Canada: Who, Please, Are We Helping? by Sohail Raza

  • At this fraught time in the history of Islamist radicalism, extremism and terrorism, it is important that Canadian authorities — especially the police and security services — not inadvertently confer legitimacy and credibility on organizations and individuals whose histories and associations raise legitimate questions about their ideological background, links and agendas.

  • According to a US court, “The Government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR, ISNA and NAIT with HLF, the Islamic Association for Palestine (“IAP”), and with Hamas.” Under Canadian and US law, Hamas is a designated terrorist organization.
  • In July 2013, CAIR-CAN announced its change of name to the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM), some specialists regarding this as a way of masking the connection to CAIR or to its history as part of CAIR
  • Like its American mother organization, NCCM/CAIR-CAN has on occasion been thought to embrace a victimhood narrative that risks alienating Muslims in general — and Muslim youth, in particular — from their non-Muslim fellow citizens. The propagating of the word “Islamophobia” has been regarded as especially unhelpful, and condemned by some as a means of silencing Muslims and non-Muslims who would warn of the growing hazards of Islamist radicalism, extremism and terrorism.

At this fraught time in the history of Islamist radicalism, extremism and terrorism, it is important that Canadian public authorities — especially the police and security services — not inadvertently confer legitimacy and credibility on organizations and individuals whose histories and associations raise legitimate questions about their ideological background, links and agendas.

One way in which authorities unintentionally assist in building the credibility of undeserving groups and individuals is by sponsoring and attending meetings and events involving such persons and organizations. It is therefore important for those in positions of authority to acquit themselves properly of their responsibility to meet due diligence obligations, when it comes to screening those involved in such events.

On April 10, 2016, police acknowledged that it had been an error to invite a controversial Muslim Group, the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM), to an event organized by the Council’s Communications Director, Ms. Amira Elghawaby, and attended by the Durham Regional Police Service and the Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario. The event, on March 31, 2016, was described as a workshop, “Human Differences: Islamophobia,” and was to be attended by employees of the Regional Municipality of Durham.

There are many, including the Council for Muslims Facing Tomorrow (MFT), who strongly believe that the NCCM is an unsuitable connection for Durham Regional Police Services and Durham Region to maintain, and to have participated in a public, tax-funded proceeding.

In this regard, various, apparently credible, sources have made claims and observations along the following lines:

The National Council of Canadian Muslims was established as the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-Canada, CAIR-CAN, CAIR.CAN), the Canadian chapter of the American-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). CAIR, a Saudi-funded organization that was designated an unindicted co-conspirator in the successful Holy Land Foundation prosecution, often described as the biggest terror-funding trial in United States history. Despite the court’s misgivings about the government’s having made the designation public, the court upheld the unindicted co-conspirator designation imposed on CAIR.

According to a US court, “The Government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR, ISNA and NAIT with HLF, the Islamic Association for Palestine (“IAP”), and with Hamas.” Under Canadian and US law, Hamas is a designated terrorist organization.

Several CAIR-connected personnel, including its national civil liberties’ coordinator, were sent to prison following terrorism-related convictions.

In 2003, CAIR-CAN founding Chair Dr. Sheema Khan stated under oath that CAIR-CAN was under the direction and control of the US-based CAIR mother organization.

In July 2013, CAIR-CAN announced its change of name to the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM), some specialists regarding this as a way of masking the connection to CAIR or to its history as part of CAIR; a CAIR-CAN July 6, 2013 news release quoting NCCM/CAIR-CAN Executive Director Ihsaan Gardee as saying “We remain the same organization our constituents and partners have come to rely on,” is now unavailable at its original NCCM/CAIR-CAN website URL. Continuity in senior CAIR-CAN and NCCM ranks is evident, including in the presence of Mr. Ihsaan Gardee and Ms. Amira Elghawaby in NCCM/CAIR-CAN.

NCCM/CAIR-CAN has maintained significant involvement with the Reviving the Islamic Spirit (RIS) annual conventions, at least some of which have involved presentations by individuals known for radical views. Among a number of other troubling people featured at RIS conventions, was William W. Baker, sometimes referred to as a neo-Nazi and who had reportedly favoured “the creation of a united Christian-Muslim front against Jews and other groups.”

Another was India’s Dr. Zakir Naik, about whose divisive ideological extremism a Muslim scholar asserted, “in India, Sunnis and Shias have joined together against the destructive efforts of Zakir Naik”.

It has recently been reported that “Dr Naik suggested that Muslims men may rape their slave,” — “a disturbing echo,” wrote a journalist, “of the doctrines of the Middle East’s Islamic State insurgency.” The appearance of some public officials, including a now-disgraced former RCMP Commissioner, at RIS conventions, has been attributed by some to politics, failures of due diligence and other such lapses.

A long-term CAIR-CAN official was Dr. Jamal Badawi, a former member of the Muslim Association of Canada board, who was himself named a US unindicted co-conspirator and was on the executive of the US Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), an American unindicted co-conspirator organization. He has been alleged to support polygamy and to have publicly advocated light physical punishment for misbehaving wives.

NCCM/CAIR-CAN, along with the controversial Islamic Social Services Association, put together what they characterized as a counter-radicalization handbook, United Against Terrorism, that recommended hardline clerics. Despite public objections and a last-minute RCMP withdrawal from the project on grounds of the handbook’s “adversarial” qualities, the handbook has since been distributed, possibly by NCCM/CAIR-CAN-linked operatives, without the removal of RCMP’s name and logo. The RCMP was criticized for having made the NCCM/CAIR-CAN connection in the first place.

Responding to a 2014 NCCM/CAIR-CAN letter to Prime Minister Harper, Harper’s communications director said, “We will not take seriously criticism from an organization with documented ties to a terrorist organization such as Hamas.” NCCM/CAIR-CAN denies any suggestion of inappropriate behavior or connections on its part, and, after some delay, sued in libel in the matter. Those being sued eventually made a motion requesting further disclosure about NCCM/CAIR-CAN’s background. On December 2, 2015, Madam Justice Liza Sheard of the Superior Court of Ontario followed up, writing of the detailed nature of the defence’s position:

… defence describes the incorporation of the plaintiff and its name change on June 24, 2013; it makes specific reference to the connection or relationship between CAIR-CAN and CAIR; it sets out details of its allegation connecting the plaintiff with the 2007 litigation in United States of America v. Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development et al. …; it provides details for its allegation that a director of the plaintiff corporation were named on the U.S. Government List of Unindicted Co-conspirators; it sets detailed allegations that this and another director were also board members of an association that openly endorsed Hamas; it sets out details of the Canada Revenue Agency declining to grant charitable registration of another organization, the Jerusalem fund for human services; and that CRA [Canada Revenue Agency] has identified it as providing part of a support network for Hamas.

On the basis of this, among other, considerations, Justice Sheard ordered NCCM/CAIR-CAN to produce further information. The outcome of the broader legal case is yet to be decided.

Like its American mother organization, NCCM/CAIR-CAN has on occasion been thought to take a somewhat exaggerated, divisive view of the position of Muslims in society, an approach said to embrace a victimhood narrative that risks alienating Muslims in general – and Muslim youth, in particular – from their non-Muslim fellow citizens. The propagating of the word “Islamophobia” has been regarded as especially unhelpful, and condemned by some as a means of silencing Muslims and non-Muslims who would warn of the growing hazards of Islamist radicalism, extremism and terrorism.

Concerns have been raised about the possible propensity of NCCM/CAIR-CAN, primarily during its “CAIR-CAN” phase, to share its CAIR mother organization’s tendency to launch libel suits that it later would agree to dismiss. To some critics, this might imply constitutionally ambiguous attempts to employ what is sometimes called “libel lawfare” in efforts to silence those asking questions about NCCM/CAIR-CAN.

It should be observed that the Council for Muslims Facing Tomorrow is unaware of any formal attempt by NCCM/CAIR-CAN to condemn, publicly and by name, CAIR and those persons connected to CAIR who have been convicted of terrorism-linked offences. Nor is it known whether NCCM/CAIR-CAN might open its financial and other books and records for public examination, in order to clarify certain issues and the nature of relationships. MFT cautions that, consistent with due diligence examinations of any organization, endorsements of NCCM/CAIR-CAN by persons and organizations, including human rights personalities, should be scrutinized rigorously. This, in order to comprehend whether endorsements reflect a detailed understanding of the origins, history, background and connections of NCCM/CAIR-CAN, and whether those endorsing may be, or perceive themselves to be, compromised by earlier dealings with the group.

To its credit, the Durham Regional Police Service, asserted that this error had been made by the Police Service’s outreach committee. The Chief undertook to guard against any repetition of this or similar errors; proper due-diligence assessments would be conducted for events significantly involving the Durham Regional Police Service, so that inappropriate interests would not be inadvertently legitimized by association with the Service.

Given the importance in contemporary Canada of ensuring that official public outreach to Muslim communities involve only reliable representatives of moderate Canadian Islam — especially as models for Canadian Muslim youth — the Council for Muslims Facing Tomorrow respectfully requested that the Durham Regional Police Service and Durham Region immediately cease involvement with the National Council of Canadian Muslims and its officials.

Sohail Raza is a consultant involved in exposing radicalization and has appeared as an expert witness before the Government of Canada’s Senate hearing on Radicalization.

Canada: Sold to the Highest Foreign Bidder by Shabnam Assadollahi

  • In April, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said that ISIS supporters have the right to defend their freedom, and was reported to have referred to Evangelical Christians as the “worst part of Canadian society.” These remarks came after is after he remained silent when Jewish centers received bomb threats, and despite Canada’s imams regularly calling for the annihilation of Jews.

  • Even more disturbing is a technical loophole in the Canada Elections Act. The law allows foreign entities to make contributions to Canadian candidates. This means that players such as Iran or Saudi Arabia will be able to further their agendas through a particular politician, as long as they pump him with funds for six months and a day prior to his official bid for office.

A journalist was taken to task recently for calling Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau an inelegant name during a press conference. In response, Josh Sigurdson justified his behavior in a YouTube video:

“The state-run media got to ask [Trudeau] questions — pre-screened ones, at that… How is it journalism to ask pre-selected questions of a politician? Restricting opposition, restricting free speech… pretending to stand for women while sending money to governments and dictatorships who stone women to death for driving and kill gays … that is the definition of scumbag.”

Although many might not have used that exact word to describe Trudeau, one might sympathize with the sentiment behind it.

As a Canadian citizen who was born in Iran and watched my country come under the Islamist regime of the Ayatollah Khomeini, it is not hard to spot a tyrant. It is not hard for Trudeau, either, apparently. Three years ago, as head of the opposition, he told a group of women in Toronto: “There is a level of admiration that I actually have for China, because their basic dictatorship is allowing them to turn their economy around on a dime…”

More recently, last November, Trudeau issued a statement about the death of Fidel Castro; he called the former Cuban dictator “remarkable” and a “larger than life leader who served his people.”

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said three years go: “There is a level of admiration that I actually have for China, because their basic dictatorship is allowing them to turn their economy around on a dime.” In November, he called Fidel Castro “remarkable” and a “larger than life leader who served his people.” (Image source: U.S. Air Force)

After taking over the leadership of the country, Trudeau not only withdrew Canada’s participation from the U.S.-led bombing of ISIS strongholds in Iraq and Syria, but months later — a day after the March 22, 2016 Brussels suicide bombings that left 32 innocent people dead — he announced that Canada was “not at war with ISIS.”

This April, Trudeau said that ISIS supporters have the right to defend their freedom, and was reported to have referred to Evangelical Christians as the “worst part of Canadian society.” These remarks came after is after he remained silent when Jewish centers received bomb threats and when the country’s imams regularly call for the annihilation of Jews. Trudeau, in March, slammed a video posted to YouTube that offered a $1,000 reward for recordings of Muslim students at schools in a district of Ontario that were “spewing hate speech” during Friday prayer. “Canadians have understood that our differences are a source of strength, not a source of weakness,” Trudeau said at a press conference, after the release of the video. Prime Minister Trudeau has been supportive of Muslim prayers in the secular school board, where prayers and students preaching and will be unsupervised.

Prime Minister Trudeau has also been trying to change the rules of the Commons to fit his schedule and strip the opposition of its power to hold him accountable, interim leader Rona Ambrose charged. Apparently he has been trying to limit the ability of the opposition to debate him in Parliament prior to the passage of proposed bills.

Even more disturbing is a technical loophole in the Canada Elections Act, now being brought to the fore by Trudeau’s camp. The law allows foreign entities to make contributions to Canadian candidates. This means that players such as Iran or Saudi Arabia will be able to further their agendas through a particular politician, as long as they pump him with funds for six months and a day prior to his official bid for office.

With the entrance into the country of thousands of illegal immigrants and asylum-seekers with criminal records — thanks to the increasingly dictatorial policies of Trudeau and his Liberal Party strongmen — this legal loophole leaves Canada wide open to extreme political change, and not for the better.

Shabnam Assadollahi is an award-winning human rights advocate, public speaker, freelance writer and journalist.

Canada: Parliament Condemns Free Speech by Judith Bergman

  • “Now that Islamophobia has been condemned, this is not the end, but rather the beginning.” — Samer Majzoub, president of the Canadian Muslim Forum. Majzoub is affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood.

  • What exactly are they condemning? Criticism of Islam? Criticism of Muslims? Debating Mohammed? Depicting Mohammed? Discussing whether ISIS is a true manifestation of Islam? Is any Canadian who now writes critically of Islam or disagrees with the petitioners that ISIS “does not reflect in any way the values or the teachings of the religion of Islam” now to be considered an “Islamophobe”?
  • The question, naturally, is whether Canada’s motion will be replicated in other parliaments in the West. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is particularly active in Europe, having opened a Permanent Observer Mission to the European Union in 2013.
  • In what parallel universe can the efforts of the OIC to stifle free speech possibly be considered advancement of freedom of speech and religion?
  • As the OIC steps up its media campaign and efforts in Europe, European parliaments are likely to experience initiatives like the petition in Canada. The European Union, for one, looks as if it would be to happy facilitate such a motion.

On October 26, Canada’s parliament unanimously passed an anti-Islamophobia motion, which was the result of a petition initiated by Samer Majzoub, president of the Canadian Muslim Forum. The petition garnered almost 70,000 signatures.

According to the text of the petition,

“Recently an infinitesimally small number of extremist individuals have conducted terrorist activities while claiming to speak for the religion of Islam. Their actions have been used as a pretext for a notable rise of anti-Muslim sentiments in Canada; and these violent individuals do not reflect in any way the values or the teachings of the religion of Islam. In fact, they misrepresent the religion. We categorically reject all their activities. They in no way represent the religion, the beliefs and the desire of Muslims to co-exist in peace with all peoples of the world. We, the undersigned, Citizens and residents of Canada, call upon the House of Commons to join us in recognizing that extremist individuals do not represent the religion of Islam, and in condemning all forms of Islamophobia”.

The Parliament of Canada, in Ottawa. (Image source: Saffron Blaze/Wikimedia Commons)

While a motion will have no legal effect unless it is passed as a bill, the symbolic effect of the Canadian parliament unanimously condemning “all forms of Islamophobia,” without making the slightest attempt at defining what is meant by “Islamophobia,” can only be described, at best, as alarming.

What exactly are they condemning? Criticism of Islam? Criticism of Muslims? Debating Mohammed? Depicting Mohammed? Discussing whether ISIS is a true manifestation of Islam? Is any Canadian who now writes critically of Islam or disagrees with the petitioners that ISIS “does not reflect in any way the values or the teachings of the religion of Islam” now to be considered an “Islamophobe”?

No one knows, and it is doubtful whether the members of the Canadian parliament know what it means themselves. It would seem, however, that the initiator of the petition, Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Samer Majzoub, knows. This is what he had to say in an interview with the Canadian Muslim Forum after the motion passed:

“Now that Islamophobia has been condemned, this is not the end, but rather the beginning … We need to continue working politically and socially and with the press. They used to doubt the existence of Islamophobia, but now we do not have to worry about that; all blocs and political figures, represented by Canada’s supreme legislative authority, have spoken of that existence. In the offing, we need to get policy makers to do something, especially when it comes to the Liberals, who have shown distinct openness regarding Muslims and all ethnicities… All of us must work hard to maintain our peaceful, social and humanitarian struggle so that condemnation is followed by comprehensive policies.”

Whereas the Canadian parliamentarians seem entirely unaware of what Muslim organizations have in store for them in terms of “comprehensive policies”, it is clear that to the parliamentarians, the motion constitutes “virtue-signaling” at its worst. Whereas the parliamentarians might now feel good about themselves, does their vote mean that those Canadians who dare to criticize Islam and disagree vehemently with the premises of the motion are likely to be considered (even more) beyond the pale of civilized society? Does it mean that only one view is correct and that any view that differs from it will now be, by default, incorrect — if not criminal?

It will almost certainly deter people from speaking up, for fear that they will be labeled “racists” or “Islamophobes” by arbitrarily creating a threatening atmosphere of political correctness, where those who do not adhere to the groupthink are shamed and ostracized. Such strangulation of opinion also cannot be beneficial to any country’s national security. How can anyone warn the authorities about virtually anything if they have to worry first that their warning might be considered “Islamophobic”?

There were, of course, no parallel motions in Canada’s parliament to condemn “Christianophobia” or “Judeophobia,” the latter being much more prevalent than “Islamophobia.” In fact, according to statistics, Jewish Canadians are more than 10 times as likely to be the victim of a hate crime than Muslim Canadians.

It was exactly this kind of toxic, politically correct atmosphere in the United States that enabled Major Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, to gun down 13 people and to wound 29 others in the Fort Hood massacre in 2009. His former classmate, Lt. Col. Val Finnell, told Fox news at the time that, despite Hasan’s suspicious behavior, such as giving a presentation justifying suicide bombings, nothing was done about Hasan to see if he might be a security risk. Instead, he was treated with kid gloves. “The issue here is that there’s a political correctness climate in the military. They don’t want to say anything because it would be considered questioning somebody’s religious belief, or they’re afraid of an equal opportunity lawsuit”, said Lt. Col. Finnell.

In December 2015, a man who had been working in the area where the San Bernardino terrorist Syed Farook lived told CBS Los Angeles that,

“he noticed a half-dozen Middle Eastern men in the area in recent weeks, but decided not to report anything since he did not wish to racially profile those people. “We sat around lunch thinking, ‘What were they doing around the neighborhood?'” he said.

The fear of being labeled an “Islamophobe” is real and has had lethal consequences. It is this fear that the Canadian parliament has now elevated into a parliamentary motion, signaling that this sentiment is shared by the highest echelons in the country, those who make the laws.

A democratic parliament presumably should not be cowing its citizens into silence. The term “bullying” comes to mind. Parliamentary bullying and reckless disregard of the freedom of speech should have no place in a society that cares about the values of freedom and national security. Canada has already seen, to its disgrace, attacks on free speech against Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant, among others. Is this the country Canada wishes to become?

The motion is reminiscent of the US House Resolution 569, “Condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States,” which was introduced in the House of Representatives on December 17, 2015. This Resolution is more detailed than the short condemnation of Islamophobia from the Canadian parliament, but the essence of both appears to be the same: Criticism of Islam or of Muslims is wrong and should be condemned, if not outright criminalized.

In condemning “all forms of Islamophobia”, Canada’s parliament has in effect done everything the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) — consisting of 56 Muslim states plus “Palestine” — could wish for. Fighting “Islamophobia” is at the very top of the agenda of this organization, which is headquartered in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. The OIC is aggressively promoting the so-called Istanbul Process, which aims to forbid all criticism of Islam and make this ban a part of international law.

Ironically, the Saudi Arabian flag flew on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on November 2, as Canadian public officials met with a so-called “human rights” commission from Saudi Arabia. This commission publicly supported Saudi Arabia’s mass executions in January 2016, in which 47 people were executed by the authorities, saying that they “enforce justice, fulfill … legitimate and legal requirements, and protect the society and its security and stability”. That, apparently, is not problematic in the eyes of Canadian parliamentarians.

As recently as October 24, the General Secretariat of the OIC held a meeting “to review the media strategy for countering Islamophobia”. The meeting was scheduled to:

“discuss the OIC media strategy and ways to counter Islamophobia in light of the recent developments and hate campaigns in different parts of the world, especially with the increasing number of Muslim refugees in Western countries and the mounting hate discourse in a manner that causes serious concern. The meeting aims to come up with clear and practical mechanisms for a counter-Islamophobia media campaign that highlights the true noble image of Islamic and contributes to halting the ongoing deliberate defamatory campaigns waged in different Western fora”.

The question, naturally, is whether Canada’s motion will be replicated in other parliaments in the West. The OIC is particularly active in Europe, having opened a Permanent Observer Mission to the European Union in 2013. The OIC also recently formed the so-called Contact ‎Group for Muslims in Europe, whose formation was announced at the OIC Istanbul Summit in April 2016, and includes Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Algeria, Egypt, Somalia, Malaysia and Jordan.

The establishment of the OIC Contact Group for Muslims in Europe

aims at ensuring the effective cooperation between the relevant parties, in order to lay out strategies to eliminate hate speech, physical assault, practices of intolerance, prejudice, racial discrimination and Islamophobia, and to support intercultural dialogue and social inclusion.‎ Further, the Group ‎can be a platform through which Muslims from various nationalities can exchange experiences, define best practices, with a view to increase Muslim participation in the political and social life in Europe“. [emphasis added]

The EU apparently sees the OIC as a friendly and benevolent organization with shared values. According to the EU’s European External Action service (its diplomatic service, which assists the EU’s foreign affairs chief):

“The OIC has undergone important changes during the last decade: it made advances in support of freedom of speech and freedom of religion/belief. It enlarged its cooperation to economic, cultural, development and humanitarian fields.”

Seriously? In what parallel universe can the efforts of the OIC to stifle free speech possibly be considered advancement of freedom of speech and religion?

As the OIC steps up its media campaign and its efforts in Europe, European parliaments are likely to experience initiatives like the petition in Canada. The European Union, for one, looks as if it would be happy to facilitate such a motion.

Judith Bergman is a writer, columnist, lawyer and political analyst.

Canada: Bring on the Islamization! by Judith Bergman

  • The mayor of Brampton, Ontario, Linda Jeffrey, was also seemingly unconcerned about the calls in Toronto to murder Jews.

  • The political establishment also does not seem concerned that imams are saying that the Islamic ruling allowing slaves is still in force. Meanwhile, statistics show that when it comes to hate crimes, Jews are by far the most targeted group.
  • No one — neither media, nor politicians — even bothered to ask whether there is a significant connection between the virulent Jew-hatred being preached in mosques and the disproportionately high occurrence of hate crimes against Jews. Instead, the entire Canadian parliament is preoccupied with banning “Islamophobia”.

Imams in Canadian mosques have been inciting the killing of “infidels”, primarily Jews, for years. This agitation appears to have had no visible impact on Canadian parliamentarians, evidently too busy with petitions and motions banning alleged “Islamophobia”.

In 2009, for example, Toronto-area imam Said Rageah, at the Abu Huraira Centre, called on Allah to “destroy” the enemies of Islam from within and “damn” the “infidel” Jews and Christians.

“Allah protect us from the fitna [sedition, affliction] of these people; Allah protect us from the evil agenda of these people; Allah destroy them from within themselves, and do not allow them to raise their heads” prayed the imam.

In 2012, Sheikh Abdulqani Mursal, imam at Masjid Al Hikma mosque in Toronto, explained that Jews are destined to be killed by the Muslims. Citing text from a hadith, he said:

“You will fight against the Jews and you will kill them… Muslims [will] kill them until the Jews [will] hide themselves… and a stone or a tree [will] say: Muslim… there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him….”

In 2014, imam Sayed AlGhitawi, at Al Andalous Islamic Center in Montreal, prayed for success in jihad and the total destruction of the Jews:

“O Allah, give victory to our brothers who engage in jihad… destroy the accursed Jews… make their children orphans and their women widows… kill them one by one… do not leave any of them [alive]”.

During the Muslim holiday of Ramadan in 2016, Imam Ayman Elkasrawy, of the Masjid Toronto mosque, said the following:

“…O Allah! Count their number; slay them one by one and spare not one of them… Give us victory over the disbelieving people… Give victory to Islam… humiliate the …polytheists… Destroy anyone who displaced the sons of the Muslims…Count their number; slay them one by one and spare not one of them… Purify Al-Aqsa Mosque from the filth of the Jews!”

Another imam in Toronto, Shaykh Abdool Hamid, recited similar prayers on at least eight occasions in 2015 and 2016.

In February 2017, after being exposed as an extremist by CIJ News, imam Ayman Elkasrawy apologized for his words, which, despite being posted on YouTube, were apparently not meant to reach non-Arabic speaking Canadians:

“Neither I, Masjid Toronto or the congregation harbour any form of hate towards Jews. And so I wish to apologize unreservedly for misspeaking during prayer last Ramadan… “

The head of the mosque, Dr. El-Tantawy Attia, assured the Toronto Sun that his mosque was not a radical mosque:

“It was a mistake. It was not authorized. It should not have happened and we have apologized and I have personally reached out to my Jewish friends… I was so upset. I was surprised. In 45 years here, I had never heard anything like that.”

He also assured the Toronto Sun that he and the mosque would “get to the bottom of this through their own investigation”. He also said that, pending the probe, the imam had been “suspended”. The head of the mosque, however, then said that he doubts if Ayman Elkasrawy “really meant it”. “We are about peace”, he added.

Of course they are.

Even more astonishing than the disingenuous, mock-shock apology from the imam, was the staggering willingness on the part of the public to believe it. Instead of waiting for the police investigation, the Toronto Sun reported that, “People of all walks of life, and faiths, formed a ‘ring around’ the mosque to protect it from ‘Islamophobia'”.

Ayman Elkasrawy, imam of the Masjid Toronto mosque (front row, wearing white), said on video: “… slay them one by one and spare not one of them… Give us victory over the disbelieving people… Give victory to Islam… Purify Al-Aqsa Mosque from the filth of the Jews!” (Image source: Video screenshot from Masjid Toronto via The Rebel)

The mayor of Brampton, Ontario, Linda Jeffrey, was also seemingly unconcerned about the calls in Toronto to murder Jews. Instead, she found time to criticize parents who were protesting Muslim Friday prayer sessions — taking place on public school grounds, on school time and including prayers and sermons, usually in Arabic — as “purveyors of misinformation and hateful speech.”

While the political establishment is busy vilifying those who have legitimate reservations about the potential Islamization of the public school system, the University of Toronto at Mississauga employs a Muslim convert, Dr. Katherine Bullock, as a lecturer in the Department of Political Science. In November 2014, Bullock participated in a panel discussion organized by the Muslim Law Students Association at York University on counter-radicalization in Canada.

In her presentation, Bullock said that the West has it all wrong when it comes to the definition of Muslim radicals:

“So if you’re an Iraqi nationalist who doesn’t believe that the United States should be occupying your country and you fight against them, and you believe in the Caliphate, and you believe in Sharia, you are a radical, you’ve been radicalized. But from an Islamic point of view [there is] absolutely nothing radical about wanting Caliphate or wanting Sharia. These are completely normal traditional points of view”.

At least Bullock is being honest.

The political establishment also does not seem concerned that imams are saying that the Islamic ruling allowing slaves is still in force. Dr. Ewis El Nagar, head of the Islamic Edicts Committee of the Quebec Council of Imams and leader of dawah (outreach, “call to Islam”) at the Canadian Islamic Centre in Montreal, says that the Islamic ruling on marrying slave girls[1] was not abrogated and is applicable when “legitimate jihad” is launched against unbelievers.

Canada’s political establishment also does not seem concerned with prominent imams who advocate wife-beating. The Muslim chaplain of the Canadian army, Dr. Mohammad Iqbal Masood Al-Nadvi – who is also the Chairperson of the Canadian Council of Imams and the President of the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) Canada, a nation-wide organization with close ties to the terrorist group Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood — explained the Quranic verse on wife-beating[2] in February 2015: “This is the point where for example Quran says… and Hadith says, if you are doing this thing, you can beat or can leave [avoid sleeping with the wife]… Just keep the issue among each other”. In other words, it is fine to beat your wife, just keep it behind closed doors.

Meanwhile, statistics show that when it comes to hate crimes, Jews are by far the most targeted group in Canada. According to the Toronto Police Service Annual Hate/Bias Crime Statistical Report for 2015:

“The three most targeted groups since 2006 have been the Jewish community, the Black community and the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ) community. In 2015, the Jewish community, followed by the LGBTQ community and the Muslim community were the most victimized groups. The three most reported criminal offences motivated by hate/bias in 2015 were mischief to property, assault and criminal harassment. The Jewish community was the most victimized group for mischief to property occurrences, while the LGBTQ community was the most victimized group for assault occurrences. The Muslim community was the most victimized group for criminal harassment occurrences”.

According to the most recently available national data, between 2011 and 2013 Canadian Muslims suffered 15.1 hate crime incidents per 100,000 people. Canadian Jews, on the other hand, were the victims of 185.4 incidents per 100,000 people. That means, Jews were 12 times more likely to be targeted in hate crimes than Muslims.

Not only are Canadian politicians evidently unconcerned about this, despite the longevity of the problem, but no one — neither media, nor politicians — even bothered to ask whether there is a significant connection between the virulent Jew-hatred being preached in mosques, such as those mentioned above, and the disproportionately high occurrence of hate crimes against Jews. Instead, the entire Canadian parliament is preoccupied with banning “Islamophobia”.

Judith Bergman is a writer, columnist, lawyer and political analyst.

Canada’s New Blasphemy Laws by Khadija Khan

  • Although these motions against “Islamophobia” are not legally binding, extremists have already started demanding them as laws.People in hostile societies put their lives at risk by speaking against the majority; meanwhile, shutting out any criticism against hardliner behaviour in the West actually means giving extremists a license to keep on committing atrocities.

  • Motions such as these are how most Muslim societies — and other authoritarian states — were founded: by depriving citizens of the basic right to express a difference of opinion, and worse, on the pretense of “doing good.” The blasphemy laws of Pakistan were introduced on the premise of protecting the sanctity of the people’s religious beliefs, but the laws only ended up meting out public death sentences to innocent and marginalized victims.

A resolution, M-103, seeking to condemn so-called “Islamophobia,” was introduced a few weeks ago in the peaceful country of Canada by Liberal Party MP Iqra Khalid in the House of Commons, sparking a controversy.

A similar motion, labelled M-37, was later tabled in the Ontario provincial legislature by MPP Nathalie Des Rosiers on February 23, 2017, and was passed by the provincial parliament.

M-37, like its predecessor, demanded that lawmakers condemn “all forms of Islamophobia” and reaffirm “support for government efforts, through the Anti-Racism Directorate, to address and prevent systemic racism across government policy, programs and services”.

Although these motions are not legally binding, extremists have already started demanding them as laws.

There are, of course, no comparable motions against “Judeophobia” or “Christianophobia”.

Neither motion M-103 nor motion 37 exactly define “Islamophobia,” leaving that to the imagination of the supposed victim(s).

Hardliners who support this form of censorship, and presumably other restrictions required by Islamic sharia law, aim to blur the line between genuine bigotry and criticism of core problems across the Muslim world, such as the murder of apostates and homosexuals, communal hatred, anti-Semitism, violence against women and minors, female genital mutilation (FGM), child marriage, unequal legal and inheritance rights for women, stoning, flogging and amputation, and social taboos such as honour killings or right to choose a husband for girls or restrict girls’ education.

Those who present these motions claim that “Islamophobia” is rampant across the country, but seem blind to Islamic sharia law’s endorsement of killing homosexuals, violence against women and minors, atrocities such as those enumerated above, and notions of Muslim supremacy across the planet.

These issues are genuine concerns for millions of Muslims as well as human rights defenders, but are never addressed by those apologists, who always try to present these atrocities as perfectly acceptable “cultural norms”.

People in hostile societies put their lives at risk by speaking against the majority; meanwhile, shutting out any criticism against hardliner behaviour in the West actually means giving extremists a license to keep on committing atrocities.

Broadly speaking, in the West, where people have the opportunity to stand up against persecution, Muslim extremists seem determined to sell themselves as victims and to get rid of whatever obstacles contradict a clearly expansionist agenda.

Motion M-103 claimed: “Recently an infinitesimally small number of extremist individuals have conducted terrorist activities while claiming to speak for the religion of Islam”.

Are those who set forth these resolutions oblivious to the clerics who rally hundreds of thousands across the world — organizations such as Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, CAIR, ISIS, Hezbollah, Al-Shabaab, Al-Qaeda, Taliban and Jamat e Islami, Sipah-e-Muhammad, TehrikNifaz-i-FiqahJafaria, JamatudDawa, Jaish-e-Mohammad, Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, Lashkar-e-jhangwi, TehrikNifaz-i-Shariat Muhammadi, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Lashkar-e-Islam, Jamiat-ul-Ansar, Hizb ut-Tahrir, Khuddam-i-Islam, Fatah Al Islam (Lebanon), Ansar Al Sharia in Libya, Jabhat Al Nusra (Al-Nusra Front) in Syria, the Haqqani Network in Pakistan and other offshoots of these jihadi movements?

The sales pitch for M-103 was given a pretty façade of human rights concerns, but actually inside was a veiled endorsement of a Muslim supremacist mentality.

While M-103 asks to recognize the need to curb systematic racism and religious discrimination against Muslims, there are no traces of any systematic hatred or racism against Muslims or any religious groups in Canada.

On the contrary, Canada already has laws to curb any discrimination or abuse against individuals or groups. All that is needed is to enforce those laws already on the books.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the Criminal Code, carry progressive laws to handle hate crimes or racism. Section 318, 319(1) and 319(2) are specifically designed to deal with such offenses.

Moreover, criticizing any genuine social concerns about a community or belief system is the democratic right of every citizen in a civilized country.

Motions such as these are how most Muslim societies — and other authoritarian states — were founded: by depriving citizens of the basic right to express a difference of opinion, and worse, on the pretense of “doing good.” The blasphemy laws of Pakistan were introduced on the premise of protecting the sanctity of the people’s religious beliefs, but the laws only ended up meting out public death sentences to innocent and marginalized victims.

Under Muslim blasphemy laws, such as those being slowly presented to Canada, such deeds are punishable by death or life in prison.

Unfortunately, blasphemy laws are often interpreted as a state’s permission to attack, lynch or destroy non-Muslim minorities, while the attackers are regarded as heroes for their crimes.

Victims of these laws also include critics of this barbarism such as Punjab’s Governor Salmaan Taseer, Pakistan’s Minister for Human Rights Shahbaz Bhatti, and often even human rights activists and the victims’ lawyers.

Aren’t we setting up the foundation of such norms in the West on pretense of curbing “Islamophobia”?

For example, a supposedly “infinitesimally small” number of jihadis are capable of shutting the mouths of approximately 200 million people (equivalent to the entire Pakistani population), seemingly forever, by literally killing dissent.

In the last century, the jihadis’ spiritual father, Sayyid Qutb, commissioned Muslims to impose salafist-style Islamic rule on the world by destroying the “infertile West” and eliminating anything non-Muslim.

Qutb’s book, Milestones, would undoubtedly be an eye-opener for those still unaware of what is required of “true” Muslims. The same is true of the writings of Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood.

This ideology is clawing its way into very fabric of the West, in places such as Britain, Germany, Belgium, Sweden, America, Australia and France.

It poses an imminent threat to the free world. Free societies will have to pay a heavy price if they choose to ignore the menace of extremism through a policy of appeasement and accommodation.

There is no need for specific laws about “Islamophobia”: it is not even defined. Worse, many extremist clerics also consider as “Islamophobic” any criticism of their jihadism, communal hatred, polygamy and violence against women, minors or possibly anyone else they target.

Canada has always been one of the most tolerant countries in the world; please let us keep it that way.

Khadija Khan is a Pakistan-based journalist and commentator.

Page 418 of 452
1 416 417 418 419 420 452
Skip to toolbar