Motion 103 has caused more hatred towards Islam rather than diffuse it. Prior to the motion being introduced, the general public saw Muslim-Canadians as Canadians. Now they see them as Muslims who want to change Canada. Rightly or wrongly, people fear the motion is a first step towards introducing Sharia Law. You can try to prove them wrong but their sentiment is real. It could be argued that the silencing effect M-103 has on people is actually an element of Sharia itself. (Elimination of opposition)
Liberals plead for our complacency and repeat the mantra “It is just a motion, not a bill.” Tell that to the pious Christian woman I talked to who said she doesn’t want to give her opinion because she doesn’t want to sound racist. Tell that to Samer Majzoub, president of the Canadian Muslim Forum, who said that Conservatives are “creating waves of Islamophobia” by introducing an alternative to M-103 that covers all faiths.
The motion hasn’t even passed yet and Muslim leaders are already saying opposition to the motion is Islamophobic!! They are foreshadowing what everyone fears this motion will lead to.
If you believe M-103 is designed to help the poor old woman who had her hijab pulled off, get schooled. If you think anyone opposed to the motion is a neo-Nazi and right wing conspiracy theorist, get schooled.
I’m not on Facebook or Twitter so I’m sheltered by a lot of the speculation that the uninformed populist spouts off. This endless fountain of unsubstantiated messaging pours into the halls of Parliament where politicians regurgitate it into motions, policies and legislation. I’m disgusted by the ignorance and subjective rhetoric touted by our nation’s representatives in Parliament. This is not the high school debate club. Your decisions have immense and historical ramifications.
My preferred hobby is reading. When I don’t know something, I read. I’m careful to select material that is produced for academia rather than entertainment. My opinions may be flawed but they are grounded in centuries of thoughts formulated by the world’s greatest thinkers. Any politician who adds input to a debate armed solely with emotional innuendos is irresponsible.
In the case of Motion 103, this irresponsibility can affect the safety of our citizens. It suppresses non-Muslims by giving the impression that their deeply held opinions are crazy and not welcomed in Canada. When people are suppressed, they act irrationally.
An atheist might say, who cares, all religions are the same anyway. A pantheist might say, what’s the point of getting upset, all religions are part of the one God anyway. They don’t mind being complacent about the Islamic agenda because it doesn’t violate their beliefs. But a theist, with a deeply held conviction in Judeo-Christian theology has substantial fear of Islam. When our politicians label these people as right-wing extremists and enact motions to silence their opinions, they feel oppressed.
Personally, I feel very oppressed by the prioritization of Islam in Motion-103. I find solace in God, Jesus Christ, and His teachings of love but what about the people who don’t have faith to support them? How will they channel their frustration? Where will they find answers to the feelings they have?
To comfort Muslim-Canadians, the government has thrust real pain and suffering onto Canadians that fear their own religious beliefs are being depicted as hateful.
I do not hate Muslims and I do not believe they are evil. However, I do believe that Islam teaches good people to perform evil actions. Furthermore, any person who fairly and systematically researches Islam, Judaism and Christianity would conclude that Islam is not a faith that stems from the Abrahamic Covenant. It is only Judaism and Christianity whose end and its means are always rooted in unwavering love and peace. Saying the principles and ideology of Isaac and Ismael’s forbearers is the same because their Dad was Abraham is nonsensical.
The question that should have been answered before M-103 was introduced is whether non-Muslims can be justified in their mistrust and apprehension of Motion 103 and of Islam in general? Throughout this essay I plan on answering this question. Not by personal opinions or headline news stories but by the old fashioned journalistic tradition of research. I will cover three areas of Islam; theology, philosophy and history. After discussing these areas, it is my belief that all Canadian politicians should vote against Motion 103, people should have a legitimate fear of Islam and channel that fear into political engagement.
PART 1: Theology: How Islam is NOT like Judaism and Christianity
One of the modern talking points about Islam is that it is one of the 3 Abrahamic religions. The implication is that because the genealogy of Arabs leads back to the same person as the Jews, the religions are the same. That’s like saying that if one of my sons becomes a serial killer and the other a philanthropist their principles and ideologies are the same because I am their father?
Arabic genealogy begins with Abraham and his son Ismael. Judeo-Christian genealogy begins with Abraham and his son Isaac.
God made a covenant with Abraham to be an ancestor of a multitude of nations. God said he would make nations of Abraham, and kings shall come from him. Since Abraham and his wife Sarah were very old, Sarah doubted that she would be able to bear a child. She had her slave-girl Hagar be with Abraham instead. The child was named Ismael.
The covenant God made with Abraham did not include Ismael. Abraham and Sarah later had a child of their own and named him Isaac. It is through Isaac and his son Jacob that the history of Israel and eventually the history of Christianity derives.
In fact, during the middle ages, Muslims were called Saracens which means “Without Sarah”.
This is an important genealogical difference between Islam and Judeo-Christianity. But more importantly is their theological differences.
God, Creation, Good and Evil
“God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.” Genesis 1:31
The fundamental difference between Islam and Judeo-Christianity is the concept of God and His creation. Both Jews and Christians believe that God is all knowing, all being, all perfect and all loving. They believe as it says in Genesis 1:31 that everything that God created is good. God did not and as an all perfect being, could not create evil. Evil doesn’t exist in itself but is the free and independent choice for man to not do good. God does not cooperate with evil and does not use evil. Even Satan was orginally created good. He was an angel named Lucifer. His own choice and his unwillingness to serve made him evil.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that “God is in no way, directly or indirectly, the cause of moral evil. He permits it, however, because he respects the freedom of his creatures and, mysteriously, knows how to derive good from it. God is supremely good, and would never allow any evil whatsoever to exist in his works if he were not so all-powerful to cause good to emerge from evil itself.”
Islam on the other hand teaches that Allah creates evil and even goes so far as to send devils against unbelievers. “Know that we (Allah) sent down the unbelievers, devils who insight them to evil.” (Surah 19:83)
This is a huge distinction. In no way are Jews or Christians taught that God uses the Devil. Islam believes that Allah works with the Devil.
Furthermore, Islam teaches that there are people created evil. “Ah woe on that day to the Rejecters of Truth! Did we not create you from a fluid (held) despicable? (Surah 77:19-20)
Why does this matter?
The Judeo-Christian believes that all humans are created good. If they choose to do evil, they can repent and covert to goodness. They do not teach hatred or violence towards anyone, even those who persecute them, because they know that those people are substantially good.
On the other hand, Islam teaches that some humans are born evil. It teaches that unbelievers, Jews and Christians are born evil. This has huge ramifications in society. Especially when Imams read verses from the Quran that call for violence against non-Muslims. For the Muslim, the violence is justified because it is eliminating evil.
“So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them.” (Surah 9:5)
Beyond the extremist’s interpretation that literally advocates death to non-Muslims, the fact that Islamic theology teaches that certain people are unequal to Muslims is a violation of human rights. Christian slave-owners have long been condemned for misinterpreting scripture to justify inequality. The scripture never justified slavery but explicitly declares equality “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Galatians 3:28
Where is the condemnation of the Quran which consistently instructs Muslims that they are superior to all other races, religions and even their own Muslim women? Where is the hate crime investigation of Muhammed?
Islam is not bound to Judaism or Christianity by history or theology. Any assertion otherwise is a strategic plan to camouflage a religion of hatred, violence, segregation and deceit inside two accepted religions of love, peace, unification and honesty.
As seen throughout history and currently in the middle east, Muslims use the good nature of Jews and Christians against them. That is the fullness of Islamic theology.
PART 2: Philosophy: Islam’s Contradiction of Logic
Logic consists of the law of non-contradiction. Basically, it means that a statement cannot both be true in one sense and true in another sense at the same time e.g. “A is B” and “A is not B” can never mean the same thing.
Western civilization, culture and political systems were built upon rationalism, that is, where reason is the chief source and test of knowledge. Reason is the application of logic.
On the other hand, Islam consistently violates the laws of logic. Their theology is filled with contradictions. 71 of the Quran’s 114 Surah (chapters) contain contradictions with itself and the other source of Islamic law, the Sunna. There is even a legal word, Naskh, defining the contradictory material found in Islamic teachings.
The ongoing war between the Shia and Sunnis started at the death of Muhammed and remain to this very day. This war is rooted in these contradictions. Muslims disagree amongst themselves on which verses are contradictory or not. The illogical nature of Islam and its various interpretations lead to violence. A root cause of Islamic extremism is the illogical nature of the religion itself.
This confusion stems from Allah himself who states in the Quran that “He misleads whom he will and guides whom he pleases” (Surah 74:31)
There is a legitimate fear that introducing Islamic philosophy into Western culture could erode the fundamental logic that society functions within. An erosion that will hurt the entire population including Muslims. Like erosion, the threat occurs slowly over time until one day, there is nothing left. The irony is that it takes logic to be aware that our values are eroding away.
In his book published in 1950 titled Revolt Against Reason, Sir Arnold Lunn said “If the past be any guide to the future, it is an opportunity which Christians will fail to take and if so, the pattern of Israel will be reproduced in modern Europe and something worse than a Babylonian captivity will be our fate, for I doubt if a secularized Europe can indefinitely hold at bay the forward march of Asia which Christian Europe arrested again and again.”
Lunn’s prophesy holds true in 2017. The question is, will Canada be able to hold at bay what secularized Europe could not.
The most dangerous Islamic contradiction is their teaching on lying. Islam, Judaism and Christianity all teach that lying is morally wrong. Where Islam differs is in their contradiction. It permits lying in certain cases. From the classical manual for Islamic jurisprudence called Reliance of a Traveler (p. 746-8.2) “When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible.
Any philosophy or theology that does not demand a strict and unwavering definition of honesty should not be trusted.
The Philosophy of Women
For all the great that Aristotle brought the world through his ideas of logic, science and ethics, he was dead wrong about women. Unfortunately, his concept of the inferiority of women was adopted by the Quran and Islamic philosophers. Islam teaches inequality between men and women. On the other hand, in the 13th century, St. Thomas Aquinas corrected Aristotle’s error, propagating Catholic teaching and therefore Western civilization on the truth about the equality of both genders.
Let me explain.
Aristotle’s Concept of Women
Aristotle believed women were inferior to men. In his work, Politics, Aristotle states “as regards the sexes, the male is by nature superior and the female inferior, the male ruler and the female subject”.
He believed it was the male that brought forth the soul and life in procreation. The female only offered her bodily matter in the process.
Judeo-Christian understanding of man and woman equally joining together to produce “one flesh” was proved by modern science.
Unfortunatley, Islamic theologians adopted Aristotle’s unscientific view. The Quran is filled with verses that explicitly state a woman is inferior to man. It bothers me to even type them out so I’ll just cite the location for you to look up on your own.
That doesn’t include the dozens of other references from the Hadith and Sira which say things like “Women comprise the majority of Hell’s occupants.” Sahih Bukhari (2:28)
With this inferior understanding of women, the Quran’s description of Paradise makes more sense. “theirs shall be gardens and vineyards, and high bosomed maidens for companions.” (Surah 78:32) Not sure how many women will be excited to have “high bosomed maidens” in heaven? But then again, they don’t expect women to go there anyways.
Like Islamic philosophers, most of St. Thomas Aquinas’ thought is derived from the study of Aristotle. But when it comes to Aristotle’s concept of the inferiority of women, Aquinas uses the Bible to rescue him from going down the erroneous path that his Islamic counterparts have tread.
The traditional Christian belief, as derived from the letters of St. Paul, is that women are subject to their husbands to form a complementary social construct. However, this subjection is mutual as husbands are also subject to their wives by giving up their lives to them as Christ gave up His life for the Church. That is far different from believing that nearly all women go to Hell.
Aquinas’ understanding of women stems from the Christian theory of the essential equality of all human beings. We discussed this concept when taking about the substantial good nature of all creation. Each person’s substantial form has a rational soul which is equal regardless of race or gender and the sexual differences are only in the matter and body.
It’s important to note that although the Catholic Church has taught this equality of nature, Western civilization did violate the equality of women over the centuries. The difference being that those men erroneously read the Bible while the Muslims are accurately reading the Quran to justify their mistreatment of women.
With this philosophical concept of women in mind, Christian and Jewish fathers have a rational reason to fear their daughters from forming relationships with Muslim men. You might call that statement discriminatory but I believe it is the Quran that is the real advocate of discrimination.
PART 3: Islamic History
The evidence of Muslim Conquest and Imperialism is easily available. Before discussing how some events in Islamic history that should cause alarm, I would like to start with the present.
In February 2017, Jamal al-Harith blew up himself and the car he was driving killing dozens of people in an Iraqi city near Mosul.
In 2004, Jamal al-Harith was released from a military prison at Guantanamo Bay and paid £1 million compensation by the British government for mistreatment in jail. He used the British political and judicial system to gain freedom, riches and be given an opportunity to kill innocent lives.
This is only a recent example of a long history of violence and deceit that goes all the way back to the formation of Islam 1400 years ago.
I’ve shown how Islamic genealogy and theology disproves its claim to be an Abrahamic religion. History proves that Islam is unlike any current religions in its advocacy for violence, dishonesty and inequality. Just because 99% of a cup of water is good for, doesn’t mean that the 1% of poison won’t kill you. Just because the Quran mostly advocates for peace and love doesn’t mean that the sporadic verses of hate and violence aren’t dangerous.
The truth is that anyone today could invent a religion that stems from the Abrahamic God. Would we all accept it as being valid just because it tells stories of Noah, or the Virgin Mary? Islamic activists create an illusion that Islam should be accepted as one of the 3 Abrahamic religions even though their ideology is completely different.
THE BARBARY STATES
The Barbary slave trade refers to the slave markets run by the Ottoman (Muslim) provinces that flourished on the Barbary Coast of North Africa between the 16th and middle of the 18th century.
There were an estimated 1 million to 1.25 million white Christian Europeans enslaved by Muslims.Barbary Muslim pirates also ranged across the Mediterranean waters raiding ships, coasts and islands, taking booty and slaves from the Aegean Islands.
In 1785 when Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli’s envoy, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman, they asked him what right he had to take slaves in this way. He replied that the “right” was “founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Muslim who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”
Christopher Hitchens further explains the Barbary atrocities in the video below:
The Iranian Revolution also known as the Islamic Revolution refers to events involving the overthrow of the Pahlavi dynasty who was supported by the United States. It was replaced with an Islamic Republic under the Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the revolution, supported by various leftist and Islamist organizations and Iranian student movements.
Within four months of the Shah leaving Iran in exile, Iran became an Islamic Republic under Sharia Law.
The revolution was unusual for the surprise it created throughout the world: it lacked many of the customary causes of revolution (defeat at war, a financial crisis, peasant rebellion, or disgruntled military), occurred in a nation that was enjoying relative prosperity, produced profound change at great speed and replaced a pro-Western monarch with an anti-Western authoritarian Islamic theocracy. It was a relatively non-violent revolution, and helped to redefine the meaning and practice of modern revolutions. This is what people are referring to when they say they fear a Sharia revolution!
By the way Mr. Trudeau, many of the non-Muslims who helped support the revolution were exiled, imprisoned or beaten. When they asked why, since they even helped the revolution, the answer was, because you are not Muslim.
Within two years, major political opposition was suppressed and banned leaving pro-Democracy Parties and moderate Muslims without a voice in a government they helped to empower.
These are recent memories in the minds of Iranian refugees now living in Canada. They see striking similarities between the ” few years we all lost our minds, and which “promised us heaven, but… created a hell on earth.”
Enemy Territory is the harrowing true story of a secular Jewish family in Iran as they fight for their lives immediately following the 1979 revolution.
Rather than mislabelling law-abiding citizens as irrationally fearful and hateful, the Government of Canada should be investigating Islamic principles and practices that do not adhere to the Canadian constitution.
Prior to its introduction, I don’t think anyone did much thinking about Motion 103 except for the people who are systematically injecting an oppressive and unethical ideological political system into the Canadian constitution. Hopefully this essay has helped you to think your way out of the leftist, brainwashing media empire.
If you believe that men and women are equal, if you believe that Gays and Straights are equal, if you believe that Muslims and Hindus are equal, if you believe that Jews and Christians are equal and if you believe that the fundamental right you have in this country is to speak your mind, join us! Contact your local Electoral District Association or run for Parliament.
We are entering a new era of Canadian politics. The days of saying “it doesn’t matter who gets in, they’re all the same” is OVER. Today, there are politicians who have agendas that are entirely opposed to Canadian values. Today’s vote isn’t about taxes and health care anymore. Today’s vote is about freedom from tyranny.