dobey, you may think I am afraid to discuss this with you, but the truth is I don't fear discussing my faith. I just knew you want to change the subject. So I won't answer your statements outside the topic. So if you don't have anything to discuss about the subject I will just skip over your diversions.
I haven't changed the subject. You have not posted an on-topic post in this thread. YOU are the one making the diversion and trying to change the subject.
So yeah, you don't have a clue. Stop claiming all Muslims must believe something, because it was taught to you they must believe that way and they are all evil. Do you have something to say specifically about Musleh Khan, and what the actual topic of the thread is about? Or are you just here to whine about Muslims and how they are all evil, and anyone who disagrees is an Islamist sympathizer? Put up or shut up, and stop trolling.
Whoa! Are you talking about Cassius Clay, the boxer? The Draft Dodger? Cared? Cassius Clay was a great boxer, no doubt. His conversion to Islam is questionable. His stated reasoning for dodging the draft was based on his belief of racial inequality of the draft. His conversion to Islam seems very convenient. But, you believe what ever makes you happy.
Regardless, go on with your debate. I just stopped by to see why this thread was still going. Kind of surprised. Tain't no one gonna change anyone else's mind on this issue. ------------------ Ron
Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun....
You can't do much about the length of your life, so focus on the width and depth. When Life throws you a curve, lean into it and roll that throttle!!
If, you wish to piss off a Conservative, lie to him. If, you wish to piss off a Liberal, tell them the truth.
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 01-27-2017).]
Whoa! Are you talking about Cassius Clay, the boxer? The Draft Dodger? Cared? Cassius Clay was a great boxer, no doubt. His conversion to Islam is questionable. His stated reasoning for dodging the draft was based on his belief of racial inequality of the draft. His conversion to Islam seems very convenient. But, you believe what ever makes you happy.
Regardless, go on with your debate. I just stopped by to see why this thread was still going. Kind of surprised. Tain't no one gonna change anyone else's mind on this issue.
He certainly cared enough to make a public statement condemning the actions of the Islamist terrorists that attacked on 9/11. He cared more than those of you on this forum who would refuse to condemn the words and actions of those claiming to be of your own faith and ideals.
At least his deferment from the draft was for something reasonable and something he believed in. Unlike Trump who was a punk college kid who wanted to keep partying.
But still, none of that connects Rick's replies to the topic of the thread in any way.
Originally posted by dobey: Unlike Trump who was a punk college kid who wanted to keep partying.
Trump, you mean President Trump who's Executive Order today imparted "extreme vetting" for Radical Muslims?
------------------ Ron
Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun....
You can't do much about the length of your life, so focus on the width and depth. When Life throws you a curve, lean into it and roll that throttle!!
If, you wish to piss off a Conservative, lie to him. If, you wish to piss off a Liberal, tell them the truth.
I haven't changed the subject. You have not posted an on-topic post in this thread. YOU are the one making the diversion and trying to change the subject.
The thread topic is about teachings within islam being applied to Canada. Yes I have commented on liberal interpretations of the coran, specifically how the West tries to twist the coran teachings by watering down the traditional teachings. BUT, you don't have a clue,...even after I pointed it out already. So, yes I have been on topic.
For the record, muhamid married a 6 year old girl but supposedly did not have sex with her till she was 9. I read several articles on the age of marriage in the coran, and they all beat around the bush saying that she must be mature. So in other words, muhamid found a 9 year old girl mature. The articles go on and on about how some girls mature faster than others, and different climates may play a part in this. BUT, muhamid set the standard, 9 year old girls "can be" mature enough.
[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 01-27-2017).]
None of it really matters to several here. Beat this one to the ground while mohamed ****s little boys in the azz. "But, but, what about the Catholic priests...?" Well, **** all the kid diddlers. Period.
Geez. Don't have sex with a 9 year old! Nothing to argue here.
None of it really matters to several here. Beat this one to the ground while mohamed ****s little boys in the azz. "But, but, what about the Catholic priests...?" Well, **** all the kid diddlers. Period.
Geez. Don't have sex with a 9 year old! Nothing to argue here.
Might be telling, of the mindset of those supporting even the idea of this sick crap.. Maybe some dept should check their p*rn search history..
I'd like to go back to the Original Post (from Mickey_Moose). And I will. Whether you come along with me is (of course) up to you.
This thread was set up with the Topic/Subject or title of "Ok to marry a 9 year old say Muslim Chaplain for the Toronto police."
That is one of the assertions from The Rebel's Faith Goldy, about Musleh Khan, a Toronto-based Muslim scholar, activist and educator who was recently appointed to a roster of 18 other chaplains of various faiths associated with the Toronto Police Department.
Wow. Some serious investigative journalism going on here by Rebel Media's Faith Goldy.
But take a closer look.
Faith Goldy's assertions were published on (or about) November 3, 2016, just a few days after Musleh Khan had been appointed as a chaplain serving the Toronto PD.
There was a Faith Goldy column online at Rebel Media, followed by an online petition seeking Musleh Khan's removal from this association with the Toronto PD: http://www.therebel.media/fire_the_bigot
You might think that if an investigative journalist were going to call for the dismissal of Musleh Khan because of his ideas about how marriage should work for Muslims, she would make an effort to discuss those ideas with Musleh Khan. Did she misunderstand his ideas? Her column was based on some written and spoken presentations from Musleh Khan, but nothing more recent than 2015. That's fairly recent, but I think a solid investigative journalist would want to consider the possibility that Musleh Khan could have changed some of his ideas since 205---or more likely, expressed them in different words that leave less room for misunderstandings or ambiguities.
There's nothing that I can find online that suggests that Faith Goldy made any attempt to contact Musleh Khan to discuss any of his ideas before she went public with her "FireTheBigot" column and YouTube video on Rebel Media. There's no reference to that in either the column or the video that's narrated by Faith Goldy. Nowhere have I seen, from Faith Goldy, any statement that she tried to contact Musleh Khan for a discussion about his ideas, but that Mr Khan would not make himself available for an interview.
You might think that a serious investigative journalist would also want to contact one or more of the organizations or establishments that have had a significant association with Musleh Khan, to see what some of those people have to say about his ideas. Especially, if Musleh Khan had declined a request to be interviewed. For example, the Islamic Institute of Toronto, which presents a short version of Musleh Khan's biography on the Institute's website.
Nowhere have I seen any statement from Faith Goldy about that.
You might think that a serious investigative journalist would have tried to interview Toronto Police Chief Mark Saunders, or someone else within Toronto PD, or one or more of the 18 other individuals of various faiths that are listed as having served as chaplains for the Toronto PD, for the purpose of soliciting some of their thoughts about Musleh Khan.
Nada.
I can't find anything more online from Faith Goldy, who's likely moved on to her next "shiny object", but I do see where the activist group known as "Pegida Canada" has entered the loop:
"The Rebel and Pegida petition for dismissal of Toronto PD Muslim chaplain over 'misogynistic' comments" http://en.cijnews.com/?p=55012
This Pennock's discussion was setup with the Topic/Subject or thread title of "Ok to marry a 9 year old say Muslim Chaplain for the Toronto police."
How about "Rebel Media's Faith Goldy goes public with a thinly researched and thoroughly inadequate attempt at investigative journalism."..?
Or "Rebel Media's Faith Goldy says 'Jump' and a handful of Pennock's Off Topic forum members ask 'How high?' "..?
I don't want this to be read as a "diss" against the Original Poster, who selected the Pennock's thread title.
I just want to present the fruits of the additional research on the part of myself, and some others among us, that were stimulated by this discussion.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-28-2017).]
None of it really matters to several here. Beat this one to the ground while mohamed ****s little boys in the azz. "But, but, what about the Catholic priests...?" Well, **** all the kid diddlers. Period.
Geez. Don't have sex with a 9 year old! Nothing to argue here.
Tony, I never said it doesn't matter, what I said was no one involved is going to change their minds.
As I see it, if one really believes he's right or, it's alright or allowed to do something the rest find as unacceptable, there's only one way to halt it. That seems to be illegal here in the states.
------------------ Ron
Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun....
You can't do much about the length of your life, so focus on the width and depth. When Life throws you a curve, lean into it and roll that throttle!!
If, you wish to piss off a Conservative, lie to him. If, you wish to piss off a Liberal, tell them the truth.
Tony, I never said it doesn't matter, what I said was no one involved is going to change their minds.
As I see it, if one really believes he's right or, it's alright or allowed to do something the rest find as unacceptable, there's only one way to halt it. That seems to be illegal here in the states.
Understood.
I have been tempted to post here about a local sicko that made national news recently locally. My first thought was to defend this guy. It had to be "big corporate" and not him! Made me do some research. What I found is absolutely haunting. He is being watched. He is only ONE dude on the edge.
I have been tempted to post here about a local sicko that made national news recently locally. My first thought was to defend this guy. It had to be "big corporate" and not him! Made me do some research. What I found is absolutely haunting. He is being watched. He is only ONE dude on the edge.
We really do need to keep an eye on some.
Yes. A sharply focused and fully functional eye, with adequate peripheral vision and color discrimination.
I have the distinct impression that Rebel Media's Faith Goldy is not such an "eye".
Her deficiencies as an investigative journalist (vs Musleh Khan) makes me think that she is more interested in targeting the nearest Muslim, instead of misogynists, pedophiles and Sharia law abusers.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-28-2017).]
Originally posted by rinselberg: interested in targeting the nearest Muslim, instead of misogynists, pedophiles and Sharia law abusers.
muhamid married a 6 year old girl when he was in his 50s. How is this OK? Or how is it wrong that you call someone else a pedophile and abuse sharia law for doing the same?
Faith Goldy has not provided a credible case that Musleh Khan has ever preached to a Muslim audience or counseled a single Muslim of or in Canada that it is OK to commit what would be a violation of Canadian law by entering into carnal relations, molesting or attempting to marry an underage girl in Canada--underage, as determined by Canadian law, which I do understand has varied from province to province; at least, as recently as 2014 (age of consent laws).
Has Musleh Khan ever lobbied or campaigned in any way to have any Canadian law about marriage relaxed on the minimum age requirements--or to recognize polygamous marriages--to, in effect, "import" cultural norms from other nations around the world, and establish such cultural norms as legally permissible within Canada?
Faith Goldy was mute on this (second) point.
If any of these statements are true in relation to Musleh Khan, Faith Goldy has not demonstrated it. Not in the text and video that she published online in "The Rebel", during the first week of November 2016. And as best as I have searched online, Faith Goldy has not published anything else about Musleh Khan.
Now there are a few (maybe just one, or maybe two) other videos about Musleh Khan that have been uploaded to YouTube, that may be from some other person than Faith Goldy. And there are 271 videos that have been uploaded to YouTube by Musleh Khan himself.
I can't say with the precision (for example) of a quantum physicist talking about the latest Higgs boson detections at the LHC that Musleh Khan has not done any of the things that I just called out, or does not believe in any of these things. But there's nothing that I have processed online that makes me think that he has.
Even if he has done something along the lines of pushing for Canada to change any of its marriage-related laws, I cannot say, a priori, that makes me want to see him dismissed from his association as a Muslim chaplain serving the Toronto police department. I would have to know more about the specifics of what Mr Khan had (has) done, or what kind of changes to Canadian law that he wanted (wants) to have enacted.
Keep in mind that the police chaplain's role that Musleh Khan was accepted for is described as "voluntary" and generally involves about 15 hours of his time per month. If he is being compensated, beyond maybe some small reimbursement for his travel expenses (etc.), I cannot imagine that it would be anything even approaching the salary or benefits of a full-time patrol officer. (Just my impression about it.)
I think if anyone wants to continue talking in a skeptical or dismissive way about this role for Mr Khan, that they really owe it to themselves to take the little time that it would take to go to the brief online report from CityNews from October 28, 2016, when Khan was named as one of the 19 chaplains of various faiths that are currently serving the Toronto Police Department. It couldn't take more than a minute or so to read. There is also a video segment at the top that is just two and a half minutes long. It includes some "face time" with Musleh Khan.
Originally posted by Rickady88GT: muhamid married a 6 year old girl when he was in his 50s. How is this OK? Or how is it wrong that you call someone else a pedophile and abuse sharia law for doing the same?
Aisha was the last and the youngest of Mohammed's wives.
We're not talking about "Ward and June Cleaver". Obviously, the most likely outcome of the marriage could have been foreseen, from the very first day of it, that Aisha would still be young, or just on the threshold of middle-aged (by modern standards) when Mohammed would pass and leave her behind as a widow. That would leave for her the option of marrying someone else (as a widow).
According to Google, Mohammed only married widows and divorcees--with the single exception of Aisha. Mo' was 25 when he married his first wife, the 40-year old Khadijah. Something of a "cougar", would you say? (Khadijah.)
I think that any current day Muslim, aside from the out and out "crazies", understands that it's the admirable character of the human and spousal interactions between Mohammed and Aisha, as described in the Qur'an, that are important. Like the time that Mohammed and Aisha were on their camels and had a small "drag race", and what Mohammed said to Aisha afterwards, after he won the race, and the second time that they raced, when Aisah was a little older than the first time, and what Mohammed said to Aisha afterwards, after she won the race.
What's not important, to the current day Muslim--except for all the "crazy" ones--is the age disparity or the "cradle robbing" aspect of the marriage.
That's the second page (2) of this thread, four posts down from the first post on page two, from "rinselberg".
Keep in mind that to this very day, scholars of the Qu'ran are not in complete agreement about the exact age of Aisha when she was given in marriage to the Prophet, or the exact age when they first begin to seriously "cuddle up". The verses of the Qur'an first emerged in an early form of Arabic, that is not fully the same as the Arabic language that is commonly spoken and written today.
After the Qur'an came the Hadith, immediately or not many years after the life of the Prophet, which says (I presume) that Aisha was exactly this many years old when she was given in marriage, and this many years old when they first began to "get it on". And then, considerably later in Islamic history came the Sunnah, which again refers to the age of Aisha on several (perhaps many) different pages.
But only the Qur'an is revealed text. Only the Qur'an is regarded within Islam as words that came directly from the "mind" of Allah. Muslim scholars can (and have) said that parts of the Sunnah can be discounted as not completely accurate. And they can (and have) argued among themselves about what parts of the Sunnah are accurate, and what parts can be discounted. Can the same be said for Hadith? I don't know that I have ever seen that discussed (online), but since the Hadith is not revealed text... ?
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-30-2017).]
Originally posted by rinselberg: According to Google, Mohammed only married widows and divorcees--with the single exception of Aisha.
quote
Originally posted by randye: Thus spake the internet oracle of Sunnyvale, California. Akbar Bin-Shadeball
Do you have any contradictory sources about this? That the wives were all either widows or divorced women, except for the last one that he married (Aisha).
And even if you did, would whatever it is that you would have different (about the wives) significantly change or undermine the bottom line of my last post, and the one immediately before that?
The bottom line of that post, where I said "According to Google...", is that calling out the Prophet of Islam as a pedophile, as many have done, is a case of not seeing the forest for the trees.
And the post immediately before that, is one more in a series of posts (from me), from the very start of this particular discussion (thread), that dissect the work of Rebel Media's Faith Goldy and demonstrate the distinctly shoddy quality of her style of "investigative journalism", when she went after the Toronto Police Service's newest (and Muslim) chaplain, Musleh Khan.
So... whadayagot? (Aside from having come up with the "Akbar Bin-Shadeball" moniker.)
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-30-2017).]
Toronto Police Service's recently appointed Muslim chaplain, Musleh Khan, files a brief (and jocular) report from the small Caribbean island nation of Trinidad and Tobago, which is not far offshore from Venezuela.
"Fun, fun, fun 'til the Caliph took their T-bird away..."
rinse, in all of the articles you posted, none of them condemned muhamid for marrying a girl before she has reached womanhood. Do you condemn his wedding with the youth?
Originally posted by Rickady88GT: rinse, in all of the articles you posted, none of them condemned muhamid for marrying a girl before she has reached womanhood. Do you condemn his wedding with the youth?
NO.
I can't think of anything more unrealistic than for someone of our current day to look back in history some 1400 years and credit themselves with the idea that they could somehow know what was best for that young girl (Aisha), during a time when that society (in the Arabian Peninsula) was being transformed by the emergence of a new theology (Islam).
I can't think of anything more unrealistic than for someone of our current day to look back in history some 1400 years and credit themselves with the idea that they could somehow know what was best for that young girl (Aisha), during a time when that society (in the Arabian Peninsula) was being transformed by the emergence of a new theology (Islam).
Then explain, El Prostilam, why you put so much effort into defending a foreign, stone-age, barbaric culture that has PROVEN time-and-time again it is incapable of integrating into, or accepting Western Culture.
Once they have sufficient numbers, they leave 2 options: Their way or the dead way.
rinse, in all of the articles you posted, none of them condemned muhamid for marrying a girl before she has reached womanhood. Do you condemn his wedding with the youth?
Do you condemn Joseph's marriage to Mary? She was only 12 after all.
I can't think of anything more unrealistic than for someone of our current day to look back in history some 1400 years and credit themselves with the idea that they could somehow know what was best for that young girl (Aisha), during a time when that society (in the Arabian Peninsula) was being transformed by the emergence of a new theology (Islam).
The coran teaches that she must reach womanhood, so you either think a 6 year old girl is a woman or that he was wrong. In addition, mohamid NEVER said his teachings will or could be outdated. So as far as islam is concerned, EVERYTHING muhamid did is valid through out the ages. The teachings are timeless, it is society that has gone astray and turned it's back on mohamid. Or more accurately, it is Western culture that has corrupted the teachings.
The coran teaches that she must reach womanhood, so you either think a 6 year old girl is a woman or that he was wrong. In addition, mohamid NEVER said his teachings will or could be outdated. So as far as islam is concerned, EVERYTHING muhamid did is valid through out the ages. The teachings are timeless, it is society that has gone astray and turned it's back on mohamid. Or more accurately, it is Western culture that has corrupted the teachings.
You don't know that she was 6. There is not definitive agreement on what age Aisha was married to Mohammad. You can't claim the Qu'ran is timeless and must be upheld by your definition of it, and then at the same time argue that the New Testament replaces the Old Testament entirely in Christianity, as you seem to like to do. That's not how logic works.
I can't think of anything more unrealistic than for someone of our current day to look back in history some 1400 years and credit themselves with the idea that they could somehow know what was best for that young girl (Aisha), during a time when that society (in the Arabian Peninsula) was being transformed by the emergence of a new theology (Islam).
I can think of MANY unrealistic things looking back through history. Marrying a 6 year old girl being one of them. BUT it happened.
Originally posted by Rickady88GT: The coran teaches that she must reach womanhood, so you either think a 6 year old girl is a woman or that he was wrong. In addition, mohamid NEVER said his teachings will or could be outdated. So as far as islam is concerned, EVERYTHING muhamid did is valid through out the ages. The teachings are timeless, it is society that has gone astray and turned it's back on mohamid. Or more accurately, it is Western culture that has corrupted the teachings.
Can you post the verse(s) from the Qur'an where Muslim men are exhorted to look specifically to marry a girl as young as the age of Aisha when she was given in marriage to the Prophet? I think you are reading something into the Qur'an that is not part of any sensible interpretation of it.
I suspect that word that I just used, "interpretation", likely gives you some heartburn.
I hold that there is no verse of the Qur'an that can be understood without interpretation. There is no written or spoken utterance of any kind, in any human language, that can be understood without interpretation. And here's the "clincher"... if it were otherwise--if interpretation of any spoken or written utterance by the human who understands (or tries to understand) that utterance were not an absolute requirement--a sine qua non for linguistic communication--how could we explain that the most sophisticated computer programs for automatic translation between different human languages, even after all the years and effort that has been put towards that end, are still no match for the human mind, when it comes to producing translations that preserve any and all subtleties of the text that is to be translated into another language?
(I believe this is an accurate observation. Do "you"..?)
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-01-2017).]
Can you post the verse(s) from the Qur'an where Muslim men are exhorted to look specifically to marry a girl as young as the age of Aisha when she was given in marriage to the Prophet? I think you are reading something into the Qur'an that is not part of any sensible interpretation of it.
I am not saying the coran has such verses. IN FACT I am saying the verses in the coran say that would be wrong to do. The teachings say she must be mature. I am unaware of an actual specific age. That is why I think it is hypocritical of muhamid to marry a girl who has not reached puberty. Regardless of when they had sex, it is still hypocritical to marry so young.
quote
I suspect that word that I just used, "interpretation", likely gives you some heartburn.
No, it doesn't. But muhamid may have an issue with it? In fact, I am certain he does, that is one thing the Middle East is waring over. They kill people over such a notion as changing the meaning of muhamid's teachings.
quote
I hold that there is no verse of the Qur'an that can be understood without interpretation. There is no written or spoken utterance of any kind, in any human language, that can be understood without interpretation. And here's the "clincher"... if it were otherwise--if interpretation of any spoken or written utterance by the human who understands (or tries to understand) that utterance were not an absolute requirement--a sine qua non for linguistic communication--how could we explain that the most sophisticated computer programs for automatic translation between different human languages, even after all the years and effort that has been put towards that end, are still no match for the human mind, when it comes to producing translations that preserve any and all subtleties of the text that is to be translated into another language?
(I believe this is an accurate observation. Do "you"..?)
No, no I do not agree. Example: 2+2=4. In any language, there is only one meaning to this mathematical equation.
[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 02-03-2017).]
Originally posted by Rickady88GT: No, no I do not agree. Example: 2+2=4. In any language, there is only one meaning to this mathematical equation.
That is "the exception that proves the rule."
Four posts back from this one... that's what this is about.
For anyone that looks at the verses of Qur'an that are part of its narrative about Mohammed and Aisha, it has to be more complicated than "2+2=4".
If the translation of these verses from the original (and pre-modern) Arabic, and then the deconstruction of the narrative to arrive at an exact age for Aisha were literally as simple or as cut and dried as "2+2=4", then I do not think that I would be able to find online reports of various sources with scholarly credentials arguing about the age of Aisha when she was married to the Prophet--and I know that I can do that.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-03-2017).]
Originally posted by 2.5: Mohammed did more wrong than just marry young.
If that is a reference to the military campaigns and other Muslim vs non-Muslim battles that Mohammed was part of, it could be a case of "spinning the narrative", as in the modern idiom of "political spin". How much of that history was recorded by anyone that could be regarded as a neutral or reasonably objective chronicler? I don't think there's all that much that comes down to us from that time and place that could be regarded as solid, objectively recorded history. So "who ya gonna believe?" Was Mohammed playing "offense" or "defense"..?
From a brief (90 page) booklet that anyone could obtain online (and free of charge)
In Islamic law, the ends do not justify the means, and justice is not predicated on creating a paradise on earth, whether that paradise is an imagined future or a recaptured past.
The Islamic law of war has often come to be ignored, sadly, in the name of a totalitarian mindset which seeks to crush everything in its path for the sake of achieving its ultimate ends. According to such a view, compassion, nobility, beauty, and fairness are all to be sacrificed and then somehow recaptured later when the fighting ends. In this respect, the utopian rebels of today—whatever their religion or ideology—have much more in common with Lenin than with Saladin.
If we have not dwelt on historical battles or the minutiae of legal discussions through the centuries it is because the principles are so clear, even self-evident. The rules of war and peace in Islam can be distilled into three principles:
1) Non-combatants are not legitimate targets, and as we have seen this not only includes women, children, and the elderly but also animals and the natural environment.
2) The fact of someone’s being non-Muslim does not make them a legitimate target of attack. The Islamic conquests were political in nature, and large areas under Muslim rule remained non-Muslim for centuries. The agreements cited above show that the Muslims’ intention was never to convert by force.
3) Muslims are expected to live in peace with their neighbors whenever possible, and must respect treaties, but this never precludes the right to pre-emptive or responsive self-defense. Indeed, fourteen centuries ago Islam drew a line between pre-emption and aggression, allowing the former--as in the Prophet’s campaigns at Khaybar and Mu’tah--and condemning the latter--"Fight in the way of God against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! God loveth not aggressors"--Al-Baqarah (2 :190).
In sum, God asks neither that Muslims be belligerent nor that they be pacifist. Rather, they must love peace but resort to force when the cause is just.
Toronto Police Service Headquarters Building (file photo)
100 Days: A Very Special Report February 4, 2017; from the Saturday edition of the Toronto Sun.
Crowds of celebrants clogged the streets surrounding Toronto’s downtown police headquarters building this afternoon to mark the 100th consecutive day of service by Muslim scholar, educator and activist Musleh Khan, one of 19 volunteer chaplains associated with the Toronto police department. Boom boxes belted out the Manfred Mann 1968 recording hit “The Mighty Quinn”, which the pro-Khan movement has adopted as something of a theme song. Every time the Mann group’s vocalists were heard singing “Quinn”, the crowds did their own voiceover, shouting “Khan” instead.
As Toronto’s police chief Mark Saunders and Musleh Khan himself emerged with bull-horns to address the mostly cheerful and well-behaved gathering, the crowd, which trended towards high school and college-aged and casually dressed, with a sprinkling of 20 and 30-something men and women in more business-like attire, waved handheld placards that proclaimed “Long Live the Chaplaincy of Musleh Khan” and “Down With Rebel Media’s Faith Goldy”.
Toronto Police Service Chief Mark Saunders (file photo)
It was Faith Goldy’s agenda-driven but poorly researched attempt at investigative journalism—a transparently fabricated “hit piece” that was published online, just days after Khan had been named a Toronto police chaplain—that backfired, sparking the grassroots pro-Khan movement.
The crowds had all but completey dispersed by 4:00 p.m., leaving behind only the faintest hint of marijuana smoke in the otherwise clear winter air.
... from rinselberg (for the Toronto Sun)
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-06-2017).]
"But, but, what about the Catholic priests...?" Well, **** all the kid diddlers. Period. 
