Why MacKay was right to uninvite the imam

By Robert Sibley,

The Ottawa Citizen October 7, 2010

We are known, it is said, by the company we keep. If so, it is worthwhile to consider the recent controversy surrounding Defence Minister Peter MacKay’s cancellation of a speech by a prominent Muslim imam at the department’s Ottawa headquarters.

The minister was verbally shelled last Friday after revoking an invitation for Zijad Delic, the national executive direct of the Canadian Islamic Congress and the former imam the Jami’a Mosque in Richmond, B.C., to speak at a forum marking Islamic History Month in Ottawa.
MacKay’s decision “shattered any hopes” Muslims had in the political process, critics said. He displayed “knee-jerk intolerance” by caving into right-wing Christian zealots, said others.

Not everyone agrees with this judgment, including some Muslims. Salma Siddiqui, vice-president of the Muslim Congress of Canada, “strongly welcomed” MacKay’s decision, not only for exposing the fraud of Islamic History Month but also for acting in the best interests of national security.
“In the past few years we have seen so-called Islamic History Month turned into a propaganda machine for Islamists who want to introduce Shariah law and who wish to hide behind the cover of teaching history to infiltrate the highest levels of government in Ottawa,” Siddiqui said.
So, who’s right, the CIC or the MCC? Is the CIC genuinely committed to Canadian values as its leaders, including Delic, claim? Or do some of them, as Siddiqui implies, actually promote Islamist doctrine, even to the point of engaging in a campaign of taqiyya, or “holy deception,” whereby Canadians eventually accept Shariah?
Consider some of the evidence. One of MacKay’s reasons for cancelling Delic’s invitation was, according to spokesman Jay Paxton, because of the “extremist views promulgated by the Canadian Islamic Congress.”
There’s no question the CIC has been inclined to what most Canadians would regard as extremist positions. In 2006, the organization urged the federal government to remove two notorious groups, Hamas and Hezbollah, from its terrorist list, arguing the government had succumbed to the “intense pressure from the pro-Israel lobby.” Also that same year, former president, Mohamed Elmasry, repeatedly said on a television talk show that Israelis over the age of 18 were fair game for killing.
Delic, a Bosnian-Canadian who came to Canada in 1995, took up his position with the CIC in November 2006 — after Elmasry’s infamous remarks — and cannot be held responsible for the former president’s statements, and may even “totally disagree” with them, as he claims. Yet, even after nearly four years with Delic as executive director, the CIC still retains a radical reputation.
That may be due, in part, to the fact that Elmasry stayed on as president until the end of 2008, publishing often inflammatory diatribes. In May 2008, for example, he published an article entitled “Zionist Israel at 60 — A History Built on Ethnic Cleansing.” But even after he officially departed, Elmasry’s voice was still heard at the CIC. In February 2009, he denounced Israel as “the world’s only western-style racist regime.”
The current national president, Wahida Valiante, is also known for her attacks on Israel. In 2006, Valiante attacked “pro-Israeli Zionists (who) promote fear of Islam and Muslims through propaganda, and by playing manipulative mind-games on unsuspecting, decent mainstream Canadian and Americans.” In January 2010, she criticized Israel for its “cruel agenda” toward the Palestinians of Gaza.
Why, if Delic is such a moderate, would he attach himself to an organization with such an extremist cast? No doubt, he was brought on board to improve the CIC’s public profile. That is certainly his claim.
“Many things that no longer fit the (CIC) profile or its purpose or mission are not done any more,” he said in an interview. “I have in many ways Canadianized the CIC.”
That may be Delic’s intention, but in April 2007 he attached his name to a CIC statement condemning the Harper government “for not saying ‘no’ to Islamophobia” by not supporting a United Nations Human Rights Council resolution calling for “a global prohibition on the public defamation of religion.” “We are seeing more and more examples of how the Conservative government is working against our traditional Canadian values of respecting other religions,” the CIC claimed.
In true taqiyya style (if that’s not a contradiction in terms), the statement was pure dissimulation. What wasn’t mentioned was that Islam was the religion nobody would be allowed to “defame.” The Harper’s government’s refusal to violate the fundamental Western principles of free speech was construed by the CIC (and presumably by Delic) as evidence of Islamophobia.
Does Delic seriously think the Harper government is Islamophobic? It seems so. “We think (the accusation of Islamophobia) is accurate. The best example of Islamophobia is what happened last Friday,” he said in an interview, referring to his cancelled speech.
For its part, the CIC has made extensive use of the western concepts to attack western principles. In late 2007, for example, the CIC deployed the concept of hate speech against freedom of speech when it launched its notorious human rights complaints against Maclean’s magazine and columnist Mark Steyn.
Delic justified the complaint against Maclean’s, saying that it was a response to the magazine’s hate speech against Muslims. In an 2008 article for the Citizen, he said free speech has its limits.

Yet, that same year, the Canadian Islamic Congress joined with the Canadian Arab Federation in what might be construed as an act of hate speech.
In January 2008, the two organizations accused “the apartheid regime of the Jewish state” of engaging in “genocidal crimes against the indigenous people of Palestine.”
They also co-sponsored an essay contest inviting Canadian high school and university students to write an essay on “the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.”
Such language contradicts CIC claims to moderation, to say the least. Delic may be trying to curb the extremist rhetoric of others in the organization — “that is my intent, to have it fully in tune with Canadian society” — but until he cleans house completely, the minister was justified in uninviting him.
Robert Sibley is an editorial writer with the Citizen. His column appears Thursday. His new book, A Rumour of God, will be released from Novalis Publishing on Nov. 1.
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/MacKay+right+uninvite+imam/3635721/story.html#ixzz11iuiqjJt

About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

17 Replies to “Why MacKay was right to uninvite the imam”

  1. Hagee’s views are not those of the vast majority of Christians in the US so please don’t use him as an example. He is a preacher of a small church with a small group of followers.

  2. I suggest that all interested in this subject rad the Quoran. Then they would know if there was any rational equivalence to be made between the bible, the Torah, or the Koran. That is, if they need to look past the obvious facts of the world, which is the many post Christian nations and the one Jewish one, are all liberal democracies and all nations for which people are ready to sacrifice their lives on a gamble that they can survive the trip there, as well as be allowed to stay and live while Muslim nations nearly without exception are totalitarian or nearly so, run sham democracies at best with “sharia as the overarching principle of law” quoting the Ambassador to Canada from Afghanistan, and are horible places for women, Jews and other non Muslims. There is no freedom of religion in Muslim nations as the sharia does not tolerate it. This will be Canada’s future if Islam is left unchecked. We already see it in parts of Europe where some British public schools now require the veil be worn by girls.
    We see it in ascendancy in some towns in the US such as Deerborne Mi. where freedom of religion other than Islam appears to be in some small jeopardy.

    All this really is to say, that Yahya’s feeble attempt at equivalency is rather far from the mark and frankly, even if he was correct and there was a comparison it begs the question.
    ‘If it is wrong for Christians to do it, does that make it right for Muslims?’

  3. I don’t see any need to bring religious texts into the discussion at all as it deflects from the issue at hand. I mean, I could quote the Bible as well as the next person here if you want to get into how it has been used to justify all kinds of horrendous acts, including slavery. But what is the point of that? The problem is not in the book, but in the reader. As for religious freedom in Muslim countries, you may want to rethink your position as Christians have vibrant and growing communities in numerous Muslim countries. But again, this is a deflection from the topic at hand. Please stick to the topic. What was the real motivation for barring Imam Delic from speaking? I provided my argument and you counter by talking about the Quran and Bible. What’s with that?

  4. Why the confusion? Imam Delic was uninvited because the organization he heads is an extremist outfit along with their associated groups which sponsor Islamic History Month. It is irrelevant who brought these facts to the attention of MacKay’s office as the response of outrage would have been exactly the same.

    Elmasry’s comment is only one example illustrating the CIC’s collective and long standing sentiment, not the least of which is supporting sharia in Canada. As long as the CIC’s Islamic History Month is sponsored by MAC, a front group for Al-Ikhwan and a fact Delic would have to know as headman, I’d say MacKay acted accordingly.

    As for ‘bridge building’ it’s not a fitting term–I’d say ‘inroads’ is more apropos. One thing that has been accomplished though is the goal of understanding because without it, Imam Delic’s speech would have gone on as scheduled.

  5. I suppose that if one repeats and allegation frequently enough then eventually it will believed. CIC is not an extremist organization by any stretch of the imagination. Those who keep hurling these accusations do so based the one statement by one person made 6 years ago who is not even at the CIC helm anymore. The CIC is on record of distancing itself from these statements. On the other hand, who on this message board is speaking out against the daily human rights violations committed by Israel and many of the murderous and outrageous statements made by its’ supporters? I don’t see anything here. Does that mean that you support these violations? I cannot make that assumption unless you come right out and say so.

    I would like to ask members of this message board a straight question and want a honest answer. What specifically do you want Muslims to do?

  6. My point seems to have been missed entirely. By my definition and that of many others including Muslims, the CIC is an extremist outfit. This is not an accusation solely based on a one-off remark made by Elmasry 6 years ago and to imply it as such deliberately ignores the present issue at hand. Since you insist on relaying it at such, then we’ll do so by bringing into the argument some pertinent facts.

    At the time as now, the CIC did not distance itself from his statement. They were quick to defend Elmasry, arguing the comment as patently false advancing contextual misunderstanding. They further launched a law suit against media organizations for reporting on the public incident. As of today, they continue to enjoy an ongoing relationship with their past president as his name remains as a member of the CIC and his articles are regularly published. There was no denouncement then as now, of his statement or any breaking of ties. As a matter of fact, Elmasry remained as president of the CIC for some time afterward until he moved on to create the Canadian Charger, an on-line magazine devoted to countering as he puts it, the pro- ‘Zionist’ Canadian media. Although he is no longer ‘at the helm’ his presence remains, a fact that Imam Delic would undoubtedly know.

    Although it appears you’d like to have it diverted so, Israel has nothing to do with this issue.

    To answer your final question, I want some Muslims to stop trying to supplant our millennium old system of jurisprudence by advancing a 7th century sharia code which as no mechanism for change or improvement and promotes illiberal ideas including but not reserved to, the tilth of women and the suppression, restriction and criminalization of an open press.

  7. Yahya said:

    “I suppose that if one repeats and allegation frequently enough then eventually it will believed.”

    I guess that is why he, and the people at the CIC are constantly making up myths about Israel as an illiberal state. In fact, Arabs and Muslims have more rights as individuals in Israel than anywhere else in the middle east. The only right they do not have, is to impose the sharia and Islamic rule over the people of Israel, a right they demand with as much blood as they can manage.

  8. Well, first of all, Muslims are in fact not trying to supplant what you call “our millennium old system of jurisprudence” by advancing a 7th century sharia code. I honestly don’t know where you come up with these fantasies. Many Muslim scholars and intellectuals have said there is no contradiction between western laws which are just and Islamic jurisprudence. The unifying principle is justice, and if a western law adheres to that principle then it is in accordance with Islamic law. Do you have something against justice?

    Speaking of Islamic jurisprudence, what does anyone know of it here other than a small sampling of the penal code which is much more complex that how you may understand it. Once would have to study Islamic jurisprudence for years to address this topic in an educated way, yet people here cut and paste statements they get from a google search.

    Finally, Delic did not make the remarks, Elmasry is long gone, so banning Delic punishing him for something he did not say or do.

    If defense of Israel is not the issue, then what is this editorial all about?

    Finally, who here will have the courage to condemn this?

    The fact of the matter is, no matter what I say you will accuse me of Taqqiyah (which is a shia term and I am not shia) and will thus dismiss anything I say as you have your mind set and will not budge even in the face of your misinformed and Islamophbic rants.

  9. Let me be clear about one thing! It is our intense study of this religion and the consequences of its possible ascension to supremacy that led us to create blogs of this nature to begin with. We, in fact, DO have a fairly good understanding of its books, laws, practices and most importantly, its intentions and ideology. If we didn’t we would probably be duped like so many other well meaning Westerners into believing this is simply a “freedom of religion” issue. We fully support those Muslim associations within Canada who have clearly stated that they understand the Western concept of division of State and religion. You know the ones I’m talking about — the ones that have the death threats against them!

    The four schools of the fiqh (Hanifites, Malikites, Hanbilites and Shafiites) cannot agree upon much within themselves let alone with Western Law. Though all four differ in their interpretation of Islamic law there is one thing they all agree upon — that sharia should take precedence over the laws of man. This is a dogmatic truth of their religion and from what we are to understand in the west this is not open to debate.

    But let’s face it, it is as pointless to argue which school’s interpretation on what level of prostration a Dhimmi should be subjected to when paying their Jizya as it is to argue about how many Palestinians were run over by Bulldozers today. Neither of those discussions get to the point of what we are talking about here.

    Whether or not you may feel that there are certain elements of justice that coincide between the Islamic and Western systems — and this as well is highly debatable insofar as our definitions of the word “justice” differ dramatically — the question really is, has the CIC unequivocally said that they do not believe that this country should eventually be ruled by Sharia law? And anyone who would then say “what would be so bad about that?” are the folks who no nothing of Sharia but what they may have Googled in a happenstance way.

    What can Muslims do? How about a clear, unecumbered and straightforward published statement declaring loyalty and adhearance to the secular state with no intentions, EVER, to usurp it to the powers of a religion that has shown itself to blatantly malign human rights in every country and state that it currently controls. That would be good for starters.

    Father Grace

  10. And why, may I ask, should Muslims be singled out for such a loyalty oath? Furthermore, I would ask on what basis are you implying that Muslims are not loyal to their countries where they live? And what do you mean by loyalty? Provide a definition we can work with. I don’t see non Muslims being asked to make this loyalty oath? Do Muslims have a monopoly on human rights abuses? In other words, is it only Muslims who abuse human rights ?

    Even legal scholars in the west disagree withing their own system, that is why we have dissenting opinions in courts, so your argument is weak.

    Again, Dhimmi, Jizya, etc all these terms are getting away from the topic. You sound like a pre-programmed robot incapable of saying anything else. You get your information from google and not anywhere else. How many real Muslim schoars have you ever sat with. My guess is zero.

    Last question, has the CIC ever stated that they want the whole country to be ruled by Sharia? If not, why not? Yet you are faulting the organization for something they did not say or do. Twisted thinking here.

  11. The CIC openly supports sharia as a parallel legal system for Muslims living in Canada. This shows they support a division of loyalty in the rule of English law in Canada.

  12. There are Jewish tribunals in operation in Canada for those observant Jews who wish to follow the rules of Judaism. Would you also say that this shows that Jews support a division of loyalty in the rule of English law in Canada? I don’t hold that position, and I support those Jewish Canadians who wish to follow their own tribunals.

    The allegation is made that this proposed tribunal Islamic would seek to impose Muslim cultural values on Western society, an allegation which could not be farther from the truth. The proposed tribunal would only be used by those who wish to use it and would not override existing Canadian laws. The proposed tribunal is not, as some have erroneously alleged on this message board, a parallel legal system for Muslims living in Canada as the Canadian government, public or courts would NEVER accept that.

  13. I don’t suppose Yahya has seen the hidden camera footage of sharia courts in the UK where a woman was made to humiliate herself asking for a divorce from a man who beat her while the imam said she must have done something to deserve it and told her he would think about it.

    Of course, we all know what would happen to her or her family had she chosen to go to a real court for actual western justice. Sharia courts must not be allowed in western nations. If Muslims want to do things according to Koran, then move to a Muslim country where they use that system of justice.

    I do not see Yahya here for instance, demanding that non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia be allowed to dress how they want, drink alcohol and eat pork, and be allowed to practice whatever religion they want. Its funny how freedom only goes one way for Muslims.

  14. Canon law, Rabbinic law and Sharia law are not recognized legal codes in Canada. Any Jewish tribunal operating in Canada is doing so without legitimacy within civil law. There is an imposition of Muslim cultural values when Muslims claim sharia as a specific legal mode for themselves within Canada’s legal code. Whether this would be used only by those who wish to use it is irrelevant. Those who seek to do so have created a parallel system which is not legally or culturally supported by the majority.

    Canada has one legal code, not two, not three, not four. Not Canon, not rabbinic, not sharia. Canada owes no special consideration for such parallel systems as English law in it’s enlightenment serves quite duly the betterment of all. You are right: sharia is not accepted nor will it be.

  15. You can’t take one unfortunate case and make an assumption that all other cases will turn out that way. Many injustices take place in our own courts everyday, yet generally speaking we have faith in the justice system.

    As for Saudi Arabia, I say F-K them. I have publicly ranted for years against these fascists.

Leave a Reply

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