt" by showing how the words of a Norwegian Muslim leader about Muslims in Europe are true. How truly "flagrantly Islamophobic" to state that a Muslim leader is correct! Sinister really. Just imagine if someone moves from this already egregious bigotry of <span style="font-style: italic;">agreeing with Muslims,</span> to such catastrophes as standing up and saying that Muslims are wrong! Oh the horror! Or...errr...wait?</span>Kafir Canadahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15933522252609517559noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-997614905375893918.post-78863688471078111452007-12-06T16:24:00.000-08:002007-12-08T19:06:54.219-08:00Who's actually endangering Muslims?Andrew Coyne <a href="http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20071205_112340_5592">writes more</a> on the <a href="http://kafircanada.blogspot.com/2007/12/cic-against-mark-steyn.html">Mark Steyn affair</a> and also a decent bit on the Human Rights Commissions in general.<br /><br />Coyne points to the irony of the CIC making these charges against Steyn. It was CIC president Mohamed Elmasry <a href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/012518.php">who declared</a> Tarek Fatah to be "anti-Islam" and that we was "smearing Islam." Such labels are exactly what Mr. Fatah was attacked for in 2006 when thugs smashed the windows in his car, threatening him because he was "anti-Islam." The irony is palpable. Has any Muslim in Canada been attacked for being "part of a disastrous demographic sea-change in Europe," as Mark Steyn, as I paraphrase, charges of Muslims? None, yet there is a Muslim in Canada attacked for being "anti-Islam" just as Elmasry charges of that Muslim. Maybe the CIC should bring <span style="font-style: italic;">itself </span>before the Human Rights Commission...or just leave Mark Steyn alone.<br /><br />Also, Elmasry <a href="http://muslimchronicle.blogspot.com/2005/01/muslim-opponents-of-shariah-tribunals.html">was in favour</a> of the sharia courts for Muslim family disputes in Ontario, this would further hurt Muslims. It would subject Muslims to the obscurantist decisions of the fundamentalist Islamic scholars and keep Muslims, women in particular, one step further from equality under law. And this sets a precedent for evermore introduction of sharia, bringing even greater harm to Muslims.<br /><br />And I wish to make a more general point, that the CIC's stifling of open discourse hurts Muslims as well. It's doesn't hurt to hear criticisms of your side, even if it does hurt your sensibilities.Kafir Canadahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15933522252609517559noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-997614905375893918.post-2803715961286855702007-12-04T15:32:00.000-08:002007-12-08T19:08:21.656-08:00Misconceived<span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:georgia;">"What's so scary about Muslims?" </span><a style="font-family: georgia;" href="http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/282164">asks</a><span style="font-family:georgia;"> </span></span><span style=";font-family:georgia;font-size:100%;" id="ctl00_ContentPlaceHolder_article_NavWebPart_Article_ctl00___Author1__" class="articleAuthor" >Yilmaz Alimoglu</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:georgia;">. Only "misconceptions," he answers. But don't feel bad: we're all at fault for these misconceptions, Muslim and kafir alike.</span><br /></span><br />But he's right, I think poorly of Islam be<span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:georgia;">cause of my misconceptions of it. Misconceptions such as that it is a tenet of Islam that the Quran is the uncreated word of Allah which has existed with Allah for all eternity, or at least that it existed when Musa <a href="http://www.thetruthoflife.org/messengers_musa.htm">supposedly existed</a>, between </span><span style="font-family:georgia;">1436 and 1316 BC</span><span style="font-family:georgia;">. This despite the fact that it is written in Arabic, which, to the best linguistic research, descended originally from a proto-Semitic language and immediately from </span><a style="font-family: georgia;" href="http://linguistlist.org/forms/langs/LLDescription.cfm?code=xna">Ancient North Arabian</a><span style="font-family:georgia;"> between 400BC and 300AD, well past the date when the Quran supposedly existed. How was there a text written in Arabic, before Arabic even evolved? But no, I shouldn't ask. That's just a <span style="font-style: italic;">misconception</span>: Muslims don't actually believe in anything delusional like that; they really believe that the Quran was just written by people over a period of time in the 7th century, as the scholars <a href="http://www.opendemocracy.net/faith-europe_islam/mohammed_3866.jsp">hypothesise</a> in accordance with scientific evidence. Oh? What? They <span style="font-style: italic;">do</span> believe the delusional one? Oh, jeez, I feel like I may be stumbli</span></span>ng into some serious hate speech already! I better zip-it or the Canadian Islamic Congress and the Human Rights Commission may <a href="http://fieryspiritedzionist.blogspot.com/2007/12/islamists-attempt-to-intimidate-critics.html">write me up</a> for inciting contempt toward a group of people on the basis of religion, all for rightly calling Muslims delusional.<br /><br />Islam grows in Canada due to the active policies of the government: multiculturalism with mass immigration from Muslim majority countries. Is growth in Islam good? I think it's not. I think the fundamental tenets of Islam are wrong because they are delusional, as in the example I just gave, and so anyone who believes in Islam is wrong as well. So the governmental policies actively increase the ranks of adherents to a fundamentally wrong ideology.<br /><br />If you like Islam, great, good for you, you're getting what you want -- keep on importing delusions. If you don't, then maybe you should start opting for a change of policy. This more or less brings us to <a href="http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20061023_134898_134898&source">the article</a> for which Mark Steyn is being investigated for breaking the Human Rights Code: he says, under the current policies, areas of Europe and Canada have become and are becoming majority Muslim, and the continuation of these policies will eventually lead to the entire relevant countries becoming majority Muslim. What would these countries look like at that time? Would they maintain a secular legal system, or have something more in line with sharia law? I bet on the latter, because every Muslim majority country has laws based on sharia to some extent (what a radical inference!). Again, if you would like a sharia-based system, then keep the current policies. If you wouldn't, then the time to change the policies is now, not later.<br /><br />If this is hate speech, I'm sorry, sincerely, but I don't retract it, for I think it's true.Kafir Canadahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15933522252609517559noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-997614905375893918.post-9768220691116097662007-12-02T18:10:00.000-08:002007-12-04T20:18:05.091-08:00The West is Anti-Islam?<span style="font-style: italic;">"I condemn </span>Islam<span style="font-style: italic;">. I bring against it the most terrible of accusations that ever an accuser put into words. It is to me the greatest of all imaginable corruptions.... It has left nothing untouched by its depravity. It has made a worthlessness out of every value, a lie out of every truth, a sin out of everything straightforward, healthy and honest. Let anyone dare to speak to me of its humanitarian blessings! To do away with pain and woe is contrary to its principles. It lives by pain and woe: it has created pain and woe in order to perpetuate itself. ... The </span>mosque<span style="font-style: italic;"> is the rallying post for a conspiracy against health, beauty, well-being, courage, intellect, benevolence - against life itself..."</span><br /><br />Replace "Islam" with "Christianity" and "mosque" with "cross" and you have the <a href="http://www.geocities.com/danielmacryan/nietzsche11.html">actual quote</a> from<span style="font-style: italic;"> The Anti-Christ</span> by Nietzsche. Nietzsche is taught at pretty much every Canadian, American, and European university to some extent, some courses dedicated solely or mainly to him, but most often he is read just as part of a wider-ranging philosophy course. ***<br /><br />The Islamic advocacy groups complain that Islam <a href="http://www.canadianislamiccongress.com/ar/opeds.php?id=2933">receives</a> unfair criticism. But I disagree. Islam has barely received any criticism, nowhere near what Christianity has received, as represented in Nietzsche.<br /><br />On the hand, you have<a href="http://www.opendemocracy.net/faith-europe_islam/article_1996.jsp"> this demand</a> that Islam is and be treated like any other religion in the West, yet everywhere there is this bemoaning the even small amount of criticism of Islam that has begun. Unfortunately for such demanders, they must have missed the fact that for the last 500 years, religion has not had a free-pass from the researchers and theorists in the West. But it's not clear that Islam can survive unscathed such a dispassionate and thorough <a href="http://www.opendemocracy.net/faith-europe_islam/mohammed_3866.jsp">examination of its roots</a> and fundamentals, as Christianity has and continues to receive. Perhaps, in their minds, such an existential threat justifies anything that might maintain Islam's inviolable position, including double standards. I have no doubt this is why the Islamic world reacted so sourly to the Mohammed caricatures and the Pope's relatively tepid criticisms of Islam at Regensburg: the truth hurts. (Imagine if the Pope said the quote as I gave it above.)<br /><br />*** And who suggests that this should end? That Nietzsche should not be taught because of what he says against Christianity? He doesn't just say, you know, some kind of bad stuff about it, he says it himself: "<span>I bring against it the <span style="font-weight: bold;">most terrible</span> of accusations that ever an accuser put into words." So people are free to say the most terrible things about Christianity, and that's considered reasonable criticism, not hate speech. But how are such accusations against Islam met? Usually with the charge of hate speech and, so, <span style="font-style: italic;">beyond the pale</span>. (A scene at a university somewhere: "<span style="font-weight: bold;">D</span>: Yes, I'm a big fan of Nietzsche. / <span style="font-weight: bold;">L</span>: Oh, <a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/200711050002">that's nice</a>. Have you read Oriana Fallaci? I like her. / <span style="font-weight: bold;">D</span>: You vile <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/italy/story/0,,1873911,00.html">Islamophobe</a>.")</span><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"></span><br /></span>Kafir Canadahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15933522252609517559noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-997614905375893918.post-13414802897703809642007-12-02T08:28:00.000-08:002007-12-02T12:34:24.330-08:00More on SteynEzra Levant <a href="http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2007/12/elmasry-vs-stey.html">writes a bit more</a> on the <a href="http://kafircanada.blogspot.com/2007/12/cic-against-mark-steyn.html">CIC vs. Steyn affair</a>. And he has more on Mohamed Elmasry -- about his antisemitism. He also writes about a parallel human rights commission case against him in Alberta for republishing the Danish Mohammed Cartoons.<br /><br />I think it's just a tragedy that in Canada a person would have to face a tribunal because he insulted a "prophet." To show my support for freedom of speech and my opposition to theocracy, and hopefully not just because I'm confident one would not actually be prosecuted for these things, I'll post one of the Danish cartoons again. I don't think this is hate speech. I've said this before. I think this a poignant criticism of a character in a religious text that represents an actual political leader in the 7th century. The caricature makes him out to be both violent and deceitful in his wielding of this violence by the obfuscation of the bomb in his headdress. Both of the traits are seen in the character of Mohammed as he is portrayed in the Islamic texts. Calling it like it is isn't hate speech. It's no different from any other political caricature; and the banning of as much would be an instance authoritarianism, especially when you consider the political influence this character still has:<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWUAMmkyroU4hYmihL7Rn9L80fp4lVZS2soRV0dIygI9mgELAeJYGrz6Jzwuus6yXLLhM04rx4YoOBFp6XTscXG8Zu8SvZCQT48dDfIbGpQRekEDU_kJTML5mmB0TOhEciarOO48gMAeWC/s1600-r/mobombhead.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7CJtzp-urFREcEVngXk_CKYJZm1BXw60o_kCxLirmtpdpzCGwCVYZXTb8snkHtTzBijRPPT5GgCyP6RDAeczujq4HhJdRe97edTZ0Q8aebucHcTN9w5SSL6ilyKPzl3DNtRi5VQ_8WJ_e/s400/mobombhead.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5139420458837585634" border="0" /></a>Kafir Canadahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15933522252609517559noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-997614905375893918.post-62241820095260187862007-12-01T11:50:00.000-08:002007-12-02T12:31:22.376-08:00CIC Against Mark SteynA while back, I wrote about how the HRC <a href="http://kafircanada.blogspot.com/2007/11/more-on-censorship.html">could be used</a> to silence critics of Islam. The <a href="http://www.canadianislamiccongress.com/">Canadian Islamic Congress</a>, whose leader, Mohamed Elmasry, <a href="http://kafircanada.blogspot.com/2007/11/bit-more-on-elmasry.html">has said before</a> that he seeks to silence critics of Islam, has done just that. It has launched a suit with the HRC that <a href="http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20071130_111821_7448">seeks to charge</a> Maclean's magazine with something like "flagrantly Islamophobic" hate speech as a violation. Maclean's has been hosting articles by <a href="http://www.steynonline.com/">Mark Steyn</a>, and they published an excerpt from his book <span style="font-style: italic;">America Alone</span>, which is the "offending" material. You can read it for yourself, as it is still up at the Maclean's website <a href="http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20061023_134898_134898&source">here</a>.<br /><br />One may ask, why would they try to quash the web article, but not the book? Well, as I said in the <a href="http://kafircanada.blogspot.com/2007/11/more-on-censorship.html">article</a> I mentioned, the Human Rights Code section 13 which deals with "telecommunicated" speech is different from all other sections of the Code. It prohibits any <span style="font-style: italic;">telecommunication</span> "<span>that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination." There's nothing similar for <span style="font-style: italic;">non-telecommunicated</span> speech, such as in a book. Maybe they didn't want to be known as Canada's book-burners, which would be the eventual result of banning books. The removal of webpages isn't such a dramatic image of this contempt of free speech.<br /></span>Kafir Canadahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15933522252609517559noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-997614905375893918.post-51125744350329810852007-11-30T20:12:00.000-08:002007-11-30T21:00:53.249-08:00"Don't Try"<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg00a38AzMMlY_YU4l7v8lHhu6yZ7HZ2nESXseSGVCuw5xM1Nlwcl1xofMqQMIN98drh-pv4uVocpYIhDklLlhz6lOVRh5gM15PF-GXoRK1QJyaWqmDhjOd9Yik9uSOrSNTrRXAiFIV-G69/s1600-r/bukowskigrave.png"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 120px; height: 81px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtNdKYyEMvlgS2YwiMExuwG9_Yizz6Zo21jySEBSJm5vpgHmwBAUilo_4czumsP-O5swUEG0Guia59S6VnV5EFYryDiGlrhdnXei3OLXq8hp7u8tIu5dtwYuW2gA4RZFY8XDUk7kY8S2_i/s200/bukowskigrave.png" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5138863590557855442" border="0" /></a>That's Bukowski's epitaph, "Don't Try." I'm not sure, but I think Bukowski was standing for philosophical skepticism. I don't think we was trying to say <span style="font-style: italic;">don't try to do anything</span>, but, rather, he was trying to express that it's silly to take up anything serious or <span style="font-style: italic;">dogmatic</span>, i.e., an ideology, just as the ancient Skeptics like Sextus Empiricus tried to express. And I think Ehab Lotayef is trying to say <a href="http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/editorial/story.html?id=e745ce09-216b-4fa2-89e6-809d26b6b2df&p=1">something similar here</a> as well. To the Quebecois he speaks: Don't try to defend your culture, because all cultures will be destroyed anyway:<br /><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">Let me give you the bad news and get it done with: No culture is safe. None ever survived forever and none will.<br />...<br />The values, ideas and beliefs that are worthwhile will survive and become a part of the new global culture, and those that aren't will fade away, without sorrow. This is in the interest of the human race as a whole and no one in his or her right mind should fight it or try to prevent it.</blockquote>Immediately I'm struck with the nonsense of this. Judaism has existed since, well, since we don't even know when, as it was so far back, yet Judaism is still around. Hinduism too. There's still some Zoroastrians around. <span style="font-style: italic;">Et cetera</span>. When will these <span style="font-style: italic;">pieces of culture </span>disappear? I don't think it's clear they ever will; not before humankind disappears with them.<br /><br />As Islam grew exponentially in Quebec over the past 20 years, the result of the active policies of the government of both Canada and Quebec, no one like Mr. Lotayef stood up and said, "Hey, don't promote this cultural growth, because cultures don't matter; no point promoting one over the other." But <span style="font-style: italic;">now</span>, as the majority rethink multiculturalism and consider taking active policies that would promote their culture instead of Islam, this is when Mr. Lotayef says that. Strange, no?<br /><br />But, if cultures just have to disappear, I vote for Mr. Lotayef's to be the first to go.Kafir Canadahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15933522252609517559noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-997614905375893918.post-37492911557987808012007-11-27T12:24:00.000-08:002007-11-27T14:41:28.105-08:00Born With Hijab<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhG_LYO4DwH4_UzASsWLJ09CDlOk_KjCexHRV4iRZYHoe8-vm6qZSoILyFPH4lx7c2JWnpOO0lvv4ceTJBUuUkFPClcXbYnMUIDMzZv4xNz8yLJyxE75330TM4a-zmEvmTqaGdCB0xrjrDC/s1600-h/soccerhijab.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 123px; height: 81px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhG_LYO4DwH4_UzASsWLJ09CDlOk_KjCexHRV4iRZYHoe8-vm6qZSoILyFPH4lx7c2JWnpOO0lvv4ceTJBUuUkFPClcXbYnMUIDMzZv4xNz8yLJyxE75330TM4a-zmEvmTqaGdCB0xrjrDC/s200/soccerhijab.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5137652719649383746" border="0" /></a>One Syed Soharwardy, head of the <a href="http://www.islamicsupremecouncil.com/">Islamic Supreme Council of Canada</a> (why not drop the <span style="font-style: italic;">Islamic</span>? Just, <span style="font-style: italic;">Supreme Council of Canada</span>. I like that.) <a href="http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Alberta/2007/11/27/4688372-sun.html">says that</a> Safaa Menhem, who was pulled from a soccer game a while back because a headdress like the hijab was not allowed to be worn on the field, should not have been. The decision was racist, he says:<br /><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">I don't buy it because a person could also pull a shirt and choke a person. This is not a safety issue. It is just a racist and discriminatory decision against Muslims</blockquote>How could it be racist? Well, if hijab-wearers formed a race, maybe then? But no one is born with a hijab. Or if hijab-wearing was limited to some races? But this isn't true either, because people of all races wear hijabs. Or maybe if hijab-wearing was necessarily correlated with some races? But there is no necessary correlation: There could be any proportion of people of any number of races that could wear the hijab. So we are left with the claim that it is racist because, as a matter of accident, hijab-wearing is not currently correlated with all races indifferently. Pretty bizarre definition, unlike how racism is normally defined, I would say. But we can take it anyway. Here's something else:<br /><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">Her rights should be respected -- this is her free choice.</blockquote>So she has this right, but, then, where do the rights of the league to determine uniforms go? Did they not freely choose to define the uniform code as they did? Is the league not allowed to define what is an appropriate uniform for their soccer games? Really, everyone should be allowed to wear what they want, so this girl should be allowed to wear the hijab? But that's actually not what the Islamic groups are saying: Not everyone should be allowed to wear what they want, but rather, only hijab-wearers get this benefit. Out with the old rights, in the with the new, I guess. The new are looking more like they are defined by sharia everyday.<br /><br />How does this sound: The soccer leagues allow anyone to wear the hijab, if Islamic organisations allow anyone to <a href="http://isnahigh.org/handbook/information.htm#UNIFORM%20POLICY"><span style="font-style: italic;">not</span> wear</a> the hijab. Surely, as per our working definition of racism, requiring someone to wear the hijab is a racist and discriminatory decision against kafirs! For some reason, I don't suspect these groups will go for this fair and equitable agreement, because they don't want fair and equitable.Kafir Canadahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15933522252609517559noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-997614905375893918.post-60965484536659800142007-11-26T12:55:00.001-08:002007-11-26T19:46:03.242-08:00Freedom For Whom?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg2ujUaN7Wjovve6LSK3tyE30_N2B_IZGDFXZy6KOBwpVQiEHW47ZI-BYgHyqVjSjOaV0bnh0JOOUyqtJXXI-aoQ0WeouZzanxYm_0ZdxcHNJ9rxcm2ltthBy6-TDLFnR0Nv0Z6U0AAQBOz/s1600-h/freedom-go-to-hell.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 103px; height: 117px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg2ujUaN7Wjovve6LSK3tyE30_N2B_IZGDFXZy6KOBwpVQiEHW47ZI-BYgHyqVjSjOaV0bnh0JOOUyqtJXXI-aoQ0WeouZzanxYm_0ZdxcHNJ9rxcm2ltthBy6-TDLFnR0Nv0Z6U0AAQBOz/s200/freedom-go-to-hell.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5137287376846284082" border="0" /></a><span style=";font-family:georgia;font-size:100%;" >The Star <a href="http://www.thestar.com/News/article/279844">reports that</a> an Islamic group called <span style="font-style: italic;">Refusing Intolerance in Quebec</span> spoke out concerning the Bouchard-Taylor commission on reasonable accommodation. I don't find any information on this group, but the Star's quote from them exists in <a href="http://www.montrealmuslimnews.net/citizenstatement.htm">this "Citizen's Statement"</a>(sic) on the Montreal Muslim News site, which is apparently from Mohamed S. Kamel of the <a href="http://fmc-cmf.com/">Canadian Muslim Forum</a></span><span style=";font-family:georgia;font-size:100%;" >. The <span style="font-style: italic;">Statement</span> says, "We therefore call for a true debate, an unhurried debate carried on in an atmosphere of peace of mind and unfailing respect for the rights of all, men and women, who live in Québec." Alright, let's start this debate then.</span><br /><span style=";font-family:georgia;font-size:100%;" ><br />On the one hand, those behind the <span style="font-style: italic;">Statement</span>, </span><span style=";font-family:georgia;font-size:100%;" >"reject any limitation of rights, any reduction of fundamental freedoms." On the other hand, they say that the hijab shouldn't be allowed to exist as "</span><span style=";font-family:georgia;font-size:100%;" >an obstacle to...full participation in social life, in the labor market..." But how does forcing the other people in those realms, in employment for example, to accept the hijab, not reduce their fundamental freedoms? For example, if the public rejects the message of hijab, just as they may reject the message of the swastika for example, yet is not allowed to ban the hijab from the public schools which it controls, just as it is allowed to ban the swastika, are not the rights of the public reduced? Or if an employer disagrees with Islam, just as she may disagree with national socialism, yet is not allowed to pick someone else for employment over an adherent of Islam, just as she is allowed to pick someone else over an adherent of national socialism, are not this employer's freedom of association reduced?<br /><br />This gets to my main criticism with how the West treats Islam. Islam has political implications, it is a "total way of life" that involves political ideology. Yet it's adherents are protected from the discrimination that is allowed with other political ideologies, because it takes up the banner of "religion." So the propagation of a political ideology must be permitted in all spheres of life, even those under the control of people who disagree with the ideology, lest they commit the sin of "discrimination on the basis of religion." Don't hire someone because they are a Muslim: you're a bigot and a criminal. Don't hire someone because they are a Communist: you're just exercising your inalienable freedom of association. This double standard must change.<br /></span><span style=";font-family:georgia;font-size:100%;" ><br />Let's do a little bit more. Look at how they define secularity: "the neutrality of the state with regard to the opinions, beliefs and practices of its citizens." This is just bizarre, because the state never remains neutral on all the practices of citizens. Pedophilia is a practice of citizens, yet who would suggest the state remain neutral on it? Perhaps they meant religious practices? Well, one could easily found a religion involving pedophilia. But take an actual example: <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/9608/18/bride.burn/">sati</a>, the Hindu practice of sacrificing, on the husband's funeral pyre, a wife who is unfortunate enough to outlive her husband. No one suggests tolerating that religious practice in Quebec, so we can agree that no one suggests tolerating all religious practices, only some. So the question is, which do we tolerate and which don't we? The Quebec public seems to want to stick a few Islamic practices in with the "do not tolerate" pile. In a democracy, the public is sovereign.<br /><br />One more quote from <span style="font-style: italic;">the Statement</span>:<br /></span><span style=";font-family:georgia;font-size:100%;" ><blockquote>Just as the values and principles dear to Quebeckers are not for sale at any price, neither are equally universal values and principles of other cultural horizons that enrich Québec. The two are not in opposition, rather they enhance one another, with the same quiet resolve and the same far-reaching commitment to justice, sharing, and equality that we believe motivate us all.</blockquote></span><span style=";font-family:georgia;font-size:100%;" >Is this true, that they are not opposition? This is what Mohammed said to do: "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him" (Bukhari 9:84:57).</span><span style=";font-family:georgia;font-size:100%;" > Compare that sentiment with something more Quebecois. Here's a passage I like from the end of Simone de Beauvoir's The Blood of Others (Le Sang des autres), which I think grasps something about the West in general, its relationship with freedom:<br /></span><blockquote style="font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;"><span style="font-size:100%;">But if only I dedicate myself to defend that supreme good, which makes innocent and vain all the stones and the rocks, that good which saves each man from all the others and from myself -- Freedom -- then my passion will not have been in vain.</span></blockquote><span style=";font-family:georgia;font-size:100%;" >In the latter, we have the sentiment of dedication to freedom above all else, in the former we have the denial of freedom: You are only worthy to exist as long as you do not go against Allah. How are these two sentiments "not in opposition" as the Islamic groups would have it?<br /><br />I can only say, it's not intolerant to not tolerate the intolerant.</span>Kafir Canadahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15933522252609517559noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-997614905375893918.post-67706265576188731522007-11-25T10:14:00.000-08:002007-11-26T12:11:06.501-08:00A Bit More on Elmasry<span style=";font-family:georgia;font-size:100%;" >Last <a href="http://kafircanada.blogspot.com/2007/11/canadian-prof-on-islamic-scientific.html">post I wrote</a> about Mohamed Elmasry, a professor at University of Waterloo and head of the Canadian Islamic Congress. I've collected more information on him here.<br /></span><span style=";font-family:georgia;font-size:100%;" ><br /></span><span style=";font-family:georgia;font-size:100%;" >In September 2004 <a href="http://imprint.uwaterloo.ca/legacy/story.php?f=2&t=5630&i=&v=f&story=5630&">he called for</a> alcohol to be banned from campuses. He said that his position did not derive from the Islamic point of view, but I sure wonder; seems a little weird that the leader of an Islamic political group would call for the banning of alcohol and it not have anything to do with Islam when Islam involves just that. If I would guess, I'd say he was trying to gain support for his organisation by calling for more implementation of sharia law. And indeed, Elmasry <a href="http://muslimchronicle.blogspot.com/2005/01/muslim-opponents-of-shariah-tribunals.html">supported the introduction</a> of sharia courts for family issues.<br /></span><span style=";font-family:georgia;font-size:100%;" ><br /></span><span style=";font-family:georgia;font-size:100%;" >One month later <a href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/003706.php">he said</a> all Israelis over the age of 18 are legitimate targets of suicide bombings. There was, of course, much brouhaha about this, with the angry letter writing and calls for resignation and all. The comments were even investigated as hate crimes. You might think this ironic considering that Elmasry <a href="http://www.mediamonitors.net/elmasry38.html">speaks</a> so thoroughly against hate speech: </span><blockquote style="font-family:georgia;"><span style="font-size:100%;"> </span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:100%;" >In fact, the swollen hate-language of anti-Islam voice messages received recently by the CIC, reads as if the callers were trying to outdo Falwell and his colleagues: "Muhammad was a pedophile, a mass murder, a demon-possessed maniac, a false prophet," said one. "Islam is a false religion. The Qur'an and the Hadith are both books of lies and deception," said another. And so on; it is offensive even to repeat such words in making a case against them. There was no doubt that those who left these, and messages like them, could be charged with hate-crime.</span></blockquote><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"> </blockquote>But how could they possibly be charged with hate crimes for saying those things? As he is portrayed in the Islamic texts, he was a pedophile -- he consummated his marriage with Aisha when she was only 9 years old. He was a mass murderer -- he killed or expelled all the Jews from Medina. He was demon-possessed -- that was the whole issue of the Satanic verses, where the devil possessed him to write certain things into the Quran. And that he was a false-prophet -- wouldn't pretty much every non-Muslim hold this belief? How could making any statement about a character of a literary work be considered a hate crime? Let alone ones that are, in the relevant sense, true? Elmasry is blinded to all reason by his devotion to Mohammed.<br /><span style=";font-family:georgia;font-size:100%;" ><br /></span>Indeed, Elmasry seems to have a thing for defending Mohammed's make-believe honour. When the Western Standard republished the Danish Mohammed cartoons, Elmasry was on the case as well, <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/02/13/cartoons060213.html">saying that</a> <span style=";font-family:georgia;font-size:100%;" >"his organization will seek to have charges laid against the magazine under Canada's laws against distributing hate literature." Of course, it was never charged, because the images aren't hate speech -- though, admittedly, many Muslims hate them because they were poignant criticisms of their ideology.<br /><br />Hate speech according to Mohamed Elmasry:</span><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjcx4Zm38skf6xoFWV9DF80QrXsl1qMzP8n9uMdrGbbdgKyDu_loh3BlAYVulouqclqiaOlEVZjc6h4QHqVLGiyFcPxtZBXM2Fuh6ZSAtnpdAKvI3kYxbKLb41soW_id0wrI3Z7MdJHd_P7/s1600-h/we_ran_out_of_virgins.png"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjcx4Zm38skf6xoFWV9DF80QrXsl1qMzP8n9uMdrGbbdgKyDu_loh3BlAYVulouqclqiaOlEVZjc6h4QHqVLGiyFcPxtZBXM2Fuh6ZSAtnpdAKvI3kYxbKLb41soW_id0wrI3Z7MdJHd_P7/s400/we_ran_out_of_virgins.png" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5137003535342593314" border="0" /></a><span style="font-family:georgia;"><br /></span>Kafir Canadahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15933522252609517559noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-997614905375893918.post-79392563586529439682007-11-24T10:01:00.000-08:002007-11-24T12:54:09.010-08:00Canadian Prof on Islamic Scientific Advancements<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsNbBvdpESnTXawaeb6Ea0DtLzSFs7DLP8eqkXTPecRaN2miMuBvouCpXBwZ5CV8t30bG3kdIRKivQBD3VhJqLI6ONM6sgEyXWgy1FdWIaIiMDX4ipA0QRHxcj4Xy_beV33edr2WKCJJcZ/s1600-h/mohamed_elmasry.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 123px; height: 101px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsNbBvdpESnTXawaeb6Ea0DtLzSFs7DLP8eqkXTPecRaN2miMuBvouCpXBwZ5CV8t30bG3kdIRKivQBD3VhJqLI6ONM6sgEyXWgy1FdWIaIiMDX4ipA0QRHxcj4Xy_beV33edr2WKCJJcZ/s200/mohamed_elmasry.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5136492309680317714" border="0" /></a><br />Mohamed Elmasry of the University of Waterloo <a href="http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/47757">has some dawa</a> for Media Monitors Network, wherein he writes on the scientific achievements of Islam.<br /><br />But, try to find in any of the advancements listed one that comes from Islam itself, or from the characters of Islam, Mohammed or his companions, rather than from regular scientific people who were also Muslims. I don't find any, just as when I looked at <a href="http://kafircanada.blogspot.com/2007/11/one-big-inferiority-complex.html">this phenomenon before</a>.<br /><br />The best that Elmasry can do in showing that these achievements derive from Islam is to say that they are "a reflection of the Islamic faith in the mathematical concept of a universe whose creation by God is an unending, or infinitely living process." Which is a pretty nebulous claim in itself, and, further, doesn't even appear to be true, since I think the Muslim opinion is that at some point the universe comes to an end. Here's what the MSA says <a href="http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/pillars/signsofthelasthour.html">about the "Last Hour"</a>: "At this point, the Day of Resurrection commences in which the skies and earth are destroyed by Allah." Elmasry says also that they "expressed the fundamental aims of Islam, which urged a never-ending quest to understand God’s visible signs in the cosmos." A much less nebulous claim: Islam actually promotes these advancements. But, again, one without base. This commandment doesn't exist, and again, how could the quest to understand the cosmos be never-ending when the cosmos themselves are not "never-ending?"<br /><br />No one is denying that Muslims are people who can do good things. What I'm denying is that Islam is an ideology that can do good things.Kafir Canadahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15933522252609517559noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-997614905375893918.post-19071648425513125542007-11-21T20:01:00.000-08:002007-11-21T20:47:45.969-08:00Sohail Qureshi -- pro-Taliban, anti-democracy, and....relativist?<span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:georgia;">Sohail Qureshi of Calgary </span><a style="font-family: georgia;" href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071121.wqureshi21/BNStory/National/home/?pageRequested=1">was arrested</a><span style="font-family:georgia;"> in Afghanistan on suspicion of terrorist activities. He traveled there this year. He has since been released and is back at home. From the article:</span><br /></span><blockquote style="font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;"><span style="font-size:100%;">He talks about Islam as historically being "spread by the sword." He urges the removal of foreign forces from Afghanistan and other Muslim lands. He lauds the period when the Taliban ruled Afghanistan.<br />...<br />His father also spoke to a local imam of his son's extreme religious views, including an announced intention to become a jihadist in Afghanistan. The imam, in turn, reminded the young man the Koran prohibited such actions. </span><p><span style="font-size:100%;">"After he confirmed this was his intention, I told him he had to stand down," Imam Sheik Alaa Elsayed recalled.<br />...<br />Mr. Qureshi, however, has much to say. Mr. Elsayed spoke without having the "slightest bit of evidence" about why he was captured in Afghanistan, Mr. Qureshi says, adding that the imam is spreading false interpretations of the Koran. </span></p><p><span style="font-size:100%;">"The reason is because he and others following his path wish to please the Christians and Jews by creating an image of Islam and Muslims which they will accept, instead of trying to please Allah by spreading the true Message of Islam," he explains.</span></p></blockquote><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:georgia;">Qureshi writes about sharia and democracy in Canada:</span><br /></span><blockquote style="font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;"><span style="font-size:100%;">"It is quite difficult for Muslims to live in Canada according to the true Message of Islam," Mr. Qureshi wrote. "This is because they are ruled in their everyday lives by secular, democratic law, which is in opposition to the values of Islamic sharia."</span></blockquote><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:georgia;">He also says, "the allegations made against me is terrorism from the point of view of those in the West" This is really the same thing you hear a lot: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. " Whenever this is said it always strikes me as the most inane comment. I mean, of course that's true! No one actually believes they're </span><a style="font-family: georgia;" href="http://kafircanada.blogspot.com/2007/10/everyone-believes-theyre-on-side-of.html">doing the wrong thing</a><span style="font-family:georgia;">. Who actually believes that terrorists go to bed at night thinking "Oh, I'm an evil terrorist; it's too bad I have to wake up tomorrow to do more evil things." It's obvious they </span></span><span style="font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;font-size:100%;" >believe</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:georgia;"> they're on the side of good, but it's equally obvious that, despite their belief, they are not actually on the side of good. And that's why the statement always betrays a relativist sentiment: "Whatever you believe actually is true!"<br /><br /></span><span style="font-family:georgia;">Last point. Look at his reason for traveling to Afghanistan:</span><br /></span><blockquote style="font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;"><span style="font-size:100%;">Afghan officials said at one point that Mr. Qureshi claimed to be in Afghanistan to find work, due to lack of employment opportunities in Canada.</span></blockquote><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:georgia;">Oh yeah, </span></span><span style="font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;font-size:100%;" >real hard</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:georgia;"> to get a job in Alberta lately. And his father's a millionaire, why would he need a job so badly that he would travel to the other side of the world for? And he has a university degree in computer-science: How many positions in computer programming are there in Afghanistan? Wait? From a millionaire family? And he's a university graduate? So much for poverty being the cause of extremism.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Well, aren't you glad he's back? No, me neither.</span></span>Kafir Canadahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15933522252609517559noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-997614905375893918.post-49437580490360854922007-11-20T19:02:00.000-08:002007-11-24T11:35:17.250-08:00No Borders<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjx0Zus2N0EzyemZcNO8bNqxE__DQMfkzq8CoHHiFr5Vs5PZJyWDdBbGaBcB4BPQz5mJEKeT-MkL7N2pWLN56oei_pdThFHmWbk51uJNQOoqGEHThogGFkn8VAsx83EiFP9iTsqyeoi9o7R/s1600-h/12865.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 151px; height: 82px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjx0Zus2N0EzyemZcNO8bNqxE__DQMfkzq8CoHHiFr5Vs5PZJyWDdBbGaBcB4BPQz5mJEKeT-MkL7N2pWLN56oei_pdThFHmWbk51uJNQOoqGEHThogGFkn8VAsx83EiFP9iTsqyeoi9o7R/s200/12865.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5135137268973266178" border="0" /></a>Little <a href="http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=a94ef214-2312-4571-a27f-8ea26152a6f9&k=23871">bit on the</a> Taylor-Bouchard commission. They quote a group "No One Is Illegal" who the CBC simply calls a <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2007/11/20/qc-accommodation1120.html">migrant rights group</a>.<br /><br />This is a nominally Marxist group and <a href="http://www.noii.org.uk/no-one-is-illegal-manifesto/">calls for</a> the abolishment of all borders and immigration control, which goes along with the, you know, general abolishment of Western nations: they never seem to ask for non-Western nations to open up their borders. Perhaps this has something to do with their association with <a href="http://noiivan.blogspot.com/2007/07/overcoming-conspiracy-against-palestine.html">Islamists</a> who would otherwise have nothing to do with Marxism.<br /><br />Unless you abolish your borders and allow absolutely anyone and everyone to move to your country and commit yourself to Marxism, you are a fascist. So this group gives citizens of Western nations two options: communism or fascism. Talk about a false dichotomy.<br /><br />Here's something else from <a href="http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=a94ef214-2312-4571-a27f-8ea26152a6f9&k=23871">the first link</a>, quoting Carmen Chouinard, of the <a href="http://www.licmontreal.org/">Centre Islamique Libanais</a>:<br /><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">"There was no problem in Quebec. Were people being beaten in the streets, assassinated? Not at all, things were going well," she told reporters.</blockquote>That's very telling I think. Her assumption is that whenever people have problems, they necessarily turn to violence. As if there could be no non-violent airing of issues. And then when people do start this airing, she responds with disbelief: "There couldn't actually be a problem! You're not killing and maiming people! You must not actually be serious." A very common Islamic attitude, I would say.Kafir Canadahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15933522252609517559noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-997614905375893918.post-58017664420931347412007-11-19T14:37:00.000-08:002007-11-19T20:28:28.013-08:00More of the SameIn the<a href="http://kafircanada.blogspot.com/2007/11/judo-hijab.html"> same vein as the last post</a>, Woman<a href="http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5iYPMEC5V9lp3hX94GnxF1V4Tk1CA"> claims discrimination</a> for not being allowed to wear hijab at work at Pearson aiport:<br /><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">She rejected a below-the-knee uniform skirt and wanted a longer garment to conform with Islamic dress code, which calls for women to wear loose-fitting clothes that cover the entire body except the face, hands and feet.<p>She sewed herself an ankle-length skirt in the uniform fabric and colour and wore it for about six months until the company, citing uniform regulations set by the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, refused to allow the change and suspended her in August.</p></blockquote><p></p>Really the name "uniform" says it all. One form. The idea is that having one form for all the employees helps the business in some way. If you are allowing employees to not wear the uniform because of religious requirements, I say you have, in effect, committed to allowing employees to wear whatever they want, because anything can be a religious requirement. Bring in the <a href="http://images.buycostumes.com/mgen/merchandiser/20014.jpg">giraffe hats</a> for this one too.<br /><br />EDIT:<br />Oh yeah, something else. A lot of news stories are saying she was fired, but this is not true. She's free to come back to work as normal if she wears the work uniform.Kafir Canadahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15933522252609517559noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-997614905375893918.post-1523377342976818792007-11-19T13:44:00.000-08:002007-11-19T20:25:30.121-08:00Judo HijabA small girl <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071119.whijabsub19/BNStory/National/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20071119.whijabsub19">was barred</a> from fighting a judo tournament in Winnipeg because she wanted to wear a hijab. <a href="http://www.anti-cair-net.org/">CAIR</a>, of course, is up and about, lying away:<br /><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">"Dave Minuk's decision effectively bars Muslim women from judo. For decades, women have fought hard for their rights and Minuk's call is taking them away," said the statement from the Council of American-Islamic Relations Canada.</blockquote>This has nothing to do with women. If the person who wanted to wear the headscarf had been a male, it would have had the same result.<br /><br />One <em>Stacey Ashley</em> in <a href="http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071117/hijab_judo_071117/20071117?hub=TopStories">this CTV article</a> has to lie as well in order to make her point, saying, "Judo Manitoba gave a bureaucratic boot Saturday to a little girl who just wanted to participate in a tournament." She didn't<span style="font-style: italic;"> just</span> want to participate in the tournament. If that's what she wanted, she would have! Instead, she wanted to <span style="font-style: italic;">both</span> participate in the tournament <span style="font-style: italic;">and</span> wear a prohibited headdress. Do not all sane people see the difference there? CTV doesn't.<br /><br />If they change their decision for the sake of accommodation, I encourage anyone in the relevant tournaments and who disagrees with as much just to wear whatever they want on their head and necks. Maybe like a big old giraffe hat, they look pretty cool, something <a href="http://images.buycostumes.com/mgen/merchandiser/20014.jpg">like this</a>. That'd be pretty intimidating too. Just say it's a requirement of your religion -- you'll have as much justification as Muslims do for wearing the hijab.<br /><br />The mother of the girl said she is contacting Sport Manitoba who apparently has some say in these matters. May I suggest to all those who are interested to offer their own opinion on the matter? Sport Manitoba's contact information<a href="http://www.sportmanitoba.ca/contact.php"> is here</a>.Kafir Canadahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15933522252609517559noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-997614905375893918.post-43747542036695513472007-11-18T08:24:00.000-08:002007-11-19T15:11:54.486-08:00Safe Haven for Convert from IslamHere' s a story of Allan Mamemi, a convert to Christianity from Iran, who sought refugee status in Canada:<br /><span class="Normal"></span><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"><span class="Normal">Ali had to remain in <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Iran</st1:place></st1:country-region> for compulsory military service. While there, according to his story, he held hands in a public park with a woman whom he failed to realize was married. For this <span style="font-weight: bold;">he was beaten, and ordered to report to a labour camp</span>. Instead he left for <st1:place st="on"><st1:country-region st="on">Canada</st1:country-region></st1:place>, arriving in 1999.<br /></span><br />But his claim of refugee status was denied. In May of 2006 he was ordered deported. At that point he went into sanctuary at <st1:city st="on"><st1:place st="on">St. John’s</st1:place></st1:city> and a warrant was issued for his arrest. He remained in sanctuary, either at <st1:place st="on"><st1:city st="on">St. John’s</st1:city></st1:place> or briefly at two other parishes, which Meakes declined to name. <span class="Normal"> <p>Meakes said that before going into sanctuary Monemi converted to Christianity and asked that people call him Allan. At his baptism, MP Don Bell became one of his godfathers. His conversion raised the stakes, since leaving Islam can be a capital offense in <st1:place st="on"><st1:country-region st="on">Iran</st1:country-region></st1:place>.</p></span></blockquote><span class="Normal"><p>We seem to have more of a problem with deporting people like <a href="http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=7d4ea1ed-235e-480c-8f9c-9d7f25d5766f&k=9278">Said Jaziri</a> and <a href="http://kafircanada.blogspot.com/2007/10/letting-terrorists-teach.html">Mahmoud Jaballah</a> than people like Allan Mamemi.</p></span>Kafir Canadahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15933522252609517559noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-997614905375893918.post-81194562342520790102007-11-16T20:15:00.000-08:002007-11-16T20:35:39.719-08:00Westerners seek real Middle East...at an American School<p style="font-family: georgia;"> <span style=";font-size:100%;" ><span style="">Here's <a href="http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=23118">an article</a> about increased study of Islam and the Middle East in general since 9/11:<br /><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">The number of American students at the University, known as AUC, has about tripled since 2002 and reached a record of more than 400 this year.<br />...<br />After unrest in Lebanon dimmed the appeal of the American University of Beirut, Arabic programs in Cairo are meeting demand from the United States, Canada, and European countries.</blockquote></span></span></p><p style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="">Notice that, even though they're in Cairo, they go to an American-ran, liberal arts <a href="ttp://www.aucegypt.edu/SiteCollectionImages/Homepage%20Images/International%20Students/_DSC0503.jpg">school</a>, and not an actual Islamic institute. The "foremost" Islamic school is actually in Cairo too: <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20040701101509/http://www.frcu.eun.eg/www/universities/html/azhar.html">al-Azhar University</a>. But, Americans might have a hard time going there...because they ban non-Muslims from enrolling. Of course, not a single university in the West forbids Muslims from enrolling, not even the most devoutly Christian universities. Where is the reciprocity? And who is really holding back dialogue? Just another example of what I've been <a href="http://kafircanada.blogspot.com/2007/11/censorship-in-islamic-world.html">talking about</a>. Why don't groups like <a href="http://anti-cair-net.org/">CAIR</a> push for opening up Islamic universities to non-Muslims if they actually want non-Muslims to learn about Islam, as they say?</span><br /><br /></span><span style=";font-size:100%;" ><span style="">Here's something else from the article:<br /></span></span></p><blockquote style="font-style: italic; font-family: georgia;"><p><span style=";font-size:100%;" ><span style="">Weakley, the Baylor student originally from Kentucky, said he would try to reverse some stereotypes about the Arab world when he returns to Texas.</span></span></p> <span style=";font-size:100%;" ><span style="">"People think everyone here is a terrorist or they hate you because you are Christian," he said. "That's not the case. When I get back I am going to tell my friends that these are good people."</span></span></blockquote><span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:20;" ><span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:14;" ><span style="font-family: georgia;font-size:100%;" >How many people actually believe such sweeping generalisations? Sounds like he has some stereotypes of his own.</span><br /></span></span>Kafir Canadahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15933522252609517559noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-997614905375893918.post-629340057964583332007-11-15T21:50:00.000-08:002007-11-15T21:58:30.650-08:00English: the language of ad-Dajjal?At the <a href="http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/190129.php">Jawa Report</a>:<br /><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">Armed men arrived at the school in the Sayed Karam district of Paktia province and grabbed a 16-year-old student and dragged him outside. <p>“Taliban militants took the boy out and killed him outside the school just because he was teaching English to his classmates,” said General Esmatullah Alizai, the police chief of Paktia province. </p></blockquote><p>But hey, the Taliban are <a href="http://kafircanada.blogspot.com/2007/11/taliban-supporters-at-mcmaster.html">rising Islamically</a>, and to fight them would be a war against Islam, according to McMaster students.<br /></p>Kafir Canadahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15933522252609517559noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-997614905375893918.post-32541647900932046542007-11-15T18:15:00.000-08:002007-11-15T19:12:44.857-08:00Don't Stand Down, Hijab at SchoolIslam means something. It actually <span style="font-style: italic;">says</span> something, it prescribes things. Islam can have influence and this influence can have actual results. <br /><br />This should be kept in mind when talking about religious accommodation, for example religious symbols in schools. This is one of the issues in the debate in Quebec. Some complain that preventing women from wearing hijab as teachers or as students, is "<span class="std"><a href="http://www.hour.ca/news/news.aspx?iIDArticle=13437">very intrusive, very discriminatory</a>." Yes, it is discriminatory against the message of Islam as embodied in the hijab. But, a public school is put together by the public in order to, in some part, educate and raise children. The public always discriminates among the wide variety of ideologies which exist and thereby decides what messages the children are exposed to. If the public disagrees with the message of Islam, they have both the <span style="font-style: italic;">right</span>, as they have the final say as to what transpires in the schools, and the <span style="font-style: italic;">responsibility</span> to not allow that message in the school. There's no absolute reason to accommodate ideologies you disagree with. One doesn't allow a teacher or a student to wear whatever symbol they wish to at school, and no one argues against this. For example, a <a href="http://www.nambla.org/">NAMBLA</a> t-shirt wouldn't be worn for very long in a public school. So, everyone agrees the issue is not in deciding whether to accommodate <span style="font-style: italic;">every</span> point of view, but rather the issue is in deciding <span style="font-style: italic;">which</span> points of view should be accommodated and which should not. The public, of Quebec at least, doesn't want to accommodate the Islamic point of view that some wish to bring to schools. I think they're right: it's a very poor ideology, both in message and in results. Those who agree on this shouldn't stand down.<br /><br />If the public thinks the <span style="font-size:100%;">message of Islam is bad, then why should they have to allow the propagation of that message at the schools they are in charge of? The French know the answer, and that's why <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3474673.stm">they banned</a> the hijab at their public schools, with a bill </span></span><span style="font-size:100%;">"passed by 494 votes to 36."</span><span class="std"><span style="font-size:100%;"> I'm sure if a similar movement was brought in the Quebec National Assembly, it would find similar su</span>pport.<br /></span>Kafir Canadahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15933522252609517559noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-997614905375893918.post-66802100144336044332007-11-14T20:28:00.000-08:002007-11-14T20:53:51.822-08:00Dr. Ahmad Shafaat on Apostasy, and moreI was just perusing around reading stuff, like I do. I thought <a href="http://www.islamicperspectives.com/Apostasy1.htm">this was interesting</a>. It is Dr. Ahmad Shafaat at Concordia University in Montreal. Here he's talking about apostasy from Islam. He takes up the same assumption that <a href="http://kafircanada.blogspot.com/2007/11/takfir.html">I've talked before</a>: anyone who disagrees with Islam must be simply mistaken, or have less than noble motives -- certainly not interested in truth anyway. And he doesn't deny apostates should be punished, though he tries to gloss over it I would say.<br /><br />He divides apostates into two possible categories: 1) those who leave because they are ignorant of Islam, and 2) those who leave for base, worldly gain. See how there is no option like: and those who leave because they actually disagree. But he does mention a third category, but it's not like the other categories in that it doesn't refer to the reasons behind leaving Islam. It rather refers to the actions taken by the apostate upon leaving. It reads:<br /><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">3) The third type of apostate is one who leaves Islam and then engages in hostile actions against Islam and Muslims, e.g. knowingly engages in propaganda against Islam and Muslims blatantly ignoring facts that he is expected to know well, passes secrets to the enemy, takes part in fighting against the Muslims. Such an apostate can be punished by anything from exile to death.<br /></blockquote>So there we have the ever present punishment. Note these "hostile actions" include "engag[ing] in propaganda against Islam." So how would this be any different from criticising it? Even if what is being said is bombastic and off the wall, how's the apostate's freedom of speech faring? Not very well with the punishment of "anything from exile to death" bearing down. This is why Ibn Warraq uses a pseudonym and Ayaan Hirsi Ali needs round-the-clock security to protect her life -- both of them being apostates and critics of the religion.<br /><br />What else, yes. I came upon that apostaty piece when I saw a claim made by Dr. Shafaat that Muslims <a href="http://www.islamicperspectives.com/SocialProjectsAndMuslims.htm">were considered</a> "enemy aliens" in Canada during World War I, and I tried to read more. Can anyone confirm this? I'm at a loss, and he offered no sources.Kafir Canadahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15933522252609517559noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-997614905375893918.post-77943951135113316942007-11-14T13:23:00.000-08:002007-11-14T14:17:47.035-08:00Taliban Supporters at McMaster?The occupation of <a href="http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20071114094821284">Afghanistan is part of a</a> "war against Islam" according to the the McMaster University group <a href="http://macmpj.org/">Muslims for Peace and Justice</a>. A war "in particular against countries that are rising Islamically." The invasion of Afghanistan was done of to remove the Taliban from power, the Taliban who were supporting al-Qaeda including harbouring Osama bin Laden, and who, in their own terms, had declared war on the United States (who, call me crazy, I take as an ally of Canada) and who had just attacked there, killing over 3000 Americans.<br /><br />Anyway, is this group saying that Afghanistan under the Taliban was the right thing and that it was "rising Islamically?" I don't see what else could be being said. If they're saying that the Taliban represents Islam manifest, hey, maybe -- I won't contest that. That the Taliban was a good thing...that punishing as far as executing people for personal, victimless actions, such as sexual relations out of wedlock, homosexual relations, drinking alcohol, criticising religion, freely choosing one's own faith, etc...that these atrocities are good things is just absurd.Kafir Canadahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15933522252609517559noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-997614905375893918.post-7528145696278524132007-11-14T11:55:00.000-08:002007-11-14T12:07:45.498-08:00Update on Detained MECA MembersI <a href="http://kafircanada.blogspot.com/2007/11/more-christians-in-egypt-detained.html">wrote last week</a> that two members of the Toronto-based Middle Eastern Christian Association were arrested in Egypt. This came just two days after<span style="font-style: italic;"> two other </span>members of the group were released having been under arrest since August on charges of "anti-Islam" statements. Now <a href="http://www.christianpost.com/article/20071113/30072_Egypt_Arrests_Three_Christian_Rights_Activists.htm">it appears</a> that rather than two members it is three men, and they are indeed being charged with defaming Islam as well.<br /><br />You find a <a href="http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070814/28901_Egyptian_Christian_Convert_Vows_Not__to_Give_Up.htm">link off that page</a> that goes to a sad story on the site about a thoroughly persecuted man who converted to Christianity in Egypt and is fighting the government to recognise him as no longer Muslim. Apostasy is forbidden in Islam. Mohammed said "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him." (Bukhari 9:84:57)Kafir Canadahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15933522252609517559noreply@blogger.com1