Canadian anti-Muslim sentiment is rising, disturbing new poll reveals

Angus Reid survey reveals a land of intolerance

David Cooper / Toronto Star / Getstock

In the early evening of Sept. 17, before dark, a 17-year-old girl strolled from the Al-Noor Mosque in St. Catharines, Ont., to the plaza across the street. She was planning to buy a drink and snack. Then three other girls, teenagers the girl from the mosque didn’t recognize, walked up behind her. According to Sallah Hamdani, a spokesman for the local Islamic community, the trio of girls began by making bigoted remarks. Isn’t it against your religion, one asked, to be out walking alone? Ugly words escalated into pushing, then punching. “There was blood. She went to the hospital to make sure her nose wasn’t broken,” Hamdani said. “Her hijab was pulled. You can’t keep it on during a fight.”

The altercation outside a convenience store was rough enough to be noticed from a nearby optometrist’s office, where witnesses called the police. Before they arrived, a woman walking a dog also stepped in. Two 16-year-old girls were charged with assault. They can’t be named under the Youth Criminal Justice Act. The girl from the mosque wasn’t badly hurt, at least not physically. Hamdani worries, though, that the girl’s immigrant parents might feel differently about the place they’ve chosen to live. Then there’s the matter of how the girl’s head scarf—the sort that covers a woman’s hair, not her face—might have factored into the incident. “Those girls who wear the hijab, or were thinking of it, will wonder, ‘Will people pick on me?’” Hamdani says.

Across Canada, Muslims have reason to feel concerned about how they are perceived when other Canadians identify them by their religion. A poll conducted by Angus Reid Public Opinion early last month, the results of which were made available exclusively to Maclean’s, found that attitudes toward Islam have deteriorated markedly across the country over the past four years. “It’s disturbing to see this growing level of mistrust,” said Andrew Grenville, Angus Reid’s chief research officer. The way Canadians see the other major religions—Christianity, Judaism, Sikhism, Hinduism and Buddhism—didn’t change much in the same four-year period.

This snapshot of public opinion comes as the Quebec government’s proposed “charter of values,” which would forbid provincial employees from wearing obvious religious garb and jewellery on the job, sparks heated debate about religious expression. In fact, the poll shows that opinion in Quebec, while markedly less tolerant of religious minorities overall than in other provinces, hasn’t grown less favourable toward Muslims in recent years. In 2009, Angus Reid found that 68 per cent of Quebecers held an unfavourable opinion of Islam. Asked the same question this fall, the Quebec result was pretty much level, at 69 per cent.

But in the rest of Canada, where 46 per cent held an unfavourable view of Islam in 2009, that figure has risen sharply to 54 per cent this year. By comparison, 39 per cent outside Quebec held an unfavourable opinion of Sikhism, the faith with the biggest public-opinion problem after Islam. All the other religions were regarded unfavourably by less than 30 per cent of Canadians, and those who see Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism in a good light far outnumbered those harbouring suspicions. In Quebec, 48 per cent said they would find it unacceptable for one of their children to marry a Muslim, up slightly from 45 per cent in 2009. In the rest of Canada, those who found the thought of a son or daughter marrying a Muslim unacceptable shot up to 32 per cent from 24 per cent. Rejection of the idea of a child marrying into any of the other religions was considerably lower.

The finding that only Islam is viewed unfavourably by a majority of Canadians has to be deeply discouraging, of course, to those who work to improve the standing of Muslims in Canada. But, given a string of unsettling news stories in recent years—from what police called an “al-Qaeda-supported” plan to derail a passenger train in Toronto, to a prominent court case about whether a Muslim woman should be allowed to testify while wearing the niqab religious veil—the opinion shift is not entirely unexpected. “It’s surprising and it isn’t,” said Ihsaan Gardee, executive director at the National Council of Canadian Muslims. “This is something that we’re constantly working on, the misperceptions that people have about Islam and Muslims. It certainly doesn’t help that in our political discourse, issues come up that are sensationalized in the media.”

Founded in 2000 as the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations, Gardee’s group changed its name last summer to underscore its Canadian roots. The council has always focused on defending civil liberties, so the legal debate in Quebec over those proposed prohibitions on religious symbols in provincial workplaces is a core concern for the group. But Gardee says the council also tries to train Muslim leaders to engage more skillfully with the media, on everything from handling an interview with a reporter to writing an op-ed article. The aim is to improve the way Islam is portrayed. Among the most difficult issues is veiling. “The niqab is obviously an issue that’s almost like a lightning rod, how it plays out in the public discourse,” Gardee says. “It’s come to the fore, in terms of the number of stories written about it.”

Angus Reid’s poll, an online survey of 2,025 adults conducted early last month, discovered that many Canadians who don’t mind other religious clothing do object to Muslim women covering their faces. Asked about the burka, a loose garment that leaves only an opening for the eyes, 90 per cent of Quebecers and 62 per cent in the rest of the country said they shouldn’t be allowed in public sector workplaces. But on the hijab, a much simpler headscarf without a veil, the portion of Quebecers opposed to allowing them dropped to 63 per cent, while fully 65 per cent of Canadians elsewhere supported letting public servants wear them at work. Opinion on the hijab appears to be divided along similar lines to other religious headgear. Gardee acknowledges that some opposition to veiling can’t be put down to outright bigotry against Muslims. Many see the issue as a matter of women’s rights. “There’s concern about whether this is something being imported and pushed on people,” he says. “We understand that concern.”

Still, burkas and niqabs remain relatively rare in Canada. The hijab is a much more common sight. Shahina Siddiqui, president and executive director of Winnipeg’s Islamic Social Services Association, says she often counsels Muslim parents and their daughters about the choice to wear one or not. In some cases, Siddiqui says, the tension is over a daughter’s wish to follow the tradition and the parents’ reluctance. “People have this impression it’s the parents pushing it,” she says. “Some parents do not want their daughters wearing the hijab.” (Siddiqui herself wears it, but only started after she immigrated to Canada from Pakistan.) “My advice is, if it works for you, do it,” she says. “If you feel it isn’t comfortable to you, it doesn’t bring you close to the creator, then forget it.”

Reflection of that sort might seem remote to a teenager cornered against the brick wall outside a strip-mall convenience store. And for Muslims facing a tide of opinion flowing against them, discussing the nuances of personal choice might seem beside the point. Whatever it takes to reverse trends in public attitudes, and reduce the frequency of alarming incidents, Muslim leaders argue they shouldn’t be struggling without allies. “I don’t think it should be up to the Muslim community alone to combat this growing anti-Islam sentiment,” says Gardee. “Most Canadians recognize that how we manage diversity is a discussion we should be having.”




Browse

Canadian anti-Muslim sentiment is rising, disturbing new poll reveals

  1. Sadly it’s no surprise when the Prime Minister attacks Islamicism, MPs attack Muslim clothing, Quebec Premier supports divisive law. Also, lets not forget the verbal attacks from Sun TV and their newspapers.

    • Brilliant observation on your part in regards to Harper`s involvement in this historical mistreatment of Muslims. If you follow up on this conspiracy you may convince us that Harper was in St. Catherine`s that evening orchestrating the beating. You are onto something here. Our opinion of you is dependent on your continued paranoia.

      • ” … Harper`s involvement in this historical mistreatment of Muslims”

        By calling Islamic terrorists by their name? Would you prefer he just call them Muslims rather than Islamists?

        EDIT: If you intended to be sarcastic, a /sarc would really help.

        Cawm, tell us, are you in support of the full face covering? EDIT: No, don’t bother. You were only trolling.

      • No, but you might find his trained attack pit bull, Ezra Levant on the scene, certainly in spirit if not in fact.

    • Islamism is simply the politically correct way of saying those who use violence in the name of islam. It’s still more pointed than most politicians have been but still does miss the fundamental problem. It does show he likely understands the problem of islam but also knows politically the implications of voicing the truth before people are ready to hear it.

      • I remember when Harper said this on The National. There was a discussion for a couple days what the word meant. Nevertheless, I suspect many just (incorrectly) understood it to mean Islamic.

        • Well, some of us may have missed the true and evil intentions of Harper on the National that night on the National, but not the wise Everett.
          He is so sure about Harper`s evil intentions that he invokes Harper`s name into a post about anti-Muslim sentiment while completely ignoring an elected government in Quebec that is actually attempting to get re-elected by encouraging bigotry and intolerance.
          Tell us more about these voices you hear.

          • Why don’t you wipe the sarcasm dripping off your chin and tell us YOUR theory as to why Canadians aren’t warming up to Muslim immigrants? Everett Coldwell did NOT blame the sentiment on Harper, he merely stated that Harper made an anti-Islam statement; all the other things he mentioned also really happened. Now we know what you think of his factual statement, but we still don’t know your opinion on why this is happening. And as an aside — dat you, Orson Bean?

          • “Everett Coldwell did NOT blame the sentiment on Harper, he merely stated
            that Harper made an anti-Islam statement; all the other things he
            mentioned also really happened.”

            I’m sorry, when did he make an anti-islam statement? Did he say that all Muslims are terrorists? No. He attempted to play the game of the left, the attempt at political correctness by referring to the terrorists as Islamists. What was wrong with that?

          • Are you asking rhetorical questions or genuinely trying to engage? Of course he didn’t say all Muslims are terrorists, and neither did Everett Coldwell make that claim. I would hazard a guess that Coldwell is referring to remarks he made in an interview with Mansbridge when he said that “Islamacists remain the greatest threat.” In no way did my comment make any judgement on harper’s remark except to acknowlege that he did indeed say that, and I can say that I recall it generated quite a bit of conversation.

          • Genuine. Please remember the original comment made by Everett was ” … Sadly it’s no surprise when the Prime Minister attacks Islamicism …” You don’t see a judgement there? Really?

            What Harper said was accurate – Islamist terrorists are the biggest threat to the security of our country. Yes, that statement did generate a lot of controversy, but the question is why?

            And for the record, I am not islamophobic. I am shariaphobic. Sharia has no place in the civilized world. Neither do niqabs.

          • Fair enough, and I’m not going to defend what I think Everett meant — clearly different people see his remark in various ways. I have really mixed thoughts, so mixed I don’t like to share them publicly. Trying to sort through in a fair-minded and Canadian way.

          • patchouli…sadly, we cannot blame politicians for why “Canadians aren’t warming up to Muslim immigrants.”
            The politicians as always are capitalizing on the polls suggesting Canadians aren’t warming up to Muslim immigrants, not creating their outcome. Marois, Kenny, etc. have taken account of which way the wind is blowing and have decided to reap the low hanging fruit by trying to appease those who like Ryan would keep every Muslim out of the country if they could. Politicians don’t create bigots, they just appeal to their base instincts for votes.

          • Nowhere on this thread, or ever in such a discussion, have I said politicians are to blame for Canadians not warming up to Muslim immigrants. I have my own mixed thoughts about this issue and am enjoying seeing the thoughts of other Canadians here.

            I agree with a later poster who said this is a manipulative piece of journalism because the writer firstly opens the article with an attack on a girl — which is extreme — and tells us nothing about the attackers, only about the Muslim teen who was attacked. We are meant to infer that the attackers were mainstream, white Canadian girls, but we don’t know.

            And since we’re talking about it, I would suggest that Canadians are more concerned about immigrants like the Shafia family, whose misconstrued ideology inspired them to murder three girls and a wife — their own family — than about terrorist attacks.

          • Yes, I am sure Canadians are concerned about the Shafia family and ideology that is frightening and morally repugnant.
            However, Canadians should not forget that our own are killing their families…grandparents starving their grandson to death and young teenagers beating up on people who they are bullying relentlessly, even encouraging them to take their own lives.

          • You are absolutely right about that.

    • Sadly it’s no surprise indeed. But what is a surprise is that a magazine that allowed Steyn to spew his vitriol and went to court to defend him, should be so surprised at this state of affairs.
      MacLeans enabled the behaviour that it now feigns surprise at, how very normal of Canadian polite society indeed.

      • This comment was deleted.

        • And yet it was a christian conservative who massacred so many unarmed Norwegians.. go figure

          • The “christian” who massacred 77 innocents while crying out “Jesus is my Savior”? That one?

            The loon whose hero was the Unibomber? That one?

            Yes, a good christian conservative, indeed.

          • The reason that man did that in Oslo is because alot of moslem men are raping blonde women there. Oslo has the same population of ottawa (1 million) and it has 10 times the rape of New York city and a staggering percentage of the rapists are moslem. Some even knife the women while they are dancing with them on the dance floor…

    • Was it wrong for Harper to “attack Islamacisim” or was it wrong for Harper to not explain that Islamacism was violence perpetrated on behalf of Islam by a very small minority of the 1 billion Muslim people worldwide?

      • This comment was deleted.

        • Really Robinoz? Did you speak to this ‘overwhelming majority’ before stating this so confidently? In fact, healthcareinsider is absolutely correct, and if you bothered to actually research just a bit before forming your opinions, you would see that too.

    • Islamicism is not a word.

    • Great isn’t it? The populace is ignoring the media deluge of propaganda. Funny, you’ve not specifically rebutted any of the Sun articles. Why don’t we start with that.

  2. Its sad to hear this haappining here i canada .but human nature will be the same.majorit if canadians outside of the bigger citys dont know much about islm or wht it means .even in the education system aincit history they skip islamic history.. .

  3. This comment was deleted.

    • ‘Now will our politicians do something about it?’

      Do what? What do you suggest the politicians do?

      • This comment was deleted.

        • Wow. Closing the borders to individuals not based on their actions but on the actions of a small group of people who happen to share the same religion. How very western of you.

          What should we do with the muslims that are here?

          • What nonsense are you on about gotta. There are literally 10′s of Muslim’s causing serious problems in Canada supported by 100′s of like minded malcontents.

            This represents perhaps as much as 0.1% of those people in the country! We need to draw a line somewhere. Of course, over 20% of red-haired left-handed people drive way too fast… so it would be a good time to get rid of them too.

            If we don’t use such obvious indicators to identify problems and trouble makers just what do you suggest. Are we really expected to treat everyone as an individual and judge them on their own behavior and principles?!?!? What kind of left-wing nut-job doesn’t understand that collective rights and prejudices always have to trump niceties like individual rights?

          • Yeah, I’m off my rocker alright.

            Islamophobes’ logic — ‘we gotta protect western society!’ — tends to break down after you ask them what we should do about the ‘problem of Islam.’ The solution generally involves us being less ‘western’. And, the solution doesn’t suggest to me the ‘problem of Islam’ would get any better, either.

          • Truthfully, the problem only becomes a bigger problem when the population numbers support it. Stopping immigration now would allow reduce the growth rate of it in our country. That alone would be sufficient. And of course those who are already here will be offered everything every other Canadian is.

            This unbridled immigration growth with no regard can’t continue.

          • Do you really believe a policy like this would work? You seem like a logical guy. Look at if from a ‘can this work?’ point of view. So, we close the door to all muslims. That still leaves us with a not-insignificant muslim population — the vast majority of which are peaceful and law abiding. Nevertheless, they would have just been declared, by the state, to be undesirable. I think it’s fair to predict that incidents like the one described in the original story would skyrocket. I can’t imagine the muslims being too happy about things either. So, if our goal is to curb this ‘clash of cultures’, isn’t your suggestion only going to exacerbate the situation?

            There are elements of Islam I don’t like. But I don’t fear it. I do fear, however, that state-sponsored xenophobia — which is antithetical in so many ways to the very underpinnings of western culture — is a sure-fire recipe for disaster. It won’t work for muslims, it won’t work for non-muslims, it won’t work for anybody. Whatever problems we’ve got now would get worse.

            Whatever problems the west has with Islam aren’t going to be solved by the west turning its back on its traditions of basic human rights. It just can’t work.

          • Hey now, let’s not pick on the gingers. Southpark already did that in jest and a whole lot of ginger kids felt the fall out.

          • This comment was deleted.

          • Why don’t you spell out what you think we should do with muslims who are here? Answer that before you accuse anyone of hiding.

          • Again, Islam is, by far, the fastest growing religion worldwide. I would recommend learning about it, instead of deciding what to do about the “problem”, or trying to advise politicians. Learn about the Middle East while you are at it. Come for a visit. Relax, we are all in it together.

          • This comment was deleted.

          • Agreed. Limiting freedom of speech and freedom of religion is what western society is all about.

            Also, what if they don’t conform, or leave? What then?

        • This comment was deleted.

          • Their ideology states that they must kill us because we are “infidels”, among many other violent commands.

            So how are we to differentiate between those that truly don’t believe in those commands and those that do?

            I’m not saying this is the one and only solution (or even that it is a solution), I’m just offering it up. Just that we cannot continue to believe that it’s okay that people say they believe in something that also includes commands for them to kill us. And when on a daily basis these acts are carried out, it simply is foolish to continue to believe that these commands don’t mean something.

            Again, there is not any race or nationality in this, it is ideology. People are not afraid to denigrate communism or capitalism, but why not islam itself? I’m not talking about muslims I’m talking about islam itself here.

          • If you read your Old Testament you’ll find a lot of prescriptions to violent measures against non-believers.

          • And how many people following those Old Testament prescriptions?

          • Probably about as many as follow the ones in the Quran

          • Funny, I haven’t heard stories of Christians stoning people lately. Can you cite your sources, please?

          • Well, there’s the incident in the states where a guy shot up a Sikh temple in the mistaken belief he was attacking Muslims.

            But that is not the point; Ryan was citing the existence of verses in the Quran as somehow inspiring and mandating all Muslims to perpetrate violence against Christians, painting them all with a broad brush.

            His words: ‘Their ideology states that they must kill us because we are “infidels”, among many other violent commands.’

            I was merely identifying that there are similar texts in other religious traditions. He further conflates religious belief with ideology which is a ridiculous argument: In every religious (or secular / atheist / agnostic) group there will be a spectrum of political beliefs; yes, some will be very much influenced by their interpretation of what their religion demands of them, others, not so much.

            What we need to do is a better job of screening potential immigrants (from anywhere) for association with violent or extremist elements.

            A Muslim wearing a hijab or a shalwar kameez is not an indicator of belonging to a violent group, any more than young male adults dressing in a way inspired by hip-hop artists is an indication of gang membership.

          • Yet you couldn’t provide one . . .

          • Did Ryan provide any?

            Anyway how about this:

            2 Chronicles 15:12-13

            And they entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and with all their soul, but that whoever would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, should be put to death, whether young or old, man or woman.

          • This comment was deleted.

          • The koran commands fighting those who fight Muslims.
            “Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you not transgress God does not love aggressors”
            “وقاتلوا في سبيل الله الذين يقاتلونكم ولا تعتدوا إن الله لا يحب المعتدين”

          • But, Ryan, what are we going to do about those Muslims who live among us? Since, as you say, they’re all terrorists waiting to happen, what do we do with them? Stop hiding and answer the question.

          • Since your original statement was “Their ideology states that they must kill us because we are “infidels”, among many other violent commands.”, I don’t think that challenging what you wrote is a side issue (not that I want to get into a scriptural verse pissing contest).

            Yet you somehow seem to believe the existence of scriptural text exhorting the faithful to violence towards the unconverted is embodied in the hearts and souls of all who believe in that religion, which is patently untrue. Yes, there are Muslims who perpetrate violence but I would think that these are mostly expressions of political beliefs or manifestations of conflicts for which the root cause is resource shortages. Best we skip the association with belonging to a certain religion and look at the real causes.

          • Yeah, that’s pretty explicit; I didn’t know about that one. But I’m not aware of any Christian or Jew who follows through with such an exhortation, that is, who applies this verse as justification of violent ends (at least explicitly). On the other hand, most – if not all – of the acts of Islamic terrorism that I’ve read about have contained very explicit recognition that such was undertaken under the auspices of holy war/jihad. In addition, we can quite safely say that if there’s anything to be said for quantity in explicit exhortations to violence, well, judge for yourself:

            Quran (2:191-193) “And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing.”

            Quran (5:33) “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned.”

            Quran (8:12) “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.”

            Quran (9:5) “So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush.”

            Quran (33:60-62) “If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and the alarmists in the city do not cease, We verily shall urge thee on against them, then they will be your neighbors in it but a little while. Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter.”

            Quran (47:3-4) “Therefore when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners.”

            And from the Hadith literature:

            Bukhari (52:177) – Allah’s Apostle said, “The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. “O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.”

            Bukhari (8:387) Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah’. And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally.”

            Bukhari (11:626) – [Muhammad said:] “I decided to order a man to lead the prayer and then take a flame to burn all those, who had not left their houses for the prayer, burning them alive inside their homes.”

            Tabari 7:97 “The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared, ‘Kill any Jew who falls under your power.’”

            Tabari 9:69 [Muhammad said:] “Killing Unbelievers is a small matter to us”

            Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 327: “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”

            Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 992: [Muhammad said:] “Fight everyone in the way of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah.”

          • How many Muslims do you know? How many times have you shared a meal or had a laugh with a Muslim`? Then tell me about how Canada’s policies should be.

          • This comment was deleted.

          • relax with all this hating. what is your problem with muslims? you guys get the wrong picture because some muslims happened to be terrorists. not all muslims are “evil”. some canadians say that americans are way too harsh, look at yourself. america has written clearly n its decleration of independence, that “all men are created equal”

            why cant you just live normally with them?
            and by the way i think that justin tradeu will become the prime minister. he gained alot of support from the muslims.

          • That’s just one of my problems with Sharia (and NOT Muslims, that you very much). Proponents of Sharia believe that all men are created equal. Women? Not so much.

            So, ifyoubehatinhateurself, maybe you will share with us whether you are in favor of banning the full face covering?

          • that is a lie the prophet peace be upon him said have patience with the people who oppress you

        • Ryan – I am absolutely ashamed as a Canadian that a fellow Canadian would promote such fascist behaviour. I am a Canadian Muslim. We serve in the Canadian forces. We are your doctors. We are your taxi drivers. We are your nurses. We are your business people. We are convenience shop owners. We are your public servants. The list goes on. Please don’t judge us based on actions of a few bastards. I don’t judge Caucasian Canadians by what crusaders did, what was done in WW1 and WW2, what Hitler did, what western corporations continue to do to loot the planet, what Bush did, what Clinton did, what Churchill did, etc.

          Do you even know one Muslim Canadian?

          • The Crusaders were responding the the invasion by Muslims of Palestine, Syria and Egypt and the killing and suppression of Christians, Jews and all non Muslims.

        • The only problem with your approach is that Islamic sharia dicatorships are precisely the types of countries that refugees would be legitimately fleeing from.
          Secondly, many Muslims want to follow their religion in the same secular way that Christians do in Canada. There do exist lots of places where Islam is somewhat secular, such as Eastern European countries.

          Another problem is that Canada has freedom of religion (and rightly so). So at the border they simply declare themselves agnostic, and then when inside they practice as they see fit.
          Now, if it were possible to screen people to determine people who have no intention or desire operating within a secular society or integrating with Canada’s existing culture(s), that might be a start.

      • Ryan. you’ve neglected that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, and that the vast majority of Muslims are high contributors to society. So condoning any random attacks on Muslims are acts of terrorism, dummy.

        • did you ever wonder WHY islam was the fastest growing religion?
          smart one

          • Please enlighten us.

      • Take a HARD look at immigration for a start.

    • “but if people feel threatened and there is no recourse taken on their behalf, people may act out. It’s simply time for our government to admit fully the problem that islam and western (or any) society are incompatible.”

      explain to me: how is it that bullies in the incident described in the article felt threatened? ‘Cause the hijabi girl appeared to be minding her own business. And how is it that by making up excuses for their violent savagery you’re “not condoning attacks”?

      “Any honest debate now should be fully clear that this battle is IDEOLOGICAL”

      While you’re at it, can you lay out clearly what is this supposed to mean?

      “to admit fully the problem that islam and western (or any) society are incompatible.”

      So Muslim countries don’t have societies? Please, give me your definition of society.

    • I have met a number of immigrants, including Muslims. I believe that every one of them has come to Canada for the opportunities Canada has to offer,often with their children in mind.

      It’s unfair to single out one religion because of some extremists. Also, for a visa our government does numerous checks on person’s background, family, associates, criminal history, financial situation and medical conditions.

      Guess what .. Muslims are pretty much like you and I, and are good people.

      • Like Christians and Jews, Muslims tend to be good people to the extent that they ignore the more frightful demands of their scriptures.

        • Exactly. I haven’t performed any animal or human sacrifices or purchased slaves or cast stones at sinners in my whole life! I prefer the part about “Do unto others…”

      • thankyou for your reasoned and polite defence to muslims. muslims will remember this

      • Yes, the gov’t does checks, and then they let in the immigrants’ parents and cousins and pregnant friends, etc/. And they all want free healthcare. If you like that , fine. But as one of the babyboomers, I get tired of being blamed for our medical system failing.

  4. Islam is fighting against a generational meme in Western culture, that more skin equates to women’s liberation and equality (i.e. women burning their bras is a symbol of the women’s equality movement, even though all women don’t burn their bras), and less skin equates to women’s oppression and patriarchy. The meme may be flawed, and the reaction to those resisting the meme may be flawed.

    Right now, right or wrong, “slutwalks” are viewed as more representative of the liberation and equality of women. Much of the advertising for women in the media in the culture is for beauty products and fashion. One doesn’t see designer-burkas being strutted down the catwalks during Fashion Week or featured prominently in media advertising.

    Perhaps “slutwalks” should include hajib (and niqab and burka) clothed women. i.e. “Slutwalks” aren’t inclusive.

    • Somebody sure managed to miss the point of slutwalk, here.

      • Either he did entirely or there’s a good point being made. Not sure.

        Slutwalks are feminist activities seeking the empowerment and equality of women in a society where we have St. Mary’s students dumb chants. Right?

        oversimplified: “You don’t get to rape me because I dress sexy.”

        I do not understand how the hajib, niqab or burka exist outside a patriarchal society. Open to being shown.

        a lot believe rightly or wrongly that they mean, either:
        “men can’t be trusted not to rape you unless you hide” or “don’t be mean to men and make them want” (as though women don’t want – they’re just not that into rape).

        Of course there is more nuance. I’m not suggesting a good argument can’t be made, but I don’t get it, and there may be a fundamental divide in belief.

        In which case, you can live and let live, or you can say “these are not the values of our society” as they did in pre-war Syria with these garments and limit their place.

        tough one.

        • “you can wear whatever you want in a free society and not have to face repercussion for it.”

          Consider yourself shown .

          • hmm. that’s very nice, but a simplification.

            for starters, what you suggest is kind of impossible. we judge based on clothing, they are not utilitarian objects. we choose to wear things because they signify. we are judged and we judge. Of course, nobody should get insults hurled at them, but it doesn’t mean we have to agree with what is signified. People have the freedom to not approve – is that anti-Muslim sentiment?

            Secondly, you’re kind of glossing over the role of the church. France banned the Cross in schools in 1905, they got back then that national and religious values could be at odds. Because religion is a particularly powerful influence. Not that I’m saying it was right, but that messages are powerful. You can’t wear a t-shirt with hate speech written on it. A burqa is a charged piece of clothing.

            Thirdly, of course when you say it’s about what you wear, it seems simple, but what if it’s who you marry? Can you legally marry four men or four women in Canada? Do you get CRA spousal credits x4? If not, why not? Are our values getting in the way of individual freedoms? Do we have limits to protect people. To protect minors in cases? Of course.

            Of course there has to be a place where it all stops. And that’s the debate. One sentence does not have me ‘shown’.

            Now, as for me myself. I think that religions have a good heart, and are often twisted by those in power, much like other institutions. No, I don’t think we should ban things, but I do hope they go away, just like shorts showing your ass. Am I anti-Muslim? I hope not. Am I anti-Burqa. Yes. Just like I’m against the sexualization of our youth. I’m not anti-youth.

            Many people don’t make the distinction when given a poll. They don’t think hard enough. I’m convinced there’s a lot of bigotry out there. I’m also convinced there are more people standing up for their own values, just like a Muslim in a niqab.

          • you’re babbling.

          • sorry to waste your time.

          • That is ok, it is partially my fault for posting.

          • I think what you have written is fair and thoughtful.

          • he might have put thought into it, but it’s hardly fair to make a whole bunch of half-assed assumptions about people’s attire and then assume your dictates should determine how they are allowed to act about it. That ain’t what makes this country great. The fact he talks about hate speech on a T-shirt and goes straight to a burqa is more than a little unsettling, even if he doesn’t make the comparison explicit.

          • People do make assumptions about what you wear. You go out in the world with an understanding that your clothing choices carry meaning. You don’t put on goth attire just because it’s Tuesday. Some objects carry more meaning. Religious symbols carry a lot of meaning. That was my point. Semiotics 101. You make a statement, people are going to decode that statement. Not sure how that is half assed.

            You’re arguing everything as black and white. Maybe you see it that way. I disagree. Human nature is not. This issue is not. I’m just illustrating that it’s a continuum, levels of grey. No, I don’t see the burqa as particularly close to a hate filled t-shirt. But some feminists see them as closer, and though not intended to be hurtful to others, fundamentally anti-woman. I’m not defending them, but illustrating the continuum of thought, and that yes there is at some level a relationship.

            And that somewhere along that continuum societal values sometimes collide with individual choices. In Canada, no, you can’t wear a hate shirt, yes you can wear a burqa. In France, no burqa (there’s that darn grey thing again), a society probably trying too hard to defend secularism, but still a modern democracy that made a different choice based on it’s history and values. I’ll freely admit my arguments may not be fully formed, in fact, I admitted as much at the start, but I don’t think they are unfair in the slightest.

            You’ve done a nice job of short comments trying to discredit my considerations with a swipe of your hand. You haven’t actually made a good argument of your own.

          • Yes, some women see the burka as being against women’s freedom. But it might also be, in the case of an attack on such a woman, that it has something to do with people’s increasing awareness of the immigration problem. One shouldn’t assume the reason for the attack.

          • Yes, people do judge on the basis of clothing. To get back to what was being said, when it has been suggested that women take responsibility for the effect they may have on men when they appear scantily-clad they yell “No, it’s them who has to not react, biologically, phsyicially, hormonally. Men must have control over their bodies and not let the thought or promise of sex affect them. ”

            If women want to wear niqabs, they should be able to, but not in public servce, as a rule, and probably for some other jobs too.

          • Excellent response. Even many Muslims are against the burka / niqab. Being opposed to them does not make one anti-Muslim.

        • The girls in scanty clothing just want the choice of who they’re going to let in. The rest they will say raped them. But you can be sure there are situations where no verbal consent is given but where sex will happen and it will be okay.

    • I know exactly what you mean. If women wearing as little as what they want is seen as a sign of liberation, then wearing a lot should be permitted too. I run into this narrow-minded perception of ‘freedom of choice’ in another way. Girls who have sex treat it as a sign of adulthood, or liberty, to have sex with no ties. But they don’t like girls or women to NOT have sex. That’s seen as prudishness, not liberation or even a valid choice.

  5. Can one really trust these polls? Look at political polls during elections, they are NEVER right!

  6. From Marois to kenney muslims are the punching bags of unsavoury politicians.

    • Exactly, especially Kenney.
      In the 5 years that he has been Minister of Immigration he has watched as Muslims from every Muslim country in the world have chosen Canada as their new home, increasing the Muslim population in Canada to almost 1.5 million. He seems to enjoy going to their communities and joining in their customs and food.
      One can only imagine what evil he may be up to.
      Thank-you for your imagining.

      • Telling them when they may wear their veils when taking citizenship oaths, for example, then going on TV and telling them what their religion means and how it isn’t acceptable to him and therefore they will act as he sees fit.

        Seriously, think before you type. it helps.

        • Yes, how dare he insult the Muslim men who choose to have the women wear the burka. I would hope that the least he would do would be to allow these women to take their oath in private away from the prying eyes of other men.
          Thank-you for coming to the defence of all men everywhere !

          Are you sure you are the one who should be talking about thinking before typing?

          • You need to try to learn for yourself why your comment is stupid.

  7. As a Canadian, I demand the deeply held religious views of others be trampled upon if I find them even in the least odd or unusual. I especially demand this right when the person practicing their belief affects me not in the least but I can invent some imaginary entitlement like being able to see whoever’s face I want.

    • Ok and if she doesn’t want her face shown, her argument will be the same as yours. What’s buggering you?

      • There are certain circumstances where I would feel uncomfortable not seeing the face of a person – in a court of law, not seeing the face of my accuser or that of a witness would be one, and in this case the SCC has made it clear that the right to cover one’s face is not absolute. How absolute is that right in society at large? What’s buggering you so much about western society’s tradition of showing one’s face?

  8. This comment was deleted.

    • Whether Islam and Canada are compatible, is a matter I have no interest in – I’m neither Muslim nor Canadian. But don’t lie to make your case, please.

      This is a summation by Stephen Walt about a 2010 Europol study about terror attacks in Europe. From the media, it’d appear that the only terror threat Europe faces comes from al-Qaeda. But, to put it mildly, reality is — different.

      In 2009, there were fewer than 300 terrorist incidents in Europe, a 33 percent decline from the previous year. The vast majority of these incidents (237 out of 294) were conducted by indigenous European separatist groups, with another forty or so attributed to leftists and/or anarchists. According to the report, a grand total of one (1) attack was conducted by Islamists. Put differently, Islamist groups were responsible for a whopping 0.34 percent of all terrorist incidents in Europe in 2009. In addition, the report notes, ‘the number of arrests relating to Islamist terrorism (110) decreased by 41 percent compared to 2008, which continues the trend of a steady decrease since 2006.”’

      • Thank you for that post.

      • Can you provide a reference to that report? It would be useful as evidence when I hear someone say Muslims are the cause of all the world’s violence. It’s a good supplement to the fact that Christians engage in a lot of violence, and over the last 250 and couple of thousands of years have, beaten out the Chinese significantly, for being responsible for the most death.

        • Irrelevant. Nobody says Muslims are the cause of all violence. But they are certainly the current leaders in killing for their religion, or their version of it – e.g. Sunni vs. Shia.

          • in other words
            “la la la I can’t hear you.. especially when reality disagrees with my beliefs.”
            Congratulations Pete, you are a walking, talking example of the stupidity that is trying to justify intolerance and hatred today.

      • Meanwhile, how many thousands have been killed by sectarian attacks in places like Iraq and Afghanistan?

      • You can’t arrest a dead terrorist and fact its most of them die trying, hell on statistics, isn’t it?

  9. It’s just a religion, religion is just an excuse for dumb people to do shrug responsibility to a 3rd party to do ridiculous crap that normal people don’t do.

  10. I suspect that Canada – like most of the world’s nations – isn’t becoming anti-Muslim, so much as it can no longer deny the tendency toward which this religion inclines, and has had quite enough of the daily body count. It’s gotten to the point where one can ask oneself: “I wonder how many people will die at the hands of Islam tomorrow?” – and sure enough, one checks the news the next day, and . . .

  11. For the first time last month I witnessed something I’ve never seen before in my 67 years of living here. Two women….maybe in their fifties….at a grocery store check-out….loudly announcing to all and sundry that ‘Those things don’t belong here. They should go back where they came from. This is Canada’

    I looked up to see two other women…mother and daughter I’d guess by the height, walking away with their groceries….both of them dressed in black robes. I don’t know where they were from….we have a group here where the women wear black robes, and the men white ones….that come from somewhere in Africa.

    I was absolutely dumbfounded that in CANADA….in the 21st century…..two WOMEN would feel free to say such a thing, and loudly. People several check-outs away turned around to look….and I’m sure the robed women caught it too. It wasn’t a whispered opinion….it was meant to be heard.

    What the hell have we come to in this country?

    • So did you or anyone challenge the statement, or did you let your silence suggest that you agree with them?

      You know the line…evil thrives where good people stand by and do nothing. Did someone speak?

      • Oh of course….how could I not? And I was heard several check-outs away as well.

        They were very embarrassed so I hope they don’t do it again elsewhere.

      • Evil? What do you mean – evil? Isn’t that a Christian myth? Are you saying it was something the devil made them do?

    • I would say that people are afraid their Canadian culture is being taken over by people with foreign cultures and languages. They have a right to be concerned, but many people don’t know how to deal with such change in their cities.

      Maybe they picked on the wrong people, thinking they were women wearing burqas.

      I am dumbfounded that in this century people – Canadians – are just sitting there not wanting to acknowledge that our culture is changing, and that defiant immigrants are doing all they can to make us change into accepting them.

      The incident you saw in the store wasn’t a throwback to racism towards black people. It was probably directed towards new immigrants and religious cultures, although the targets may not have been the correct ones.

      • Well we expected natives to be able to cope with it, and they were well and truly overwhelmed by a new culture. We seem to freak out over a burka.

        Muslims have been here since Confederation. Orthodox Jews dress and act much the same way as recent Muslims….so do/did RC nuns and priests for that matter.

        No, it’s nothing to do with being black….it was the robes they were wearing. And this bizarre idea that they are somehow different than us.

        • We don’t live in the 1500s. And we are not, most of us speaking here, native Canadians. Just because the first explorers, traders, and settlers though the natives should adapt, doesn’t mean we should have to adapt to people trying to change our culture.

          No, it doesn’t have anything to do with their race – with being black. You had mentioned they were from Africa, the women in the store?

          It was the robes they were wearing, as I explained in my post – mistaken for Muslim robes probably – just people who had heard about the Charter in PQ, or realized there were getting to be more Muslims, and so they made a mistake, and dealt with their feelings towards them in a rather blatant manner – in the store.

          Did you know that Muslims tend to have more children than present Canadian, not-Muslim women? Ours tend to be indoctrinated into feminist culture, making us different to them.

          • We still think natives should adapt to our ways….and residential school victims are still alive.

            Egyptians are from Africa. So are Libyans. They aren’t black. I don’t know where the women were from, but they were wearing a robe from head to toe. I never saw the front of the robes…but the African ones have eye slits and the women wear gloves….so they could be green underneath for all anyone could tell.

            Many women in second and third world countries have very little education, and so their families are large. Their only value is in being pregnant.

            The only effective way to reduce world population is to educate women.

          • It was the explorers, traders, and settlers who built up Canada. It wouldn’t have happened in that time frame if left up to the natives. In some ways, yes, natives have to adapt, but not in ways that would lead them to lose their sense of identity, not any more.

            And yet, you are comparing Muslims coming here as immigrants to the Europeans who brought their knowledge to this country hundreds of years ago. We don’t need what they have to offer. Our country is already ahead of wherever they come from so why would we allow them to take over, except for minds like yours who cannot see what is happening under your nose.

            It doesn’t matter where those two women were from, who had the robes on that were the subject of ridicule in the store. It was a mistake, only demonstrating, probably, that they were deeply upset by the sight of robes similar to those that recently have been in the news.

            Canada needs to increase its population. Feminists have led many middle class women to decrease the size of their family. One way to solve that problem, for them, is to bring over people from countries that have more children than we do. Muslims, for instance. They don’t care if those people take jobs meant for Canadian working class, as long as they get to live their feminists, dual-career, dual-income good life. And yes, it helps if some of the Muslims who come are middle class so they can join forces with middle class Canadian women already here, taking jobs that 50 years ago would have gone to young men.

          • I have no idea where you’re trying to go with this….but NA already had countries. They had different cultures to each other, and different cultures to the arriving Europeans, Europeans had guns though, and that technology made the difference.

            Yes, all the FN lost their identities and their cultures, and it affects them every day….even now.

            The first settlers here were from France….then from Britain [which had more than one culture of it's own] then all over Europe and the rest of the world. We had Muslims, we had Chinese, we had Japanese, we had blacks…..masses of different cultures were arriving.

            Apparently you are unaware that much of our science came from the Muslim world….along with China and India. In fact while Europe struggled with the Dark Ages…..Islam helped us through it. So let’s not get carried away with racial superiority here….all human beings have the same DNA….we are all the same species…..and color and clothing are irrelevant.

            The women in the grocery store were being ignorant….which is why I told them off. Whatever country their own families came from….it’s very likely the women arrived in headscarves and long gowns. ‘Deeply upset’ bedamned…..they need to get over themselves and their privilege.

            Educated women have 2 children….not 20. Better for the country, and certainly better for women.

            There isn’t a fixed number of jobs, and we don’t own the jobs in any case….. in spite of what you think, nowhere is it written that white Canadians of British ancestry own this country…..now or forever.

    • Spend some time in the UK, France and then Saudi Arabia. When you understand What it means to be a “dhimmi” we can start the conversation again. If North America is all you have ever known, I’m sorry to say you have no skins in this game.
      nse

      • Kindly get over the idea your version of the world is reality. I’m not interested in your logical fallacy argument.

        I’m not interested in your racism either.

      • You picked the wrong countries neighbour. Lived there, served there and saw nothing like you claim.
        It’s so easy reading the talking points of EDL/BNP/NF and if you even think they are grounded in reality then you are an idiot. Hyperbole and BS are no substitute for reality.

  12. Unfortunately, when legitimate concerns grow, bigotry will grow right along with them. Islam, because it is a religion, says things about how people should behave. While Islam is not monolithic, many Muslim countries don’t treat non-Muslims with full equality, and even in Canada many Muslims harbor wrong attitudes towards women. Religion is not a “nothing” like skin color, it affects how people think.

    • It is the expressions like “Many” in “Many muslim countries”, “in Canada many Muslims harbor wrong attitudes towards women” that is troubeling. Been to the gulf? seen how western expats are treated or how much they make? we need facts not perceptions please.

  13. Is anyone surprised? Harper has basically sanctioned a lynch mob against Omar Khadr to win a few votes.

    • Chretien and Martin were PM from 2001 to 2006. Khadr was captured by the Americans in 2001 or 2002. The Liberals had plenty of time to bring him back to Canada and didn’t. I think most all of Khadr’s legal cases against Canada predate Harper gaining power. All Harper did was continue the Khadr policy of Chretien and Martin.

      Khadr was lucky. Bush put him in Guantanamo. Obama would have dropped a drone missile on him.

      • I’m pretty sure the most important legal moves against Khadr did not predate Harper becoming PM.

  14. I don’t know who this Harper guy is who everybody’s blaming—but ya think it might have something to do with that terrorism stuff?—just a thought

  15. MYANMAR (Burma): Martial Law follows deadly clashes between Muslims and Buddhists
    God Bless the Buddhists, they are dealing with the Muslim jihadist problem by themselves and thankfully, the Myanmar government isn’t interfering.

    • Yeah because one form of bigotry based on a belief in a sky faerie is infinitely preferable to another form of bigotry based on the idea of another sky faerie.
      You do realise that irrational reasoning is never excusable and always leads to the victimisation of the other don’t you.. or are you that stupid?

  16. The article frames the results of the “disturbing” poll in terms like “bigotry” and “intolerance” and thus makes any reasoned discussion impossible. Am I a bigot for not wanting my society to be dragged back to the middle ages by a misogynistic, homophobic religion that tacitly accepts murder in the name of its god?

    • The article ain’t what’s makin’ reasoned discussion impossible here, kiddo.

      • And how are you helping, bub?

    • We should be concerned about Canada’s immigration policy and its possible effect on Canada, as your post suggests, Skookum Pete.

  17. I live in an Islamic country and when we visit family in Canada it is fine in Calgary, everyone is open and welcoming…but in Regina it is full of hatred and misunderstanding. And every racist I ever met says “I am not racist”. So anyone starting with that I would wonder about.

    • Stop that , troll.

      • I apologize. A glitch in my system made it appear to me as if the original comment here had been posted under MY name and not tracy. Under the circumstances my remark was unwarranted as i incorrectly though someone was using my user handle.

    • Except that Islam is not a race, but an ideology.

  18. Its disgusting what happened, however, I recently became Muslim. I have been told at two mosques that my hat is offensive (it has a breast cancer logo on it) and I’m not to wear it in the Mosque (other people wear baseball type hats) and I was told at one mosque that my shirt should not be worn at the mosque (it had a phone number promoting a gay/lesbian help line) everyone should have the right to wear what they want where they want (according to the Qur’an I have to be covered from navel to knees, and being Muslim I wouldn’t violate that, but doesn’t say by what) but if other Muslims don’t want to be discriminated against outside of Mosques then people not born Muslim shouldn’t be discriminated against inside Mosques.

  19. Islam is an ideology and it o.k. to criticize it just like it o.k. to criticize any other ideology. In fact, many strains of Islam have some incredibly totalitarian bigoted views on non-believers, women, gays, free speech etc. These should be criticized. The far left fails on this point as it tends to equate Islam with race, gender etc. If Islam is a race, then what race is astrology? There is nothing wrong with not approving of a religious belief system. I’m a former Muslim and am I a bigot for rejecting huge swaths of Islamic dogma as retrograde? I also reject large swaths of Catholic and Mormon dogma as retrograde as well. However, liberals tend to not care about criticisms of these faiths because they don’t conflate them with race or ethnicity. It will be a great day when Muslims and Islam can be afforded the same degree of criticism and other religions. Left wing white coddling has always annoyed me in the West.

    However, it is wrong to attack Muslims as people. What if that Muslim is a pro gay rights reformer in the community? Many Muslims don’t accept the more repressive aspects of the religion and contextualize them as belonging in the past. Besides, it is a foundational tenet of liberal society (and btw, not most Muslim-majority societies where conversion from Islam tends to be a crime) that people be allowed to believe and choose their religions. Persecuting and bullying people for any religious belief runs counter to this value. I think the far-right often fails on this point when they conflate Muslims with the darker aspects of Islam.

    This article was really a manipulative piece of journalism. It begins with a horrible bullying incident to get the reader emotionally riled, then turns to higher level politics. There is never a nexus established between the two – pure propaganda on the ‘journalist’s’ part even though I agree w/ the basic sentiment.

    • Very thoughtful, but you are engaging in another form of stereotyping by associating certain views with the “left” and the “right.” Also, no one is being persecuted for what they believe, though there is an understandable reaction to expressions of that belief (e.g. the burka) that imply a degree of control over individuals that most of us find repellent.

      • Women’s sartorial restrictions (e.g. hijab, niqab, etc.) are based on Islamic tenets. Although, there are many many muslims, like me, who find these practices repellent. It is ironic that this poll would show large portions of the tunisia, turkey, iran, etc to be ‘islamophobic’ bigots.

  20. Anyone immigrating to our country should consider becoming an immigrant, one who adopts the customs of the land and of the people, not displaced persons, who stand out, bring their religions and war and divisiveness with them , to use our country as a safe have of operations, for their ” old ” country and their safety.

    • Agreed. And that applies regardless of colour or creed. I have a real problem with people who have lived here for several decades and still need a translator to comunicate in one of our official languages. If you didn’t want to be part of this country (and I would argue that learning the official language of the area in which you settle is the first and most essential element in becoming part of the larger society), why did you come here?

      • We know why they come here. Some want to take advantage of our healthcare, and Canada on the whole, which they have been told is a rich country. Their own countries are so overpopulated now that they have to spread out. It isn’t Canada that they are interested in. they just need a new place to live and work and reproduce.

        So it’s disturbing to John Geddes that an act of violence occurred? I would ask, what is he going to get out of this?

  21. For years Maclean’s was Islamophobia central, as it cynically catered to the hardcore xenophobes by its patronage of Mark Steyn.

    But of course Geddes can’t mention that. Too much of a straight-shooter, that John Geddes.

  22. I live in Brampton. We have a very large Sikh population, and a fair number of Muslims. I drive past a mosque daily. So I am quite used to seeing / associating with people in non-Western dress, and wearing various forms of head coverings.
    The burka and the niqab still bother me. Maybe it’s because I see so few of them. But a lot of it, I think, has to do with the inability to see their wearers’ faces. Western culture teaches us, from chldhood, that “bad guys” wear masks to hide their identities. We also communicate much, non-verbally, through facial expression and judge the honesty of others (among other things) by their facial responses. So it is culturally ingrained in us to be suspicious of the masked person.

    I guess if you want to get all PC about it, then such a reaction is “wrong”. But it is also natural. On an intellectual level, I know that these women are like anyone else, and I treat them as I would any other stranger (given their culture, I doubt I’ll ever get to become socially acquainted with any of them, and none of them work in my office).
    But here’s something they ought to be aware of (and this applies more widely than just to Muslims): When you deliberately choose to visibly set yourself apart from the culture in which you live, there will be those who will instinctively dislike and distrust you for doing so. That’s human nature. An ugly side of human nature, perhaps, but nonetheless real.
    If you make no effort to fit into the culture you choose to live in – if you hold yourself apart – you can hardly expect others to openly embrace you.
    Should people be nasty and treat such individuals with hostility? No. But given human nature, it is inevitable that some will.
    It is disappointing, though, that the number who do react this way – at least where Muslims are concerned – seems to be increasing rather than decreasing.

    • I know we keep having different versions of this conversation, but the state can’t tell someone how to dress based to exercise their religious beliefs because of the cartoons we watched as kids.

      It’s also just as “natural” for many children to be raised to dislike black people. As humans, if this is our lot we have a duty, central to our humanity, to overcome it.

      • Agreed, we have a duty to overcome destructive dogma of ALL kinds.

        • The Muslim religion is the second largest in Canada, after Christianity.

          The population of Muslims in Canada has practically doubled since 2006.

          What do you want for Canada?

          • Well, as you’re asking, I’d be fine without religion of any kind, but if we’re going to have it, I’d vote for progessive thinking that keeps up with society.

            I’d rather the Catholic Church ordained women, encouraged birth control, and accepted gays as they are. Of course, the growth in the Catholic Church has been in places where such policies are largely welcomed, but they don’t feel in step with current Canadian values .

            I think the Muslim faith faces a lot of the same problems, both geographically and dogmatically, only it’s still a more foreign concept here, and it’s more outwardly apparent at times. So the friction is greater.

            We must be accepting of religions, but I hope they both do a better job of modernizing, at least within our borders.

          • You comment doesn’t even address the problem of state employment banning niquabs, etc. We, as Canadians, don’t have to accept that in our public places of employment. And no, I don’t like like seeing large crosses worn, either. I suppose I see the size of it reflecting the degree of unquestioned belief – the zealousness of the individual.

            One other thing that has not been mentioned is the problem of health care, and how advocates for refugees and immigrants want them to have it all.

          • This thread/article has nothing to do with health care, refugees or immigrants. You sound slightly crazed and xenophobic.

          • And this is the URL of this article – http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/10/03/land-of-intolerance/

            Canada is the land of intolerance? Canada is the land of submission to outside forces who could actually use their power to take Canada over. If you see this article as being only about an incident of violence, think again.

            Could Geddes be trying to get us to become more passive? Why aren’t there suggestions of how people can deal with their increasing concern about what is going on here, with increasing numbers of immigrants, in this case Muslims, changing the face and structure of Canada?

      • “I know we keep having different versions of this conversation, but the state can’t tell someone how to dress”.

        The state can, if “someone” wants to work for them.

      • I’m not advocating the government tell anyone how to dress.

        I would argue, though, that anyone who comes to another nation and behaves in a way that deliberately sets themselves apart from that society is, in effect, saying that the culture they live among is in some way beneath them. How would you react if you invited someone into your house and they ignored your customs and treated you as unworthy? That may not be the message intended, but clearly it is the message many are receiving.

        It is a culture clash. But given that they chose to come here, you would think that they would either want to be somewhat accommodating to our way of life, esp. if they expect the same of us. Why come here if they don’t like the way we live?

        Wearing a burka or niqab here is no different than a woman going to a country where those items are normally worn and wearing a bikini. Except here they won’t get thrown in jail (or worse). Cultural respect is a two-way street; hiding one’s face, here, shows a certain lack of respect for the surrounding society and thus is seen by many as a step too far.

        I won’t tell anyone not to wear these items. But they ought to be aware of the message they send to many outside their culture by doing so.

        • “How would you react if you invited someone into your house and they ignored your customs and treated you as unworthy?”

          I hear this analogy so often in these discussions, but it is a faulty one. The country is not “your house” in the sense you “own” it.

          If someone meets the requirements to get in the country, and attain citizenship they “own” it as much as you do.

          • It still comes down to respect. These garments are cultural, not a religious requirement. As I said previously, wearing one here is no different than a woman wearing a bikini in an Islamic nation. We have an expectation that we be able to see one another’s faces. I don’t think that is unreasonable.

            I have no problem with any other cultural or religious accoutrements. I am fine with others practicing their religion, as long as they respect our laws while doing so (e.g. no forced / child marriages). But anyone who chooses to set themselves apart from society to this degree should be asking themselves why they want to live among a nation of people they so obviously disdain.

          • That is not true at all. My family is here since 1634 and its our only country for 400 years and we are the canadians. If someone comes from another country its not their country, they are an outsider. If you are born here that is a different story and and you have to be born here to be considered canadian, despite what the government says, this is how everyone views it.

      • Doesn’t the sate tell its employees not to wear a t-shirt or a pin displaying a political preference? Doesn’t the state have dress codes for its employees?

    • “It is disappointing, though, that the number who do react this way – at least where Muslims are concerned – seems to be increasing rather than decreasing.”

      So is the number of Muslims.

  23. Right on!

    Finally the silent majority of Canadians are speaking out and so they should. Left wing journalists are crying “Oh, we have work to do to change this attitude”. Bull Feathers!

    Canada was built on a European Judeo-Christian foundation and the majority of us want it kept true to its traditions. Our culture is why people from the rest of the world want to come here, and is to what we should forever remain true.

    Multi-culturalism is an idealistic concept that does not work in real life. We must not let it destroy the essence of what makes us Canadian. I believe that the Supreme Court did not truly understand the implications of their decisions and hope that they will soon come to their senses and reinterpret their rulings to ensure that Canadian customs and traditions remain intact.

    The reason most Canadians distrust Islamics is that Canadian Islamic leaders have not stood up and publicly denounced terrorism in their own community or visibly done anything else to distance themselves from the extremists. The onus lies on them to earn our trust, not on us to accommodate them and their beliefs!

    • Multiculturalism could work, but only through cooperative effort, not by newcomers demanding that Canada change its culture, and not wanting to fit in.

      • We’re on the same page…

  24. This comment was deleted.

    • This comment was deleted.

      • Crazies committing atrocities?? Against the innocent??? Part of the problem??? Research on MY OWN ??? The Media shoving info at throats
        Ha!! Do the body count on both sides of this mess: add the destruction vs the construction:Money wasted lives lost Countries destroyed Trust lost Help With held:Terror crippling the people THEM ARE ALL THOSE who allowed this to escalate to the beast it has become Not just THEM against us but US against them why does it have to be like this; when do you think this really started; and the bigger question is why? If we cant understand the basics and think it as a one sided problem then yes your idiots and deserve to allow them (BOTH SIDES) to do it to us again and again

        • The 9/11 attacks resulted in 2,996 casualties (this includes the rescuers who lost their lives also). War on terror resulted in the deaths of approx. 300, 000 innocent civilians with probably many more uncounted for. Now let’s ask an Afghan, why do you hate the US? Why do you think they hate the US? You don’t really need to be smart to answer this question. This is the basics. An eye for an eye, and as long as it keeps going like this, it isn’t going to solve any problem.

          If Islam was really the issue, why aren’t I killing every non-Muslim? Why aren’t billions of other Muslims doing the same thing?

          • God here we go!!! The Taliban was in control of Afghanistan they allowed training camps to run in the country for extremists. Out of the training camps came the 911 brothers. The hit the world trade centers took was a bigger hit on American soil then Pearl Harbour more deaths than Pearl and the US asked the Taliban to close the camps down and turn over Bin Laden they did not the Americans went in took out the Taliban Goverment and chased Bin laden around the countries as well as his followers then moved Nato in to try and stabilize the country. Not to react to a hit like 911 would only give the extremists a great victory and encourage another attack THEY WERE after those who supported and those who attacked them NOT ISLAM if it was Ireland and they went after the IRA they would not be after every Catholic or Irish person would they?I KNOW when bin laden was killing Russians he was called a freedom fighter but when he started killing Americans he became a terrorist I KNOW I KNOW!!! but it does not make it right I also realize the American promises to bin laden when he was fighting Russians and what they didnt do but this was not the start of this American foreign policy had a hand in it too I know youll say all this was never proven or whatever but who cares what happened in Iraq was not justified but thats another story but the extremist everywhere turned it in to a holy war against islam to get a holy war going or jahad or whatever which it isnt so Im tired of typing and dont wanna try to play anymore and Islam is killing Muslims for years as well as Non muslims and all Afghans do not hate the US I bet more canadians dislike the Americans then Afghans

  25. Quote:Canadian anti-Muslim sentiment is rising, disturbing new poll reveals.

    Gee, and that wouldn’t have anything to do with Muslim extremism, now would it? What would you have us do, continue to sit like lapdogs while malls are attacked with innocents slaughtered and raped, villages burned, countries overrun, and mosques used as a breeding ground for sedition and guerrilla training?

    As political correctness continues it’s downward death spiral, the natural human revulsion toward enemies of its own survival will finally take hold and this repugnant stain on humanity holding religion as its one line of defense will be recognized for what it really is.

    Quote: Council on American-Islamic Relations, (You haven’t put all your journalistic skills together looking hard into the background of the terrorist funding CAIR has played a part in)

    Suggest you try reading this, http://www.amazon.ca/Muslim-Mafia-Underworld-Conspiring-Islamize/dp/1935071106

    Sentiment? That is going to the be the least of your worries.

    • Okay. So does this mean you are going to cease blaming old people for the drain on Canada’s health system?

      Do you realize that immigrants and refugees, regardless of religion, are seeking to take advantage of what they see as Canada’s bottomless pocket so they can receive the same – or more – as Canadians already settled here.

      See ‘Health cuts tell refugees they aren’t welcome’ By: Ritika Goel , Jun 27 2013.
      http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2013/06/27/health_cuts_tell_refugees_they_arent_welcome.html

      • I think you need to take a close look at my avatar.

        • Sorry I am just now getting really pissed off at the author of this piece. Intolerance, he says?

          How much longer are Canadians going to be asked to be tolerant, and caring and empathetic, when we ourselves are getting ground into the ground by immigrants taking the best jobs, and health care they should have stayed at home to get.

          • We need to stay tolerant, not stupidly so. We need to call a spade a spade.

          • Yes I agree they are using our own tolerance our own policies of equality our own charter of rights as weapons against us to destroy our way of life (culture) they do not want it they want their own and we have to accept theirs while they try and destroy ours.DONT AGREE then go to any of their countries as an immigrant and try and live as a Canadian HA HA Life expectancy Zero to NONE bud

        • Your comments are interesting, provocative — your avatar is childish.

  26. Another pile from the Canadian Media. If the aforementioned incident was about 3 teenagers calling another teenager “four eyes” or “pizza face” it would hardly garner national media coverage, but insulting someone because of their idiotic belief of some ‘fairy’ in the clouds is somehow illogically off limits and prioritized.

    • This incident did not involve merely insulting someone’s belief. Its something called physical assault. Sticks and stones my friend. They jumped this poor girl, that is the main issue here. Regardless of the motive of this incident, attacking someone based on religion or race is not acceptable. If you have any human emotions, you’d agree with that. I’m pretty sure if this incident involved 3 Muslims attacking a white person simply for being white, it would be on every national media in the country. Oh those crazy Moozlum’s right Les Booze?

      • NOT SO!!! the Media would downplay it as an act of frustration of the 3 Muslim men and the white person as an victim of years of intolerence and injustice showed to the muslim community in Canada and they would get nothing for doing it least we insult the Muslim community

        • Please show me one news article that ever downplays the actions of Muslims. Nice try though. The media demonizes Islam and Muslims and that is a fact you can’t deny.

          • Islam and Muslim (the extremists) demonizes themselves with their actions the Media brings the aftermath of their actions to our awareness The Media is only reporting it What should we do blame it on the Mormons or Baptists The media in a lot of ways support the Muslim community in their rights of religion and the right to their culture and dress didnt you even read the article above before commenting thats one I can show you and its right under your nose but like everyone else oh never mind!!

          • Islam is a perfect religion, the followers aren’t. There are black sheeps in every herd. You can’t just throw all of us in one basket. That’s like saying all Catholics are pedophiles because of some priests or all black people a criminals and so on. The media is only reporting what it wants to report. Does it ever report the good things Muslims do? I’ll give you a recent example. The kenyan mall attack. Abdul Haji, A MUSLIM KENYAN rescued many victims from the attack. Did you hear about that? Didn’t think so.

            Now you ask, “Who should we blame it on?” How about blaming it on those individuals? hmm no that doesn’t sound right. We need make everyone guilty. Guilty by association, right? Because every Muslim in the world knows each other. All 1.6 billion. That sounds fair right?

          • According to Names: “Islam is a perfect religion.” This might very well be true, though I have a couple of doubts. To the best of my knowledge, a religion can only be as perfect as its holy texts; the texts are the point at which the religion begins, and out of which its adherents go out into the world; they inspire the believer, and help her/him to discover the best way to live and act in a world in which all humanity wants nothing more than to live in peace and harmony. Here are a just a few random spiritual instructions from Islam, which guide and uplift the pious devotee of the “Perfect Religion”, and which, if followed to the letter, can do nothing other than bring peace, joy, and prosperity to our global village of a world:

            Quran (2:191-193) “And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing.”

            Quran (5:33) “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned.”

            Quran (8:12) “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.”

            Quran (9:5) “So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush.”

            Quran (33:60-62) “If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and the alarmists in the city do not cease, We verily shall urge thee on against them, then they will be your neighbors in it but a little while. Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter.”

            Quran (47:3-4) “Therefore when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners.”

            And from the Hadith literature:

            Bukhari (52:177) – Allah’s Apostle said, “The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. “O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.”

            Bukhari (8:387) Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah’. And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally.”

            Bukhari (11:626) – [Muhammad said:] “I decided to order a man to lead the prayer and then take a flame to burn all those, who had not left their houses for the prayer, burning them alive inside their homes.”

            Tabari 7:97 “The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared, ‘Kill any Jew who falls under your power.’”

            Tabari 9:69 [Muhammad said:] “Killing Unbelievers is a small matter to us”

            Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 327: “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”

            Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 992: [Muhammad said:] “Fight everyone in the way of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah.”

          • How about you read the entire Quran then come back to me. Reading out of context is not going to help you. Isn’t it common sense to read a book from the beginning to understand the story? Or do you read a book by random sentences? Don’t tell you read the Quran because if you did, you wouldn’t be posting single verses…or part of verses which you did in this case. I’ll do some of your homework for you.

            Let’s look at Surah Tawbah 9:5. Here is the ENTIRE verse, selective reading is not going to do any of us good. “And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.l”

            Hmm….this doesn’t seem to be a complete at all. Let’s look at the previous 9:4 “Excepted are those with whom you made a treaty among the polytheists and then they have not been deficient toward you in anything or supported anyone against you; so complete for them their treaty until their term [has ended]. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him]”

            So who are the Muslims “slaying.” So the 9:4 shows that the pagans had a treaty with the Muslims and that they shouldn’t attack those pagans that with held the treaty. (i.e. those pagans who have not attacked the Muslims or aided anyone in doing so.) So what does that mean with those pagans that the Muslims fought. C’mon guess?

            Look up the treaty of Hudaybiyyah. Where am I getting this information from. you may ask? Ibn Kathir’s Tafsir. But quite frankly, just read the entire chapter instead selectively reading.

          • So, in short, the message is “wait until the treaty is over, then KILL KILL KILL!”

            Yeah, it’s perfect.

          • Wrong, totally wrong. The message is, “respect the treaty with those who have not breached it, but with those who have, you have the right to defend yourself.”

          • That is quite simply, and quite clearly, what the text does not say; the word “until” as used in the text, should have made this clear to you.

          • They are doing it in the name of Islam their choice of words not mine they are putting this forward to the world not the media or me or anyone who comments here and if it is not Islam they represent then Muslims should CRY OUT all over the world and yes I saw that story of the man who saved alot of people very commendable

      • Maybe read my comment again but this time try to comprehend what it is I am saying. And no those “Moozlums” are no crazier than catholics, protestants, jews, scientologists, rastafarians or raliens, but most definitely no more crazier than you.

  27. John Geddes needs to look at the hidden factors – not just religion, but about immigration and what that is doing to Canada.

    It is no longer about “managing diversity” (from last line). It is about immigration, and letting too many people in who may gain the power to change our country’s culture and how it manages its health care.

    Soon, there many not even be a Canada as we know it. The fight to maintain the oath to the queen, or have enough resources to be able to properly care for Canada’s elderly may be too hard to keep up – that is, if middle class Canadians care at all. Perhaps they don’t but just know that siding with the middle classes from abroad is better for them, personally, in the long run than siding with Canadians who have Canada’s interests at heart, or poorer Canadians who need healthcare too.

  28. Mr Geddes,

    As teenaged girls and boys were senselessly raped and shot in cold blood in both Kenya and Nigeria last week, we are to put this in context to a bloody nose? Just what kind of sentiment are we fishing for? If you had bothered to educate yourself just a bit on the subject, you’d see far worse being done in Sweden and England in reverse. See, you are comparing a bloody nose to rape and murder and quite frankly in the weight of the two,your moralizing stinks to high heaven.

    http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/muslim_rape_wave_in_sweden/

    Check this headline from Sweden. Rape, muslim style, its Qu’ran sanctioned and so are their lies about it. See, it is a no win situation and guys who write stories such as yours swallow the party line hook and sinker. For every sob story you tell, the west has 1000 worse to show for its cost. Islam is a third world religion stuck in a cave man defense, all one has to do is turn on the TV, or read history to recognize the facts.

    • This is Canada. We have no influence over these places. But we do have control of how WE behave, here. Or am I not right in thinking you don’t in fact want Muslim girls punched in the nose?

    • Good to see someone who doesn’t believe what the mainstream media is ramming down the throats of the uninformed!

  29. Quebec sure is intolerant, as it always has been – but Alberta isn’t – at least not in Calgary. So much for Alberta being “redneck capital of Canada” — there are more rednecks in Ontario and Quebec than you can shake a stick at. Go to U of C and see numerous kids in hijabs, socializing, walking, eating — no problems there that I know of. It’s really cool.
    White supremacists who have come to Alberta have come from Ontario, btw.

  30. Is it really that surprising when week after week we are bombarbed with stories about jihadists and their massacres? Nairobi last week, Nigeria shortly after, Pakistan torching more churches, and the list goes on. In return, only ready about one incident in Burma where Buddhists attacked Muslims. Either the press is awfully complicit and complacent about ignoring crimes agains Muslims or there are indeed more dangerous extremists coming out of Islam than from any other reiligion.

  31. Bigots even exist in the workplace of Macleans magazine. They hate islam and believe everything the american government spits out. Lets try not to be hypocrits Macleans. Go back to publishing hate about islam and muslims.

  32. My biggest problem with Muslims is not that I view them with suspicion of being terrorists. It would be very silly indeed to judge the entirety based on the actions of a few thousand.

    No, my problem is most certainly the hijab, niqab and the burka. All of them regardless whether or not the woman choose to wear them or not, does not change the fact that the garment is an important sign in that religion. Muslim sympathizers may try and down play the fact that women are second class beings in that religion but it is still a fact.
    Too many times have I seen the men shamelessly beating their wives and female relatives in open public. To many videos online showing the exact shame thing as well.
    I understand that spousal abuse occurs all around the world however it is promoted in Islam.
    “Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. Surely God is most high.”

    By choosing to wear this symbol they are choosing to make themselves inferior. They may be making the choice themselves but they are only enforcing the image it represents to all women. By wearing it they are saying they agree that they are inferior as are all women.

    That is why I dislike Muslims. I am intolerant of their views on women and I am not ashamed to say that they deserve equality.

    • To the posters before making the statement this is about less clothes vs more. It is not.
      The amount of clothing does not matter, she could march around in her panties and wear a hijab and the message will be the same.
      She is wearing it because she is a woman. She must be covered and only those who own her can see her. Her family, her husband etc.
      These head coverings are not a matter of being conservative but being faithful to the religion that tells you to wear it because you should not be seen.

      “And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their khimār over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husband, their fathers, their husband’s fathers, their sons”

      This is a religion shaming them into hiding themselves, diguising itself as morality. No woman should be made to feel that if her hair is exposed she is somehow immoral or dirty. I mean come on we have enough problems with our hair, we don’t need a religion telling us it’s wrong now too.

      • You shouldn’t wear any clothes then. Simple

        • The topic of the conversation went way over your head didn’t it. Tsk Tsk

          • Sure it did You don’t know what hijab is…hijab means to cover…if she’s in her panties and covers her head means nothing and is not hijab. You think hijab is the head covering? I bet you didn’t know men have hijab as well…and no, I’m not talking about a turban.

            You feel liberated when men stare at your cleavage and judge you based upon that? Or short skirts?

          • Yup, definetly went over your head.
            I don’t have a problem when men look at my cleavage at all.
            If I’m wearing a low cut top it means I don’t have a problem with my chest.
            Just as long as they don’t complain if they find me checking them out in return.
            If they “judge me” that is their own problem to deal with, not mine.
            Clothes don’t liberate me, I know I’m a free woman and I am on an equal level with males. We all have our strengths and weaknesses and no religion is going to tell me that covering my body is the only way to be moral.
            No religion is going to shame me into covering myself.
            I am free to choose my clothing with out religion specifically telling me what I should wear or not wear.
            Religion has no place in my closet nor on my body.
            Wether or not tommororw I choose to wear a dress, tight jeans, a sweater or a tank top, it does not make me any more or less liberated but what it does mean is that I have a choice and I am not letting a religion tell me I am inferior to men.
            Men in islam have hijab lmfao.. yea navel to knees..go put on a burka or shut up.

          • So because you have a loose mentality you think everyone should be like you? Are you serious??

            Why are you so anal about something you don’t believe in? Lol you think our woman want to be like you? Please

            Yea, it’s flying now.

          • Wearing jeans and a sweater makes me loose? Oh my, I don’t think many people in Canada will agree with that sentiment.
            Perhaps your women would be more comfortable with out all the beatings and brainwashing ;) They’re more than welcome to come over to Canada proper and not be second class beings.

          • I bet you haven’t even talked to any muslim woman before. You see what you see on CNN and think only muslim woman are being beaten.

          • I’ve seen it in real life, many times. As stated in my original post. I’ve also seen a womans family and the woman herself say eveythings fine when security was called.
            Yes I have met Muslim women, they are some super foreign rarity that you only hear about in the news lol.
            That’s like saying I bet you’ve never even met a white person before or I bet you’ve never even talked to a Hindu.

            Of course I have met Muslim women before and I’ve seen Muslim men beat the shit out of them before too. First time is shocking, When it becomes a regular occurence that’s when you realize it’s not an isolated incident with that family. It’s a religion thing.

          • Yeah, I dare any women in North America to not shave her legs or facial hair and walk in shorts in a busy area with hairy legs and see the reaction. Oh wait, you wouldn’t dare do something like that because this society has instilled an image of beauty of how women should look and dress. Yet you complain about muslim women who choose not to follow your dress code because you claim their brainwashed yet your the one who is actually brainwashed without even realizing it.

          • Try not wearing a low cut top, and don’t bother “checking them out in return” and you may just discover that in our western society, appearing sexualized is pretty much a requirement if you want to be recognized as a human being, and one that is worthy of hiring, for instance.

            You’re not equal to men, and you’re not free to dress as you wish – not if, as I say, you want to be accepted in a western man’s world. You think you have choice but you don’t. And you might just realize that if you said no to sex, or no to sexualization.

            Ours may not be based strictly on any religion, but it is still the western way of doing things here – and I might add, much of it a consequence of feminism. Performers know what they have to do in order to become celebrities and to remain one. And not just them, but any woman well up there in a man’s world – in academia, or any profession. They don’t get there on the basis of merit alone, and in fact, some of them don’t have merit at all.

          • Sue, you’re rather cynical lol. ^^ I’d hate to see what you wear to job interviews but I’m just fine with a black blouse and dress pants.
            No cleavage even. Then again most of the time it’s women interviewing me and I have a pretty decent resume.
            I am free to dress as I wish, as are you. It just depends on your wants when you dress. If you want attention form men they you’re going to have to dress that way to get it. Me, I’m just happy sputtering around in what ever I got from my closet and having fun with it.
            Our society is very much sexualized but it doesn’t mean I have to participate lol.

          • Why do you make this an issue of what I wear to job interviews?

            Actually, when the other applicant was a woman who wore an off-the shoulder sweater during daytime in the Dept, and flirted with the profs, I should have realized i didn’t stand a chance. When people said about her, She’s ambitious, I didn’t know what they meant. Now I know.

            People participate sexually i n our culture because it’s so normal to do so. As a woman gets older, or feels it’s not something she wants for the time being, she may try to opt out, but she may also find her options limited. Like I said, If you don’t say no, you won’t find that out.

          • Im interested because you seem to believe that only women who dress in a sexual manner get jobs.
            Clearly by the number of frumpy/grumpy old women in the work force this is simply not true.

            Oh my.. a woman gets a job and you didn’t and it couldnt be your lack of qualifications, perhaps your attitude showed through.
            Simply blaming a woman for getting a job and saying it’s purely based on how she looked is essentially saying what she does in that job doesnt matter anyways. She’s there to look pretty.

          • No – dress in a sexual manner – or do what women were born to do – have sex and/or procreate. Women who marry well can end up in good careers too.

            Re me not getting the career I was qualified for, you could say it was my attitude. I never slept with a prof, nor did I have the right kind of marriage, when I had one.

            No, I’m not saying the woman is there to look pretty on the job. this is not the 50s. There is a great deal of competition for decent jobs and careers and women tend to use the power they were given, in order to get one. As I said, it takes more than merit to get the job of one’s dreams; only sometimes does the girl not have the qualifications to knowledge to do it well. I ran into that at university, up against a girl who was willing to use her attributes to get to keep the TA position we had both worked at the previous year. She wasn’t qualified, but she flirted with the profs. It was a hellish place to be. It’s all on my story of my life, at http://samcpherson.homestead.com/StoryofMyLife.html

      • While you’re at it, make sure you skip instead of walk.

        • I very much enjoy skipping. I think I will partake inthat activity tomorrow, thank you for the suggestion.

      • I dare any women in North America to not shave her legs or facial hair and walk in shorts in a busy area with hairy legs and see the reaction. Oh wait, you wouldn’t dare do something like that because this society has instilled an image of beauty of how women should look and dress. Yet you complain about muslim women who choose not to follow your dress code because you claim their brainwashed yet your the one who is actually brainwashed without even realizing it.

    • How does islam promote spousal abuse? You just stated an opinion and anything but fact.

      • Qur’an
        (4:34) – “Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of
        them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone
        in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek
        a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.”

        Qur’an
        (38:44) – “And take in your hand a green branch and beat her with it, and
        do not break your oath…”

        Bukhari
        (72:715) – A woman came to Muhammad and begged her to stop her husband from
        beating her. Her skin was bruised so badly that she it is described as being

        Bukhari
        (72:715) – “Aisha said, ‘I have not seen any woman suffering as much as
        the believing women’” This is Muhammad’s own wife complaining of the
        abuse that the women of her religions suffer relative to other women.

        Muslim (4:2127)- Muhammad struck his favorite wife, Aisha, in the chest one
        evening when she left the house without his permission. Aisha narrates, “He
        struck me on the chest which caused me pain.”

        Muslim (9:3506) – Muhammad’s father-in-laws (Abu Bakr and Umar) amused him by
        slapping his wives (Aisha and Hafsa) for annoying him. According
        to the Hadith, the prophet of Islam laughed upon hearing this.

        Abu Dawud (2142) – “The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: A man will not be
        asked as to why he beat his wife.”

        Opinion? My opinion that it’s disgusting, however it’s a fact that it is in there.

        • Bukhari
          (72:715) – A woman came to Muhammad and begged her to stop her husband from
          beating her. Her skin was bruised so badly that she it is described as being
          “greener” than the green veil she was wearing. Muhammad did not admonish
          her husband, but instead ordered her to return to him and submit to his sexual
          desires.

          Well Rashad, is it still my opinion that it is not in the Quran? It is very openly promoted and very openly practiced and I have seen it WAY to many times in public before.

          In what way can you possibly defend that disgusting practice? Is there any way you could possibly rationalize what it clearly written?
          You can’t.

          • Wow, you have a knack for really mixing things up. I will quote the Hadith again. “Bukhari :: Book 7 :: Volume 72 :: Hadith 715
            Narrated ‘Ikrima:

            Rifa’a divorced his wife whereupon ‘AbdurRahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi married her. ‘Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah’s Apostle came, ‘Aisha said, “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!” When ‘AbdurRahman heard that his wife had gone to the Prophet, he came with his two sons from another wife. She said, “By Allah! I have done no wrong to him but he is impotent and is as useless to me as this,” holding and showing the fringe of her garment, ‘Abdur-Rahman said, “By Allah, O Allah’s Apostle! She has told a lie! I am very strong and can satisfy her but she is disobedient and wants to go back to Rifa’a.” Allah’s Apostle said, to her, “If that is your intention, then know that it is unlawful for you to remarry Rifa’a unless Abdur-Rahman has had sexual intercourse with you.” Then the Prophet saw two boys with ‘Abdur-Rahman and asked (him), “Are these your sons?” On that ‘AbdurRahman said, “Yes.” The Prophet said, “You claim what you claim (i.e.. that he is impotent)? But by Allah, these boys resemble him as a crow resembles a crow,” Hadith ends.”

          • You do realize that quote still condones him beating his wife and infact clearly states she can not remarry until she sleeps with her current husband. I mean you actually made it worse for yourself.

            Not only was it alright for him to beat his wife but she was not allowed to divorce someone who she didn’t want to be married to.

            Wow.. you fail

            He beat her until her skin was greener than her clothing (pretty rough beating)
            Says she doesn’t want to be with her husband anymore and wants to marry another guy and the answer was she had to have sex with her husband before she could divorce him.

            That’s sick… though to be honest it’s entirely her own fault. After that point she probably should have slapped Allahs Apostle, laughed at him and said I’m going to marry who ever the hell I want.

          • When the setting is not taken into account, it isolates the words in a way that distorts or falsifies the original meaning. Before dealing with the issue of wife-battering in the perspective of Islam, we should keep in mind that the original Arabic wording of the Holy Quran is the only authentic source of meaning. If one relies on the translation alone, one is likely to misunderstand it.

            Commenting on this issue, Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi, former President of the Islamic Society of North America, states:

            “According to Quran the relationship between the husband and wife should be based on mutual love and kindness. Allah says: “And among His Signs is this, that He created for you mates from among yourselves, that ye may dwell in tranquility with them, and He has put love and mercy between your (hearts): verily in that are Signs for those who reflect.” (Quran: Ar-Rum 21)

            However, in some cases a husband may use some light disciplinary action in order to correct the moral infraction of his wife, but this is only applicable in extreme cases and it should be resorted to if one is sure it would improve the situation. However, if there is a fear that it might worsen the relationship or may wreak havoc on him or the family, then he should avoid it completely.

            It is important to read the section fully. One should not take part of the verse and use it to justify one’s own misconduct. This verse neither permits violence nor condones it. It guides us to ways to handle delicate family situation with care and wisdom. The word “beating” is used in the verse, but it does not mean “physical abuse”. The Prophet (p.b.u.h.) explained it “dharban ghayra mubarrih” which means “a light tap that leaves no mark”. He further said that face must be avoided. Some other scholars are of the view that it is no more than a light touch by siwak, or toothbrush.

          • For the third time. Does the wife have the right to use physical force to discipline her husband when he is out of line?
            Stop avoiding the question.

          • Ok so you believe that muslims are evil. What are you going to do about it? I guess your the ones who justify drone striking thousands of muslims and claiming that its “collateral damage” Or starting false wars on muslim territories and killing 10s of thousands of muslims.

          • No human is evil. All humans are misguided, it is that simple. The pain and suffering caused by all religions is astounding.
            Just as you are misguided in your assumptions about me.
            You have several times stated that you know me and what I do, how I dress or what I will not do.
            I do not believe Muslims are evil. I believe that all humans make errors and will always do so.
            My wish is for them to discover the world on their own with out a mortal telling them what the devine desires.
            My wish is for humans to never take a life in the name of a religion.
            My wish is for humans to find their own moral codes and act decently towards one another with out fear of retribution or reward.

            We rely too much on what everyone tells us about how we should behave, think, pray, dress.
            We listen far too often to the media for opinions when honestly they never cover the full story.

            My biggest hope for ALL humans is that eventually they will find the strength and curiousity on their own to understand the world without religion dictating their actions.

            That is me, and that is what I believe. If you need to know.
            Perhaps you can get over your irrational hatred of me now.

          • It’s impractical to think this way. Some peoples moral code is survival of the fittest. Some peoples moral code is to sacrifice themselves for the life of others. There’s a plethora of different situations and events that can happen. Who’s going to decide what is right and what is wrong? Everyone will have different opinions. In the end to get anything done, someone will have to LISTEN to others and choose their version of the “moral code” or else nothing will every get done. If they don’t listen and don’t agree, then someone will begin to coerce others into believe them. It’s the way things work. No society can function if everyone had their own moral code, you can pretty much BS many things and justify it as right.

          • I said my wish, I didn;t say this will ever happen. I can wish all I want that you will think before you type responses but it’s not going to happen. You’re jsut going to keep insticntively arguing with everything I type.

            No one person has to decide what’s right and wrong. Hence my whole big thing against religions dictating morals. When they do that they always tend to muck it up.
            Asking who’s going to decide is ignoring the whole point of everyone listening to their own morals.
            Humans as a whole are generally not malicious. (Serious mental illness aside of course) The number of humans that feel empathy greatly out numbers the ones that don’t.

            Developing your own ideas does not mean you have to ignore everyone else’s ideas. Infact part of learning and understand is seeing many dfferent view points and coming to your own understanding.

            No one HAS to listen to someone else moral code. Do you wake up in the morning and go, I’m going to go kick my dog.
            I certainly hope not, being that you understand that doing so would cause the animal pain. Having a conscience is how we develop our morals. Despite what you think humans are capable of using their consciences with out some guy in the clouds telling us don’t kill people it makes other people sad.

            Saying if they don’t listen or agree then someone will co-erce them is essentially saying no matter what religion will exist.

            I don’t think you understand what morals are -_- I really don’t think you do.
            I also don’t recall saying we need to get rid of laws. I said I wish people would realize their own morals with out a religion telling them. I mean do you actually grasp what morals are?

            Morals are self restricting actions that we do based on our consciences understanding of things.
            I do thing because it will have a positive feeling
            I don’t do this because it has a negative feeling

            Morals aren’t laws.. even religious forced morals aren’t laws.
            Trust me if they were we wouldnt work Saturdays or Sundays, we wouldnt eat meat on fridays and we wouldnt be able to sut our hair or wear mixed fibers or eat a bunch of different foods, or use condoms, or have sex outside of marriage. etc…

            You silly little boy

          • And just bcause I can see some idiotic comment coming about laws being morals.
            Actually laws are not morals, while they tend to be moral in nature they are actually simply used to maintain society in the manner fitting for each country. Hence why you’ll see many trivial laws you consider pointless. They are used to keep society running not to instill morals on the citizens.

          • Apparently when you say the rest of the world sees muslim as evil you failed to mention the UN vote 130 to 6 to recognize Palestine as a non-member state. The 6 votes being US, Canada and a couple of US controlled islands. You also probably couldn’t explain why Saudi Arabia and many gulf states are strong allies with the US

          • “light disciplinary action.” Abuse-lite.

          • Are you for real? Because if you are, your arguments are going a long way to making you sound like what you say you are not.

          • Generally, the Prophet (p.b.u.h.) used to discourage his followers from taking even this measure. He never hit any female, and he used to say that the best of men are those who do not hit their wives. In one Hadith he expressed his extreme repulsion from this behavior and said, “How does anyone of you beat his wife as he beats the stallion camel and then embrace (sleep with) her?” (Al-Bukhari, English Translation, vol. 8, Hadith 68, pp. 42-43)

          • Rashad, your previous quote still is unanswered. He certainly did not admonish the husband for beating his wife until she was green.
            I mean green for goodness sake.

          • All of this I was quoting.
            Here is the link. http://www.islamicfinder.org/articles/article.php?id=307 so that you may read it yourself. I am a muslim. I believe this is the truth. I cannot lie otherwise all the believing and praying and hoping is in vain. I’m not here to lie or to deceive but to offer you whatever little knowledge I know about the topic and this article explains it very well.

          • So, a question I asked before. That like strike that can be given to a woman as a last resort. The wife can also strike her husband in return correct? I don’t mean as a retaliation. I mean when the husband is out of the line the wife has equal rights to strike him aswell.

          • If it is the husband who is mistreating his wife, that does not mean that she should remain oppressed or that her hands are tied. She has the right – just as the husband has – to warn and advise him, and to remind him to fear Allaah. If that does not work, she can seek the help of wise people among his relatives and her own, and they can advise him. If this does not work, then the matter can be taken to a qaadi (Muslim judge) who can force him to do the right thing. However, to specifically answer your question, in terms of the light beating, I do not know and that is a good question. I’ll do my best to find out.

          • Rashad you know the answer. You may not like it but you know what it is. I will not make you state it on here but knowing that answer I want you to deeply reflect on what it actually means.

            I will leave this comment up for 10 minutes for you to read and then I will edit it.

            You know very well that she is not allowed to hit her husband, you know very well it’s stated “because Allah has given the one
            more strength than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore, the righteous women are devoutly obedient”

            You as a rational human being understand what that means in it’s entirety. When you are obedient to another human you are lesser than them. Women are not as strong as men and it was your god that made it so.
            You may love and cherish them but they are still weaker and inferior. I love my pets but they will never be human. Allah purposely made half of his followers inferior to the other.
            Being a male you may not have a problem with that and you may treat your wife very well. However human mentality does not work that way. When one side feels superior to the other they tend to abuse it and forget that “they are the protectors”
            The religion may state that they aren’t truly following the religion.
            However as with all religions they often rely on word of mouth and many misconstrue the words the way they want to hear them.
            I have no doubt from witnessing it so many times in real life that the kind words you copied are entirely lost on a large percentage of Muslims.
            Do not take it personally as the Jesus Christs words are lost on a majority of Christians…

            But remember an important part of a religion is it’s followers and it’s texts. How they are interpreted and carried out.

            Your intentions may be fair and equal and you may see the good side of your religion but the rest of the world sees the evil and miscontrued words turning into wars and violence.

            I’m sure there are good points and there was an original meaning, however in the majority it seems lost. All it takes is a quick glance around the world to see the problems it’s causing.
            Do not find fault with people who are looking at the entire religion and not just what you see.

          • Well it’s pretty clear that in general males are stronger than females PHYSICALLY. That’s a scientific fact. So what is your problem with that?

          • Sooo if I’m physically stronger than any particular male, he must be obedient to me. I will remember that.
            Is it only arm strength or fighting in general..caause that may get a little harder. Now what about people who are mentally stronger? Emotionally stronger?
            I mean being pyshically stronger is hardly a reason to make females subservient to you.
            Unless that wasnt your point.

          • That wasn’t the point. Males are physically stronger than women in general. That’s it. Both parties in a muslim marriage may have different roles but both have to treat each other with respect. It’s as simple as that

          • Then you’re missing the point entirely?
            Actually what is your point? I never said males werent physically stronger.
            I said Allah made men stronger and made women obedient and lesser than the males and when humans tend to have people in their power they abuse them. Which is currently happening a lot in that religion and I’m seeing it on a very regular basis.
            I also stated that while his intentions may be good and he may treat his wife well that can not be said for a good percentage of them and the message he follows is often lost for the more obvious and conevient one.
            Any diety that would purposely set up a situation knowing human nature (and yes Allah knows of all things) is very very very wrong or sadistic.

          • What’s the percentage of them? And where did you get your stats from? In North American and in many rich nations domestic violence happens alot. And most of the domestic violence is Males abusing females. It’s a natural phenomenon that occurs all over the world. Yes it’s wrong but males get carried away and due to their physical strength they abuse women. It’s not right but it happens.

          • Which was my point… why did you restate it?
            Men stronger than women.. Allah made it that way.. he also made human nature which leads men to abuse the weaker women.
            What kind of diety does that?

          • No your verbage cleary contained Islamic/Arabic terminology (Allah is just arabic for god) so you were refereing to muslim domestic violence. Not general domestic violence.

          • I was speaking to Rashad, of course I was saying Allah, and since from his perspective being a MUSLIM. Allah created all humans, not just the Muslims. Is it wrong? Would my point be any different if I said GOD made women inferior, what sort of diety does that knowing human nature?
            The point is still exactly the same since to a Muslim Allah/God made all people. It doesnt specifically refer to Muslims because we’re all technically supposed to follow the rules because we’re all bound by the religion even if we don’t follow it.
            From their perspective their religion is the correct one so the lesson is applied universally.

          • You replied to me in the message so your speaking to me not Rashad. There will always be aspects in people or relationships that are better than others. Without these differences one will not be able to appreciate what they have that’s good. Also, there would be no diversity therefore it would be a pretty boring world with nothing much to talk about as everybody would be exactly the same.Where are you getting the notion that women are “lesser”? Men and Women have different roles. Men are stronger in some aspects of life while women are stronger in other aspects of life. In general women are better at nuturing a child, while men are physically stronger and in general are better equipped to protect the family. It’s not the case always but in general it is the case. What’s wrong with that? It’s a naturally recurring phenomenon.

          • Qur’an
            (4:34) – “Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of
            them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone
            in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek
            a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.”

            Jimmy I was answering you but you originally replied to a comment I made to Rashad, hence me talking about Islam, which is what this entire article is about which is what this entire topic is about.
            How did that escape you?

            How is it I explain to you the different strengths and weakness me and my husband have and Im a bigot..but you openly admit what I said.. Different strengths and weakness can still be equal as humans.
            Did you misunderstand me somewhere along the line?

          • Sorry, I don’t click on links. Care to use words to express your point?

          • Does Surah Nisa 4:34 Degrades Women? Is It True 4:34 Encourages “Beating”?

            Surah Nisa verse 34 (4:34) is a very common verse brought up when discussion of Women in Islam takes place. Yusuf Ali’s translation of the verse reads:

            “Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband’s) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all). ” (Quran 4:34, Yusuf Ali’s translation)

            It must be pointed out that the overall image this verse portrays is quite incorrect. However, when one examines it in the light of Arabic, the verse becomes rational.

            Verse begins with “men are qawwamun over women”; Arabic wordqawwamun is mentioned here. The root of the word qawwamun(plural of qawwam), is qama which means “to stand or to make something stand or to establish something”. The characteristic ofqawaamun in Quran is characterized by fairness. Thus in 4:134 and 5:8 Quran states:
            “O you who believe! Be qawwamin with fairness…”
            “O you who believe! Be qawwamin for God as witnesses to fairness…”

            Therefore to qawwam over something or someone is to guard, maintain or take care of that something or someone in a proper and fair manner. In this passage Quran glorifies women and tells men to look after them in fair manner.

            After mentioning that men are qawwamun over women, the verse goes on to provide the reasons:
            1)”Because God has favored some of them more than others”. Although it is not explicitly mentioned whether man or woman are superior, in the context it is probable that men are understood in some way to be favored more than women. But in what ways? The verse does not give any answer. But we can justifiably take the reference to physical strength and energy in which men generally excel women and which enables men to guard women against some of the dangers to which they may be exposed in society and to take care of some of their needs.

            2) Second reason for men being qawwamun over women is: “they (i.e. men) spend out of their wealth”. Although Islam permits women to earn money, however duty of ‘breadwinning’ is on man. This means that they will generally be responsible for the economic needs of women and this responsibility also makes themqawwamun.

            However, we must NOT conclude that Islam views men superior to female. For this statement does not exclude the possibility that in some other ways women may be favored more than men. Indeed observation shows that women are in general more patient, caring and have a more developed intuition than men. The reference of favour is in reference to Qawwamun.

            There is only one criterion, which makes a person more superior in Islam and that is Taqwa (righteousness, those stay away from sins and fear Allah and have piety). Quran says:

            “…Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things). ” (49:13)

            The fact that man has been favored in some ways more than woman does not automatically make him superior to her. It is only when his taqwa is more than hers that he can from the Qur’anic point of view be considered superior to her. And when a person’staqwa increases to a worthwhile level the question of his superiority does not interest him, for he or she realizes that all praises are due to God.

            Verse continues on to say “As for those women on whose part you fear nushuz…”, the word nushuz literally means “rebellion”. But rebellion against whom and in what sense? We should certainly not think of this in terms the rebellion of the ruled against a ruler in a sultanate or dictatorship and conclude that it consists of the wife disobeying some of the husband’s commands. This is because in verse 4:128 (same Surah), the word nushuz is used too: “If a woman fears nushuz on her husband’s part…” (Surah nisa 4:128). So a wife can fear nushuz on husband’s part also. It cannot therefore be understood in terms of the ruler-ruled relationship. To correctly understand the meaning of the word, it must be noted that both in the verse under consideration and in verse 128 the reference to nushuz is followed by a reference to the break-up of the marriage (as seen in verse 4:35, 4:130). If this context is kept in mind, then it becomes evident that nushuz means the type of behavior on the part of the husband or the wife, which is so disturbing for the other that their living together becomes difficult.

            Thus the verse refers to one partner who knowingly behaves or continues to behave in a way, which seriously disturbs the other partner. In this case there is obviously an ill-will on the part of the first partner towards the second, which would result in break-up of marriage.

            Now what does the Quran says about the partner in whom you fearnushuz (a behavior on the part of one marriage partner which comes out of ill-will and seriously disturbs the other partner)? Quran recommends three steps: 1) “Admonish them (first), 2) (next) leave them alone in beds 3) (and last) beat them or separate them (from you).”

            1) “Admonish them“, husband can try to resolve the problems by discussion in a peaceful manner. Husband can try to point out teachings from the Quran on the topic. He can, for instance, point out the consequences of such a break-up.

            2) “Leave them alone in beds“, if discussion comes to no avail then Quran prescribes, “Leave them alone in beds”. This may make them appreciate the seriousness of such a problem and see things in a different light. The separation may also ignite the love between the two.

            3) “Beat them or separate them (from you)“, in most of the cases above two steps should be sufficient enough to resolve the problem, however if it still does not then Quran goes unto mention that men are allowed to use “dharb“. This word has been translated, as beating as there are verses in Quran such as 2:60, 61, 73, 8:12, 50, 7:160 etc, where the word does mean smite or strike. However in many other Quranic passage the word dharb DOES have other meanings. The word can mean constructing or coining something such as coining mathal or similitude as demonstrated in 14:24, 16:75-76, 30:28, 36:27 etc. In 2:60 the word is also used to separate two things. In 20:77 it is used of the splitting of the sea to make a way for the children of Israel to escape and in 57:13 it is used of making a wall to separate the two groups of people in the hereafter. Leaving, withdrawing or taking away is the meaning in 43:5. In 13:17 the word is used for separating truth and falsehood. The word can also mean campaigning or travelling in the land, e.g., for the purpose of trade (2:273, 73:20).

            In the present context, the Qur’anic usage allows two meanings: 1) separating from the wives in the sense of living apart from them, 2) beating them. The first meaning fits the context well for some kind of physical separation is a very understandable step after suspension of sexual relations does not work. The second meaning is more natural from a linguistic point of view and has the support of a strong consensus among the commentators. In the rest of this commentary, we consider the question: how is “beating”, if that is what is intended in the verse, is to be interpreted in the light of the passage as a whole and the general teaching of the Qur’an.

            The verse (if we interpret the meaning here is beating) deals with nushuz (behavior on the part of the wife which is so disturbing for the other that their living together becomes difficult). Beating is to be done after admonishing them and then leaving them alone in beds. Beating is not to go on and on but is to be tried as a last step to save the marriage. Once it is clear that it is not working it is to be abandoned in favor of some other steps involving relatives of the husband and the wife mentioned in the next verse (4:35). There is therefore, absolutely no license here for the type of regular and continual wife beating that goes on in some homes, where each time the husband is angry with his wife or with someone else he turns against her and beats her up. Domestic violence we see in the world (including west) is not at all preached by this verse.

            Even so, with regards to wife beating in Nushuz (behavior on the part of the wife which is so disturbing for the other that their living together becomes difficult) following points must be noted:

            a) According to some traditions, the Prophet said in his famous and well-attended speech on the occasion of his farewell pilgrimage that the beating done according to the present verse should beghayr mubarrih, i.e. in such a way that it should not cause injury, bruise or serious hurt. Therefore some scholars like Razi and Tabari have concluded that beating should be done with a miswak or folded scarf.

            b) If the husband beats a wife without respecting the limits set down by the Qur’an and Hadith, then she can take him to court and if ruled in favor has the right to apply the law of retaliation and beat the husband as he beat her.

            The emotion involved may bring husband and wife closer, whilst remembering in mind that beating ought to be ghayr mubarrih (in such a way that it does not causes serious hurt, bruise or injury). Indeed, some scholars suggest the beating should symbolic (such as with miswak). Ironically, this may even protect women. This prevents, restricts as well as condemns abusive actions of husband. This prevents wife battering as is observed in some societies.

            Quran further goes on to say “But if they obey you, then seek nothing against them“. Here obey means that the wife accepts the husband’s fair and justified demands or expectations. “Seek nothing against them” means that after the wife has abandoned nushuzand returned to the decent way one partner in marriage should behave towards the other, the husband should forgive and forget the past and start a new page.

            “Behold, God is most high and great“, the husband should remember that God is most high; he will have to give reckoning to God.

            Finally, one should also remember rest of the teachings of Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) and the Quran:
            “O ye who believe! Ye are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should ye treat them with harshness, that ye may take away part of the dower [money given by the husband to the wife for the marriage contract] ye have given them, except where they have been guilty of open lewdness; on the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike a thing, and God brings about through it a great deal of good.“ (The Noble Quran, 4:19)

            “And among God’s signs is this: He created for you mates from amongst yourselves (males as mates for females and vice versa) that you might find tranquillity and peace in them. And he has put love and kindness among you. Herein surely are signs for those who reflect. (The Noble Quran 30:21)”

            “And the believers men and women are friends one of the other, they enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong, and they establish worship and pay the poor due, and they obey God and his messenger. As for these, God will have mercy on them…(The Noble Quran 9:71)”

            Narrated Mu’awiyah al-Qushayri: “I went to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) and asked him: What do you say (command) about our wives? He replied: Give them food what you have for yourself, and clothe them by which you clothe yourself, and do not beat them, and do not revile them. (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 11, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 2139)”

            Narrated Mu’awiyah ibn Haydah: “I said: Apostle of Allah, how should we approach our wives and how should we leave them? He replied: Approach your tilth when or how you will, give her (your wife) food when you take food, clothe when you clothe yourself,do not revile her face, and do not beat her. (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 11, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 2138)”

            Abu Huraira (Allah be pleased with him) reported Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) as saying: “He who believes in Allah and the Hereafter, if he witnesses any matter he should talk in good terms about it or keep quiet. Act kindly towards woman, for woman is created from a rib, and the most crooked part of the rib is its top. If you attempt to straighten it, you will break it, and if you leave it, its crookedness will remain there. So act kindly towards women. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Book 008, Number 3468)“

            Narrated Salim: “….Umar said: ‘The Prophet forbade beating on the face.‘ (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Hunting, Slaughtering, Volume 7, Book 67, Number 449)“

            “How does anyone of you beat his wife as he beats the stallion camel and then embrace (sleep with) her?” (Al-Bukhari, English Translation, vol. 8, Hadith 68, pp. 42-43)

          • Lily, I dare any women in North America to not shave her legs or facial hair and walk in shorts in a busy area with hairy legs and see the reaction. Oh wait, you wouldn’t dare do something like that because this society has instilled an image of beauty of how women should look and dress. Yet you complain about muslim women who choose not to follow your dress code because you claim their brainwashed yet your the one who is actually brainwashed without even realizing it.

          • ^^ Actually I’m not fond of shaving my legs, you’re preaching to the wrong girl hun. I don’t often follow fashion customs nor do I often let society dictate what I look like.

            I’m more of a wear what ever I feel like type of girl. I like jeans and a sweater but if Im in the mood I’ll wear an awesome dress.
            I never wear makeup (mostly cause I have no idea how) and I havent cut my hair in years, I mostly just pull it up in a ponytail or a bun or let it hang down.

            And yes this summer I wore shorts and went swimming with those hairy legs lol.

            Now what’s your next dare ;)
            The fun part about being female is that we can often get away with any look we want if we’re pretty enough.
            If anyone’s making a fuss I never notice it.

            Now on to the real point. My post was about that the hijab, niqab and burka symbolize, not the actual article of clothing itself.
            I suggest you go re-read the actual comment. It’s not a matter of fitting into what we dictate but wearing a piece of clothing that dictates she is inferior in her religion.

          • I doubt you did it in a very public place of strangers. And I doubt most women would do something like this. You probably won’t admit it because by all your post your just about trying to win a debate and bash muslims but you know deep down that our society has set certain sexualized norms for women because these trends make money. WHo set them? MEN. A muslim women doesn’t follow those trends therefore theirs no money to make in clothing, make up and sexualization of women to look younger and sexier. Therefore there is a sense of empowerment of judging a women by her brains rather than her look. How many presidents or prime ministers have been ELECTED in North America that were women? In 6 or 7 muslim dominated countries there have been elected women as their political leaders.

          • You doubt, doesn’t mean anything.
            ^_^ A canadian girl has to have nerves. A good strong girl does her own thing and if people don’t like it you just laugh it off.

            Trust me swimming with hairy legs was better than sitting in the 30 degree weather.

            I never said our society doesn’t have expectations. Women are expected to behave a certain way and men are another.
            That is obvious. My point is that if a girl or guy is truly confident in themselves then they do their best to break free from those customs and be themselves.
            You’re making the assumption that everyone follows those norms and that all NA women are blind sheep buying everything to make themselves sexy in societies eyes.

            They are still a small percentage of people, just like not all men are at the gym trying to bulk up to be that “ideal” male figure.

            You said I dare any north american woman and I said I’ve done it. It’s true too lol. Trust me I get alot of flack from my sisters but I’m still going to be myself and I’m fine with that.

            No religion, nor society, nor my own family will dictate what I wear or what my clothing means.
            I also don’t wear clothes to make statements.
            Wearing an article of clothing because a religion dictates I should would go against my very essence.
            Wearing it because women are weaker than men.. that just gives me the chills.

            By the way it’s even more empowering for a girl with a brain and grit to know she looks good too. So you can’t really argue that sexualizing females means you don’t appreciate their minds aswell. I mean HOPEFULLY any female with a brain will talk to a guy for a very long time before she dates them.

          • Girls are raised today, in western countries, to see themselves as independent, as making choices, but the reality is that unless they make choices that conform to society’s expectations, they won’t get too far. It doesn’t have to be a religion that dictates what you wear or don’t wear. Your culture – your local norms, your friends, jobs, they all influence how you are and how you appear to others.

            As long as you fit in, sexually, with what’s expected, you will do just fine. Say no to sex or a sexualized way of life and see what happens. Sophia Loren didn’t shave and even though it was noticed and probably not approved of, she had other assets, and eventually, did what she had to in order to make it. So it’s not just about clothes, but the way you dress is a good part of it.

          • Sue ^_^, you’re generalizing way too much. I’m not really a sexual type of person andas I’ve said before I’m more laid back tomboy style.
            Sophia Loren wanted to get into show business, that’s an entirely different aspect of life. Yes it’s understandable that they would have certain ideas to sell in that industry.
            However if I wanted to join the military I would assume they would deny me access if I was severely overweight.
            You can get along just fine not being highly sexualized outside of the entertainment industry.
            If you couldn’t most people would knock themselves off at 40 or 50.
            Or we’d have a lot less obese people, and ugly people certainly wouldnt be able to breed :P
            A lot of people get along just fine with out being sexy or having lots of sex.

          • Generalizing? No she’s stating the reality in the west. It would be generalizing by taking your example of being one of the very few walking around in shorts with hairy legs and saying all women walk around in shorts with hairy legs.

          • I specifically said it because tyou said you dare and North American women to do it.
            I’m not saying all women do it lol.
            I know I tend to do my own thing more often than most people.

            However the point still remains that whether or not I want to walk around with hairy legs, smooth legs, push up bra or none at all, jeans, sweater, t shirt, dress… there is no religion telling me that I’m immoral for wearing what I want or not wearing something.

            I am not shamed into a behaviour. Is there something wrong with that?
            I do not see how North American standard practices with clothing and makup apply to this conversation since I am the one saying I disagree with the Hijab.
            Even if 99% of other women were walking around in elephant costumes sold to them by the media does not change the fact of how I feel about it.
            (I really don’t like how many cultures have odd expectations for both genders)
            I am not shamed into and if the rest of the world is then I’m still free to say they’re all ridiculous.
            My point is still valid and the hijab is still a symbol that women in that religion are inferior to men and wearing it still symbolizes that even if she’s choosing to.
            No amount of discussion about well this country does this, and women shave that, is relevant because I am not them.
            Telling me someone else is doing something wrong to justify something else done wrong doesn’t add up.

          • No, I’m not generalizing. Is talking about Sophia Loren generalising? Yes, Loren got into the business despite not shaving her armpits for her initial films. You were talking about armpits, weren’t you?

            And it’s not generalizing to consider other aspects of a person’s way of life besides their clothing. If you don’t provide details of your own life, I can only talk in general terms. But don’t put me down because I try as much as I am able to analyze what’s being said. I can only give as much as I am able under the circumstances.

            People don’t get by in this world unless they have something – and that’s either money or sex.

          • Sophia Loren chose to get into the entertainment industry.
            Comparing her to the rest of the population is not quite adequate.
            Trust me if you didn’t shave your arm pits you would not have much of a problem finding a job.
            You wouldn’t go broke and end up on the streets due to unemploment caused by hairy pits.
            So yes saying Sophia Loren had a problem with hairiness when she was getting into her career was a problem doesn’t really mean much for the rest of the planet.

          • Loren was the only person I knew of that didn’t like to shave. Yo said you didn’t like to shave. It wasn’t a comparison. It was simply about conforming to the norm of shaving.

            Sooner or later, a girl is expected to conform if she’s going to go around showing her armpits in company. and actually, yes that can affect her chances at getting a job. If she won’t conform to that, what other ways will she refuse to conform?

          • Try France Sue, it might suit you more. A little more freedom from the social norms over here.

            Sue you put way to much emphasis on how the world views you. You’re really thinking about it way too much and it appears to be making you bitter.

            You’re never going to be able to do everything you want in life and you’re not going to get every job you try for.
            Sometimes being yourself is more important and just keep trying for a job that better suits you. If your physical appearance is that important in your prospective workplace then do you really want to work there?
            I mean we can’t all look awesome all the time, we have sick days and blah days etc.
            Perhaps you’re just trying in the wrong places. Or maybe London On is just weirdly overly sexual.

          • I’m not looking for a job, and my chance at a career is over.

            So I’m not supposed to feel bitter? Am I allowed to be angry? No.

            I’m just supposed to think, Oh well, sh-t happens!

            You know, I hope you don’t go into the therapy business.

            Feminists say it’s bad if a girl is raped. But they don’t say it’s bad if one of them sexually exploits a man to get what they want.

            All places are the same, girl. I’m sure you already know that.

          • Sue McPherson
            Girls are raised today, in western countries, to see themselves as independent, as making choices, but the reality is that unless they make choices that conform to society’s expectations, they won’t get too far.


            Then shouldn’t we start fighting to change that. If you have a problem with how society views females or how they value them then do something. Anything.. something small something. If it really does bother you.
            And judging by all your really embittered comments it does really bother you.

          • What you think does not represent the society as a whole. On the other end of North American society their will be people who tell you straight that yes women should be highly sexualized as it makes money. This logic can be applied to muslims. There are many different interpretations in Islam given to people as a mercy for being in different environments and situations, Why do you chose only the far extreme interpretation of Islam? Scholars such as Tariq Ramadan illustrate this.

          • It’s not the extreme interpretation. Even Rashad who is on the very mild side admitted it and defended it. It is the very meaning of that item. All muslims should dress conservatively, however for males it’s from the navel to the knees. Essentially they need to be wearing shorts (longer shorts) With women however because they are lesser it was stated that they need to be more hidden from others who aren’t in their family. Hence the head covering, hair covering, bosom covering.
            Not really extreme at all.

          • Lesser? Are you saying you think it’s because they think women are lesser that they have to cover up. Surely it’s more about women’s sexuality and the effect it has on men that they are concerned about. And they sure don’t want their women becoming westernized.

            Christianity was the same way. It only seems to be feminism that doesn’t want to recognize the sexual power of women – and men’s weakness for sex.

            So, feminists strive for equality (they say) even though it’s not ever going to be possible because men and women are different – with different sexual needs, and different procreative capacities.

            But Christianity saw that and so does Islam. It wasn’t because women were inferior that they had to cover up (think of Eve in the garden with Adam). It was because of the power that women have over men.

          • Sue many Western men exhibit excellent control over their sexual natures, though some don’t the majority do.
            I think you’re not giving them enough credit or women too much.
            I don’t think men need to be protected from womens bodies, I’m sure they can control themselves like the rest.

          • Yes, indeed. Men need to exert control over their sexuality because otherwise, if they behaved naturally, they would get into trouble. You’re getting the point now, I do believe. Sexuality for men is something they have to control, especially if they can’t control their wives, who might be seduced by other men.

            Then we don’t really need sexual or domestic violence categories of crime, if men are able to control their natural impulses (as you seem to think most can). Actually, most men need sex and think about sex a great deal. If they have power in their lives they can probably get it. If they don’t, or if they are in prison, they often seek out other ways of getting what they need.

          • Then technically isn’t the problem Men, not women. I mean even men in prison with out women around will rape other men. Clearly the problem there is men.
            Telling women to cover up because they can’t get any is a little silly.

            Stop selling candy because I’m a sugar addict essentially.
            I have to get some and if I see it everday I’m going to do anything to get it.
            Certainly not the Candies fault and it’s certainly not women that need to change.

            If I can’t control myself then Im weak. If men really need sex that badly prostitution is legal in Canada.

            Honestly that’s like blaming the victim for being raped.
            I don’t think it’s too much to ask men to have a little self control, I honestly think it’s a little condescending to assume they’re animals who can’t.

          • The problem is that both men and women have to take responsibility. Women need to control their flaunting (since you see this as an issue of control) as much as men need to control their sex drives. It obviously isn’t just about the way women dress. It is about flaunting it, and leading men on.

            People who have a lapse in judgement may be considered weak or may not be. Generally, people with power are excused, powerless people are not. Michael Bryant was seen as weak but excused of manslaughter of a man on a bike. So did Crown Attorney Brian Crockett get off lightly after drunk driving. But Bonita Purtill did not.

            See my blog for more on those cases – Sue’s Views on the News
            http://suemcpherson.blogspot.com .

            Of course men can control their impulses. We all can and do. If they didn’t, there would be rape happening continually, as women walked down the street or went to work.

            Have you ever tired to control your impulse to write about things you know nothing about?

          • Qur’an
            (4:34) – “Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone
            in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek
            a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.”

            Yes.. lesser.

          • This sounds to me as though, since it is the men who have the jobs and resources (spend out of their property) , the women are under their care (obedient), guarding the unseen (their private parts). If a woman is likely to take off (desertion), the men are told to threaten her (admonish) or beat her, and if she then obeys, do not do anything further to her.

            So it’s simply a matter of controlling her, and her sexuality.

          • Where are you getting the notion that women are “lesser”? Men and Women have different roles. Men are stronger in some aspects of life while women are stronger in other aspects of life. In general women are better at nuturing a child, while men are physically stronger and in general are better equipped to protect the family. It’s not the case always but in general it is the case. What’s wrong with that? It’s a naturally recurring phenomenon.

          • Sue, yes Islam does explicitly state women are inferior.
            Saying Christianity says is pointless, I’m not particularly fond of their examples lol.

            No human will be the same as any other human, My husband is much stronger in his arms and I can easily move him with my legs.
            I am smarter than him book wise but his ability to connect with humans amazes me everytime.

            I’m great at problem solving and he has a special way of messing up the living room no other human can replicate I’m sure.

            We are different human beings and we are not copies of each other, but we certainly are equal and share equal power in the relationship.

            Islam gives the husband the right to hit his wife but not vice versa.

            The equality is not in physical strength but in the lack of restrictions and the chance they give.
            If she is told to be obedient to her husband then she is not given an equal chance to fail or suceed. Her chance is all in what he allows her to do.
            That is not equal.

            My husband will never be able to cook the way I do (probably)
            I’ll never be able to strike up a conversation like a stranger like he does.
            But we’re still equal.
            Equal can still mean different.

          • So your saying we should follow your example of the perfect equal relationship? It’s seems pretty clear in all your post, that you use your example as the way to live and no other way of doings things is correct. Bigotry perhaps?

          • Is that what you took from that? That respecting your partner is abnormal in a relationship and if I say I do it then it’s bigotry?
            What other example am I to give? If I stated my ideals with out doing it myself I certainly wouldn’t be very good. Saying one thing and doing another wouldbe hypocritical.

            So yes, I do my best in all aspects of my life because I lead the best life I know how to.
            Though if you want to let your wife dominate you I’m fine with that too lol.
            Do you really have a problem with equality in a relationship.. is it that hard of a concept that your wife is just as important as you are? really?

          • Many Muslims claim to respect and treat their partners with equality. Your views of equality may differ from other peoples views of equality. Equality can mean many things such as equality of justice, physical equality, equality of rights etc. Your just over simplifying things. Why do you chose your views on subjects that you have very little knowledge of and pond them off as the absolute truth? A person who is satisfied with ones life does not need to prove to another that their way of living is better than theirs. Why do people usually bash others? Because their not satisfied with themselves.

          • Many Catholics claim to be tolerant of gays and have no problem with abortions condom usage or eating meat on Fridays however the religion itself certainly has a problem with it.

            Regardless of what you want to argue Jimmy, and you love doing that. In Islam women are explicitily stated to be inferior to men and this comes through in a lot of ways.

            1.When praying they have to pray behind the men.
            2.Women are also not allowed to lead Salat
            3.You need two women to testify, but only one male
            4.one sides divorce laws
            5. Males are allowed to strike females but not vice versa

            People’s understanding of the world does change but Islam seems to be vey stubborn ad especially so in the middle east.
            No matter how open some western muslims may be the religion itself is very clear that women are not equal

          • The example you give – of you and your husband – is one of being mutually compatible. Feminists use the term equal to mean just that – eg the same number of women for Supreme Court Justices as men; or the ability of each to do the same kind of work – eg write an academic paper or book.

            You’re right though, men and women should recognize each other’s strengths. So should women of women, though, and men of men.

          • It is also important to note that even this “light strike” mentioned in the verse is not to be used to correct some minor problem, but it is permissible to resort to only in a situation of some serious moral misconduct when admonishing the wife fails, and avoiding from sleeping with her would not help. If this disciplinary action can correct a situation and save the marriage, then one should use it.

            Dr. Jamal Badawi, professor at Saint Mary’s University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, and a cross-appointed faculty member in the Departments of Religious Studies and Management, adds:

            “If the problem relates to the wife’s behavior, the husband may exhort her and appeal for reason. In most cases, this measure is likely to be sufficient. In cases where the problem persists, the husband may express his displeasure in another peaceful manner, by sleeping in a separate bed from hers. There are cases, however, in which a wife persists in bad habits and showing contempt of her husband and disregard for her marital obligations. Instead of divorce, the husband may resort to another measure that may save the marriage, at least in some cases. Such a measure is more accurately described as a gentle tap on the body, but never on the face, making it more of a symbolic measure than a punitive one.

          • It is also important to note that even this “light strike” mentioned in the verse is not to be used to correct some minor problem, but it is permissible to resort to only in a situation of some serious moral misconduct when admonishing the wife fails, and avoiding from sleeping with her would not help. If this disciplinary action can correct a situation and save the marriage, then one should use it.

            1. Light strike.. she turned green.
            2. So the wife can beat the husband if he’s out of line then too?
            I mean if the husband is conducting some serious blasphemy..like idk burning images of the prophet and doodling in Qurans.. she’s got permisson from Allah to give him a “light strike” Right?

            I mean certainly it goes both ways as men and women are equal and the sin commited is the same severity, so she is completely allowed to strike him when he is out of line.

        • You also forget that these hadith are in Arabic. To say you get a perfect translation of the Qur’an and Hadith in english is nonsense. You haven’t showed me where it that’s it’s permissible or how to go about beating such as it does with with so many other subjects…

          • Please go give me the perfect translation then ^_^ Until the point stands. I highly doubt they are all imperfect translations and if that is the case then everything else must be an imperfection translation as well and your entire understanding of the religion is MOOT until you can read arabic.

            I highly suggest you reconsider your choice in religons if you have a problem accepting it’s teachings.

          • I can read arabic. You pick and choose what you feel like and believe you had made a point. You trim the hadith to a couple of sentences when it’s more than that…

            Worse than CNN,

          • Worse than CNN still better than a Muslim ;)

          • Yea I’m not one for pushing lies as truth.

          • Well all you’re technically doing is mashing your keyboard saying it’s not true! it’s not true!
            I mean you’re not actually refuting my comments or anyone else’s.
            I mean I’m more likely to beleive someone posting quotes from the book than someone just saying no you’re wrong..but I have no proof that you’re wrong.

          • Please by all means enlighten me as to the entire meaning of all of those passages. I await this total 180 on it’s meaning.
            Remember even if you claim it’s trimmed down it’s still written int here and you’d better give a very good explanation of why it’s written.
            The clocks ticking so get going. I’m waiting boy.

  33. This comment was deleted.

    • I kinda already imported quite a bit. I don’t see how Democracy controlled by money hungry men is positive, not interested in the country, but for power. Violent? Muslims = Violence in the world? You can definitely not be killed by a person of any other colour or religion.

      Ask any muslim woman if they are forced or put on their hijabs on their own free will…

      Either way, you’re behind a PC and you’re not doing anything about this “problem”.

      • I wonder who is better at twisting words and making false arguments to deflect a topic, Rashad or PR people?
        By the way Rashad, speaking out against something is often the first step to doing somwething about the “problem”

        Being behind a pc doesn’t matter since a lot can be accomplished with a little push.

        • How am I twisting words?

          You gota try hard though. There’s a lot coming.

          • You claim things written in the quran don’t exist, yet you do not provide the correction of what it actually means.

            You claim it’s taken out of context but never actually bother to explain what the correct context is. You are therefor deflecting the actual answer.

            One starts to wonder if you actually are telling the truth ;)

          • Infact in the future of this conversation on this article. ANY time you state that someone has taken something out of context or is misquoting or trimming you are required to out the correct context, correct quote and untrimmed version to prove yourself.

            Because everyone here is actually taking the time to get these sources and you’re just saying no. Well that’s not very convincing now is it.

            So if you want anyone here to take you seriously (lol) you’ll have to prove what you’re saying isn’t empty.

            Afterall you read Arabic and it is your religion, you should know t better than we do. It should be know problem correcting our misinformation.

            Unless you can’t of course.

  34. The outstanding author, liberal, and head of the Canadian Muslim Congress, Tariq Fatah, has said that to the best of his reckoning a full 20% of Canadian Muslim youth has been radicalized. If of the one million Muslims in Canada half are ‘youth’, that means there are about 100,000 radicalized Muslims in this country. It causes me grave concern to see how pollyannish and generally ignorant most Canadians are on this subject. I suppose their general good-heartedness mixed with the multicultural nitwits constant propagandizing in the classroom and in the media are responsible. But how many Muslim plots to harm Canadians and how many honor killings and how much horrible violence perpetrated by Muslims around the world do Canadians need to be convinced of the dangerous realities of Islam? Apparently over half of them are now on the right track.

    • It has only come to me recently that this could be a problem. I live in London, Ontario, and from time to time we hear about incidents involving young men from here, radicalized, or mistakenly involved in situations overseas and getting killed, etc. So it makes one think, except, in London, even the media seems to be trying to not let people think. eg London Free Press, which deletes scores of comments it doesn’t approves on, on the topic of Muslims. One recent incident is the one involving Tarek Loubini, now in jail in Egypt, not likely a murderer, but still involved in some way in the protest in Cairo which got him and Greyson arrested on Aug 16.

      The LFP deletes Londoners comments on the subject, because many of them think the two should have known better, in fact usually doesn’t permit comments on the subject. And then today, this article appears:

      London doctor Tarek Loubani, John Greyson shouldn’t be blamed for
      ordeal in Egypt, By Ian Gillespie, LFP, Oct 3, 2013.
      http://www.lfpress.com/2013/10/03/gillespie-tarek-loubani-john-greyson-should-not-blamed-for-their-ordeal-in-egypt

      So, I don’t think it’s only about doing “harm” to Canadians, as you say, but about immigrants and refugees using their position here as Canadians to further their own cause, and our own cities keeping silent about it.

  35. As a Canadian, this is a very bad example to show the world..

  36. I suspect it would be Muslims who would have a bigger problem with their children marrying non-Muslims than the other way around.

    • This comment was deleted.

      • That’s nonsense and just plain trolling.

        • lauriej1 – I just have 13 things to say to you:

          1. Quran (8:12) “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.”

          2. Quran (5:33) “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned.”

          3. Quran (2:191-193) “And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing.”

          4. Quran (9:5) “So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush.”

          5. Quran (33:60-62) “If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and the alarmists in the city do not cease, We verily shall urge thee on against them, then they will be your neighbors in it but a little while. Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter.”

          6. Quran (47:3-4) “Therefore when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners.”

          7. Bukhari (52:177) – Allah’s Apostle said, “The Hour will not be
          established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. “O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.”

          8. Bukhari (8:387) Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah’. And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally.”

          9. Bukhari (11:626) – [Muhammad said:] “I decided to order a man to lead the prayer and then take a flame to burn all those, who had not left their houses for the prayer, burning them alive inside their homes.”

          10. Tabari 7:97 “The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared, ‘Kill any Jew who falls under your power.’”

          11. Tabari 9:69 [Muhammad said:] “Killing Unbelievers is a small matter to us”

          12. Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 327: “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires
          killing them to manifest the religion.’”

          13. Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 992: [Muhammad said:] “Fight everyone in the way of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah.”

  37. Canada has always been a wonderful country with its peaceful and loving population in the mind of many around the world, a place where it would be nice ti live in if it were possible. It would simply be a tragedy if Canada were to lose this cachet.

  38. Good. Canadians must NOT turn a blind eye to the disturbing social problems caused by uncontrolled Muslim immigration in Denmark, Norway and Britain. For example, 90% of rapes in Oslo, Norway are committed by Muslims and it has got the point to where police admit they “have lost control” of the city. Insane!

    Individually muslims are no different than anybody else, but once they reach a critical mass they isolate themselves and create a muslim nation within their host country. This must not be allowed to happen in Canada.

  39. I think a LOT of this negative sentiment is a direct result of many becoming aware of the unspeakable horrors seen around the globe in respect to extremists.

    I direct my negative opinion typically against the person…Muslim or not, or some visible minority, if that individual has it coming. For example, I have a LOT of respect for Tarek Fatah and defer to his opinion regarding Radical Islam…and not some mouthpiece from the likes of National Post defending said extremists because Tarek happens to also be a CPC supporter. Petty nonsense…they shoot the messenger and interject their opinion about how they view Islam, in the usual “useful idiot” manner. Vilify a man who is far closer to the issue than pretty much most of the non-Muslims. If I could vote for the man, I would in a heart beat for being candid and showing he has no tolerance for intolerance.

    If Muslims in this nation want to have more positive regard, then they can step up and “police” themselves to rid themselves of the hate filled Islamists amongst them. Simplistic solution to be sure, but it is an important distinction to many, including me. Start outing the extremists…in whatever manner you want…make the community aware of them…not just yours, but all of Canada as a whole. Show us that Islam can rise about the hate game and fix itself.

    As I said, I don’t hate Muslims. I hate Islamists. And that is a very important distinction.

  40. Disturbing to who? While I don’t support religious based violence against muslims despite islam being a lethal religion to non muslims I certainly hope the libtards will wake up and realized that there is a reason that islam is the fasted growing religion in Canada, it’s simply a numbers game and unless you are prepared to reduce the numbers once the advantage is obtained it is simply a matter of time before non muslims are dead. This video is a good summarization imho. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtgUURsUydk

Sign in to comment.