This is almost like a "Tale of Two Cities" except it's a "Tale of two Ideologies!"
Let's talk about both for a bit. On the one hand we have the "Canadian Islamic Congress" (CIC) and on the other hand there is "The Muslim Canadian Congress" (MCC) and the "Canadian Muslim Union" (CMU) which were organized to provide a voice to Muslims who support a "progressive, liberal, pluralistic, democratic, and secular society where everyone has the freedom of religion." (Wikipedia)
We will deal with the MCC and CMU first. MCC was formed in 2002, in the wake of 9/11 by a group of Toronto area liberal Muslims. Then in 2006 eight executive members resigned and formed the new CMU whose philosophy of Liberal Islam is similar to the MCC's but with an intention to work "with and within the Muslim community."
These are the only Muslim organizations in Canada to ask for a "separation of religion and state in all matters of public policy."
The groups gained prominence by opposing the implementation of Shariah Law in civil law in Ontario and supporting the country's same-sex marriage legislation.
They also promote gender equality and were involved in organizing a Muslim prayer session in which the prayers were led by woman.
They have also been critical of Islamic fundamentalism and urged the government to ban donations to Canadian religious institutions from abroad, arguing that doing so will curb extremism.
In 2007, the MCC came out against a Canadian Human Rights Commission complaint made by several youths associated with the Canadian Islamic Congress against Maclean's Magazine for publishing an allegedly Islamophobic column by Mark Steyn saying that; "The reaction of the CIC has only given credence to his premise - that Muslims in the West cannot accept the values of individual freedom, a free press and the right to offend!"
Earlier that year, the MCC came out against a proposal by John Tory and the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party to publicly fund faith-based schools accusing the Tories of "pandering to clerics."
The MCC has also been outspoken on the issue of women wearing the hijab saying "It is not a requirement of Islam that Muslim women stay covered completely" and that women should be assured that not wearing the hijab is not a sin. (The MCC is associated with the Progressive Muslim Union of North America.)
Then we have "The Canadian Islamic Congress" (CIC) which refers to itself as Canada's largest national non-profit and wholly independent Islamic organization without affiliation to any foreign group, body, or government and says it represents -- Sunni and Shi'a, men and women, youth and seniors. (Wikipedia)
It has been described as "conservative and traditional" in outlook, particularly when compared to two liberal Muslim groups, the Muslim Canadian Congress (MCC) and the Canadian Muslim Union. (CMU)
The Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC) supported recommendations by Marion Boyd that the government of Ontario permit sharia tribunals to which Muslims could voluntarily submit civil disputes and whose findings would then have legal weight under the Arbitration Act.
The proposal was opposed by the Muslim Canadian Congress, (MCC) the Canadian Council of Muslim Women and non-Muslim women's groups.
(The provincial government ended up rejecting the proposal and scrapping existing religious arbitration tribunals for Jews and Christians in the process.)
The CIC raised controversy when CIC President Elmasry wrote that Canadian Muslims; "Should not to make a cause of publicly deriding their religion, badmouthing the Prophet, ridiculing the Qur'an and mounting uninformed crusades to smear their Islamic Law, the Shariah."
In the aftermath, the Muslim Canadian Congress (MCC) demanded that the CIC apologize for "false" accusations that those who criticize sharia are "smearing Islam, ridiculing the Koran and badmouthing Muhammad."
The MCC stated that CIC President Elmasry accused the group of blasphemy, a crime that carries the death sentence in several Islamic countries, leading some MCC members to fear they will be arrested if they travel to certain Islamic countries...."
Arif Raza, MCC's lawyer wrote that "Your [Elmasry's] false and utterly irresponsible accusations of blasphemy have exposed these active, dynamic and prominent members of the Canadian Muslim community and their families to enormously dangerous consequences" and that "you [Elmasry] have defamed their good reputation and exposed them to ridicule and hatred within their own communities in Canada."
Elmasry responded by stating that Islam has no punishment for denouncing the religion, its holy book or the Prophet Mohammad. (Tell that to any Islamic Fundamentalist)
He dismissed as "nonsense" the notion that his words could be construed as a death sentence.
Unfortunately, Elmasry is incapable of grasping what freedom means -- he is on public record for insisting all adult Israelis are legitimate targets for Palestinian suicide bombers, only apologizing under duress -- since he comes from a culture where freedom is mostly non-existent.
Freedom comes with cost, and the cost of freedom of expression enshrined in Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms is finding someone occasionally offended, yet this cannot be the basis for bridging or censoring the most fundamental right of an open society.
Also, since 9/11 it is transparently clear the assault against the West by Islamists is not limited to indiscriminate violence or the curtailing of freedom of expression!
Islamists are also "using our own legal system as a weapon against us" as Professor John Yoo at the law faculty of the University of California, Berkeley, recently noted.
The case brought to the Federal and Provincial (Ontario and British Columbia) Human Rights Commissions against Maclean's magazine for publishing Mark Steyn's essay on "The future belonging to Islam, a growing faith;" Is an example of "lawfare" being used to undermine the fundamental values of liberal democracy.
It was launched by Mohamed Elmasry and the Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC).
On top of this the CIC has been outspoken in its criticism of a perceived increase in Islamophobia since the September 11, 2001 attacks. (I wonder why? -ED.)
It has accused governments and school boards of failing to address harassment and discrimination against Muslims and Arabs and has called for the province of Ontario to launch a public inquiry.
At a press conference at Queen's Park, CIC official Wahida Valiante said that "Islamophobia does exist and it's growing." and that "since 9/11, there has been no effort on behalf of the Ontario government, including the Ministry of Education, to have a comprehensive policy to address the growing isolation and marginalization of Muslim and Arab youth."
Well, let me tell you something folks.......... it's not up to the Government to "have a comprehensive policy to address the growing isolation and marginalization of Muslim and Arab youth!" Rather it is up to the CIC and any other Muslim organization to publicly denounce any and all acts of terrorism and religious fanaticism!
Islam has a hell of a public relations problem in the West and an "Us versus Them" attitude by ANY Muslim group will not help the matter!
Allan W Janssen is the author of the book The Plain Truth About God (What the mainstream religions don't want you to know!) and is available at the web site www.God-101.com
Visit the blog "Perspective" at http://God-101.blogspot.com
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 comments:
This essay uncovers a basic problem for Islam, and those of us who are not Islamic and reject Sharia Law. We need to know, clearly, from some generally accepted source, which side a particular Muslim group is on.
Even with such a list, and general agreement on the methodology used, there will still be some who view 'moderate Muslims' as a kind of Trojan horse; a manoeuvre designed to lull Western liberal democrats to sleep.
I don't have a solution to this. I belong to various groups who oppose militant Islamic expansionism and there the view is something along the lines of 'no good German except' from WWII. I don't feel that way; indeed, any humanitarian can't feel that way.
And yet, we have a major problem. The enemy is at the gate. The seventh century is here, and now, and real for millions of people.
Being and having goodwill is difficult when the war is underway and rapidly getting worse.
Frank Hilliard,
"I don't have a solution to this." We do: do not judge us but what we say or others say about us; judge us by what we do.
I have developed an affinity for any Muslim group that immediately denounces not only terrorism but any and all forms of Islamic extremism.
As for the Apologists, they can all to to hell in their attempt to gain paradise.
Well, I agree with Allan. If Muslim leaders, mosques or organizations could identify themselves as 'rejectionist' or 'anti-Sharia' or 'secular-Islam' or 'separationist' we'd have something to work with.
Muslims should know they will have a lot of friends as soon as they identify themselves as liberal democrats.
The problem is that vast majority of Muslim "leaders" (who claim to represent all Muslims) are radicals.
OK then, this site should list the Mosques where leaders reject Sharia and promote a non-violent version of Islam.
If they are in the minority, they need support and recognition.
I realize this won't be easy for them or for anyone, but the alternative is war, destruction and death. None of us want to go down that road.
Great idea. Let's call it "Islamist list of places to be firebombed first."
Well if that's the way you feel about it, your cause is lost already. Fear of illegal violence is not going to be overcome by going under cover.
In effect, you've answered my question; since non-violent Muslims won't speak up, the violent ones will be the only ones heard.
So, as I said, a religious war; and so unnecessary.
Just as an aside; I wish Muslims would read English history, and specifically the Civil War. When you see what happens when fundamentalists take over you see what needs to be done now. Going back to 'the book' is not the solution. The solution is the separation of church and state.
We've been there; we've done that; why do we have to do it again just because English history isn't taught in Saudi Arabia?
I'm old enough that I'll miss the climax to this, but I see it in my mind's eye.
We are non-violent and we are speaking up. And we thank everyone who is listening, all three of you.
Some thoughts from south of the border.
This is my first visit to the Muslims Against Sharia site and I found it surprising and hopeful.
I have read portions of the Qur'an and looked up dozens of quotations from the book and the hadiths. My sources range from Profit of Doom by Craig Winn (http://prophetofdoom.net/Prophet_of_Doom_Islams_Terrorist_Dogma_in_Muhammads_Own_Words.Islam) to explanations of the subject in Wikepedia.
Here is my dilemma. Every time I think I can reach a conclusion about a particular issue within the debate I am confounded by a chorus of differing opinions. This might be expected of those who honestly disagree on a subject, but in this case the reasons proffered by those who disagree with my sources point to the fact that my sources do not use what they consider legitimate translations of the Qur'an and hadith or their particular Islamic scholar is superior to the sources Islamic scholar or that a non-believer just can't understand.
This makes understanding the real issues that foster jihadist in today’s world difficult at best. I do want to understand, but I also want to protect myself, my family and my country from another 9/11 type expression of Islamic frustrations over their apparent inability to prosper in the modern world.
I reluctantly have to come to the following conclusions: 1. There are probably millions of Muslims who would be more than happy to live, work and worship in a secular, pluralistic environment guided by the civil laws currently in place in that environment. 2. The largest segment of those Muslims are at one time silent and consequently irrelevant to curbing the actions of their fundamental jihadist brothers and sisters. 3. Although easily typed, this irrelevance comes hard to those who suffer from the same fears of physical violence from their own Muslim brothers that the jihadist offer up to us non-believers. I can picture a member of a mosque standing up after prayers and calling for the destruction of some western target and demanding support and/or silence from the congregation, or else. This thought scares the hell out of me even though I am an agnostic in my personal beliefs. 4. In these times of incredible political correctness, we must be able to call a terrorist a terrorist regardless of his/her personal beliefs. Because history shows that Islam by way of its published books, beliefs and customs completely intertwines the functions of civil life and its religious convictions, it, regrettably does not qualify as a religion in the "western" since of the word. Rather, it is a theocracy which does not warrant the same protections we provide religions in western democracies and republics.
I want to believe that Muslims can live without Sharia or least live with it in the context of an obedient citizen of their current country and its duly constituted laws. The current media presentation of the moderate Muslim does not lend itself to a warm and fuzzy feeling.
Finally, I would like to leave you with a real time example of what I am trying to express as the problem with moderate peaceful Muslims. As most of you already know, here in the US the state of Minnesota recently elected the US's first Muslim representative to the US House of Representatives. The media made much of the fact that he was sworn in with his hand on the Qur'an. There is no truth to this because all newly minted representatives are sworn in on the floor of the House of Representatives. They raise their right hands (There are no Bibles, Toras, Qur'ans, or any other books)and here is what they agree to: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter." Note this oath is to the Constitution, not the US, not the President nor any other organization. When this newly sworn in member of the US House of Representatives was asked later in the week what would he do if he found the laws of the US were in conflict with the laws guiding Islam he said, I don't know. This is the wrong answer. He just swore to protect and defend the Constitution.
For me, this story distills all the fears of Islam as a force in the US and the rest of the modern world. This man makes no effort dispel the thought that all of Islam moves toward the goal outlined by the inspired word of Allah in Sura 9:29 of the Qur’an “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizya (Pole Tax) with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”
I wish the members of this web site good luck and would welcome any comments you might have that would better my understanding of what you are trying to accomplish in Canada.
Gus Fitch
Post a Comment