While Justin Trudeau descends ever further into folly — “Pride Mubarak” and what it implies might get him a prison term in a dozen Muslim countries — Premier Couillard of Quebec gives tentative signs of coming to his senses (although the final returns are not yet in).
From a recent news item in the Globe and Mail:
Quebec’s Premier has sent “a shock wave” through his province’s Muslim communities after he linked the lone-wolf attacker who stabbed a Michigan police officer to the wider Islamic religion.
Philippe Couillard, long seen as an ally in Quebec’s mainstream Muslim communities, has for years taken pains to avoid linking the broader Islamic faith to terrorist attacks, including those perpetrated by Quebeckers on Canadian soil. The Premier’s political opponents have often accused him of being soft on Islamist terrorism.
On Thursday, one day after a Quebec man was accused of wounding a police officer while shouting the Islamic phase “Allahu Akbar” (God is great) in an airport in Flint, Mich., Mr. Couillard dramatically shifted approach.
A reporter pointed out terrorist attacks have often triggered a spike in assault, vandalism and name-calling against Muslims in Quebec and asked the Premier if he had a message to Quebeckers.
Note how expectant and eager the reporter was that the “message” the Premier would offer “to Quebeckers” would not be an attempt to reassure the Infidel targets of Muslim terrorists that security concerns were paramount and Muslim terrorism would be stamped out. Instead, the reporter expected Couillard to offer a reassurance to Muslims themselves. How disappointed he must have been when Prime Minister Couillard, in the past considered to be among the best friends of Quebec’s Muslims, did not speak according to plan.
This is what Premier Couillard replied:
“You cannot disconnect this type of event, terrorism, from Islam in general,” Mr. Couillard said. “I think President [Emmanuel] Macron yesterday was very eloquent about this when addressing the Muslim community in France. He told them it’s also your responsibility to act on the theological front to explain to your people that this is not part of the religion, that it’s contrary to the teachings of the religion.”
It’s hard to know what Couillard — or Macron — really think. Does Couillard believe that “this” — meaning terrorism by Muslims — is not “part of the religion” of Islam, or does he know perfectly well that it is not just part of it, but a central weapon in the worldwide Jihad against the Infidels? And if he does, is he simply trying to put Muslim leaders in a bind, by telling them they must “explain to your people” (a telling phrase, signifying a recognition that Muslims are not “our people,” they are not fully integrated, they remain a people apart, not because the Quebecois shun them, but because they refuse integration themselves) that this “is not part of the religion, that it’s contrary to the teachings of the religion”? But how can Muslim leaders really be expected to tell their “own people,” as Couillard and Macron insist is their responsibility, what for them is an obvious untruth? It’s one thing to mislead Infidels with such falsehoods, but quite another for Muslim leaders to tell “their own people” such things. Muslims know perfectly well what the texts and teachings, of Islam contain. That is, they know that violence and terrorism are “part of the [Islamic] religion,” and are not “contrary to the teachings of the religion.”
Can it be that Couillard and Macron really believe that terrorism “is not part of the [Islamic] religion, that it’s contrary to the teachings of the religion”? Or do they mean something like “you’d better start teaching that terrorism is contrary to the teachings of your religion — Islam — whatever you really think, because otherwise even we will abandon you. But how you do it is your own business.”?
Perhaps the defection of Premier Couillard will be taken as a warning by Muslims that, unlike Prime Minister Trudeau, not all politicians in Canada are limitlessly gullible. Even those who were friendliest to them, who could be counted on always to defend them, like Couillard, are getting fed up. Almost every day brings fresh news of some Muslim atrocity somewhere in the world. Just in the last few weeks, there have been attacks in London, Manchester, London again, Paris (twice), Brussels, the Philippines, Israel, India, Kenya, and Michigan, the attack that apparently was the last straw for M. Couillard.
The Muslim leaders know, and so do “their people,” that terrorism is part of their religion. Are some of them, the so-called “moderates,” disturbed enough by the defection of M. Couilllard to realize that they have somehow to dampen the appeal of that terrorism? For years they have been playing a game of let’s-pretend about Islam, claiming that the calls in the Qur’an for terrorism and other Jihad verses preaching violence must be “contextualized.” That’s a game played to mislead credulous Infidels. Some of those “moderates,” realizing they are losing support among those who, like Premier Couillard, they once could count on, should perhaps now try not to persuade not Infidels but, rather, fellow Muslims, to believe in the “contextualization” of the Jihad verses, including those that specifically mention terror, in the Qur’an.
Reeling from the seeming defection of M. Couillard, some Muslim leaders might be ready for such a volte-face. For Couillard’s defection from the camp of defenders of the faith was truly disturbing:
Samer Majzoub, president of the Montreal-based Canadian Muslim Forum, said the Premier’s words “have honestly caused a shock wave.”
Usually, Mr. Couillard is a very understanding person. Putting the responsibility of one man’s actions on an entire community … we didn’t expect that from a person who we truly believe is open-minded and who has backed us up in the past.”
Shaheen Ashraf, a Quebec board member of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women, said she “is very disappointed” in the Premier for putting the onus on her community.
“You don’t think we try?” Ms. Ashraf said. “You can tell the community Islam is a religion of peace until the cows come home and there will always be people who don’t want to hear you.”
All these shock waves, all this disappointment, all this unexpected truth-telling from someone whom “we [Muslims] truly believe is open-minded and who has backed us up in the past” certainly can shake things up. Perhaps M. Couillard has had it up to here with making excuses for Islam. At least he would like Muslim leaders “to explain to your people that this is not part of the religion, that it’s contrary to the teachings of the religion.” Whether that is true or false, many Infidels, and “moderate” Muslims alike will agree that it is best to act as if it were true, as if terrorism is “contrary” to “the teachings” of Islam, giving some Muslims a possible way out — call it a willful misunderstanding — of the most disturbing aspects of their own faith.
Ms. Ashraf herself reveals, in casual passing, that this “religion of peace” business offered for Infidel consumption is not accepted by Muslims — “we [the Muslim leaders] can say it is ‘until the cows come home”’ but “there will always be people” who “don’t want to hear you.” How many? One or two, or quite a few? We all know the answer to that. Perhaps the question ought to be a different one. Perhaps Shaheen Ashraf should ask this of those Muslims who listen to her: “Why should non-Muslims be expected to permanently welcome us, Muslims, into their lands, and endure our demands, and the generous benefits we lay claim to and receive, and our Stealth Jihad, and our terrorism, and the huge security expenses our presence requires, while we do not even try to find a way to remove the murderous sting from those many dangerous verses in the Qur’an? Yes, it’s up to us to interpret away the malevolent meaning of more than a hundred verses, through the only possible way, making true the very falsehoods we have been feeding the Infidels (as when we insist that ‘you have to realize this verse — 9:5, 9:29, 2:191-3, 47:4, 8:12 and so on — pertains to a specific context’), to explain away those Jihad verses. We will find a way to limit the application of these verses to a specific context, some 1400 years ago, when Muhammad was fighting against a series of local enemies whose identities we should be able to unearth.”
This will, of course, be opposed by many Muslims. But more than a few Muslim leaders surely realize that when even a man like Premier Couillard has declared it incumbent on Muslim leaders to explain that terrorism “is not part of the religion, that it’s contrary to the teachings of the religion,” then he has to be listened to, and his counsel followed by Muslim leaders. It will not do to have him reluctantly conclude, as he would otherwise have to, that terrorism is NOT contrary “to the teachings of the religion.”
How long will the increasingly implausible excuses of Muslim defenders continue to be accepted? Those Muslims who are repelled by terrorism, but who also recognize that it’s part of Islam, have to figure out how to “reform” Islam in a way that will leave enough of it intact to satisfy Believers, but that strips the Qur’an of its deepest malevolence. What “moderate” Muslims have to understand, and accept, is the need for that very “contextualization” that they always bring up to explain away the Jihad verses. This is the only kind of “reform” of Islamic texts that may be possible. Yes, those Muslim leaders should be asked to relate every Jihad verse, and especially those that invoke the need to “strike terror’’ in the hearts of the Infidels, to a specific time and place and enemy, in Arabia 1400 years ago. And then they must work to have Muslims accept as “the real Islam” that which we are perfectly aware is, for now, only the pretend-Islam that is fed to Infidels by defenders of the Faith when they engage in “contextualizing” away, as descriptive rather than prescriptive, so many violent verses in the Qur’an. Expressed otherwise, as Wallace Stevens put it, “let Be be finale of Seem.”
Members of Montreal’s Muslim community were at a loss to explain Mr. Couillard’s change in tone, particularly coming just before this weekend’s end to the holy month of fasting known as Ramadan.
Why were they “at a loss to explain Mr. Couillard’s change in tone”? Could the incessant news of attacks by Muslims on non-Muslims, even just in the last month or so in several dozen cities around the globe, have something to do with that change? Is there a point at which even Prime Minister Couillard might become tired of pretending that Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam? At the moment he has gone beyond the stage of offering reassurances to Muslims, but still appears to believe (it’s hard to know what, at this point, he really believes) that Muslim leaders have a duty “to explain to your people that this is not part of the religion, that it’s contrary to the teachings of the religion.” The next stage, of course, would be for him to recognize — it will take some serious study — that in fact terrorism is part of Islam, and is not contrary, in either spirit or letter, to the religion. And if enough of the couillards of the Western world, former defenders of Islam, reach that conclusion, and publicly proclaim it, then Muslims will be on their uppers.
Community leaders said the Premier was a model of understanding and empathy after the January shooting at a Quebec City mosque that killed six people. Mr. Couillard, a former brain surgeon, worked in Saudi Arabia for several years and offered words of comfort in Arabic in the wake of the shooting.
If he “worked in Saudi Arabia for several years,” then along with his fat Saudi salary, he surely must have observed the misogyny toward women, felt the deep hostility toward all non-Muslims, had even seen the mutawwa or religious police enforcing the Sharia on the streets, and grasped the totalitarian nature of Islam, especially of the ferocious Wahhabi sort. He cannot allow himself to be fooled forever about Islam. Which is why, although for a while he went along with the party line pushed by Justin Trudeau and the Liberals, he finally abandoned the ship of appeasement. He’d had enough.
Ms. Ashraf, unsurprisingly, attributes his change of tone purely to political considerations: “When Mr. Couillard was supportive of Muslims it caused an uproar and now he’s trying to appease the public. He’s pandering.” As long as he held to a pro-Muslim line, he was fine. Once he began to sound a different note about Islam, though, according to Ms. Ashraf, that’s when he was “pandering.” Others might want to turn it around: before, M. Couillard pandered, just like Justin Trudeau, to Muslims, and now, mugged by the reality of so many Muslim terrorist attacks, he has stopped pandering, stopped pretending that Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam.
Could the “contextualization” approach work? That is, could enough Muslims be persuaded to believe that the Qur’anic verses on Jihad are not meant to apply for all time but, rather, to specific campaigns and battles against specific enemies, in western Arabia, some 1400 years ago? It’s impossible to say. It is possible to hope that some Muslims, although they continue to offer lame and even ludicrous excuses for Muslim terrorists (poverty, lack of education, resentment over non-existent “colonialism,” etc.), and still insist, with straight faces, that terrorism “has nothing to do with Islam,” might welcome having such a “contextualizing” interpretation imposed, or at least promoted by, reform-minded imams and scholars, people such as the outspoken Imam Mohammad Tawhidi in Australia. By accepting this interpretation, and persuading others to follow suit, these Muslims would be participating in deliberately re-fashioning the faith by a sort of textual prestidigitation, so that it will be possible for Muslims not merely to pretend, but actually to be able, to coexist with others.
Qari Asim, an imam in the northeast city of Leeds, and one of several hundred Muslim clergy in the U.K. who signed a pledge not to conduct funeral services for Muslim terrorists, apparently agrees that the most feasible approach at this point would be to “contextualize” the Jihad verses, to put them into a “particular historical context’:
In Britain, Mr. Asim says, Muslim leaders are taking up those cudgels. “We used to ignore those verses” in the Koran that urge Muslims to kill non-Muslims – the ones that Islamic State preachers seize on – he says. “But we need to talk about them and explain to students that they are part of the Koran but that they do not apply today because they refer to a particular historical context that is not the same today.”
This language is astonishing, and most welcome, if only enough Muslims can be persuaded to believe what Qari Asim and his fellows are insisting must be believed. But could this ever come to pass, of treating the Qur’anic verses that call for killing non-Muslims as applying only to a particular context? Or is this merely a case of whistling in the dark by decent Muslims, without this view of the Qur’an having much chance of widespread adoption?
So far none of the signs are good. It seems an impossible task, this hoped-for “reform of Islam” of which even apostates such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali speak and write. “As long as there is this book [the Quran],” Gladstone is reported to have said, “there will be no peace in the world.” Very likely. But “contextualization” of the most dangerous verses — holding the apologists for Islam to their own assertions, when they defend the faith, that “those verses can only be understood in their specific context” (as Qari Asim insists, those verses “that urge Muslims to kill non-Muslims” are “part of the Qur’an …that do not apply today because they refer to a particular historical context”) — could be tried. It must be tried, before the world is engulfed in the madness of Islam that has spilled over its historic banks, thanks to the millions of migrants, and is already wreaking havoc in Europe.
mgoldberg says
“…This language is astonishing, and most welcome, if only enough Muslims can be persuaded to believe what Qari Asim and his fellows are insisting must be believed.” that the Qu’ran’s Jihad verses apply to a particular time in Arabia, not beyond. Good luck with that one. there are over a hundred such verses, and the conquest of all of the non muslim areas took place after Mohammed died, and they were via Jihad homicidism, and ruthless destruction of the cultures extant in those lands. Good luck tellng muslims to disbelieve int the ‘strength’ of their belief. In an article discussing the rage of Islam, T Korol, noted: “For fourteen centuries, Mohammed’s examples of looting, enslavement, decapitation, and conquest have been the paradigm for his followers. The price of constant war and bloodshed has been their humanity.”
Now those are stark assessments. Muslims, she noted ‘must blame others for any wrong doing.’
Stark? Look at how the muslim leaders responded to the Premier of Quebec’s exasperated reply to the hideous attack, another muslim attack, amongst tens of thousands in recent years against ‘others’.
Instead of asking for understanding, patience, help to change the mentality of their flock, they immediately go into indignation mode as if…. as if…. it were an isolated instance that can never be linked to Islam, in any way.
Thousands of speeches by imams and preachers of Islam extolling the virtue of Sharia, extolling the virtues of Jihad, and the rage, the endless rages against any questioning of Islam, any questioning of the Qu’ran, any questioning of the ‘prophet’ is once again demonstrated by the political leaders of Islam
in Canada as bigoted. So this is what Islam can not accept- any blame for any wrong doing, when it is done in the name of Islam by those Jihadists.
It is Taquiya, but taquiya as I have come to understand is not merely lying or mincing words, facts, truths to defend Islam- no matter what. It is also a self deception mechanism, and yes, by our western terms, a disorder, that absolutely disallows any understanding by muslims as to the facts of the Quran, islam, and Mohammed. That they are entitled to feel it is the best of religions is no doubt their right. That it is the duty of others to research the facts on the ground- that Islam is a relgion of Jihad, of submitting others, and not by cookies, milk and soothing bromides, but by denial of the rights of others to even examine Islam, of the Qu’ran, and to see the destruction that arrives daily now, across the globe by the religon of submission upon all others, is fact.
That these leaders in Canada themselves, can not now, nor ever have accepted with some sense of shame, the horror inflicted by muslims upon others, is becoming evident, apparently to the former brain surgeon. It is difficult to understand the tyranny of Islam, and the destruction it brings. It is difficult because we have allowed ourselves to be so fooled as to think all problems are economic, or racial, or of bias, and we have allowed this parlence to blind us to the responsibility to drill down and understand
what things actually mean, and what they actually stand for and want.
Those leaders may try eventually to frame all those Jihadist verses of the Quran, hadiths, sunna, into mandates for a different time, but they will never convince muslims that the words don’t apply to
Mohammed now. Because they were uttered and commanded for all time, in all places, forever.
Andy says
Check this out:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6uiSb3NjQo
Andy says
It’s against the law to be a PATRIOT IN CANADA under LIBERALS:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhKJ2V2ms70
Andy says
Canada’s military enters new “decade of darkness”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hn18JQrF6s
Andy says
For our proud Patriots of the Canadian Armed Forces: Please sign Petition:https://www.therebel.media/save-the-five
Andy says
The death of Canada under LIBERALS:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAZLRwyRJUA
Polish Infidel says
This was the est comment ever ever ever in my life, and I read Jihad Watch for 7 years everyday…BRAVO !!! Total explanation of the evil phenomenon.
Andy says
“anti-Canada hatefest” That’s how ALL LIBERALS ESPECIALLY TRUDEAU ARE:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSfVO9YoBTg
Andy says
Liberals are the most treacherous people and vote them all out the next chance you get!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTGJwD38eH8&t=3s
Terry Gain says
Contextualization would be nothing more than deceit so long as the mass murderer, slave-taker, rapist, misogynist and pedophile who invented this evil ideology is regarded as a perfect man and role model. Islam is an irrational conquest ideology and is not compatible with western civilization.
Michael Copeland says
“…as Qari Asim insists, those verses “that urge Muslims to kill non-Muslims” are “part of the Qur’an …that do not apply today”.
Taqiyya.
Imam Ahmed Saad of North London Central Mosque explains:
“the teachings of the Quran are not restricted by time and space.
They are universal and trans-time.
They can be applied today as they were applied 1400 years ago,
and can still be applied till the end of time.”
http://www.libertygb.org.uk/news/vatican-blind-fundamental-barbarism-islam
gravenimage says
Very true, Michael.
Rick Westmoreland says
Imam Ahmed Saad of the North London Central Mosque go fuck yourself you ignorant piece of shit! The teachings of the Quran are restricted by time and space and they are certainly not universal and trans-time. Those that believe what was written 1400 years ago in the Quran and is in any way relevant to today’s world are totally delusional. Freedom of speech has its limitations. Inciting violence and espousing that all unbelievers be exterminated is one of those limitations. That is a universal value,not one just held by the west. Imams of this ilk have no place anywhere and certainly not in western society. Muslims don’t have the moral authority over the entire universe as too many of them think they do. Incarceration at the very least is what is needed to control such delusional fanatics.
Michael Copeland says
“The Koran directly commands us to use terrorism….”
Ragab Hilal Hamida MP, in the Egyptian Parliament.
Guy Macher says
Always ask anyone who claims Islam is a religion of peace to quote from the Koran. If they partially quote 5:32 ask them to quote the next verse. https://quran.com/5/33-43
Demsci says
Great article. And I totally agree with it’s positions, conclusions and propositions.
I can’t see all the ramifications, but if a majority of both people and parliamentarians can come to a working solution, even one that is not in sync with the real truth, that that would be an improvement over the present stalemate situation, in which a majority won’t as yet support effective measures against the Islam-ideology.
Even if it is not true, then the idea could be forwarded that “Islam is unclear”, but also understood by hundreds of millions of Muslims in a very anti-democratic, anti-Western, violent, supremacist way.
My understanding is that Quran-Hadith-Sira, the trilogy, or Sunnah, are supposed to come, more or less, from God. But the later Tafsirs (I learned about them from video’s of Jay Smith) can be attributed to mere humans. And the multiple Islamic Scholars, including the 4 Sunnite schools of thought, and Al Azhar,
Well they are humane and not divine too.
Now, if we take all 5 parts together, trilogy, Tafsirs, scholars, Islam sure looks clear. But what the Islam-apologists always do is pretend that only the trilogy is DIVINE, and that therefore this “contextualization” thereof is possible, even if it blatantly goes against the Tafsirs and Islamic Scholars.
But the time of ignorance is drawing to a close. And even infidels can now say: OK, if the Tafsirs and Islamic Scholars CAN be taken out of the equation, then we have another situation.
And I declare that I have read so many times how very UNCLEAR, INCOMPLETE, OBSOLETE (because not one iota has been changed for a 1000 years), CONTRADICTORY MULTI-INTERPRETABLE this trilogy really is.
Mind you, totally without the Tafsirs and the Islamic Scholars, schools of thought.
If Islam-apologists play this game of “contextualization, description versus prescription, legalization of Mecca Verses etc, towards ignorant westerners, this game can be taken up by Westerners and used.
We can say; the basic Islam is unclear, multi-interpretable, yet by very authoritative scholars and organisations and hundreds of millions of Muslims, it is interpreted in the well known bad way.
And we combine this with the fundamental problem that we can NOT discern the Muslims who really contextualize and those who really take all of Islam, incl. Tafsirs, scholars, in a literal bad way
And with the idea that the religion of an adult citizen of a democratic nation is his/ her CHOICE,
We can then say, and convince the “Couillards, Macrons” of this world, that Islam simply is too risky a religion to follow in a democratic nation without some kind of protection measures,
and yes, that would lead to less freedom of religion for Muslims, and discrimination at least in who get’s entrance as citizen in a democratic nation.
Demsci says
Or rather that is is too risky to let large groups of Muslims allow unlimited freedom of religion in a democratic nation, without at least some precautionary measures.
Thomas Moore says
‘Philippe Couillard, long seen as an ally in Quebec’s mainstream Muslim communities,’
First, I greatly appreciate this web site and I have the utmost respect for M. Spencer.
I live in Montreal (Province of Quebec, Canada)
I can assure you that Couillard (Prime Minister of Quebec) is still an ally of mainstream Muslim communities.
It’s latest declaration are mainly for political strategic reasons (to win the next provincial election), Couillard main political opponent has changed, it is not anymore the ‘Parti Quebecois’ of Jean Francois Lisée , Couillard will be fighting against CAQ of Francois Legault in next provincial election and Couillard must shift strategy temporary.
Couillard did try recently to pass Bill-59 but it failed as there was a huge resistance , Bill 59 looks like in many ways as ‘Istanbul process’, some kind of a law to punish people who critics Islam in the province of Quebec.
This law would have permit to make available on internet a black list of people who would have been condemned by ‘Commission des droits de la personne du Québec’ (a provincial human’s right commission that was led by another dhimmi at the time) and though not able to get any job after being published on such a list.
One of it’s puppet minister , Sebastien Proulx did sugggest in parlementary commission of Bill 59 to be able to denounce anonymously people in private conversation who talk against islam (like in famous novell 1984 of Georges Orwell). Sebastien Proulx did get a promotion from Couillard after that.
Couillard is now working on a new Bill-62 permitting to proselytes in kindegarten,……
Couillard did work in Saoudi Arabia for many years and did make a fortune out of it.
The liberal party of Couillard is sold to islam and Couillard is sold to islam. Couillard did shout a ‘Allah Akbar’ during funeral oration in the ‘Bissonnete attack affair’
Couillard is more dangerous than Trudeau as Couillard is intelligent.
I’m ashamed of having such an idiot and dhimmi and ignorant fool as Prime Minister of Canada Justin Trudeau.
I’m ashamed of the 10 millions given to Omar Khadr.
Thomas
Tom says
Islam without constraints in a democratic nation is an open invitation for radical jihad against the host nation. If Islam is to be practiced in a democratic, secular nation, then it must be kept under surveillance and Imam’s must be vetted to ensure that their preachings are not a call to kill or overthrow the hosts or that they do not radicalize.
Anything less means we are allowing a viper to sleep in our bed and it will only be a matter of time before that snake bites, because that is what it does naturally.
Rick Westmoreland says
Perfectly stated Tom. Thank you for your clear and concise summation.
don vito says
“the broader islamic faith,” another distinction to be made, the broader vs the narrower islamic faith? Which one of these two imitate kufr? Maybe it is the true islamic faith vs the imitation islamic faith? Maybe the two distinctions are both the islamic faith, in that the broader islamic faith profits from the beliefs and actions of the narrower islamic faith?
westcoastjohnny says
If he “worked in Saudi Arabia for several years,” then along with his fat Saudi salary, he surely must have observed the misogyny toward women, felt the deep hostility toward all non-Muslims, had even seen the mutawwa or religious police enforcing the Sharia on the streets, and grasped the totalitarian nature of Islam, especially of the ferocious Wahhabi sort.
Wouldn’t he have lived in a foreigners-only area? Isolated from the Saudi public?
GPT says
Let’s have open discussion of Islam in all schools, colleges and universities: of the violence and the hate and the intolerance and the absurdities of its teachings; of how it would have been stopped dead in its tracks 1400 years ago if not for the leniency of a tribe that beat the early muslim bandits; of how it spread through war and dhimmitude and breaking agreements; of how it would die without the death penalty for apostasy; of how deranged Muhammed was.
Muslims teach their children from the cradle to despise the infidel ( read Nonie Darwish). Don’t give them that chance; make sure the children are taught how craven Muhammed was, and how the West has fought for its freedom through the centuries. And teach it to all those western kids who have been poisoned by identity politics, victim politics and PC thinking, who have been poisoned by Marxist thinking.
gravenimage says
Hugh Fitzgerald: Couillard Comes to His Senses
…………………..
Better late than never.
Carl Goldberg says
Fitzgerald raises the possibility of reforming Islam by “contextualizing” the jihadist verses of the Koran. However, in order for it to work, Moslems would have to abandon the fundamental proposition that the Koran is Allah’s literal word, valid for all of eternity. They would also have to contradict 1400 years of Islamic religious scholarship. And, logically, if any verse of the Koran is “contextualized” by saying that it applies only to the time it was “revealed” in the seventh Century, then ANY verse of the Koran, even the benign verses, can be “contextualised” and deemed no longer valid. Which human being is going to decide which of Allah’s words are no longer valid? Part of the fundamental proposition of Islam is that Allah’s words are valid for all of eternity. Contextualizing any verse of the Koran undermines that fundamental proposition that the entire Koran is valid for all of eternity. How can anyone escape that logic?
Rick Westmoreland says
Carl it doesn’t matter what human being decides which of Allah’s words are no longer valid. Just that there is a human that does. How can anyone escape the logic that believers of every written word in the Quran cling to?You don’t have to,because there is nothing logical about something written 1400 years ago that is in any way relevant or carries any value at all in today’s world. Muslims believing that they are the moral authority for the entire universe is nonsensical and thus a non starter for any reasonable,sensible conversation.
Baucent says
Take Couillard’s words at face value. He says muslim leaders have a responsibility to teach a peaceful Islam. Many have called for this, but if the attacks continue we could conclude those leaders have done nothing to counter Jihadist teaching. If they do nothing, they show tacit approval of the Jihad. Maybe the Premier is saying it’s time to take sides. Are you with us or against us?
Lioness says
Just a temporary slip of the tongue for Couillard. If he wants to be elected again, he will revert to the usual politician style of “Islam is peaceful” garbage. Even if he really thinks that Islam sucks, he is not going to continue to harp on it if he cares about his political survival.
Andy says
Veteran Blinded By Omar Khadr Says Trudeau Guilty Of Treason
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/09/veteran-blinded-by-omar-khadr-says-trudeau-guilty-of-treason/
Mike Holt says
Once an appeaser always an appeaser. His mealy-mouthed words are still an attempt to defend islam. Does he really believe that islamic leaders will try and reform islam when we all know that the koran and Mohammad specifically forbid it on pain of death?
He’s not fooling anyone, and now he has made an enemy of islam as well. Just deserts, I say!
Richard Courtemanche says
Couillard doesn’t know which foot to dance. Like the weather in certain parts of the country, wait five minutes and it’ll change.