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.

CAIR’s Dawud Walid: Civil Rights Champion or Radical Hiding in the Open?

  • With his March 25 Facebook post, CAIR’s Dawud Walid cemented his position as a preacher of hate and radicalism. He has already become known to many Muslims as an extreme figure, who bullies anyone who disagrees with him, maligns dissidents, harasses gay Muslims, and foments anti-American sentiments.

  • It is beyond denial to ignore the fact that Muslims such as Walid are leading radicalizers of American Muslims, and their efforts are dedicated to pushing vulnerable Muslims away from integration and reform against Islamist movements.

Dawud Walid is the longtime executive director of Michigan’s chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). His Twitter profile currently bills him as a “human rights advocate and political blogger,” and his blog sells him as an imam who lectures on topics such as how to maintain your manners when dealing with hostile people (the irony of this will soon become abundantly clear), and how to address the very real problem of anti-Black racism within the Muslim community.

To anyone less familiar with Walid’s persona — especially online — he could easily appear to be a champion of civil rights, a man before his time in terms of addressing intra-community problems as well as hostilities between Muslims and non-Muslims. A more comprehensive review of his activities — or even just a cursory review of his commentary on one of the days he has chosen to lash out at anyone with whom he disagrees — reveals a more sinister, even cruel, man. Further, his true aim seems not to be civil discourse and community cohesion, but rather the furtherance of a particularly malignant, vicious strain of political Islam.

I have seen Walid demean, bully, and slander other Muslims for years. He has actively worked to silence discussion of critical issues, by working to shut down screenings of Honor Diaries, a film addressing the mistreatment of women in the name of “honor” culture; instigating online hate campaigns and witch hunts against dissidents — women in particular — and pushing Muslims to ostracize those with whom he disagrees. While this behavior has been abhorrent and has brought significant distress and even potential danger to those he has targeted, the broader public has paid little mind.

His most recent tirade on social media, however, may — and should — wake the public up to his real agenda.

On March 25 of this year, Walid took to social media to talk about the Easter holiday, and how he believes Muslims should treat Christians on this day. Rather than using the opportunity to offer best wishes to Christians and condemn the slaughter of Christians by ISIS, Walid urged Muslims not to “encourage infidels” by wishing Christians a “Happy Easter.” His comments were at best hateful, at worst incitement. His is the kind of thinking that leads to attacks such as the one against Christians in Pakistan over Easter, or when the Pakistani Taliban blew up a crowd of mostly women and children of Ahmadi Muslims, or when Asad Shah, stabbed 30 times, was assassinated recently in his store in Glasgow, Scotland, for wishing Christians a Happy Easter.

On March 25 of this year, Dawud Walid (left), executive director of Michigan’s CAIR chapter, posted in Facebook, urging Muslims not to “encourage infidels” by wishing Christians a “Happy Easter.” This kind of thinking leads to attacks such as the stabbing murder this year of Asad Shah (right) in Glasgow, Scotland, who was killed by a fellow Muslim who claimed Shah “disrespected” Islam by wishing Christians a Happy Easter.

Dawud Walid wrote in a now-deleted Facebook post:

“Being respectful of others’ rights to observe and practice religious holidays doesn’t mean welcoming or celebrating them.

“‘Good Friday’ and Easter Sunday symbolize the biggest theological difference between Christians and Muslims. The belief of ‘original sin’ needing a human sacrifice of Jesus (peace be upon him) who is believed by Christians to be the son of Allah the Most High is blasphemous according to Islamic theology.

“There’s no original sin for humans to atone for since ‘no soul bears the burden of another’ according to the Qur’an. Regarding the crucifixion, ‘they killed him not’ and it was only a ‘likeness of him’ is stated in the Qur’an. And of course, ‘He begot none, nor was He begotten’ meaning Allah didn’t have a son is also a primary belief of monotheism articulated in the Qur’an.

“Be respectful, and don’t pick theology debates with your Christian family members and friends this weekend. However, avoid wishing them ‘Happy Easter’ greetings.

“Avoid giving the remote appearance of passively affirming shirk [polytheism] and kufr [disbelief].”

In the above post, Walid is referencing blasphemy — a crime in places such as Pakistan, where Christians and even minority Muslims are marked for death under archaic “blasphemy” laws, perceived insults to Muhammad or Islam. He further suggests that he believes Christianity to be a polytheistic religion, again asserting his belief in the doctrine of blasphemy. Finally, he instructs Muslims to self-isolate from both family and friends, by not extending the normal human kindness of a “Happy Easter” greeting, lest they seem to be affirming “shirk” (idolatry, polytheism) and “kufr” (disbelief; related to kafir, often used to mean “infidel”). Where blasphemy laws exist, and where this mentality takes hold, the punishment for what he calls “kufr” is death — sometimes by the state, sometimes by mobs tacitly endorsed by the state.

With this post, Walid cemented his position as a preacher of hate and radicalism. He has already become known to many Muslims as an extreme figure, who bullies anyone who disagrees with him, maligns dissidents, harasses gay Muslims, and foments anti-American sentiments. The above post could have been written by Anwar al-Awlaki, an imam who preached violence. In fact, when blogging about Awlaki’s long overdue assassination by an American drone in 2011, Walid’s few comments were not reserved for the opinions of Awlaki, who had radicalized countless Muslims who have massacred countless innocent Americans, but instead he referred to yours truly as “the lone wolf.”

For years he has advocated for every radical Islamist he could get away with defending. For example, Detroit’s radical Islamist imam Luqman Abdullah has long been the focus of Walid’s innumerable grievances against local police and FBI. He continues to this day to portray this armed militant imam, who led a separatist “Ummah” (or Islamic State) group (long before ISIS), as the “victim” of an overly aggressive FBI shooting, despite every investigation having shown otherwise and despite Abdullah’s core anti-American separatist militant ideology.

It should raise many alarms that his social media posts, such as the one this Easter (which he deceptively took down), was written not by a known radical in Yemen, but by a man employed as a leader of the self-appointed “representative” of American Muslims, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, in one of the regions of the United States most densely populated by Muslims. It is beyond denial to ignore the fact that Muslims such as Walid are leading radicalizers of American Muslims, and their efforts are dedicated to pushing vulnerable Muslims away from integration and reform against Islamist movements.

M. Zuhdi Jasser is the President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy based in Phoenix, Arizona and co-founder of the Muslim Reform Movement. He is author of “A Battle for the Soul of Islam.”

Page 419 of 453
1 417 418 419 420 421 453
Skip to toolbar