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.

---

What a bloody horrifying thought.

quote:

---

The Canadian Council of Muslim Women, a national organization, has concerns regarding such a move. We see no compelling reason to live under any other form of law in Canada and we want the same laws to apply to us as to other Canadian women. We prefer to live under Canadian laws, governed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which safeguard and protect our rights.

---

Sorry, I know that sounds harsh, but I don't think religious law has any place in our society, no matter what religion it is. As it is, if people want to settle disputes through sharia law, they can already do so privately. For instance, if a couple really wants to get a divorce and do it the sharia way, then it seems to me that what they can do is go to their religious authority, get a ruling, and then draw up an uncontested legal separation agreement and divorce using the terms agreed to in the private settlement. Or, if you want to settle a small claims dispute that way, you can do it privately through your religious authority too. Of course, both parties would have to abide by the decision, but if this is truly an initiative that they are suggesting only for people to participate in with full consent, then they can already do so the way things are now, without it becoming a secondary legal system.

[ 09 March 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]

Look at the difficulty native women had with thier status when the rules about who had native status and who didn't was not in thier control, but in the hands of men.

On the larger issue, most of you know how I feel.

Everyone wants to craft the laws to suit their own personal desires these days.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
I think the real danger here is that there will inevitably be cases where a woman opts for this arbitration because the only support group she knows demands that she does.

---

My point exactly.

Its the tip of the iceberg, once this is passed, they ask for another, then another. Muslim women have a right to be very, very, concerned. And so should we.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
I think the real danger here is that there will inevitably be cases where a woman opts for this arbitration because the only support group she knows demands that she does.

---

If you're a guest on Judge Judy, you'll need to sign a form agreeing to abide by Judy's decision, whatever it is. The signing of this form brings actual law into effect. You cannot agree, then find you don't like Judy's decision and renege. Actual law can enforce the agreement in a way Judy cannot.

I can understand if someone choosing Sharia law similarly wants the authority of the state behind them. And what's more, if as you say, anyone who wants to settle their disputes through Sharia is free to, then wouldn't all of the conservatives already be forcing their wives and daughters to do so? How is giving or not giving the approval and cooperation of the existing legal system going to change that? Short of making Sharia illegal in Canada, how do you figure we're protecting these women?

[ 09 March 2004: Message edited by: Mr. Magoo ]

Muslims in England have been pushing for Sharia law, in fact, Islam could eventually be the new Anglican church (Church of England) in the not too far distant future.

Women in particular should be very, very concerned.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
[QB

To put it another way, how is denying a woman who genuinely wants to have a dispute settled by Sharia law different from denying a woman who geninely wants to wear a veil?[/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by scribblet:
If you read about what is happening in Europe and the possibility of Sharia law looming in countries with large muslim populations, I don't think you can blame France for trying to head it off at the pass.

---

quote:

---

and not giving state sanction to religious law.

---

Is the state really "sanctioning" Sharia law? Or would it be merely agreeing to enforce any contracts or agreements that precede the use of a Sharia council? If it's the latter, then that's really just our existing contract laws in action.

I find this all kind of perplexing though.

- everyone seems to agree that if a Muslim woman wants to wear a veil (or, presumably, lend money without interest, speak Arab, or send her children to a Muslim school) she must be allowed to.

- on the other hand, if she wants a dispute settled in her native language, and in a way more familiar to her and her culture, she cannot, for fear that she's somehow been bullied into it.

- we seem to agree that some Muslim women might be bullied into using Sharia law against their will by husbands, fathers or brothers.

- if anyone ever suggested that any organized system that bullies women into doing things against their will should be aggressively treated as the abuse that it is, and perhaps outlawed, this would be seen as intolerant, narrowminded bigotry.

- meanwhile, any attempt to say "alright, we'll leave it to you to work out" would probably be seen as abandoning Muslim women to the mercies of their male relatives.

- even though some Muslim women have been bullied into veiling, we expect the state to sanction that. Just not some other thing they might be bullied into doing.

There is just too much of an opportunity for one of the parties (usually women) to be coerced into accepting this means of arbitration.

quote:

---

And even as we deny them all that right, we maintain our own right to go on television and have our disputes settled by Judge Joe Brown, Judge Wapner, Judge Judy...

---

But isn't this only in the American legal system? There isn't a Canadian equivilant to Judge Judy that I'm aware of (especially considering legal proceedings are, with very few exceptions, untelevised as a rule in Canada).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug:
In principle, why shouldn't people be able to use any method they mutually want in arbitrating a legal dispute whether they consult a sharia jurist or a flipped coin, as long as both sides accept the outcome free from compulsion and the outcome is always reviewable in a Canadian court? I'm fine with it, as long as the people at the court who will be enforcing the decision are always careful to ensure the free consent of both parties and before that happens, make available options like legal aid in case someone wants to proceed to regular court.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug:
In principle, why shouldn't people be able to use any method they mutually want in arbitrating a legal dispute whether they consult a sharia jurist or a flipped coin, as long as both sides accept the outcome free from compulsion and the outcome is always reviewable in a Canadian court?

---

Thing is, women have attained a very good deal from the family law system in Canada.

Sharia law would start the bargaining women's bargaining position off from a worse position. That-- and not piety, or culture-- is the driving force behind this.

Look.

What's at stake here is the idea that the gains made by women under family law are fair.

Already we allow many men to weasel their way around the laws.

While wage earning men are sitting ducks; the law ignores the fact that the self employed and commissioned sales field can run rings around the system.

Add to this, a religious "get out of your responsibilties" card to the equation, then wage earning men might have to sit back and wonder if the current system is in fact fair, and seek to revise it so it's equally unfair for all.

I thought this would eventually be proposed under the guise of "cultural sensitivity".

We have laws and the Charter in Canada for a reason. To protect all Canadians equally and to especially protect society's weaker members. Women under Sharia law define "weaker" members.

This would be much different from native sentencing circles. Natives aren't pressured to chose one or the other, and often the punishments given by sentencing circles are more constructive and holistic than that of the "regular" criminal justice system.

Plenty of Muslim women, especially new immigrants would be forced to go through Sharia law, further diminshing their humanity and allowing the men in their lives to control and abuse them while living in Canada, with society's "approval".

This is NOT ON.

Edited to add: and, Mr. Magoo, I personally see the merits in banning religious symbols in secular schools, especially in France, so, tally me under that column.

[ 10 March 2004: Message edited by: Trinitty ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trinitty:
Plenty of Muslim women, especially new immigrants

---

quote:

---

Plenty of Muslim women, especially new immigrants would be forced to go through Sharia law

---

The fallacy here is to assume that if Canada doesn't recognize a Sharia council for settling civil disputes, that these women's husbands and brothers and fathers will happily drive them down to the nearest Canadian courtroom. Why push the whole process into the backroom?

quote:

---

Natives aren't pressured to chose one or the other

---

Really? You asked all of them?

quote:

---

and often the punishments given by sentencing circles are more constructive and holistic than that of the "regular" criminal justice system.

---

Because women new to Canada or Muslim women being beaten by the men in their lives aren't NOW being made aware of the rights they DO have and given access to the only form of justice in Canada (which sees them as equals, imagine that!) we should sanction the laws their old countries enforced and their men prefer?

Rather than, oh, say, GIVE them access to the Canadian system? More translators, more out-reach, more information, more protection?

And, if it came down to "fairness", I would scrap the sentencing circles before I would allow for Shariah law in Canada.

But, I do think we could give an exemption to the Sentencing Circles because they are aboriginal and they don't violate the Charter.

quote:

---

Rather than, oh, say, GIVE them access to the Canadian system?

---

They always have, and always will have, access to the Canadian system. If their husbands, brothers or fathers allow them, that is.

Permitting a Sharia council to arbitrate their civil grievances would at least open the process up to other eyes, and could be regulated so that egregious violations can't occur.

Denying Muslims anything but our secular laws isn't going to force them to accept those laws; it's going to mean that an oppressed woman who might have stood a chance under Sharia will probably be denied Canadian law by her family, or will still have to defy them to get it. Nobody changes their strongly held religious beliefs just because those beliefs aren't sanctioned by a secular state. In some cases I think it strengthens them. This was mentioned in the France/headcovering thread: banning the veil won't free women from oppressive relatives. The relatives will find a way to force the veil on them anyway (like simply taking them out school), and in the end you take a net loss, not gain.

quote:

---

But, I do think we could give an exemption to the Sentencing Circles because they are aboriginal and they don't violate the Charter.

---

I don't see why "they are aboriginal" changes anything. After all, Sharia "is Muslim". So??

Do we want one system of justice, or do we want many?

That's off the top of my head. We need to fight for this, just rolling over and allowing Shariah to take root in Canada isn't the answer to a difficult situation.

quote:

---

Lobby the Mosques to discuss this with their congregations

---

"Excuse me, but I wonder if you might take a moment out of today's fundamentalist interpretation of Islam to remind all your women that here in Canada they're allowed to wear pants and they don't have to take your shit. Thanks."

quote:

---

Put posters up around the community centres.

---

They'll be torn down or defaced faster than you can pin them up.

quote:

---

Put ads on Television in their language.

---

The fundamentalists that we're talking about aren't going to be watching a whole lot of Baywatch. They're an insulated sector of society, and they know how to keep it that way.

On the other hand, if these women could present their problems openly and visibly, in a court that wouldn't be seen as secular and hostile by the more fundamentalist members of the community, then you might get an opportunity to at least witness. And step in, if it appears that someone's rights are being egregiously trampled on, or if it appears that someone is there under duress.

Or we could take out full page ads in Cosmo magazine ("Muslim gals: are you being oppressed? Visit this website to learn more...").

I am little disturbed by the constant characterization of Islam and Muslim men (in particullar) as brutal and abusive almost as a matter of course, in this thread.

Without exception these cahracterizations are:

quote:

---

...allowing the men in their lives to control and abuse them while living in Canada

---

quote:

---

...didn't know that they could escape the men beating them in their lives...

---

quote:

---

Because women new to Canada or Muslim women being beaten by the men in their lives aren't...

---

The impression is almost being created that Muslim men are required to beat their wives constantly as an Islamic act.

It seemed to me that the issued raised by the CCMW were about divorce settlements and other civil issues, and doesn't once mention physical abuse.

I would be mindful that CCMW explicitely states this:

quote:

---

CCMW is cognizant that our stand regarding Shariah places us in a difficult position. We are a pro-faith organization of Muslim women, we do not want to provide further ammunition to those who are keen to malign Islam and yet we must be honest about the issues which affect us within the Muslim and non Muslim communities. Silence is not an option.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
This is not to say that Muslim women, or new immigrant women are not vulnerable to abuse, but it is important to remember that all (not even most) Muslim men are not brutal animals, and should not be characterized as such.

---

No, this is true. However, the ones most likely to want their families to submit to Sharia law in matters of family law are probably more likely to be religious fundamentalists, and I'm sorry, but religious fundamentalists of all religions have a tendency to be patriarchal, sexist, and take homophobic and misogynist scripture passages in the most literal sense possible.

Here, I'm sure there are sources and links here.... from a Muslim woman.

http://www.muslim-refusenik.com/sources/chapter2.html

http://www.muslim-refusenik.com/inthenews.html

And From Human Rights watch

http://hrw.org/doc/?t=women_autonomy

Amnesty International

http://www.amnesty.org.au/women/news08.html

Dig around a bit on those sites and I'm sure you'll find plenty sexist about Shariah law.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theissues/article/0,6512,777972,00.html

[ 10 March 2004: Message edited by: Trinitty ]

quote:

---

However, the ones most likely to want their families to submit to Sharia law in matters of family law are probably more likely to be religious fundamentalists...

---

I don't know this. Islamic fundamentalist is a heavily loaded term. Much more so since 9/11. Equating this term with supporters of Sharia is saying a lot of things unitentionally to many people.

In the CCMW statment it sounds as if a fairly civilized debate is going on about the role of Sharia in Islam. From the statement:

quote:

---

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. *

---

quote:

---

Muslims are not agreed about the laws of Shariah. There is disagreement as to whether Shariah laws are divine laws or whether man made, based on divine text, the Quran. There is ongoing debate about the static or evolving nature of the jurisprudence and its adaptation to the realities of today’s world. the fact is that Shariah is a vast, complex system of jurisprudence which is interpreted differentially in different countries. As Muslim law, it was interpreted over 100 years after the death of the Prophet Mohammad by jurists in different countries, who themselves insisted that these were but interpretations

---

Characterizing them as Islamic Fundamentalists might be too broad a brush, given the present political climate.

*[Edited to add:] "...we do not understand their motivation." This also might be the polite yet cheeky Mullah-Talk that is charaterstic of inter-Islamic debates. Code language for I gave them 'what for' because they are idiots.

[ 10 March 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]

In the third link, three mentions were made of Amina Lawal, sentenced to death by stoning, but I explicitly asked for examples of sexism in Sharia civil law, not criminal. Do I need to mention explicitly that Canada is not about to let Sharia councils bury women in the dirt and kill them with rocks? If anyone suggested Sharia criminal law be an option in Canada I'd vigorously oppose it, most specifically because criminals and victims can't really be expected to agree on what legal system to try the criminal in.

In the fourth link, the only mention of Sharia was again with regard to Lawal.

The only passing mention I found of civil Sharia was in regard to a Morroccan interpretation of it which gave greater opportunity for divorce to men, and did not prevent men from having more than one wife. So long as we don't use the Morroccan interpretation of Sharia, we should be fine, eh?

Remember folks...Multiculturalism builds walls not bridges!!!!!!!

[ 11 March 2004: Message edited by: Hans_Blix ]

[ 11 March 2004: Message edited by: Hans_Blix ]

quote:

---

so why are you doing this here?

---

quote:

---

Remember folks...Multiculturalism builds walls not bridges!!!!!!!

---

If you are praying hard that a day will come that you can watch stoning to death live near Parliment Hill of Ottawa, behold, you can still watch it here. I know it's not as fun as watching it live but it's still amusing!!

Watch it with your family and other kids!! and do not forget the pop corn.

http://www.apostatesofislam.com/media/stoning.htm

If you need more amusement, let me know!! I will send you also Quranic cermonies of amupatations of hands and feet.

quote:

---

I wish I was a visible minority!

---

Have you considered severing your legs?

Edited to add: that way you could use all your old socks to make more sock puppets like "irsihspring".

[ 11 March 2004: Message edited by: Mr. Magoo ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hans_Blix:
I wish I was a visible minority!

---

I've always considered banned babblers to be an kind of (mercifully) INvisible minority.

quote:

---

top in my class and I still can't get a measly summer job with the federal government

---

1. This statement seems unlikely to be true.
2. If in some bizarro universe this is true, it's likely your boorish, me-me-me, generally unpleaseant whiny nature is preventing your from gaining the employment you desire not you white maleness.

quote:

---

...I will send you also Quranic cermonies of amupatations...

---

...and I'll send you some Spell-it-Quick flash cards. Deal?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/621126.stm

With women in Iraq fighting to make sure that Sharia civil law doesn't take root in their country, I think it's pretty wrong headed to be considering implementing it in Canada.

What I've found in just a few minutes of reading, as far as "civil law" goes, is that women can be "divorced" by their husbands on the spot. That women must cover their heads. And that women get half of the inheritance that male relatives get.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:
Don't fret Hinterland, I enjoy your barbs. You make me snicker, which is really quite enjoyable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hans_Blix:
So I can't say whats on my mind? I wasn't hurting anyone with my comments. I didn't realize this message board was moderated by Nazis.

---

quote:

---

...unless you're sitting next to her when she snickers. Sent a chill up my spine it did.

---

Oh, my God...I'm laughing so hard...

oh, shoot, I wet myself

[ 11 March 2004: Message edited by: Hinterland ]

Let’s change the subject. May be you like this Sharia law more. What about changing the pedophilia law of Canada to Sharia law? Good deal?

Prophet Muhammad married Ayasha (his wife) when she was 9 years old and Prophet was 54 year old. As Muslims should imitate what he did, we should also allow Canadian little girls to marry old men.

Sorry for the bad spell that so much insulted one of us. I don't need the spell check. Thanks for the offer anyway. But here is a nice photo for your sleeping room.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Gallery/handcut0.jpg

quote:

---

And the Ban Watch is a bit much, y'all.

---

quote:

---

What about changing the pedophilia law of Canada to Sharia law?

---

This is from Khoemini's book which is a Sharia law in Iran!!

A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate. If he penetrates and the child is harmed then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl, however would not count as one of his four permanent wives. The man will not be eligible to marry the girl's sister.

http://www.homa.org/Details.asp?ContentID=2137352879&TOCID=2083225445

Good women should be obedient to their husbands.
Men should beat their wives if they are not obedient to them.
Women life values are half of men.
Women inherit half of what a man inherits.
Witness of 2 women equals Witness of 1 man

quote:

---

It seems some of us did not like the video of stoning to death!!

---

Dude the only episode where stoning is described in the Qu'ran is an incident where Mohammed is asked to adjudicate a case of adultery in the Jewish community over which he ruled. Mohammed asks for an opinion on the rule of the Torah on adultery in Jewish law, as he believes that people should be tried by the rules of their own religion. He rules on the basis of the Torah that the couple should be stoned to death.

quote:

---

With women in Iraq fighting to make sure that Sharia civil law doesn't take root in their country, I think it's pretty wrong headed to be considering implementing it in Canada.

---

But I think the various bigoted, and ignorant attacks that have gone on this thread, show that people should be wary of the fires that can be fueld by unmeasured speech.

One of our learned newcomers has even provided a picture provided by RAWA. Ignoring the fact that the very first thing that Amhed Kharazi did in Afgahnistan was announce that the Sharia would form the basis of law in 'liberated' Afghanistan.

Lets not have a situation where the rights of women are used as a propoganda veil for agendas that have nothing to do with the rights of women, and everything to do with the expansion of western power into the Muslim world.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

Dude the only episode where stoning is described in the Qu'ran is an incident where Mohammed is asked to adjudicate a case of adultery in the Jewish community over which he ruled. Mohammed asks for an opinion on the rule of the Torah on adultery in Jewish law, as he believes that people should be tried by the rules of their own religion. He rules on the basis of the Torah that the couple should be stoned to death.

Nowhere is stoning suggested a means of punishment in the Qu'ran. I will look at your links, but this serious error in fact undermines you and the credibility of your sources.

---

My account (Irishspring) has been banned!! Thanks to freedom of speech!

Dude! It seems you do not have any problem with amputation, flogging, etc, etc?! eh?

Read my post again. This is exactly what I said:

“foot and hand amputated based on Quran or ordered one of them should be stoned to death based on Hadith and Sharia law”

I said Hadith for stoning to death. There are at least 20 more Hadithes than the one you mentioned. Do you want me to post all of them here?!!

This is the link, go and read them and increase your knowledge about Islam.

In the Torah, you can be stoned to death for lighting a candle on Saturday.

In the bible:

Exodus 35:2 allows for death as punishment for working on the Sabath.

Exodus 21:7 allows for a father to sell his daughter into slavery.

How these text are intepreted is what is important, not the theological roots. Your intepretaion is nothing but a blanket condemnation of Islam based on Sharia, which the CCMW points out is a system of law based on the Qur'an not from the Qua'ran.

There is a difference.

[ 11 March 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

It is important to make sure that just humanitarian concerns are not used as part of a general assault on Islam, [/i]

---

Humanitarian concerns are a major problem in Islam. Period!

CANADIANS, do you know how Non-Muslims are treated in Islamic countries by the same Sharia law that you are contemplating to install?!!

Non-Muslims are considered “UNCLEAN” based on Quran!

In the past in most Islamic countries Jews, Christians and other minorities were not allowed to go out of their homes on rainy days because a drop of rain could rub from their najis or unclean bodies and soil the Muslims. This belief was responsible for a lot of discrimination and atrocities.

But do you know the same rule still exists?!!

If you ask them WHY, they will reply, because Quran says Non-Muslims are unclean. According to Muslim beliefs, impure things are divided into eleven categories:

1) urine 2) feces 3) sperm 4) corpse 5) blood

6) dog 7) pig 8) UNBELIEVER 9) liquor 10) wine

11) the sweat of those who eat impure things

http://www.imamreza.net/old/eng/lib/Islam%20Articles/Cleanliness.htm

But that's not all, see the other Sharia rules:

1- The non-Muslims in Islamic countries are not allowed to preach their religion and convert anyone. If a Muslim becomes a Christian or a Baha'i, he will be put to death along with the person who has converted him.

2- A Muslim man may marry a non-Muslim but if a Muslima (Muslim woman) marry a non-Muslim man both of them must be killed.

3- The non-Muslims may not build their houses higher than the Muslims.

4- They may not walk in the streets in the rainy days least they defile a Muslim.

5- The life of a non-believer is not worth that of a believer and if a Muslim kills a non-believer he could not be killed for that.

6- The testimony of a non-believer against a Muslim is not admitted in the court, so if a Muslim attack a nonbeliever and no other Muslim is found o witness, neither the victim nor other non-Muslims who have witnessed he assault may testify.

Your something of a wingnut. I think you do more harm to your cause than good. First of all I notice of course that their is not a single quote from the Qu'ran above, only interpretation.

I'll certainly tell my Muslim friends, whom I shake hands with, and talk to, that they should refrain from doing so, because some guy on an internet chat forum found some web page, from some sect of Islam that thinks I am unclean.

Here are some things that Mr Freespeach is not talking you:

Qu'ran 6:108 "Do not abuse those they appeal to instead of god."

'Those' being other gods. In other words, respect the religions of others.

Also it says:

"Do not argue with the people of the Book unless it is in the politest manner."

The 'Book' being Jews and Christians.

Also, the Qu'ran prohibits conversion through coercion (2:256)

"There should be no coercion in the matter of faith."

Caliph Ali, interprets the rights of non-Muslims in an Islamic state thus:

"They have accepted out protection only because their lives may be like our lives, and their properties like our properties."

The Qu'ran also has prohibitions against killing civilians in war, including monks, or "people in places of worship." Also protection of the wounded. Also against the killing of prisoners, saying simply "no Prisoner should be put to the sword."

So much to say that I could paint a pretty idylic picture of Islam if I selected quotes from the Qu'ran. A picture that is just as unrealistic as the one being painted by Mr. Freespeach in the service of his desire to vilify a whole people, by pointing only at the rotten eggs in the basket.

Meanwhile of course Mr. Freespeach, likes to pretend that Islam is more sexist than say Christianity, when until not so long ago Chrisitan theologians were openly debating wether or not women had souls. He points to apparent inequalities within Islam in regards to the 'rights of women,' forgetting that Qu'ran was the first of the Judeo-Christian line to expressly state that women had any rights at all, aside from that of being property.

[ 12 March 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Who the hell is Emam Reza? And which country does he rule? Come now!

---

quote:

---

"I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you have accepted the headship of a man, your husband. Christ is the head of the household and the husband is the head of the wife, and that's the way it is, period."

- Pat Robertson again, The 700 Club, 01-08-92

---

Emam Reza is a two-bit internet Mullah, but you want me to believe he represents all of Islam? All Islam is bad because Emam Reza is stupid? Pat Robertson has an internationally syndicated television program, and he's an idiot too. Yet do I hear you screaming about the Christian menace to women?

Wake up, studly... you have a problem.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
First of all I notice of course that their is not a single quote from the Qu'ran above, only interpretation.

---

You want the quote, you got it! not one but two from two Islamic websites woned by Muslims!!

If you need dirty talking, contact them!! They know your language better than me!

Quran:
http://www.road-to-heaven.com/quran/english/9.htm

Verily, the Mushrikûn (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allâh, and in the Message of Muhammad ) are Najasun (impure) . So let them not come near Al-Masjid-al-Harâm (at Makkah) after this year,

009.028 http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html

YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque.

!So tell me is a Hindu woman as clean as a Muslim man?!!!! Shame on those who say not as all of them are religous racists

Actually an Iranian friend of mine told me this rather weird, yet charming story about how his grandmother could not get an injection from a Muslim in his home town, because the Imam forbid contact between unmarried Muslim men and women. Fortunately there was a Jewish injectionist in town, and because he was no Muslim, it was ok for him to see her ass while he gave her an injection.

Cheers!

[ 12 March 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
*

Emam Reza is a two-bit internet Mullah, but you want me to believe he represents all of Islam? All Islam is bad because Emam Reza is stupid? Pat Robertson has an internationally syndicated television program, and he's an idiot too. Yet do I hear you screaming about the Christian menace to women?

Wake up, studly... you have a problem.

*Thanks FPTP

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Thank you I just wanted to clarify how extremely bigoted you are. In fact the last clearly qualifies as hate speach. You should know that hate speach is clearly sanctioned under Canadian law. Person breaking that law are chargeable under the criminal code of Canada, and subject to punishment including jail.

Actually an Iranian friend of mine told me this rather weird, yet charming story about how his grandmother could not get an injection from a Muslim in his home town, because the Imam forbid contact between unmarried Muslim men and women. Fortunately there was a Jewish injectionist in town, and because he was no Muslim, it was ok for him to see her ass while he gave her an injection.

Cheers!

[ 12 March 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]

---

Yes, it is a hate speech, to believe Non-Muslism such as Hindus, Budists, Christians, Jews,... are Non-clean based on holy Quran!!! and you want it in Canada!! Get a life, you won't get it!!! even if we are jailed!!

Again, Do Muslisms believe Non-Muslisms are clean?Smiple question that simply avoided!!!

[ 12 March 2004: Message edited by: fightcensorship ]

Note that some types of Hinduism have had a concept of foreigners to India being "unclean" in some way. Everyone does this.

Because based on the legal definition :

http://www.ageofconsent.com/comments/rapedefined.htm

a Muslim man can not follow the Prophet Muhammad who had sex with a 9 year old girl when he was 54 years old because he will be jailed basesd on the current law!!

Change the law and let Muslim men enjoy their rights based on Sharia law!!!

[ 12 March 2004: Message edited by: fightcensorship ]

In any case, the age of consent for girls in most societies has always been puberty. We live in a more complex time when decisions like that are more precipitous, so we have decided that it is fair to make the age of consent later. You would find many men throughout history in "Christian" countries, not to mention elsewhere, marrying girls we would consider far too young. This complaint about Muhammad and Muslim men in extension is a charge that is levied only now. A few centuries ago, they had all sorts of attacks on Muhammad in Christian writing, none of which focused on the age of his wives--none of whom were victims, and many of whom quite important people.

[ 12 March 2004: Message edited by: Mandos ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mandos:
There's no agreement on the age at which he married Aisha (who, btw, was his most famous wife, a brilliant woman and the foremother of Islamic thought, as well as a leader in her own right), but most people set it at 14 or something like that, not 9.

---

Do not lie please!!

Based on authentic Hadithes (sayings and deeds of Prophet Muhammad) that are believed by over 1 billion Sunni and Shaite Muslims she was 7 years old when she married Muhammad and had sex with him when she was 9 years old. I know it is a little bit embarrassing, but it does not give you a right to lie that there's no agreement on the age at which he married Aisha !!

quote:

---

Originally posted by albireo:
Well, I'm a non-Muslim and I confess to not showering very often.

---

Why it is that you are such an ignorant A--hole, is beyond me. But one place to start might be by considering what people are actually saying, and why it is that even people who don't support the introduction of the Sharia, find your position repulsive in the extreme.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
But you see, all three major monotheasitc religions allow for gross means of punishment for various crimes.

In the Torah, you can be stoned to death for lighting a candle on Saturday.

In the bible:

Exodus 35:2 allows for death as punishment for working on the Sabath.

Exodus 21:7 allows for a father to sell his daughter into slavery.

How these text are intepreted is what is important, not the theological roots. Your intepretaion is nothing but a blanket condemnation of Islam based on Sharia, which the CCMW points out is a system of law based on the Qur'an not from the Qua'ran.

There is a difference.

[ 11 March 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]

---

Excuse me! Did I say I am Christian or Jewish? Did I say I want Jewish or Christian Sharia law in Canada?!! So why do you bring those verses?!!

Is it “Oops they did it, oops they also did it, oops someone else also did it, … so why only us?”

[ 12 March 2004: Message edited by: fightcensorship ]

[ 12 March 2004: Message edited by: fightcensorship ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Interesting. If you bothered to think about anything but your own single minded hatred of Muslims you would see that the Muslim's whose postion paper began this thread is against the introduction of Sharia, and that 90% of the people here have stated some form of opposition to the proposal (including me.)

---

Glad to hear that you are against the Islamic Sharia law! But sorry that I did not hear from you what you think whether a Hindu woman is as clean as a Muslims man based on Quran and your opinion!! And why you think it is not hatred toward Non-Muslims promoted by Quran by calling them unclean?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mandos:
Which Muslims? Which non-Muslims? For what definition of "clean"?

Note that some types of Hinduism have had a concept of foreigners to India being "unclean" in some way. Everyone does this.

Forgive me for troll feeding...

---

You are definitely of the latter category.

The kind of sruff you are doing about Muslims is very simillar to the kind of nitpicky stuff that Nazis say about Jews.

[ 12 March 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Based on its definition those who believe that "Non-Muslims are unclean" are racists:

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/racist

discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion

Quran says NON-Muslims are unclean!!! That’s the Sharia Law being practiced in Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran!!

Do we want such laws?!!

[ 12 March 2004: Message edited by: fightcensorship ]

Anyway this is unprofitable, and of no interest to anyone but you and I. You can sit here all night and post post after post saying that Muslim's think that others are unclean, and no one is going to care. Nor is anyone going to read my responses. They will skip over all of it. Fortunatley.

So I recomend we stop.

Trinity, please read these posts by our learned guest Freedomofspeach. I think this shows how careful people must be when talking about Sharia and Islam, and how that comes across. Because the kind and intelligent women of the CCMW are at the very center of the racist attack being perpetrated on this board by this poster.

This is exactly why they warned: "we do not want to provide further ammunition to those who are keen to malign Islam..."

We do not want to play any part in this kind of facist attack upon Muslim people.

[ 12 March 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
I think you should see a psychiatrist.

Anyway this is unprofitable, and of no interest to anyone but you and I. You can sit here all night and post post after post saying that Muslim's think that others are unclean, and no one is going to care. Nor is anyone going to read my responses. They will skip over all of it. Fortunatley.

So I recomend we stop.

Trinity, please read these posts by our learned guest Freedomofspeach. I think this shows how careful people must be when talking about Sharia and Islam, and how that comes across. Because the kind and intelligent women of the CCMW are at the very center of the racist attack being perpetrated on this board by this poster.

This is exactly why they warned: "we do not want to provide further ammunition to those who are keen to malign Islam..."

We do not want to play any part in this kind of facist attack upon Muslim people.

[ 12 March 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]

---

If it does not matter, why are you here? Go and spread more hate against Non-Muslims.

Human life values are not the same in Islamic countries or may be Canada in near future!!!

Just look at the Sharia law in Saudi Arabia which is based on holy book Quran sent directly from God himself!!

The Wall Street Journal, April 9, 2002:

In Saudi Arabia, there is the concept of blood money. If a person has been killed or caused to die by another, the latter has to pay blood money or compensation, as follows:

100,000 riyals if the victim is a Muslim man

50,000 riyals if a Muslim woman

50,000 riyals if a Christian man

25,000 riyals if a Christian woman

6,666 riyals if a Hindu man

3,333 riyals if a Hindu woman

That is, a Muslim man's life is worth 33 times that of a Hindu woman.

If it is not violating human rights, what is it?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
I think that a lot of cultures and religions make statments about other cultures and religions saying they are unclean. So, I think nothing of the fact that some Muslims think that other people are 'unclean.' Some people are more enlightened and other less so. That is where you come in.

You are definitely of the latter category.

The kind of sruff you are doing about Muslims is very simillar to the kind of nitpicky stuff that Nazis say about Jews.

[ 12 March 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]

---

So at last you said, "Islam says Non-Muslism are unclean like others!" (care to say, like what?)

Your statement about Natzi is just a joke, prove it!!

You only can personally attack me just like a child, because you do not have the logic or at most are not educated enough to defend the ideology which obviously is a racist one!!! You do not believe it? Why you do not try to answer my questions one by one? huh?

Because:

Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2:
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

But the Quran declares that:

Men are created one step higher than women.
Good women should be obedient to their husbands.
Women inherit only half of what a man inherits.
Witness of 2 women equals Witness of 1 man.
Non-Muslims are unclean

Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

But Quran (Sharia Law) orders:
Amputation of hands and feet
Flogging

No wonder why Saudi Arabia the birth place of Prophet Muhammad did not sign the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)!

[ 12 March 2004: Message edited by: Piggy ]

This (following pictures) is happening on our planet in our times.

What WERE the political-correct politicians THINKING????????

The acknowledgement of anything remotely related to this barbaric, 7th century control-system that has it's foundations in, and finds justification by emulating the the vile acts of the lying murderer, known as the "Allah's Apostle" in the free democratic society is as opening the door to the "Trojan-horse" that is already within the society, the hidden-soldiers of Allah are already exploiting and operating under the umbrella and rights of the very human-rights system that is the target of their conquering desire and nature.

A picture speaks a thouseand words; here's a quick four-thousand words.

This is the thicker edge of the wedge of Sharia getting a foot-hold in your society.

We stopped Nazism, we can and must stop the spread of like ideologies.

Same horse, different jockey.

The islamist arab-empire agenda is the same as was the 7th century creator of islamists agenda was.

It begins as insurgent minority within its host-victim as a wolf in sheep's clothing preaching its claim "religion of piece".

This is from authentic islamic history records, know as Hadith.

Here is some proof of the religion of "peace".

Sahih al-Bukari

كتاب الإيمان (The Book of Faith)
No. 24 - Narrated Ibn 'Umar:
Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah."

حدثنا عبد الله بن محمد المسندي قال حدثنا أبو روح الحرمي بن عمارة قال حدثنا شعبة عن واقد بن محمد قال سمعت أبي يحدث عن بن عمر أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال أمرت أن أقاتل الناس حتى يشهدوا أن لا إله إلا الله وأن محمدا رسول الله ويقيموا الصلاة ويؤتوا الزكاة فإذا فعلوا ذلك عصموا مني دماءهم وأموالهم إلا بحق الإسلام وحسابهم على الله
---------------------------------------