More on the “Canada First” Anti-Muslim Protesters

Saturday’s post on the protest in Mississauga over the PDSB’s accommodation of student-led Friday prayer generated a lot of comments and has since been reported in more detail in the media. The reader comments included information, misinformation and some lack of civility.

Kevin Johnson of Freedom Report, Ron Banerjee of Candian Hindu Advocacy/Canada First, and Sandra Solomon of Rise Canada (Image: Derek Gray/YouTube)

Kevin Johnson (Freedom Report), Ron Banerjee (Canadian Hindu Advocacy/Canada First) and Sandra Solomon (Rise Canada) (Image: Derek Gray/YouTube)

The Toronto Star has done some reporting on Saturday’s protest, giving us the confirmation that “Canada First” put the protest together. CTV has also reported on it. However, the majority of the protesters were associated with the Canadian Hindu Advocacy group led by Ron Banerjee, who was also in attendance. The Star described his group as “militantly anti-Muslim” back in 2012 when they were criticized for screening The Innocence of MuslimsRise Canada (led by the Quran-waving Sandra Solomon at the PDSB board meeting reported here previously) also supported it; they’ve posted a video of the protest featuring Kevin Johnson and Ron Banerjee:

Mr. Johnson (head of an earlier “Stop the Mosque” campaign in Mississauga) says he intends to run for Mayor in 2018. Good luck with that. And, according to Rise Canada‘s reference, it seems that “Canada First” may just be a re-branding of Canadian Hindu Advocacy and not associated with the racist “Canada First Immigration Reform Committee.”

Still, in all the commentary I have yet to hear any good argument for how the 20 minutes of kids getting together to pray among themselves is causing any measurable hardship or problem. These groups protesting have already explicitly proven that they are only anti-Muslim but pretend here to be reasoned secularists. The school principals have all said that it is not a disturbance, the students are respectful and that it hasn’t caused any trouble whatsoever (as it stands in Peel Region.)

It is absolutely possible to be non-bigoted and allow people their freedoms under the Charter, and at the same time criticize ideas and aspects (e.g. forced gender segregation, religious handouts at public school, the Catholic school system) if they are found to be happening. You don’t have to hassle a bunch of kids doing something non-violent on their own for a few minutes when it has no bearing on your own children’s academics. Those of us on the Left have to work harder to express our criticism of religion as distinct from Right-wing bigots who borrow the same arguments for non-Humanistic ends.

Eiynah’s (@NiceMangos) recent podcast episode was some timely inspiration for this post. Listen to The Complexity of Critiquing Islam Under Trump: Distinguishing between liberals & illiberals from Polite Conversations. It’s only a dozen minutes but really captures what she has said many times. I don’t listen to the specific people she calls out, but the rest is gold and has confirmed for me that it’s worth making the effort to try and be clear and to distinguish one’s position as being against bigotry towards Muslims but open to rational criticism of religion or particular cultural practices.

It’s just mind-boggling when you hear reformist Muslims and Ex-Muslims who are fiercely advocating against bigotry accused of being both Islamophobic and secret Islamists at the same time, by opposite sides. This is entirely different from Ex-Muslims such as Sandra Solomon who come to the discussion shouting at any and all Muslims in Canada as though they are all identical to those in Saudi Arabia.

26 thoughts on “More on the “Canada First” Anti-Muslim Protesters

  1. “Still, in all the commentary I have yet to hear any good argument for how the 20 minutes of kids getting together to pray among themselves is causing any measurable hardship or problem”

    Please hand in your atheist card at the door.

    All prayer is harmful, at the very least in terms of opportunity cost. And prayer in a school context is particularly harmful, because the school setting validates it, even though we know well “nothing fails like prayer”. Permitting this special set-aside, with teacher supervision as well, says that prayer is SO important that this special accommodation must be made, when we know for a fact that such claim is flat out false. It undermines the entire idea of secular, evidence-based education. It elevates cosplay to the level of a recurring medical emergency. (I know we have precedent in this matter regarding daggers and diets… these also should be reversed as they are incorrect… nobody must wear a dagger, and nobody’s meat must be killed during a prayer, least of a child who certainly cannot be said to have a religion). Further, by enabling the parents and community to force this behavior in children at school, it furthers the child abusive environment where children are said to have a particular religion, based on it being forced on them. School should be a refuge from that.

    Secondarily, it allows these particular students to self-segregate, to view themselves (as their book tells them) as superior to the rest, and to manifest that explicitly through this segregation. No other students are offered a plan to segregate themselves and conduct whatever activity they deem is “necessary” for their cosplay, least of all atheists. It’s clear bias in this way as well.

    I’m sure you’ve heard good arguments, and probably some better than these. The problem is that you aren’t listening.

    “Those of us on the Left have to work harder to express our criticism of religion as distinct from Right-wing bigots who borrow the same arguments for non-Humanistic ends”

    Wrong. This is ad hominem, and appeal to consequences. It doesn’t matter who offers an idea, or to what ends they promote it. It must be evaluated on its own merits.

    • > All prayer is harmful, at the very least in terms of opportunity cost.

      You could make the same statement about the game of chess. In fact you could make *all* of your arguments about chess: chess fosters competition and rivalries between students, any time students at school are playing chess they aren’t doing schoolwork, parents can pressure kids to play chess at school, etc.. And by extension an identical argument that schools should not accommodate student requests to set up chess clubs, or give them a space to play chess.

      Or if not chess, you could make the same statement about just about *any* recreational activity a bunch of students want to get together and do.

      > This is ad hominem, and appeal to consequences.

      Uh, no it’s not. Ad hominem is saying someone’s argument is wrong because of something about their character or personality. Appeal to consequences is saying something is true because it produces good consequences.

      Saying “people should frame criticisms in a way that it doesn’t cause harm” or “people should frame their message so they can’t be confused with other people who have a different message” is neither of those things.

  2. Randy, I’m always glad for feedback but try focusing on the subtleties of what is *actually* written before you start attacking.

    > “All prayer is harmful,”

    That may be true, but is irrelevant since I’m talking about the lack of harm towards the remainder of the students who are NOT praying, that is, the children of those protesting and claiming their children are harmed. I’ll bend a bit and acknowledge the protesters could possibly also have had the praying children in mind.

    > Wrong. This is ad hominem, and appeal to consequences

    Wrong. Indi beat me to it, but I’ll say it again. You’ve completely misunderstood this sentence, which is talking about the “ends” of using the criticisms and NOT about the validity of the criticisms. If I had said that the *religious criticisms* were wrong because Right-wing bigots use them, then you could accuse me of using the logical fallacies you suggest. I’ve said nothing about the merits of the common criticisms nor how they are evaluated. I said only that I wish to separate the *ends* with which they are *used*.

    > It doesn’t matter who offers an idea, or to what ends they promote it. It must be evaluated on its own merits.”

    I agree completely, when referencing *the idea*. I never said otherwise. I am distancing myself from the “ends”, not the criticisms of the idea. We are free to disagree on those ends and still be called atheists.

  3. >”Those of us on the Left have to work harder to express our >”criticism of religion as distinct from Right-wing bigots who >”borrow the same arguments for non-Humanistic ends.

    Not only that. We need to figure out what made it so we decided to be so complicit in allowing it to continue for so long unaddressed.

    • Bigots afterall, ARE sometimes, just people to whom nobody has yet bothered to explain what’s REALLY going on.

      Then they do something quasi-irrevocable and somebody else comes along to exploit their self-imposed bad commitment vulnerability.

  4. There is however, something a bit perplexing that demands to be addressed.

    These ARE purpotedly *150* parents of the school board in question.

    That’s not a small number.

    Some explanation needs to be had as to how a supposed bigot’s hate group managed to attract that many parents, as it makes it seem there is something more legitimate going on here.

    • Yeah, it seems that way, but only if you look at the number alone. The reality is that they were 99% rallied from the one single Hindu group. This was not a random sampling of parents. Rather similar to when Mayor Crombie stacked the council chamber with one large association of India-born Catholics to give the false impression of diversity in opposition to my deposition against the Lord’s Prayer.

      • Interesting.

        However 150 is still not a small number. And so, deserves some further investigation.

        Could be as simple as there were not 150 parents there. From the video it certainly doesn’t look like 150 people.

        30s Tops.

        • In the same breath Rise Canada quotes 150 and 200. From their page:
          “The RiseCanada.com team joined close to 200 Hindus, organized by Canada First, to march in -15 temperatures yesterday in Mississauga demanding an end to Islamic prayers in Peel schools. Mayoral candidate Kevin Johnson of FreedomReport.ca joined the march and spoke at the end.”

  5. I have to make some comments about the numbers being passed around here.

    First, I note that most of the estimates of participation come from the organizing groups themselves. I don’t think I need to point out why that makes them questionable, and almost certainly inflated.

    But let’s pretend that there actually were 150 people there. I’d be surprised if there were half that many, and I don’t believe for a second that all of them were actually parents of students, but let’s pretend, and lets get a sense of perspective.

    Five years ago, when the whole “imam in the cafeteria” thing exploded, the number of Muslim students going to *that* prayer service was ~400. (And that was around half of the school’s total Muslim student population.)

    That was *one* school. These protesters are protesting the *entire Peel district*. That’s *240 schools*; around 150,000 students. Even if *every* person protesting was a parent, and only one parent of each child came to protest – that is, with the most generous estimates – that’s still just 0.1% of the student population represented. Even if you assume that Peel’s demographics match the national demographics of ~3% Muslim (and Peel’s Muslim numbers are actually much higher), that protest’s size doesn’t even balance against 3% of all the Muslim students alone. Hell, they don’t even balance against the Muslim students at a single decently-sized school, in some places.

    So yeah, 150 is not really that impressive a number, if they even managed to get that many people out there.

    Also, I have to make a comment about the claims that this was mostly a Hindu thing. I don’t think so. Yes, Canadian Hindu Advocacy is a well-known islamophobic group, and *maybe* they were the primary source for the protesters. But there were other groups involved – Rise Canada, for example, is headed by Sandra Solomon, who is a (ex-Muslim) Christian extremist. Kevin Johnson of Freedom Report was apparently also involved; not sure if he’s Christian, but he’s definitely alt-right, of the Trump-loving, Rebel Media variety, which tends to be very Christian – in any case, not Hindu. This is just a case of various stripes of hate united by a common hate for Muslims. Personally, I suspect that these organizations are letting CHA headline the protests for tactical reasons – if it had been headlined by Rise Canada or the Freedom Report, it would have been pretty blatantly islamophobic and anti-immigrant.

    • Unfortunately there seems to have developed a little cottage industry around pandering to people’s basest instincts for hate.

      And “cottage industry” seems to be understating it.

      Always hate to see when these things happen because it usually portends even darker clouds ahead and a prolonged period of having to “ride” these things “out” once they’ve reached a critical mass of unappeasable psychologies.

  6. Then again, it may be that these hindus find that it just makes it easier for them to be accepted into the political discourse as opposed to the usual reception they get in the political halls.

    And so, it might actually be easy to redirect their energies, by showing them that political life will be made just as open, and even more so, in exchange for them refraining from muslim baiting.

  7. Please go to immigrationwatchcanada.org, to sign the petition on the protection of free speech and against M103.

    Thank You!

    • Canada has a history of realizing that the progression towards balancing the tensions between free speech and hate speech by erring on the side of free speech, is the way to go.

      You had better make sure what you are doing is not masquerading hate speech as free speech, or else my free speech is going to come down on you like a ton of bricks.

  8. …”You don’t have to hassle a bunch of kids doing something non-violent on their own for a few minutes when it has no bearing on your own children’s academics.”….

    See, now there’s exactly what the problem is ~~ People like you who have a platform to spout your small-minded reality of “Ain’t nuthin’ going’ on here, Ethel!”

    To expect that intelligent thinking people would buy into your ‘poor baby’s, don’t hurt them’ clap-trap spoken in defence of an archaic, misogynistic, hatred-filled, female-hating culture is ….well, stupid shite.

    It’s not ‘non-violent’ ~~ those boys are being inculcated into the sweet culture aforementioned.
    It’s not about ‘hassling’ anyone ~~ it’s about stopping an insidious creep into Canadian culture of aforementioned infidel-hating culture.
    It’s not about ‘a bunch of kids’, as if they are some sort of innocent satellite of benign wonder; it’s about the reality that those boys are growing into men conditioned into a belief system of misogyny and hatred of infidels.
    It’s not about ‘doing it on their own for a few minutes’ ~~ well, it’s not ‘on their own’ is it? It’s actually on public property, a public school property no less, during school hours, in full view of the rest of the school attendees.
    Further, ‘when it has no bearing on your own children’s academics’ is really the disturbing part. You’re saying it’s ok because it ‘ha(s) no bearing’ on non-participants future emotional, intellectual, or societal conditioning and enhancement because through this confrontation, they’ve been exposed to the clash of cultures, of fear, of separation, of racism, of bigotry, of anger, of resentment at the favouritism, blahblahblah!!…but holee-jeebuz, DO NOT INTERFERE with the Muslims praying on the lawn at recess time!! (my exaggeration)..because it will melt their gentle, innocent, selfless, worshipful minds and hearts and souls if anyone tries to.

    If you think for one second that there’s nothing to be hype-vigilant about regarding the spread of the ideology of Islam, the infiltration of the Canadian education system, the infiltration and subsequent hobnailing of the Canadian Houses of Parliament, you’re not only being ridiculous, but you’re being fool-hardy, as well.

    • > “…People like you who have a platform to spout your small-minded reality of “Ain’t nuthin’ going’ on here, Ethel!””

      People like me? You do realize what blog you’re on, right? How can you be so deliberately obtuse? And we didn’t block your comment, so it’s your platform too, isn’t it? There is plenty of (all too much) praying that’s always been within Canadian culture. Stop pretending that this praying is a new thing. I was in public school when they still made us pray in class. *That’s* force. That’s damaging, in front of everyone and institutional. Are you honestly telling me you can’t see how that’s different? *I personally* stood up and fought to have prayer removed from City Council chambers! So don’t shove me into your self-defined and overly-simplified categories.

      > “To expect that intelligent thinking people would buy into your ‘poor baby’s, don’t hurt them’ clap-trap spoken in defense of an archaic, misogynistic, hatred-filled, female-hating culture is ….well, stupid shite.”

      That’s the difference between us – you have trouble peeling apart ideas and people. Make rational arguments against the ideas in Islam and I’m on board with you. Please point to the sentence exactly where I defended any idea in Islam as being good or bad.
      You can’t, because there isn’t one. I am saying that they have that right under the Charter to do what they’re doing and have been doing for 20 years without detriment to the other students. Protest the Charter then, don’t bring a PDSB meeting to such utter disruption that nobody can continue their work and are forced to shut down further discussion due to the insanity. The anti-Muslim (which I differentiate from anti-Islam by the way) camp shoots themselves in the feet by acting like utter buffoons. They’d be able to say a lot more if they hadn’t done that (literally – Kevin Johnson got something like a restraining order over it.)
      And yes, I hold the same position as quite a few ‘intelligent people.’ I can point you to them if you are interested in the education.

      > “It’s not ‘non-violent’ ~~ those boys are being inculcated into the sweet culture aforementioned.”

      You are confused again. What “It” you are talking about? You seem to think you’re talking about this issue, but you’re actually talking about Islam again. You can hold the position that types of Islam are violent and find plenty of support for it – but you cannot claim that these students praying have perpetrated any violence or will do so in future.

      > “It’s not about ‘hassling’ anyone ~~ it’s about stopping an insidious creep into Canadian culture of aforementioned infidel-hating culture.”

      As though the “culture of Islam” was a single mono-culture, nice try. Use specifics (some of which I may agree with) and we might get somewhere. Otherwise it’s you who risks looking simple-minded.

      > “It’s not about ‘a bunch of kids’, as if they are some sort of innocent satellite of benign wonder; it’s about the reality that those boys are growing into men conditioned into a belief system of misogyny and hatred of infidels.”

      Oh so you’re going to be the one to save these kids with your antics, eh? So try teaching them not to hate. You’re not off to a good start. I’d rather spend my time articulating why believing in Islam is a bad idea than I would screaming at the school board that has no control over what they have to accommodate under the Charter.

      > “It’s not about ‘doing it on their own for a few minutes’ ~~ well, it’s not ‘on their own’ is it? It’s actually on public property, a public school property no less, during school hours, in full view of the rest of the school attendees.”

      I’m making an effort here to find some point of agreement (an effort it seems you haven’t made yourself.) I have not seen reports of where exactly this takes place – I imagine it varies from school to school. If it’s in the middle of the cafeteria where everyone else is, then I tend to agree with you. *That’s* something you could make an argument for – you can fight against details of *how* PDSB accommodates in the school. I could be wrong, but I’m guessing in most cases it’s probably in a separate room. If there is a reader with actual confirmation of this, that would be good to know.

      > “You’re saying it’s ok because it ‘ha(s) no bearing’ on non-participants future emotional, intellectual, or societal conditioning and enhancement because through this confrontation, they’ve been exposed to the clash of cultures, of fear, of separation, of racism, of bigotry, of anger, of resentment at the favouritism…”

      A commenter had made an unsubstantiated claim that the “mental health” of their children was at risk. When pressed, they did not come back with evidence for it. Your sentence here is a bit run-on and I’m not sure I follow the latter half of your point, but it sounds like an inaccurate extrapolation of what I said.

      > “If you think for one second that there’s nothing to be hype-vigilant about regarding the spread of the ideology of Islam, the infiltration of the Canadian education system, the infiltration and subsequent hobnailing of the Canadian Houses of Parliament, you’re not only being ridiculous, but you’re being fool-hardy, as well.”

      Since this blog post had nothing to do with the House of Parliament, I find it fascinating that you think you’ve read my mind on all other topics such as this. I absolutely *do* think we need to be vigilant. Defending secularism is one of those tools (you just happen to have a poor grasp of it). I agree completely and will stand with you if you are referring to the dishonest attempts of Islamists (as a distinct term from liberal Muslims) to convince politicians to deny that there are regressive ideas in Islam that we must protect against.

      I’m happy to have a civil discussion with you if you are open to finer points. But don’t expect a lot of respect from me if you are going to fire off like the whole thing is a simple black and white issue.

      • > I have not seen reports of where exactly this takes place – I imagine it varies from school to school. If it’s in the middle of the cafeteria where everyone else is, then I tend to agree with you. *That’s* something you could make an argument for – you can fight against details of *how* PDSB accommodates in the school. I could be wrong, but I’m guessing in most cases it’s probably in a separate room. If there is a reader with actual confirmation of this, that would be good to know.

        I can confirm that it is *always* done in a separate room, away from the general student population. At least, I’ve been following these cases for years and have never heard of a situation where the prayers are done in the presence of other students. I mean, if you think about it, that would be an incredibly stupid arrangement – the other students would be pretty much guaranteed to interfere at some point; you’d just be asking for trouble in a situation like that.

        There have been a couple cases where the prayers are held in the cafeteria or auditorium, because the school’s Muslim population is large enough to require it. But even in those cases, they aren’t done when other students are using those facilities (for example, in a North York (not PDSB) school it is done in the cafeteria after the general lunch period – after the students had left and while the cafeteria workers were cleaning up the dishes and such). Generally an empty classroom or portable is used.

        Of course, this fact really makes those claims that these prayers harm the “mental health” of other students, or other such claims, look even more ridiculous. But I doubt those claims are really made with any basis in reality anyway.

        > The anti-Muslim (which I differentiate from anti-Islam by the way)….

        I agree that there is a difference between being anti-Muslim and being anti-Islam, but I don’t think what we’re witnessing here is really “anti-Muslim”. If you look at what these nutters are saying, they’re (usually) not saying there’s anything particularly wrong with *Muslims*. Their complaints are all about Islam.

        But that doesn’t make their complaints legitimate. In fact, while their complaints are about Islam… they are completely idiotic complaints. Most have no basis in reality, and the few that do are *way* out of proportion to the actual issue.

        If these nutters get their way, Muslims are going to be victimized. But I think it’s a mistake to characterize what they’re doing as “anti-Muslim”, because they’re not (at least not obviously) *trying* to victimize Muslims – Muslims are just collateral damage to them; people they don’t really care about. When we call them “anti-Muslim”, they can (and do) just turn around and point out that they’re not targeting Muslims, they’re targeting Islam, and it’s just such a pity that Muslims suffer because of it.

        I know you’re trying to differentiate attacks on people versus attacks on ideas – hence “anti-Muslim” versus “anti-Islam”. But I think that is misguided. Even if it’s just an idea being attacked it *can* hurt people indirectly, and it is not only possible but quite easy to make attacks on people via ideas, allowing bigots to maintain a veneer of respectability. Even the modern-day Nazis and white power types (usually) don’t attack minorities, directly; instead they attack the ideas of tolerance, equality, and multiculturalism, with faux-sociological arguments about different groups maintaining their own identities (while absurdly turning around and accusing multiculturalists of being fixated on cultural identity).

        So merely trying to separate criticism into “criticism of ideas” versus “criticism of people” is not good enough. It’s not the target that matters (if that can even be clearly identified), it’s the nature of the criticism. If the criticism is reasonable, it doesn’t even matter if it’s directed at people or at ideas. If the criticism is unreasonable, then it should be called out, regardless of whether it’s directed at people or ideas.

        These nutters are making irrational, often completely ridiculous claims and arguments. *That* is what they are doing wrong. It’s not that they’re targeting Muslims and not Islam – if they even *are* doing that – it’s that they are being irrational and idiotic. Their immediate target is irrelevant; the problem is the fact that they’re being irrational and that people will be affected by it.

    • Correct me if i’m wrong, but it sounds like you are trying to put and end to the religion of islam in its entirety?

    • Thank you, thank you, thank you, Well said Narda. Im getting angrier by the day about special treatment for specific religions. Religion should be taught at home. Or while those children are out praying, Christian Children should take that same amount of time to whip out a bible and Jewish children the Torah, etc. etc. Or better yet let’s have a Minister, Rabbi, Pujari and Bhikkhu etc. come to the school several times a day for services. Fair is fair. I’m all for practicing whichever religion you choose, wherever you choose, but schools are for children to learn secular subjects. If you want your child to pray in school send them to a religious school. And stop throwing that Islamaphobia word around everytime somebody tries to have an intelligent conversation about religion. My opinion and right to voice it are protected by the Canadian Charter, but for how long who knows

      • The Canadian Charter protects your right to voice your opinion.

        However it does not protect your brain’s capacity to form logical thoughts, nor does it protect the country from your attempts to turn it into a hateful violent stupid place.

  9. M-103 is not about protecting a religion. ISLAMOPHOBIA Motion (M-103) is in reality a Weapon that the LIBERAL Government is creating for the Terrorist Organization “The MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD”. A Weapon that is too be used against Canada and Canadians.

    The MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD is an Islamic Terrorist Organization whose stated goal is the Destruction of Western Civilization, The creation of a World Wide Islamic Caliphate, the establishment and enforcement of SHARIA LAW over the world (ISLAMIC WORLD DOMINATION) and the eventual cultural and physical Genocide of all Non-Muslims.

    After the LIBERALS have passed M-103, the next step is to draw up an ANTI-ISLAMOPHOBIA BILL.

    IQRA KHALID, The MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD Operative in the Liberal Party wants the following Organizations to define what ISLAMOPHOBIA actually is.

    The Organizations are The National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM formerly Known as CAIR-CAN), The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), The Muslim Association of Canada (MAC) and the Canadian Council of IMAMS (CCI). All of these Organizations are MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD FRONTS.

    Justin “The JUDAS” Trudeau will allow A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION, The MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD too Define what is ISLAMOPHOBIA.

    What the MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD really wants is to have MUSLIMS given Special Status and protections under Canadian Law (Putting MUSLIMS above Canadian Laws). While at the same time giving them the ability to Silence anyone that they deem as a threat by having them legally charged with Hate Crimes.

    Please refer to the following Links for more information regarding the MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD and their operations in Canada.

    Mackenzie Institute Article: “The Muslim Brotherhood in Canada: Civilization Jihad” by Tom Quggin.
    http://mackenzieinstitute.com/muslim-brotherhood-canada-civilization-jihad-2/

    The TERRORIST & SECURITY NETWORK of CANADA
    “HAS THE LIBERAL PARTY BEEN INFILTRATED BY EXTREMIST CANIDATES”
    http://tsecnetwork.ca/2015/10/09/has-the-liberal-party-of-canada-been-infiltrated-by-extremist-candidates/

    “Are Canada’s Islamists Calling the Shots”
    https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9184/canada-islamists-silence#.WKczXmw2z9E.facebook

    • Where in the hell are you kooks even coming from? Which bigot sites has this article gone viral on?

      • It got shared like 65 times on Facebook, including by a couple of groups you would expect these people to come from.

        • Ugh, Facebook. I never thought I’d be saying this, but I miss the days when the most offensive comments we had to deal with were the “no face covering” fanatics.

          • Have you ever read the Qu’ran? Hadiths? Surahs? Do so, and while your at it have those prayers translated so you can hear exactly whats being said. Then you might not be so smug about such an important issue.There, print that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Help

WordPress theme: Kippis 1.15