Based on Oxford dictionary: http://www.oup.com/elt/oald/

fun•da•men•tal•ism /fndmentlzm/ noun [U]

(in Christianity) the belief that everything that is written in the Bible is completely true

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
As far as I know, she hasn't said whether she believes that everything in the Qu'ran is completely true OR not completely true. Her religion is her own business as long as she supports NDP policy.

---

As Michelle said, her religion is her business. It's her politics that matter.

[ 18 March 2004: Message edited by: Sara Mayo ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mandos:
Furthermore, what does "completely true" mean in the context of a religious text? What you probably meant was "does she read it with the same cultural naïveté that I do?" Again, we don't know.

---

Dear Mandos,
Is it so difficult for you to attack the idea instead of attacking the writer?

The same cultural "naivete" is more insulting to over 1 billion Muslims than me.

Is it very hard to ask you to be polite?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Since your so interested, why don't you find some evidence to prove that she is a fundamentalist, other than the fact that she wears a Hejab in public?

Come back with that and we can go from there.

---

The same evidence that she believes everything that is written in the Quran is completely true.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sara Mayo:
Fightcensorship, you are welcome to look at the NDP's website if you don't know NDP policy. Since Monia has been a NDP supporter for years, she is very comfortable with our policies. Did you read her piece in the Globe last week? That will give you an idea of her politics.

As Michelle said, her religion is her business. It's her politics that matter.

[ 18 March 2004: Message edited by: Sara Mayo ]

---

Thank you. I did not find it, and it is a big one. If you know please let me know.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mandos:
The concept that you could tell her what is a "completely true" reading of the Qur'an and that you know what "1 billion Muslims" think or should think is what is insulting, fightcensorship, not anything that I wrote.

No, we do not know precisely what Mazigh believes. Nor should she be subjected to a purity test. We will know by her words during her campaign--for the nomination, not even for Parliament.

---

Read my post again, I did not ask what is completely true and what she thinks. The
question again is:

"Does she believe that everything that is written in the Quran is completely true or not?

At first prove that I say something else than by over 1 billion Sunni and Shia, then insult them.

quote:

---

At first prove that I say something else than by over 1 billion Sunni and Shia, then insult them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mandos:
We are aware of your views on the matter. But, like I said, you don't know what every Muslim believes or agrees on. It's insulting that you should claim to know what she believes in every detail, or that you can produce a "list" that necessarily applies to her.

---

Where did I claim that I know what every Muslims believes? Show it please.

What they do know is that she has signed an agreement with the NDP about her politics. We do not know if this comes into conflict with her views of the Qu'ran. As has been said before, she may not believe that the Qu'ran conflicts with the NDP policy statement.

Her views of the meaning of the Qu'ran may be different from yours.

She know how she feels about this. We don't.

[ 18 March 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mandos:
What you're effectively asking me to do is to ask "1 billion Sunni and Shia" each individually if they believe what you think they believe. Not only is that not possible for me to do, I don't think you have done it either. They could all believe that the Qur'an is "completely true" and yet many of them could mean by that something completely different from what you mean, as has been my own personal experience.

Secondly, "fundamentalist" actually means many many things. It's an almost useless term, having been sucked dry of meaning in the same manner as the word "terrorist." So it's not fair to purity-test Mazigh with the word "fundamentalist" either.

---

No need to ask them in every detail. If they call themselves Sunni or Shia it means at least they believe in Quran and Hadith. Did I bring something else?

Your PERSONAL experience again!!

quote:

---

Where did I claim that I know what every Muslims believes? Show it please.

---

quote:

---

At first prove that I say something else than by over 1 billion Sunni and Shia, then insult them.

---

quote:

---

No need to ask them in every detail. If they call themselves Sunni or Shia it means at least they believe in Quran and Hadith. Did I bring something else?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Why don't you figure out a way to ask her that yourself and report back. I am sure everyone would be happy to discuss it once you know more. What you are doing is asking people to be inside her head. This is impossible.

What they do know is that she has signed an agreement with the NDP about her politics. We do not know if this comes into conflict with her views of the Qu'ran. As has been said before, she may not believe that the Qu'ran conflicts with the NDP policy statement.

Her views of the meaning of the Qu'ran may be different from yours.

She know how she feels about this. We don't.

[ 18 March 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]

---

I thought may be her fans know that.

I believe this is our right to know her views.

Let us see, may be her fans could answer it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sara Mayo:
...Why are you assuming she's a "fundamentalist"? Why don't you ask Bill Blaikie, NDP MP, and United Church Minister? Why aren't you asking if he believes everything in the Bible? There's lots of repulsive things in the Bible that I hope he doesn't believe. But what's more important to me are his words and deeds. Monia should be judged by the same standard.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mandos:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where did I claim that I know what every Muslims believes? Show it please.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You said:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At first prove that I say something else than by over 1 billion Sunni and Shia, then insult them.

This clearly presupposes that you claim to know what "1 billion Sunni and Shia" know. If not every, then close, and certainly a lot of people who have never met nor will you ever meet.

If Monia Mazigh claims that she can support the NDP policy statements and that she has voted NDP before, then isn't that all you need to know?

---

So what? What I said do not contradict each other.

Learn this:

"NOT EVERY MUSLIM IS SHIA OR SUNNI" there are also other sects in Islam. Got it?

I do not know what every Muslims believe, but I know Shia and Sunni believe in Quran and authentic hadithese.

If you do not believe in Quran, then do not call yourself a Shia or Sunni.

Show me what I have said is not believed by Sunni and Shiats? Then insult them.

About your question:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mandos:
"Believe in Qur'an and Hadith" could mean many many things. Also, the importance of different Hadith are by no means agreed upon by "all Sunni or Shia," considering that many Shia do not venerate some of the links in the chain of transmission of some of the Hadith, and so on.

Yes, my "PERSONAL EXPERIENCE" and the "PERSONAL EXPERIENCE" of every one of the "1 billion Sunni and Shia." Yes. You--do--not--know, no matter how many times you invoke "Qur'an and Hadith," because you are reading it through your "PERSONAL EXPERIENCE."

---

Quran is believed by both, majority of Hadithses especially the authentic ones are also believed by both. Learn the religion. If I brought a Hadith that you belive is not believed by both groups, all you need is tell me.

It is clear from what I read that her fans can not prove that she is not a fundamentalist.

All that I received was

1- Why are you assuming she's a "fundamentalist"?

My answer: Please read my first post!

2- Go and ask her!

My answer: If she is a fundamentalist, what you are telling me is a joke!! Your answer may convince your Christian old lady neighbor, but not me. I was a Muslim before!

There is an Islamic law named “Taghya” which means you can conceal or even lie when it is necessary. How do you guarantee that if she is in fact an Islamic fundamentalist she will not use this Islamic law?

However, if she declares (or declared) it publicly (not in an email) that she does not believe everything that is written in the Quran is completely true, I certainly believe she is not a fundamentalist.

3- What she believes is none of your business!

It is my right to see what my MP believes about human rights, gays, women rights, human rights in Islamic countries, Islamic global terrorism, abortion …

There are many verses in Quran that violates the mentioned rights. There are many verses in Quran that order Muslims to kill infidels, there are…

You say, it is not my right to know whether she prefers Quran over the accepted human rights or not? Only after we vote, then we would know!

If she wanted to work in her house or office, you were right, but if you ask people to support her, I believe those questions are valid.

4- Why you do not ask it from others, like….?

Please ask them. I also do not want some Christian fundamentalists in Parliament opposing the rights of many innocent people and hiding their faces behind a mask of liberalism. I will certainly welcome those questions.

Right now, I am more interested to know her position.

5- What matters is whether or not she supports NDP policy

If Ms. Mazigh is neither stupid nor confused about what she believes --and the evidence is overwhelming that she is neither -- then, these worries about her being a female Taliban are frankly ridiculous.

Offhand, I can't think of a person I would rather have throwing their head covering (whatever it may be) into the ring. I wish I had the opportunity to vote for her. (I wouldn't want her in my riding since the NDP has little hope of a seat here. )

Edited to correct a spelling faux-pas.

[ 18 March 2004: Message edited by: Sisyphus ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by fightcensorship:
The question is here! If there was a conflict between NDP policy and Quran which one she will choose?

---

We'll find out soon enough, won't we? She's put herself in the public spotlight where she will be scrutinized quite earnestly by the press and political rivals.

Until then, give her the benefit of the doubt.

"Doubt" a key anti-fundamentalist principle.

[ 18 March 2004: Message edited by: FPTP ]

So what do you want? A picture of Monia in the paper eating a ham and cheese sandwich?

[ 18 March 2004: Message edited by: Doug ]

quote:

---

There is an Islamic law named “Taghya” which means you can conceal or even lie when it is necessary. How do you guarantee that if she is in fact an Islamic fundamentalist she will not use this Islamic law?

However, if she declares (or declared) it publicly (not in an email) that she does not believe everything that is written in the Quran is completely true, I certainly believe she is not a fundamentalist.

---

Why don't you just ask her if she's stopped beating her husband?

www.freedomhouse.org

The #1 reason for living in a non-free country is Islam. #2 Reason Communism.

Christinas, Hindus, Bhudists, Pagans and even Socialists live in countries listed as free. Jews too.

Is it a big deal if a secular Muslim runs for office? No.

But, To leave a non-free country move to Canada and bring with you that thing "Islam" that is anti-freedom and anti-rights should that be acceptable. In my opinion No.

For the NDP to not vest Ms Mazigh and have a complete understanding of her position as a Muslim and her position on her religon is a mistake.

The NDP can't be about rights and freedoms and allow an Islamist to run for office as a member of its party.

Yes, Chrisitianity and all the other religons have their warts also. Again, they do not preclude a person from living in a "free" country.

Islam does.

Does it matter if Ms Mazigh is a practicing Islamist. Yes.

quote:

---

Does it matter if Ms Mazigh is a practicing Islamist. Yes.

---

quote:

---

To leave a non-free country move to Canada and bring with you that thing "Islam" that is anti-freedom and anti-rights should that be acceptable. In my opinion No.

For the NDP to not vest Ms Mazigh and have a complete understanding of her position as a Muslim and her position on her religon is a mistake.

The NDP can't be about rights and freedoms and allow an Islamist to run for office as a member of its party.

Yes, Chrisitianity and all the other religons have their warts also. Again, they do not preclude a person from living in a "free" country.

Islam does.

---

1- That’s only because she wears a headscarf.

My answer: See my next post.

2- What it matters whether she's a fundamentalist Muslim as long as she not try to force her religious beliefs on everyone else.

That’s just like saying: “It does not matter whether she is a liar or not as long as she is honest!

May I know how a fundamentalist will not force her religious beliefs when he/she is given the opportunity? That’s in the meaning of fundamentalism.

3- There is no official Sunni or Shia opinion on anything. There are, of course commonalities of belief among members of each religious community so that we can talk broadly of Sunniism and Shiism but there is no singular and authoritative statement in either sect about how the Qu'ran and hadith ought to be interpreted and used. It's all a matter of which of the various religious authorities one chooses to trust.

At first, do you know which Islamic community believes that Quran should not be accepted word by word? Name it please.

And the more important question whether Monia belongs to that religious community?

No, there is authoritative statement in either sect. See here:

I know what you mean because:

Our future Canadian MP:

The Iranian MP:

The husband of the future Canadian MP:

The Iranian judge:

Who interrogated and killed the Canadian journalist:

As you see, they might not think the same way but there is a striking resemblance in the way they wear and even how they shave their faces with the fundamentalist counterpart. But that’s not important. Every one is free in any way she/he wishes to wear or shave without any question. It is much important to know whether she is also a fundamentalist or not.

Help me.

Visit freedomhouse.org. Drill down and find their map of freedom in the world.

Study it.

The Muslims countries listed as partly free are Morocco, Jordan, Indonesia, Turkey. There are a few more partly free muslim countries.

The majority of Muslim countries are listed as not free. Between Israel "free" and India "free" are a bunch of "non-free" countries.

From what I can see the common thing about living in a non-free country is #1 Islam and #2 Communism.

If its not Islam that leads to a Muslim country being "not-free" what is it?

quote:

---

As you see, they might not think the same way but there is a striking resemblance in the way they wear and even how they shave their faces with the fundamentalist counterpart. But that’s not important. Every one is free in any way she/he wishes to wear or shave without any question. It is much important to know whether she is also a fundamentalist or not.

---

I am trying so hard not to use the phrase 'racist pig' in my response to this. There must be some response available that does not repeat 'racist pig', 'racist pig', 'racist pig' over and over again. Some turn of the phrase which will prevent the keystrokes r-a-c-i-s-t--p-i-g from being entered.

On second thought, there probably isn't. FC, you are a racist pig.

India and Canada both have post Colonial legacies so does Jamaica. All "free".

Sarcasmobri,

I feel that FC makes a valid point. Iran as an Islamic republic has recently killed a Canadian journalist. Iran bases its powers to rule in the religon of Islam.

Does the NDP feel that Islamists meet the criteria to run as representitives of the party?

Try and do better than "racist pig". It gives the impression that you lack the ability to argue the topic.

quote:

---

Originally posted by fightcensorship:
As you see, they might not think the same way but there is a striking resemblance in the way they wear and even how they shave their faces with the fundamentalist counterpart.

---

Linking Maher Arar to some judge in Iran because they both have beards is just mind-bogglingly stupid. I have a similar beard. Does that make me some kind of fundamentalist?

Unbelievable.

[ 19 March 2004: Message edited by: albireo ]

quote:

---

Try and do better than "racist pig". It gives the impression that you lack the ability to argue the topic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarcasmobri:

I am trying so hard not to use the phrase 'racist pig' in my response to this. There must be some response available that does not repeat 'racist pig', 'racist pig', 'racist pig' over and over again. Some turn of the phrase which will prevent the keystrokes r-a-c-i-s-t--p-i-g from being entered.

On second thought, there probably isn't. FC, you are a racist pig.

(I'm so bad at actually *plonk*ing people)

---

A typical Muslism Fundamentalist response.

Keep it on!

It only shows how her fans discuss politely and logically in an Islamic friendly way!

Bravo!

[ 19 March 2004: Message edited by: fightcensorship ]

quote:

---

A typical Muslim response!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by albireo:
You just proved his point about your racism.

---

quote:

---

2- What it matters whether she's a fundamentalist Muslim as long as she not try to force her religious beliefs on everyone else.

That’s just like saying: “It does not matter whether she is a liar or not as long as she is honest!

May I know how a fundamentalist will not force her religious beliefs when he/she is given the opportunity? That’s in the meaning of fundamentalism.

---

So if a fundamentalist by definition has to force their religious beliefs on others, we can easily test to see if someone is a religious femdamentalist . . . is that person trying to force their religious belifs on others . . . now seeing as Monia Mazigh, to the best of my knowledge, is not now, nor has a record of doing so, one could then make the reasoned assumption that she is indeed NOT a religious fendamentalist.

She is though a practicing Muslim, but only a religious bigot would make the jump from practicing ones religion to religious fendamentalist . . .

Daniel Pipes

Secretly a Shia Islamic Fundamentalist?

[ 19 March 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Mother Theresa....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarcasmobri:

Please. FC points to the clothes Monia wears and the trim of Mahar's beard as primary reasons for demanding denials from them. If that's not racist, then I've been misinformed as to the definition of racism all these many years.

---

Really?!!

You not only have a vulgar mouth but you are also lying!! Show where I said the way they look is the “primary reason” or even one of the reasons they should be denied? Show it please!

Tell it to yourself who said all the discussion is about the way they look!

Yes, they look like the Iranian fundamentalists, but as I said before it does not mean they are Fundamentalist because of how they look (INSTEAD OF WHAT YOU SAID: “simply because she wears a headscarf”)

And “Open your eyes and read the post”, I said everybody is free to wear anyway that suits her/his (Is it racism?? Go and check your dictionary!). I said they might not think the same way!

Again as I said it is not important how they or anyone else look but what makes people to be different from fundamentalists is important.

It seems for you it is not!! Actually for Islamic fundamentalists, it is not!

That’s why in Islamic countries even Non-Muslims women should wear how Muslims like!

Even in Taliban regime, if you do not have the bread, you should be flogged. It seems you and Maher have it. Good for you!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
This is absurd!!! This is an arguement?

Daniel Pipes

Secretly a Shia Islamic Fundamentalist?

[ 19 March 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]

---

Go and say it to someone who does not know the Islamists!!

Because you know what I mean; having bread among many Muslim men is not a matter of style or fashion!! If you do not have it, you might end up being flogged or lose many privileges in the Islamic country you live! And you know it!

It is a matter of “religious order” and even a fundamentalist kind! Because many moderate Muslims do not believe having bread as a prerequisite be nearer to God!

I only wonder what about Maher? Is it also an Islamic order for him to have bread?! Or it is it just a fashion as the picture you showed?

quote:

---

Originally posted by No Yards:

So if a fundamentalist by definition has to force their religious beliefs on others, we can easily test to see if someone is a religious femdamentalist . . . is that person trying to force their religious belifs on others . . . now seeing as Monia Mazigh, to the best of my knowledge, is not now, nor has a record of doing so, one could then make the reasoned assumption that she is indeed NOT a religious fendamentalist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sara Mayo:

What makes you think she is one? I have asked this many times to fightcensorship as well and no one seems to be able to answer. Why are we assuming the worst of her? I can't think of an answer that wouldn't assume the worst in you.

---

I did not say she is, I asked if anybody knows she is not?

Of all the religious fendamentalists I know, very few of them have ever waited until they became MPs before they finally "exposed" their true intentions.

How many religious fendamentalists do you know of that are sitting back, acting like normal people, attempting to keep their religious nature a deep secret until such time as they become an all powerful NDP MP, in order to destroy our secular society with a good blast of religious fendamentalism?

Give you head a shake for Chist sakes . . . you are definitly stretching here to cover-up either your racist tendencies, or your complete lack of control over your paranoid disorder . . . you have no proof she is a fundamentalists, but according to your logic she should not be given a chance to show her "true colours" by allowing her to be an MP where she might show us her true nature ofe a fundamentalists..

I am sorry that the people here are not able to answer your question regarding Monia

This is not an official NDP site, so no one here is required, or even allowed, to put forward official statements regarding the beliefs of its members or candidates.

You are really trying to make an arguement based on theory. By now everyone is very aware of your opinions, so perhaps you should enter into some other discussions on other topics, that you feel less passionate about. This way you could get to know people and learn some of the reasons that people are not so positive about what you are trying to get across.

One of the things, for instance, that many people here are aware of is the dangers of attacking people based on their religious beliefs. They know the terrible consequences that can result, so they are very sensitive and careful about what they believe.

For instance, during ww2, the Germans made a very concerted effort to wipe out the Jews of europe, because they were led to believe all kinds of really terrible things about them and their religion by their government. This is part of the reason that people are very cautious.

Some of the kinds of things that the German government said to them were about the Jewish belief that they 'were the chosen people.' This the Germans were told was in the Torah, and so therefore a fundamental belief that all Jews had. Therefore it was clear that the Jews (all of them) wanted to take over the world, because they were superior to all the other people in the world.

Sometimes, when you say all Muslims must believe that non-muslims are unclean and that they are superior to all other people, it sounds very similar to what Nazis said about Jews and their belief that they are the chosen people.

The Germans Government also made a point of talking about the way the Jews dressed, as some people do about Muslim dress.

The result of all this was that the Germans under Hitler exterminated 6 Million, more or less innocent Jewish people through various cruel methods. These included gassing and starvation, and being worked to death. They also made soap out of the remains of some of these people.

I think everyone knows that you do not wish any of this upon Muslim people, yet it is very important not to feed the fires of racism, because some people might take your well intentioned arguements and turn it to very evil purposes.

quote:

---

Help me.
Visit freedomhouse.org. Drill down and find their map of freedom in the world.
Study it.

---

I'll try. Did as you suggested, but I have to say I'm not convinced. I'm not saying that you're not right, mind you, just that you're gonna have to do a lot better than that map to convince me.

First correlation does not imply causation.

That predominantly Muslim countries are considered "not-free" may have more to do with poverty and history than religion. Keep in mind that prior to the 15th century, Islamic countries were the most civilized countries on the planet.

A good many of the "not-free" are that way because of US or European actions or influence: Haiti, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, probably Cuba, Colombia, Venezuala, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Nigeria, Honduras, Guatemala, Rwanda, Russia, Somalia, Belarus, Angola and certainly more I'm not aware of. Many of these are Muslim. Perhaps their status as American or European client-states or former colonies is the crucial factor. Possessing oil doesn't hurt and multinational corporations have always prized "political stability" which cannot be achieved in a democracy where poverty is desparate, but might be be maintained by state terror if it is efficiently applied.

quote:

---

"Doubt" a key anti-fundamentalist principle.

---

Doubt is something you seem to be allergic to. You show, in fact, a very fundamentalist attitude in your opposition to fundamentalism. You fall into the same language that fundamentalists use. Black or white, right or wrong. Life ain't that simple.

[ 19 March 2004: Message edited by: Sara Mayo ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by fightcensorship:

I did not say she is, I asked if anybody knows she is not?

Do you mean she is not a practicing Islamist? May I know why?

---

No one would be able to say that any person is not secretly a fundamentalist. All we can say is that she does not show any signs of being so (unless you take any person wearing a religious symbol as proof of being a fendamentalist, in which case, I would definitly make te claim that you are totally wrong.)

For me the correlation was to strong.

The relationship between poverty, oil and freedom is inverse.

Saudia Arabia. Lots of oil lots of money no freedom.

Iraq. Lots of oil. Lots of money in one mans hands no freedom.

Pakistan and India is a better example. Muslim not free Hindu free. India free/Bangladesh partly free.

Ethiopia partly free/Somilia not free

Spain free/Morocco partly free

If we did another list of which countries are true democracies I think we might find the same correlation?

If I felt that Islamic countries were moving forward I wouldn't be as critical but while the rest of the world has gained more democracies and more freedom ie: Eastern bloc Europe, Central America and even Southern Africa the
Muslim countries seem to be less free today than they were in the 70's and 50's.

To answer your question about poverty, democracy and repressive governments. If I could find 3 or 4 free Muslim countries than I would be less critical and see some light at the end of the tunnel.

I don't.

For me Islam is the step off point to repressive governments and lack of freedom. Turkey battles year after year to offer the same freedoms found in Europe yet it can't get to the point of being free.

Indonesia which was the other best hope will probably slide backwards and become "non-free".

Everything I have read about Islam doesn't allow a Muslim to place it below their loyality to their country.

Ms Mazigh if elected and if she is an Islamist would vote with her religon before her nationality. Islam first Canada second.

Jack.

[ 19 March 2004: Message edited by: Jack01 ]

quote:

---

Actually for Islamic fundamentalists, it is not!

---

[ 19 March 2004: Message edited by: albireo ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
I am just trying to illustrate that headsarfs and beard mean nothing, as you have pointed out. Therefore you should try another approach.

I am sorry that the people here are not able to answer your question regarding Monia

This is not an official NDP site, so no one here is required, or even allowed, to put forward official statements regarding the beliefs of its members or candidates.

You are really trying to make an arguement based on theory. By now everyone is very aware of your opinions, so perhaps you should enter into some other discussions on other topics, that you feel less passionate about. This way you could get to know people and learn some of the reasons that people are not so positive about what you are trying to get across.

One of the things, for instance, that many people here are aware of is the dangers of attacking people based on their religious beliefs. They know the terrible consequences that can result, so they are very sensitive and careful about what they believe.

For instance, during ww2, the Germans made a very concerted effort to wipe out the Jews of europe, because they were led to believe all kinds of really terrible things about them and their religion by their government. This is part of the reason that people are very cautious.

Some of the kinds of things that the German government said to them were about the Jewish belief that they 'were the chosen people.' This the Germans were told was in the Torah, and so therefore a fundamental belief that all Jews had. Therefore it was clear that the Jews (all of them) wanted to take over the world, because they were superior to all the other people in the world.

Sometimes, when you say all Muslims must believe that non-muslims are unclean and that they are superior to all other people, it sounds very similar to what Nazis said about Jews and their belief that they are the chosen people.

The Germans Government also made a point of talking about the way the Jews dressed, as some people do about Muslim dress.

The result of all this was that the Germans under Hitler exterminated 6 Million, more or less innocent Jewish people through various cruel methods. These included gassing and starvation, and being worked to death. They also made soap out of the remains of some of these people.

I think everyone knows that you do not wish any of this upon Muslim people, yet it is very important not to feed the fires of racism, because some people might take your well intentioned arguements and turn it to very evil purposes.

This is one of the reasons that people are worried about the direction that you are going with your discussion.

---

They might ask, "how do we know that they are not just pretending not to be Fundemtalist Muslims. Perhaps they have shaved their beards (like Mohamad Atta) so as not to attract attention. Perhaps rather than keep all people who say they are Muslims out of the country we should just keep all people from Muslim countires out of the country, just so that we can be sure."

Think about this: on the thread called Hijab in the Secular Public School System Mr. ProudAlbertan was worried about the "effects of out of control Islamic immigration."

If we are saying that we should consider the way people look as a means of determining who is Muslim and who is not, is it not true that the one thing that all of the pictures you posted are of brown people?

Perhaps people like ProudAlbertan would like to keep all the brown people out of Canada, just to be sure that we don't have "out of control Islamic immigration."

I think this is why people are concerned with your proofs based on apperance.

This sword you are wielding can cut many ways. Be careful with it.

[ 19 March 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Ms Mazigh if elected and if she is an Islamist would vote with her religon before her nationality. Islam first Canada second.

---

Thanks Jack!

Now, please define in lay terms on what basis the NDP would make a policy that would allay your fears about the possibilities of Taliabn style Muslim Fundamentalists from getting into, and running as candidates for the NDP?

How would the party safguard against this?

I don't think this is about a policy.

I haven't found or read anything that defines Ms Mazigh other than stories about her husband.

Lets get her position on Homosexuality.

Womans rights?

Lets see what she believes in?

This is a biggie. Whats her position with regards to Sharia Law being allowed in Canada.

This is about policy, equal treatment for women and homosexuals is part of NDP policy. All of those issues are about policy. Policy, policy, policy. Polical parties express there political will through policy. For your ideas to be actionable in the real world of politics they must be expressable as policy. Politcal parties are policy.

Monia has signed the policy statement of the NDP, therefore she has legally affirmed her fealty to it. If Sharia is contrary to NDP policy (which I believe it is) then she can not support it publicly as a candidate for the NDP. There is nothing more that the NDP can do.

You can not run a political party (or a country for that matter) on the basis of lurking suspicions or gossip.

It's one thing to critique things from the sideline, its another to actually put forward positve and equitable propsals as I have asked you to do. As I expected your spurious innuendo can find no footing in a realistic proposal for policy, so it is so much hot air.

Get real.

[ 22 March 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sara Mayo:
Fightcensorship, you are welcome to look at the NDP's website if you don't know NDP policy. Since Monia has been a NDP supporter for years, she is very comfortable with our policies. Did you read her piece in the Globe last week? That will give you an idea of her politics.

As Michelle said, her religion is her business. It's her politics that matter.

---

Since I'm lurking and spurious I have to ask.

How do you reconcile the fact that she presents herself as a practicing Islamist yet Islam is odds with what the NDP stands for?

Your answer is that her signature on the NDP policy statement is what we must go on.

So, regardless of the obvious differences between the NDP and Islam, from a procedureal standpoint the fact that she signed the policy statement is all that matters.

Cueball, your right. If she signed the paper then there isn't anything else to be done.

With regards to your lurking suspicions/Gossip/spurious innuendo comments.

Ouch!

quote:

---

I don't consider the NDP a religious party and I have no intention of imposing my personal beliefs. For me, the NDP has a strong principle about religious freedom and this is very important in Canada. They have this [belief in] equality between all people and justice [for all] and these are very close to our Canadian values.

---

Now, does this require even more endless speculation (bordering on bigotry), or is that good enough? Catholic politicians were queried about their personal religious beliefs with regard to same-sex marriage, for example, and some of them responded in a very similar way. Is that too hard to understand, or are they all lying, or what?

[ 22 March 2004: Message edited by: Hinterland ]

quote:

---

So, regardless of the obvious differences between the NDP and Islam, from a procedureal standpoint the fact that she signed the policy statement is all that matters.

---

Sharia was a set of laws grafted into Islam 100 years after the Qu'ran was written. They are legal interpretations of Islamic scholars made at that time. In Islam today their is huge debate about their correctness, and if they have any validity today. They are NOT part of the Qu'ran.

The Canadian Coucil of Muslim Women issued this statement about Sharia:

quote:

---

Some Canadian Muslims are proposing the implementation of sections of Shariah [Muslim law] to settle family disputes outside the court system through arbitration committees/tribunals. Due to provisions of the provincial Arbitration Act, the arbitrated agreements may be accepted by law, resulting in a bypass of the court system.

We have discussed the issue of implementing Shariah personal law with those who are proposing it and we do not understand their motivation. We are concerned that there is an idealization of Shariah and a lack of understanding of the impact the practices will have on Canadian Muslim women.

---

CCMW Statement on Sharia

It's a worthwhile read.

Even if we were to go back to Qu'ran and find sexist passages from there, and then say that was the basis to reject Muslim people from the party, then the NDP would have to ban all Christians from the NDP because Leviticus allows for slavery, calls homosexuality an abomination and Exodus sentences people to death for working on Sundays.

You can not establish that all people think the same because they wear the same hat.

In my view, given that Monia has joined a party with progressive principals, it is likely that her position on Sharia is more likely to conform to the position CCMW than the Fundamentalist sects -- which I highly doubt.

If you ask me, empowering the more moderate strains of Islam is actually the best strategy for defusing the the power of the radical fundamentalists.

[ 22 March 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

For me the correlation was to strong.

The relationship between poverty, oil and freedom is inverse.

Saudia Arabia. Lots of oil lots of money no freedom.

Iraq. Lots of oil. Lots of money in one mans hands no freedom.

---

The correlation is strong between oil and oppression because the correlation is there between oil and US intervention. Case in point: if it wasn't for an unusual triumph of democratic will, Venezuala would be a repressive US client state because it has oil.

Iraq: US client state from 1963-1990 (encompassing the period when Saddam gassed the Kurds on America's dime)and will be again very soon.

Saudi Arabia: Everyone is dirt-poor but members of the Saudi royal family. Very oppressive as are most US client states.

Turkey: aside from committing atrocities against the Kurds with US weapons, are still a repressive regime that get more than 80% of their weapons from the us.

So, US ally = usually repressive.

You have failed to demonstrate that the Koran is in any way responsible for any of the repressive regimes you mention.

By your reasoning, we should say that Christianity is more an enemy of democracy because the US (Christian, right?) has caused the overthrow of more democratically-elected governments than any nation-state in history.

To my knowledge, no Islamic government has replaced a democratic one without prior US involvement.

Also links between the USA and Iraq were not really estabished until 1968, when Saddam and his family took over, largely on a program of kicking the commies out of the military. Between 1958 and 68, the country was the scene of several coups and counter-coups. Saddam was involved in most of them but didnt become more than a bit player until 1968. Saddam was popular with the US because of his strong anti-communist and anti-Kurdish stance.

quote:

---

How do you reconcile the fact that she presents herself as a practicing Islamist yet Islam is odds with what the NDP stands for?

---

She presents herself as a practicing Muslim, not as an "Islamist," and as such adds to the texture and colour of the Canadian mosaic.

I think 1958 was the first documented contact between opposition Ba'athists and the CIA.

quote:

---

While many have thought that Saddam first became involved with U.S. intelligence agencies at the start of the September 1980 Iran-Iraq war, his first contacts with U.S. officials date back to 1959, when he was part of a CIA-authorized six-man squad tasked with assassinating then Iraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim.In July 1958, Qasim had overthrown the Iraqi monarchy in what one former U.S. diplomat, who asked not to be identified, described as "a horrible orgy of bloodshed."

---

You're right that the massive infusions of military aid didn't start until the war with Iran, but during the 1960's, Iraq was seen as a defence against Soviet influence in the area (through Iran).

quote:

---

Daily Policy Digest

International Issues / Institutions & Growth / Culture & Political Systems

Wednesday, December 26, 2001

The good news from Freedom House's annual report is that more people are living under freedom and democracy in the world. The bad news is that there is a growing freedom gap between Islamic countries and the rest of the world.

Of the world's 192 countries, 121 are electoral democracies. However, only 11 of the 47 nations with an Islamic majority have democratically elected governments -- thus a non-Islamic country is more than three times likely to be democratic than an Islamic state.

Not all democracies are Free countries, where people enjoy a broad range of rights. A few are Partly Free, and corruption, dominant ruling parties, and sometimes ethnic or religious strife are the norm. In Unfree countries, people are denied basic political rights and civil liberties.

In fact, of the states with an Islamic majority, only one, Mali, is rated Free, 18 are rated Partly Free, and 28 are considered Not Free.
By contrast, in the non-Islamic world, 85 countries are Free, 40 are Partly Free and 20 are Not Free.
The gap in freedom has only widened over the last 20 years. While every other region of the world has registered significant gains for democracy and freedom, the countries of the Islamic world have experienced a significant increase in repression.

The report also notes a link between freedom and economic progress. Countries rated Free account for $27.1 trillion of the world's annual gross domestic product (GDP) and represent 87 percent of global economic activity. By contrast, Partly Free countries account for only $2.0 trillion in output (6 percent), and Not Free countries produce only $2.2 trillion (7 percent).

Source: "Freedom In The World 2002: The Democracy Gap," December 2001, Freedom House, 1319 18th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036, (202) 296-5101.

---

Sara, I did read the globe piece. Its a start but it doesn't ask the difficult questions. You make a good point about her politics vs her religon. Some would argue that Islam is politics.

Vicky, Its interesting that eventhough the USA deported her husband her desire to run has to do with rights and values as Canadians. Yet, when the Ottawa Citizen tried to get inside a Mosque the to hear her speak, they were denied? Whats up?

Lets start with Cueballs link to CCMW. Does Ms Mazigh agree or disagee with them?

If she doesn't believe in Gay marriage and thats the position of the party how can her personal beliefs not affect her votes?

Sisyphus, I wouldn't argue the United States priorities with regards to oil. The USA has in its own interest behaved with only its needs at heart when choosing who to support and how.

The need for oil and the fighting of communism are behind the USA history for the last 50 years. Self interest rules.

With regards to Christianity the correlation runs the other way. You tend to have secular governmnet with free countries.

I had to look up the word "jingoistic".

No, I don't hate Muslims. I do have a large issue with Islam as religon.