"This debate is almost completely and utterly useless," said the poor, little Camel's Nose to the big Canadian Tent's Edge.

First its one burqa...

And one stoning...

And one Sharia...

Posted by: profitsbeard at September 9, 2007 3:02 AM

'Its just a tiny minority of extremists....'

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at September 9, 2007 4:05 AM

"Canada and the rest of the West will soon be part of the global Caliphate, Inshallah, so really it's a moot
only one problem out in the west in British Columbia outside of lower mainland there are places that are guerrilla army who could hide and never be found by a Muslim force there are abandoned towns up and down the coast like Ocean Falls that can provide shelter so the chances of a global Caliphate controlling anywhere on the West Coast but the big cities would be hard even with in 90 miles of Vancouver up the Pitt River Valley off of pitt Lake there are places back in the mountains there that men have ever been to even today this coast with his rather independent-minded people has the potential to become a Hindu kush of the West for any Muslims if they ever did manage to pull off the global Caliphate that they keep having wet dreams over and as face covering it should be outlawed it's one thing to cover your hair as a sign of modesty but in the West the burqa has been used in crimes and in a couple of cases to allow Muslim murderers escape justice back to Pakistan. Where there is not a chance of sharia court will permit a Muslims be turned over to an infidel court and Western justice even if they are guilty is long past timeto ban face covering in the West if they want to cover their faces let them go home to where they came from

Posted by: mowasaperv at September 9, 2007 4:53 AM

It doesn't matter. It's just socialist mamby pamby canada. The great big U.S of A. is taking care of you. And that is that.

Posted by: mustang65 at September 9, 2007 6:16 AM

To protest, all Canadians should show up to vote with bags over their heads and tiny holes for eyes.

Posted by: moderationist at September 9, 2007 6:41 AM

As long as the mutterings under the burqa are in French, I don't think they care. Did they care when a muslim shot up a dorm full of nurses? No. the gormless menfolk all stood around while it happened. Canada is a pussy nation. Leave Québec pour les loups et musulmanes, Alberta and Saskatchewan and Manitoba can join the US.

Posted by: Jauhara Al-Kafirah at September 9, 2007 6:48 AM

Aside from all the insults directed toward Canada, this is an interesting thread. One wonders why, if this is about "a minority of a minority of a minority", Elections Canada went this route in the first place.

In Nova Scotia, they won't let high school kids wear hoodies to school with the hoods up, yet in Quebec women can vote with their faces covered?

Quebec has always beem a law unto itself, and as for muslims, Quebec can have them.

Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at September 9, 2007 7:50 AM

"More from those adorable Canadians." -- Posted by Greg

I resemble that remark, LOL.

From the article:

"Federal Liberal Leader Stephane Dion said "when they are casting a vote in elections, Canadian citizens have a responsibility to fully reveal their identities." Dion urged Elections Canada to reconsider its decision.

"And Quebec's chief returning officer Marcel Blanchet warns he will once again invoke special powers to make any voter with a covered face reveal themselves before casting a ballot in the Sept. 24 provincial byelection in the rural Charlevoix riding."

-- If I'm reading this correctly, the new rule pertains to three Quebec ridings in a byelection. It is significant because, if allowed to stand, it sets a precedent.

Also from the article:

"Wahida Valiante, national vice-president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, said she was surprised by the debate because it hasn't come up among Muslims in her Waterloo, Ont.-based organization."

I think this is disingenuous. Waterloo, Ontario is a long way away from Outremont, Quebec. The cities can't compare.

Posted by: Josephine at September 9, 2007 8:23 AM

In the meantime, the Canadian Islamic Congress is promoting October as "Islamic History Month Canada":

http://www.islamichistorymonth.com/

According to the city of Victoria, B.C., which has signed on for it, this is an educational opportunity, too. Does this mean indoctrination in Victoria schools?

I don't know who runs this website:

http://www.muslimhomeschool.com/pride/resources.htm

[Copied & pasted.]

Questions:

Did Muslims save world scholarship and history
that would have been lost during the western "Dark Ages"?

Did Muslim's help build the United States and Canada before they were their own countries?

And after each gained independence?

Is Muslim American history linked and part of American history itself?

Posted by: Josephine at September 9, 2007 8:28 AM

"Did they care when a muslim shot up a dorm full of nurses? No. the gormless menfolk all stood around while it happened. Canada is a pussy nation..."
Posted by: Jauhara Al-Kafirah

Would you please refresh my memory? Which Muslim shot up a dorm full of nurses?

Marc Lepine (whose father was a Muslim and who might have been Muslim himself) shot several female engineering students at Ecole Polytechnique. Lepine shouted, "I hate feminists", not "Allah Akbar".

When the obviously armed Lepine told the men to leave, I think it is more likely that they obeyed out of shock and fear, not knowing what to do and hoping that Lepine would not hurt them if they obeyed. (That's the way it was with hijackings prior to 9/11.)

I do not for one second believe that those men did not care about the women who were murdered. Those men were also victims of Lepine.

So academics and students didn't know how to deal with an enraged, armed person intent on murdering women? Big surprise.

After the Montreal Massacre, police and citizens learned a lot about dealing with this type of attack.

However, many people at Virginia Tech, men included, were caught unaware and didn't know what to do. Did they also not care about the people murdered on that terrible day?

As for the last statement that I quoted, insulting an entire country and its people doesn't accomplish anything except maybe get a few backs up. I expected something intelligent and funny from you, Jauhara Al-Kafirah, not sweeping generalizations.

Every time there is an article here that pertains to a particular country, there are always a few comments about how "_______ is doomed", "_______'s citizens deserve to be taken over by the Muslims because they're all losers", "get used to your new overlords", etc.

It's never helpful and only serves to polarize.

Maybe Jihad Watch should attach a list of such comments to the bottom of every such article so those inclined could save their energy and just tick off the insults they feel are appropriate.

Gack.

Posted by: Josephine at September 9, 2007 9:18 AM

Josephine,

The people in all these cases of mass murder didn't know what to do because they had bought into the canard that the state would protect them. When you rely on some else for your absolute protection you are domesticated, and like sheep in the field won’t know what to do when the coyote comes. So the question is, why should we place any amount of trust in a “State” to protect us? Are we the electorate not in charge? The “State” should be our domesticated guard dog, under our control willing to do all for us. Instead we find ourselves with an unruly and potentially dangerous animal that does as it pleases. And all we can do is howl about how it’s no longer serving our interest. We let the dog run the house, We need to let it know it is fed and housed because of us. We need not be kind to this dog called the “State” as we reassert our authority over it. If we do not then we’ll all be serfs to it and wonder why our “New Lord” has other interest before us.

(Side note: Just so some misanthropic individual understands the great difference. The partnership between couples is not domestication but a mutual defense pact, both looking out for each others back.)

Posted by: senor doeboy at September 9, 2007 9:46 AM

Anyone who has been touched by one of those batwomens veils when they hurry by knows that the disguise is all about intimidation and hate.
It is the brown-shirts all over again.

Posted by: KAOSKTRL at September 9, 2007 9:51 AM

Ohhhh, so now it's a "minority of a minority of a minority" ...

*snort*

It's not just Canada or Germany or Holland or Britain that's doomed, it's ALL OF US. I, for one, have lost hope that the civilized West, paralyzed with centuries of pc guilt and shame, will even begin confront this dangerous enemy within before it's too late demographically.

Hell, we can't even NAME the enemy; how are we ever gonna fight it?

Posted by: JenBee at September 9, 2007 10:07 AM

An example of how we fought it before is in Spain. The Recoquista followed by the Inquisition. The question is, do we have the fortitude to do what is needed now? Or have we become to domesticated?

Posted by: senor doeboy at September 9, 2007 10:29 AM

I wrote to Elections Canada expressing my outrage (great, now the correct adjective comes to mind) at their decision. Being a good liberal, I left out the part where I said that people who insist on keeping women veiled likely aren't too concerned with women's suffrage in the first place. I wonder if I have the nerve to vote with my hoodie up over my head...

Posted by: cm at September 9, 2007 10:53 AM

RE:To protest, all Canadians should show up to vote with bags over their heads and tiny holes for eyes.

That's a good idea. I think I will do that next time I go to the polls:)

Posted by: The Resistance at September 9, 2007 12:12 PM

IN CALGARISTAN!

Posted by: The Resistance at September 9, 2007 12:13 PM

If I were a citizen of Quebec, I would arrive at the polls wearing a Halloween mask, ready to vote.

What would the difference be, if I could produce 2 photo i.d.'s?

Posted by: CapitalistGig at September 9, 2007 12:45 PM

".... there won't be a single woman wearing niqab, so this debate is almost completely and utterly useless."

....another Muslim lie....

Ban Muslim Immigration...

Posted by: exsgtbrown at September 9, 2007 1:16 PM

Don't worry about this too much for now, Prime Minister Stephen Harper is no liberal push over. He has already weighed in on this matter and has threatened Parliamentary action.

http://www.mytelus.com/ncp_news/article.en.do?pn=home&articleID=2750378

Posted by: The fanatic at September 9, 2007 1:48 PM

Perhaps the idea of Quebec seperating will have wider appeal now.

Posted by: GuitarBob at September 9, 2007 1:50 PM

Dale from Atlanta ! How true is everything you say! I too have been the victim of the amazingly thin skinnedness of the people who run this site - the site is very valuable to the survival of the world, though, I know it does not push the panic button hard enough - and will not go the whole way towards condemning the Koran as a hopeless flawed religious document which is guilty of advocating cold blooded murder - a totally unfixable Bible! But, in my opinion, the site owners wish to be "RELIGIOUSLY CORRECT" rather than to be seen as people who see the truth that Muslims will always be on the verge of murder unless that "Bible" is destroyed - or rewritten drastically.

Posted by: tom at September 9, 2007 3:15 PM

Dear Greg,

In Islam 101, you write:

"The four Sunni Madhhabs (schools of fiqh [Islamic religious jurisprudence]) -- Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, and Hanbali -- all agree that there is a collective obligation on Muslims to make war on the rest of the world. Furthermore, even the schools of thought outside Sunni orthodoxy, including Sufism and the Jafari (Shia) school, agree on the necessity of jihad."

I asked some time ago, and will ask again, do you have the references from up-to-date Islamic jurisprudence to support these statements? Without such references, critics can raise (and have raised) the possibility the present-day Islamic jurisprudence no longer uses, or has modified, the classic jihad policy.

Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at September 9, 2007 3:28 PM

"Canada is a pussy nation."

--posted by Jauhara Al-Kafirah

Tell that to the Canadians who are currently putting their lives on the line in Afghanistan.

"More from those adorable Canadians."

-posted by Greg.

As I see it, that's a petty, snide remark. I'm not sure what the folks at JW/DW are trying to achieve with these kinds of unnecessary and distracting comments. Just the facts, no nonsense, please.

Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at September 9, 2007 3:53 PM

...let me correct that. The only snide remarks about Canada coming from JW/DW staff are from Greg and Robert.

Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at September 9, 2007 3:55 PM

senor doeboy -- Thanks. I will give your comments some further thought.

"The times they are a'changin'."

Posted by: Josephine at September 9, 2007 4:13 PM

"SYDNEY, Australia (CP) - Prime Minister Stephen Harper says Elections Canada is subverting the will of Parliament by permitting Muslim women to wear veils and burkas while voting.

Harper, speaking Saturday in Sydney, Australia, after an international summit, said he "profoundly disagrees" with the ruling prompted by three byelections in Quebec on Sept. 17.

Harper says the House of Commons just voted in favour of having all Canadian voters provide visual identification at voting stations."

This dhimmi decision will be reversed.

Posted by: sounder at September 9, 2007 4:23 PM

sounder -- Thanks so much. I am consistently impressed with Prime Minister Harper.

Posted by: Josephine at September 9, 2007 4:38 PM

"More from those adorable Canadians."

-posted by Greg.

As I see it, that's a petty, snide remark. I'm not sure what the folks at JW/DW are trying to achieve with these kinds of unnecessary and distracting comments. Just the facts, no nonsense, please.

Posted by: Khaybar Oasis [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 9, 2007 3:53 PM

Robert, Greg from JW/DW are as critical of the dhimmitude in the USA, UK, Austrailia as they are with Canada. So, I don't think their intent is to pick on Canada when the whole of the west is equally chastised.

As for:

"Canada is a pussy nation."

--posted by Jauhara Al-Kafirah

That was uncalled for. Do you understand how many Canadian fans there are here at this site and many, many others? Dhimmitude is not unique to Canada. It's a world wide problem. Get real.

Posted by: sounder at September 9, 2007 5:42 PM

"there won't be a single woman wearing niqab, so this debate is almost completely and utterly useless."

Complete nonsense. Allowing women to vote while wearing these abominations will establish a principle from which it will be very difficult to turn back.

Posted by: Malta_1565 at September 9, 2007 5:50 PM

sounder,

For me it's more of a minor annoyance or a distraction. My complaint, be it ever so slight, is limited to the snide comments of Robert and Greg. My comment refers to the snide remarks, not to any legitimate or substantive criticisms they may have about the governments (or other aspects) of those countries.

That said, I don't think my complaint is likely to have any more impact on Robert or Greg than my more serious request that they add, if possible, up-to-date references about what "all" the schools of Islamic jurisprudence stipulate (currently) regarding jihad vs non-Muslims. I then ask myself, "Why bother? Why not find those references myself?" And the immediate answer is I don't have time and don't have access to the texts. Then the question becomes, "Why don't those who do criticize Islam professionally provide up-to-date references when they make statements to the effect that 'all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence stipulate (present tense) such-and-such.'?"

Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at September 9, 2007 6:14 PM

Re. the Muslim sign on display at King's University College at The University of Western Ontario.

Here's a link to a couple of photos of the "art":

http://uwo.ca/kings/news/stories/2007-KIAN.html

Posted by: Josephine at September 9, 2007 6:30 PM

Did Muslims save world scholarship and history
that would have been lost during the western "Dark Ages
though they did not

Did Muslim's help build the United States and Canada before they were their own countries?
there are claims that Muslims were the first to discover North America but it appears it's nothing more than the usual flights of fancy that Muslims are subject to sell them know they did not help in fact the Barbary Pirates had to be put down by the U.S. Navy

And after each gained independence?

Is Muslim American history linked and part of American history itself?
yes the attack on 9/11 is now part of our history

And as for the comment some ignorant idiot made I suggest you look at the history of World War I World War II and Korea and you'll find the Canadian Armed Forces has a very proud history of battles won under very trying circumstances on sword juno and gold beaches in Normandy and the invasion of Sicily and Italy learn your history for you put Canada down unless the USA may have knowledge not brag about their wartime history in World War I when Great Britain went to war andCanada followed automatically the start of the warthey had no navy and about a thousand men army fighting in the war by the end ofww1 Canada had over a million men under armsby the end of World War II we had the third-largest navy or largest Air Force and we had been in since 1939 the USA did not join in until 1941 today the Canadian Armed Forces is one of the larger contributors of troops in Afghanistan though it don't ever call Canada a pussy nation win has a very proud military tradition

Posted by: mowasaperv at September 9, 2007 7:16 PM

Whats even more concerning,

is knowing a big percentage of the fully face sheet wearing women, most likely will also support and vote for Sharia,

if they are wearing such ridiculous medieval garb in a western society, then you KNOW they have to be ultra-fundie,

and these are who we are allowing to VOTE,

that is the real danger--what happens, when you get thousands of thousands of women who are so brainwashed into medieval misogyny [such as the so called professed bomb touting feminists, who aren't feminist at all, but patriarchy pushers of the worst kind in Palestine, who now the women in Palestine are regretting that they actually listened to these so called 'feminist' who assisted in the propping up of Party of God who is going around throwing acid in faces and threatening educated career Palestinian women with death if they don't cover fully today],

its These kinds of women that are filling up the polls and That, that speaks volumes.

Its a reconquista alright, a Muslim one, and if we don't sound the alarm LOUDLY, we might find that more and more votes will be cast for Sharia, and find the west in a situation that Turkey was in just recently.

We simply cannot allow this to go on. If it takes direct action such as throwing a bag over the head with cut out eyes, so be it, maybe thats what its going to take, to really get the message out there to the complacent 'asleep' people.

Posted by: Natasha at September 9, 2007 8:51 PM

Re. snide 'asides' by the JW/DW team members, to the items they post -

I have noticed, and been puzzled by, some of those, more I think in the last couple months than normal [and I've read the whole of the Archives!]. They feel 'out of character' for Robert in particular.

Certainly Greg's shot here about 'adorable Canadians' added nothing to our understanding of the news story he was putting up for us to look at. It worried me because it would tend to put up the hackles of a first-time visitor who was Canadian, and perhaps even deter them from exploring any further.

Perhaps Robert and company are working a bit too hard. It's easy to 'slip' and give way to the temptation to lash out, or indulge in gratuitous sarcasm, when you're tired and stressed, and in a hurry; you lose sight of how you're coming across. Note that Greg posted this particular article on veils and voting, at 1.52 AM. If that was the time where he was, rather than the time where I am, the poor man should have been tucked up in bed at that hour.

Perhaps the members of the JW/DW home team each need a week, in turn, in Secure Undisclosed Vacationsville. Go fishing, plant a tree, lie in the sun, bake a cake, take the spouse or Significant Other out to dinner, turn OFF the net, the radio, the TV, stop thinking about Islam and the jihad for just a little while and focus the attention on something else entirely. Look - if you must, wait till we get through September 11, THEN take a break! We can do without you for a while.

(I'm quite serious - I am worried about whether Mr Spencer in particular may not be overworking himself - haven't you said something about this, Marisol? - the last thing we want is for him to burn out or break down).

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at September 9, 2007 11:01 PM

Dumbledoresarmy-- thanks for your concern for us.

I'll pass your comment along to Robert.

Posted by: MarisolJW at September 9, 2007 11:19 PM

Well I believe these posts do help bring some light on particular comments we may all make some times.

As a Canadian I sometimes through my own frustration point fingers at my own country, sometimes I make disparaging remarks towards the Brits. This is where in our own pursuit of eradicating this vile enemy we sometimes take our eyes off the ball and in-fight, and point fingers strengthening our enemies.

For those who do think Canadians are pussies has not met myself or many of my friends personally, we are very far from that I can assure you. I can assure you that there are many Canadians out there that are aware and are watching world events closely. As stated above, even though Canadians are known as polite and peaceful, we have a terrific military history which speaks for itself, and is doing admirably in Afghanistan as we speak.

The US is far from being innocent or even brave at times when it comes to dealing with this issue head on, that in itself would not merit calling our Yank neighbours pussies.

Hopefully we can look at this thread and learn something from it and all try to remember that we need to all stand together, because you're only as strong as your weakest link.

Posted by: The fanatic at September 10, 2007 12:57 AM

"Every time there is an article here that pertains to a particular country, there are always a few comments about how "_______ is doomed", "_______'s citizens deserve to be taken over by the Muslims because they're all losers", "get used to your new overlords", etc.
It's never helpful and only serves to polarize."
-- josephine.

Here! Here! And also to dumbledore's observation:

"It's easy to 'slip' and give way to the temptation to lash out, or indulge in gratuitous sarcasm, when you're tired and stressed, and in a hurry; you lose sight of how you're coming across."

Oh yes, I've done this myself too many times here.

And also to dumbledore's suggestion:

"Go fishing, plant a tree, lie in the sun, bake a cake, take the spouse or Significant Other out to dinner, turn OFF the net, the radio, the TV, stop thinking about Islam and the jihad for just a little while and focus the attention on something else entirely."

Amen! It really does help when the pressure builds and the judgment falters. Been there.

Posted by: alexon at September 10, 2007 3:21 AM

It is highly likely that Muslim did visit the new world. In some native americian langauges are found arabic words promounced rhe same way with the same mealing. In Sourh America isnot that far from africa for a ship to travel there and back. The Viking did settle in Ice Land, and Green Land and Vineland. English have quites afew viking word like Sheriff which was than viking warrier in charge of maintian than certain amount of law and order in his area an in charge of collection weregeld.

Posted by: DefenderofIslam at September 10, 2007 6:37 AM

"Hopefully we can look at this thread and learn something from it and all try to remember that we need to all stand together, because you're only as strong as your weakest link."
Posted by: The fanatic

I agree.

I'd like to add that both of my Canadian grandfathers served in the Second World War.

Posted by: Josephine at September 10, 2007 7:45 AM

Have you seen the results of the Globe & Mail poll:

http://tinyurl.com/2pjm28

"Should women wearing niqabs or burkas be required to show their face before voting?"

Yes 99% 30300 votes

No 1% 432 votes

Posted by: Josephine at September 10, 2007 8:10 AM

Thanks for that Josephine.

And the outrage is very loud at this Canadian site, drowning out the apologists.

http://www.canadiancoalition.com/forum/ccd-forum.shtml

And at CTV.ca this poll:

"Do you agree with Elections Canada's decision to allow religious face coverings when voting?"

No 89%
Yes 11%

Posted by: sounder at September 10, 2007 9:03 AM

More at 11!

"Elections Canada to speak out about veiled voters

Updated Mon. Sep. 10 2007 8:11 AM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Elections Canada will speak out about its recent decision to waive visual identification for veiled voters late Monday morning after coming under harsh criticism from politicians and Muslim groups alike.

Officials have scheduled a news conference for 11 a.m. ET."

Posted by: sounder at September 10, 2007 9:19 AM

sounder -- Thank you. I hadn't seen those.

Wow, this is very interesting. Note the involvement of CAIR Canada.

http://www.canadiancoalition.com/forum/messages/24961.shtml

"CCD applauds PM, raises concerns about government enforcement of sharia practices

"September 10, 2007

"...On March 25, Marc Mayrand, Canada's Chief Electoral Officer, met with the Directeur général des élections du Québec. In April, Mr. Maynard's agency consulted with at least two Muslim groups - the Canadian Arab Federation (CAF) and the Canadian Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR-CAN) to seek their views on women voting with veils. Following these consultations, Mr. Maynard effectively bowed to sharia standards, and agreed to exempt women with face coverings, including full burqas, from the accepted practice of photo identification to which all other voters are, and should be, subjected..."

Posted by: Josephine at September 10, 2007 9:38 AM

You hit the nail on the head Josephine,

its the 'enforcement' of Sharia values/codes that should be raising Huge red flags,

today its allowing full face voters,

tomorrow its allowing the sale of six year old girls to sixty year old men.

Not only that, but the whole 'two i.d. thing', whats to prevent a person from wearing a full face veil, providing i.d., then going back, as another with completely different i.d.?

Just the whole process of legit counting of votes, could be extremely challenged here--and many of these countries where Sharia is enforced, have such corrupt voting procedures as it is...

The whole argument that its in respect to Muslims, too is KaKa, if respect was the issue [as for as showing cultural respect] all that would have to be required is a woman's only voting booth.

Not only that--but did you realize that the i.d. also does not have to have a photo of woman, hell that means, a small petite man could pose as a woman,

its a Stupid decision. There just is not other words to describe, about the most backward dumb ass decision. But I did see today, on a atheiest site, that this issue has stirrred up some anger among the atheists too [many of them cultural relativists] who say this goes too far, and there is a call in Canada, for people to wear paper bags over their head to the voting booths.

I wonder, maybe ski masks too, and of course, no picture i.d., just to make it fair.

Posted by: Natasha at September 10, 2007 12:52 PM

Khaybar Oasis: You could easily purchase a copy of Umdat Salik (Reliance of the Traveler) from Amazon for about US$30. This is a translation of Islamic jurisprudence with updated references and opinions by living Islamic scholars. (I think it is from the Shafii school).

This is a recent translation into English (early 90s) and the introduction touts it as VITAL to modern Muslims in their quest to follow the right path (traveler, path -- get it?). A representative from Al Azhar University gives it a stamp of approval, as well. Al Azhar is kind of important to Islamic scholars and intellectuals. The section on slavery is included, but not translated, because according to the translator, modern Muslims no longer need guidance on how to treat their slaves.

Is that enough proof for you? Be sure to read the copious sections on treatment of non-Muslims and lying. Fascinating reading!

Also, to any Canadians that were offended, go back and read the article. It's all about anti-dhimmitude in Cananda and about the whining by CANADIAN Muslims. The only Canadians being skewered in Greg's set-up are the Muslims and the Voting Board. Peace to Canada! We love you guys even if you ARE a little anal about jaywalking.

Posted by: former liberal WF at September 10, 2007 12:57 PM

Ever since CAIR has been tied to Hamas and Hezballah fund raising and was behind the Maher Arar $400 million dollar Financial-Terrorism against Canadians for what Jordan did to him , CAIR now prentends to be a passive civil Liberties group and that the Burka and Hijab have nothing to do with islam.

But here is a article by CAIR from only a year ago where they use "Islamophobia" and "Racist" to defend Muslims that wear the head coverings for Faith reasons.
CAIR was the same Org. that threatened Paul Martin over the Passport issue for visiting female Muslims that were being forced to remove face coverings to match them to the Foreign Issued photo on the Visa or Passport.

**************************************************

Winnipeg Sun, 10/27/06
By Shahina Siddiqui, CAIR-CAN Board Member
Once again the Muslim women's hijab (headscarf) and the face veil have become the focus of international discourse. In Britain, Tony Blair and Jack Straw have expressed their disdain for the face veil some Muslim women wear, calling it a barrier to integration. This view is also shared it seems by Canadians, as was revealed in a poll conducted earlier this month by the Globe and Mail in which the majority supported this view.
As a Muslim woman who wears the hijab and one who has family and friends who also adorn the face veil in public, this is a discourse that touches me at a very personal level. My right to practise my faith has come under fire, and I will not take it lying down.
I grew up in a 99% Muslim country but never considered wearing the hijab, since I saw it as cultural practice. It was only when I had the privilege to study my faith free of cultural influences after my arrival in Canada 30 years ago that I came to appreciate that it was a requirement of my faith.
To me hijab is how I express my modesty and my surrender to my Creator. By adhering to this religiously mandated dress code (covering myself with loose, non-transparent clothing except my face and hands, and covering my hair with a scarf with no restriction on colour or design) I assert my identity as a believing woman.
I remember my personal struggle to wear the hijab, the inner debate, the discouragement from friends and the stares from strangers. However the day I chose to wear hijab I felt fully emancipated.
I felt empowered, free and at peace. I would therefore never support any attempts to force women to wear the hijab or the veil, because this would only breed resentment towards the faith and rob women of inner peace. I have never considered covering my face but I would not advocate to restrict the right of sisters who choose to, either.
Importantly, wearing a hijab does not make me a better Muslim than one who does not. It is not a litmus test of religiosity but a personal expression of faith. Islam prescribes modesty for both men and women so they may interact on a human and intellectual level without distractions and exploitation. The requirements for each are different yet compatible with their nature.
The most disturbing aspects of this "debate" is that the misogynist attitude of "white middle-aged men" of privilege dictating what Muslim women should do, has gone unchallenged by champions of women's rights. We have not heard a single western feminist voice in support of their Muslim sisters. Why? Where are the champions of a woman's right to choose? They who supported the use of force in Afghanistan to liberate Muslim women from oppression of the "veil" cannot remain silent when women are told they cannot live freely here.
This latest attack on the veil is yet another weapon in the "Islamophobia" arsenal. Under the banner of integration and assimilation an old idea is given new life: "free" Muslim women from the "shackles" of their heritage and enable the majority to absorb, control and remake the Muslim minority in its midst.
A Cheyenne proverb reminds us that a nation is not conquered until the hearts of its women are on the ground. Mothers are the teachers of faith, said Prophet Muhammad, and this strategy to divide Muslim women and to defeat their determination to preserve their faith for future generations of Muslims is insidious and racist, pure and simple.

**************************************************

What a scam , CAIR now wants to claim the Burqa or hijab are NOT connected to their faith , yet the article above and past rants by Sheema Khan from CAIR have been demanding Sharia-Law in canada and declared Islamic dress is mandated in the Quran.
So which one is it Mr.Hooper , was CAIR-Canada correct then or are they telling a Lie today since CAIR-USA in WA D.C. is based on Whahabbi versions of Islam practised by the Saudis who fund about 80% of the Mosques in the West.

Posted by: ala-sux at September 10, 2007 2:28 PM

BTW

here's the link for the CAIR op-ed on Islam and the face covering .

http://www.caircan.ca/oped_more.php?id=P2751_0_10_0_C

Posted by: ala-sux at September 10, 2007 2:31 PM

Are they going to allow Ninjas to vote in full garb too? How about the Lone Ranger, bank robbers in ski masks or hosery, clowns and others in cognito?

Posted by: twoCents at September 10, 2007 3:15 PM

"We love you guys even if you ARE a little anal about jaywalking." Posted by: former liberal WF

I don't get the joke. People are always jaywalking here in Toronto and never get in trouble for it.

Posted by: Josephine at September 10, 2007 3:36 PM

former liberal WF,

I appreciate the fact that you took the trouble to provide that information. I have to tell you though that I'm aware of the Reliance of the Traveler and indeed have read many of the important parts of it online, free of charge. I have provided the link for it here many times.

I've raised this issue about having references from up-to-date Islamic jurisprudence from all the schools many times now over the past several months, particularly when Robert cites the Reliance of the Traveler. I have seen no response. I have seen no changes on the part of either Robert or Greg to provide the full support for their claim about "all" schools. (They among Islam critics are by no means unique in this respect). Other posters have also raised the same issue. Apologists have been criticizing Robert, at least going back a couple of years to my knowledge, on the grounds that he seems to be relying on centuries-out-of-date materials. (Apologists have been making this charge, against so-called Orientalist scholarship, at least since Edward Said).

We (some JWers and a few others) know the Reliance of the Traveler and the Hidaya are both still used today. (Recently another poster has cited a Hanbali jurisprudence text, and I have found a website that appears to present others as well, but I just haven't had time to go through it all yet). But there is a major gap in the presentation. Claims that "all" major schools of Islamic jurisprudence stipulate (present tense) such-and-such regarding jihad or anything else requires references from all the major schools according to the present-day policies. While there is considerable overlap in the rulings among the main schools, there are also some differences. In any case, I can't see how a reference to the rulings of one or two schools sufficiently supports claims about those of "all" the main schools (there are at least 8). It doesn't. This is such a basic and obvious issue I cannot understand why Robert, Greg, and others don't seem to have addressed it. Am I wrong? Do they have a secret stash of up-to-date references for all the schools that they are saving for some special occasion? Not likely. If they had them, they'd provide them when they make their claims.

This issue of having solid references from all the schools is merely one piece of the puzzle. Without it though, the presentation looks very weak, if I imagine how it comes across to people who don't yet know the size and scope of the Islam problem.

Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at September 10, 2007 3:51 PM

Josephine: I'm from the Midwest. The reputation of Canadians here (at least when I was growing up) is that they are sincere, honest and law abiding. It seems like I watched a TV special (60 Minutes???) on Canada one time, many years ago, and saw a Canadian official handing out tickets to jay walkers. For many years after that, I'd think about Canada every time I crossed the street in the wrong place. I guess over the years I forgot how obscure a reference that was.

Khabar: Please post the on-line reference to Umdat Salik again. Pardon me for saying so, but I don't think you've posted it MANY times. Hardly a day goes by that I do not peruse every article on JW/DW, and I have since sometime 2002. Granted, I've stopped reading the comment sections carefully, as I did in the beginning.

You keep saying you don't have time to do the research; I wonder--do you have the money? I have seen expensive collections of Islamic jurisprudence advertised on-line, but there were 20+ volumes and cost $300 or more.

Part of the problem also may be that some of the references may be in Arabic. I know that I've read comments by Muslims criticizing the translator of Umdat Salik for enabling non-Muslims to access information that should be restricted to Muslims only. You also state that there are at least 8 branches of Islamic law, but Robert usually only refers to the four major branches of Sunni law. I've read various synopses of Islamic law but even the most thorough usually only list Shafii, Hanbali, Hanafi, and Maliki.

You keep harping on jihad in modern-day jurisprudence. Since the caliphate is gone, are you expecting Al Azhar or some other authority to be making new decisions on jihad? Jihadists appear to be quite happy using Umdat Salik and like texts upon which to base their decisions. You make me suspect that your real purpose is to raise suspicions about the veridity of Robert's claims. Frankly, I don't trust you, no matter how typo free your writing!

Posted by: former liberal WF at September 10, 2007 4:14 PM

former liberal WF,

"Also, to any Canadians that were offended, go back and read the article."

My other comment pertains to Greg's (and Robert's, on other occasions) unnecessary snide comment about Canadians, not to the contents of the article or anything else.

Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at September 10, 2007 4:23 PM

Re. the Reliance of the Traveller - a poster above noted that:

"The section on slavery is included, but not translated, because according to the translator, modern Muslims no longer need guidance on how to treat their slaves". THAT of course could mean two things. It could mean they don't have slaves. But it could also mean that some of them, at least, DO have slaves but 'know' how to treat them (like garbage) and don't need telling...

Time for an Arabic-speaking non-Muslim scholar to translate the section on 'treatment of slaves' and post it online somewhere, so we can all find out what's in there that is being carefully kept from those who do not know Arabic.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at September 10, 2007 4:31 PM

Khaybar -- Could you not find a quick link to the on-line version of Umdat Salik? All that complaining you do that Robert doesn't provide you with documentation on Islamic jurisprudence, and yet you didn't give me what I so politely requested!

As far as "unnecessarily snide comments" by JW staff, my point was that Greg was making a snide/dismissive comment toward Muslims living in Canada, not Canadians at large. And, really, it wasn't snide. He was trying to mildy amuse.

Also, please stop referring to alleged negative remarks made by Robert regarding Canada/Canadians. First, you are providing nothing to substantiate your allegations. If I trusted you more, as I do Robert, that wouldn't bother me. However, I have no reason to trust your motives, and at least one reason to mistrust your judgment of his tone. Second, in polite society it is the custom to let our friends and colleagues have a fresh start when they have mispoken or spoken out of turn. Perhaps you could show Robert this courtesy. I believe most Canadians would.

Dumbledore's army: Love your handle! Wouldn't it be edifying to have a translation of the slavery section?

Posted by: former liberal WF at September 10, 2007 5:16 PM

former liberal WF,

"Khabar: Please post the on-line reference to Umdat Salik again."

http://www.muhaddith.org/cgi-bin/e_Optns.exe

Follow the fiqh column down to Reliance of the Traveler and check the box, then search whatever words interest you. You should get examples that look like this:

Result 30 from 64
The Reliance of the Traveller. Version 1.06 - By Ahmad Ibn Naqib Al-Misri
BOOK O: JUSTICE >> Chapter O-9.0: Jihad

Chapter O-9.0: Jihad
(O: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad. As for the greater jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self (nafs), which is why the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said as he was returning from jihad.
``We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad.''
The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus (def: b-7) is such Koranic verses as:
1- ``Fighting is prescribed for you'' (Koran 2:216);
2- ``Slay them wherever you find them'' (Koran 4:89);
3- ``Fight the idolators utterly'' (Koran 9:36);
and such hadiths as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:
``I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah'';
and the hadith reported by Muslim,
``To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it.''Details concerning jihad are found in the accounts of the military expeditions of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), including his own martial forays and those on which he dispatched others. The former consist of the ones he personally attended, some twenty-seven (others say twenty-nine) of them. He fought in eight of them, and killed only one person with his noble hand, Ubayy ibn Khalaf, at the battle of Uhud. On the latter expeditions he sent others to fight, himself remaining at Medina, and these were forty-seven in number.)
---------------------------------------

As I said, I've cited this source many times in these threads. The source was provided to me by fellow poster Infidel Pride.

"Pardon me for saying so, but I don't think you've posted it MANY times. Hardly a day goes by that I do not peruse every article on JW/DW, and I have since sometime 2002. Granted, I've stopped reading the comment sections carefully, as I did in the beginning."

You could check the archives.

"You keep saying you don't have time to do the research; I wonder--do you have the money?"

I have very little time and money left, at least for the next several months, so I'm not really in a position to dig up these sources, check them, and everything else that's required. Myself and some other posters have spent many weeks of our time trying to put together a Handbook for Infidel Debaters, but we all have jobs or studies that take up our time, and really the project is something that should be done by experts.

"Part of the problem also may be that some of the references may be in Arabic. I know that I've read comments by Muslims criticizing the translator of Umdat Salik for enabling non-Muslims to access information that should be restricted to Muslims only. You also state that there are at least 8 branches of Islamic law, but Robert usually only refers to the four major branches of Sunni law. I've read various synopses of Islamic law but even the most thorough usually only list Shafii, Hanbali, Hanafi, and Maliki."

Robert has mentioned the "8" schools before; these also include 4 Shia schools. I have read that there are additional schools, but those are not major.

"You keep harping on jihad in modern-day jurisprudence."

I keep harping, because no one seems to be listening. But as I said, it's not just me harping. This is a long-standing complaint by apologists that Islamic critics rely on out-of-date texts. It's not necessarily a fair complaint, but it is one that needs to be addressed.

"Since the caliphate is gone, are you expecting Al Azhar or some other authority to be making new decisions on jihad? Jihadists appear to be quite happy using Umdat Salik and like texts upon which to base their decisions."

I'm not sure what to expect from al-Azhar and other Islamic institutions. I would guess that they'd try to be consistent with classical jurisprudence, but try to temper that somewhat for political purposes when addressing western audiences (e.g., see Gomaa's statements about apostasy, which sound good to western audiences but which actually confirm the classic policies on close inspection)

As for jihadists, the issue is 'are they distorting the religion'? I don't think so, at least not to any significant extent, but this is something that needs to be demonstrated, not just claimed, on the basis of the full up-to-date references for all the schools. There is no way around it. It's an empirical claim requiring a very particular kind of empirical evidence.

"You make me suspect that your real purpose is to raise suspicions about the veridity of Robert's claims. Frankly, I don't trust you, no matter how typo free your writing!"

Actually I've defended Robert many, many times in these threads and elsewhere, including in the recent row with Ernst. I may disagree with him on other issues, but that's irrelevant because the problem we are dealing with is too important. (And, BTW, my criticisms about the snide remarks are aimed at improving the site and making it appealing to a wider audience). Please check the archives to see what I've posted before making those kinds of insinuations. I assume both Robert and Greg are honest scholars. They are doing fine work. Criticism is no threat to them. But more objective criticism is needed on our side. We need to improve our presentations, and that requires at least some of us to be frank about where our weaknesses are.

Citing references for all major schools of Islamic jurisprudence is required when a claim is made about "all" the major schools. My request is not unreasonable. There may be valid reasons why Robert and Greg, and others, don't present those up-to-date references. Then the presentations should address those issues. Either way, following my suggestion should strengthen, not weaken, Robert's or Greg's or any other Islam critic's presentation.

Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at September 10, 2007 5:17 PM

P.S.

former liberal WF,

I did not see your latest post until after I posted my previous.

If you check my posts in the archives, you'll see that I generally do cite sources. Of course, my posts are rather informal, and I may not support every single claim every single time. But this isn't about me, is it? And as I've said, I've cited this one (RT) many times before here.

Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at September 10, 2007 5:22 PM

former liberal WF,

"Khaybar -- Could you not find a quick link to the on-line version of Umdat Salik? All that complaining you do that Robert doesn't provide you with documentation on Islamic jurisprudence, and yet you didn't give me what I so politely requested!"

If I were the most lax and irresponsible poster in the world, that would be besides the point. This is not about some poster. This is about Robert's and Greg's presentation.

"As far as "unnecessarily snide comments" by JW staff, my point was that Greg was making a snide/dismissive comment toward Muslims living in Canada, not Canadians at large."

He said Canadians.

"And, really, it wasn't snide. He was trying to mildy amuse."

I suspect it was snide, but more importantly I think a large number of readers would take it as snide or sarcastic, even if that wasn't Greg's intention.

"Also, please stop referring to alleged negative remarks made by Robert regarding Canada/Canadians. First, you are providing nothing to substantiate your allegations."

You're right. I should have cited them. But I don't have hours and hours to look up such remarks. Robert knows what he says about Canada. If he agrees with me, he might withhold or modify such unnecessary and distracting comments in the future. If not, and that is more likely, he'll ignore my suggestion. If this were a bigger issue, I'd look up the sources. I don't think it's worth it. Robert knows what he says. It's his call.

"If I trusted you more, as I do Robert, that wouldn't bother me. However, I have no reason to trust your motives, and at least one reason to mistrust your judgment of his tone. Second, in polite society it is the custom to let our friends and colleagues have a fresh start when they have mispoken or spoken out of turn. Perhaps you could show Robert this courtesy. I believe most Canadians would."

Then friends and colleagues should not get their backs up when asked to curtail or reduce the snide remarks. If Robert and Greg continue to make these remarks, they will continue to get negative feedback from Canadian readers. They are not likely to lose dedicated JW readers, but they may turn away many new ones who, after all, can visit plenty of other anti-jihad sites where such comments are not found. It is a mild annoyance, nothing more, nothing less.

Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at September 10, 2007 5:39 PM

Khaybar, Thank you for the link. If you don't hae the original, however, you should buy it. Browsing is such fun. I apologize if your motives toward this site are pure. Certainly not having enough time or money to do thorough research is understandable. I commend you on your extra-JW activities in our fight against Islam. I do my share by giving presentation to local community groups. Hopefully all of us do our bit. I would like to see some of the material for debaters that your group has developed.

I may have gotten you confused with another poster, but it seems lately that there is a concerted effort to make Robert et. al. sound like prima donnas. As far as your complaint about Gary's short introductory comment, you may have meant well, but I think it was misguided. Any offense, I'm sure, was unintended. Perhaps you'd be better off policing fellow-posters who, at times, make outrageous comments.

Now, for the important issue at hand: Do you agree that Umdat Salik constitutes an up-to-date reference to jihad in Islamic jurisprudence?

Posted by: former liberal WF at September 10, 2007 5:54 PM

former liberal WF -- Okay, now I get it, thanks.

Until recently, it was against the law to spit in public (for example, on the sidewalk) in St. John, New Brunswick. (I don't know about other parts of New Brunswick.)

Posted by: Josephine at September 10, 2007 6:21 PM

former liberal WF,

"Now, for the important issue at hand: Do you agree that Umdat Salik constitutes an up-to-date reference to jihad in Islamic jurisprudence?"

Yes, I do. Now we need all the others, which was my point.

I do understand your suspicion, as there are some posers. I'm surprised you didn't recognize my moniker, though, which I've been using for the past several months. (I changed it several months ago because, on another site, a rather obsessive and angry Muslim poster took an unhealthy interest in my whereabouts).

Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at September 10, 2007 6:49 PM

I love the suggestion for people to show up wearing ski masks and demanding to vote as such. Or any number of other disguises mentioned.

Elections Canada has done a public service by illustrating just how absurd these craven, alien accomodations to Islam have become.

The Canadian people won't stand for this.

Posted by: alexon at September 11, 2007 3:02 AM