Muslims and Canada

Thought provoking observations from Ehsan Masood on a visit to Canada, the country that has consistently shown in various polls has the best relations with their Muslims:

One of the first things that grabs a visitor from Europe is the absence in Canada of an aggressive popular media. There is a tabloid press, but it concerns itself with the celebrity world, and the domain of the weird and the wacky. Canada's newsagents and supermarkets lack the familiar (to a visitor from Britain) sight of a long row of newspapers screaming alarmist headlines in capital letters that frequently exude scepticism (at least) and outright hostility (at most) towards people of non-western religions or new arrivals from other countries.

Furthermore, Canada's media (both popular and broadsheet) will not do anything to disturb the national consensus on diversity. So, for example, members of the Canadian far right, or Muslims who support violent extremists, will not automatically make the front pages, nor will they be invited to the top news shows as routinely happens in Britain. 'We just don't do that kind of thing in Canada', says Nazim Baksh, an award-winning producer and filmmaker for the CBC, Canada's public-service broadcaster.

In part, perhaps, as a result of this consensus, the Canadian popular press is not particularly popular. Its readership is negligible compared to the tens of millions in Britain who read the tabloids. And this has one very important implication for public policy. It means that popular newspapers do not have the degree of influence enjoyed by their European (particularly British) counterparts. What the Toronto Sun says on any given day undoubtedly contributes to local and national debates: but it is one voice among many. Its perspective does not have undue influence among members of parliament and the civil service. They, in turn, do not feel the need to make policy to fit in with the perceived views of popular newspaper readers.

...

In light of this range of views, it comes as no surprise to see that Canada (unlike many western European countries) does not have an official or semi-official Muslim Council, nor is there (at present) any attempt to establish a representative body that would want to act as an interlocutor between Muslims and the state. Muslim groups don't seem to want one, and neither does the state. Canada has been closely watching British developments in this area and the evidence points to one thing: representative organisations promoted by state authorities leads to messy politics and ultimately disjointed government.

The United Kingdom now has at least three claimants to the title of representative body: The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), the British Muslim Forum and the Sufi Muslim Council. Each comes to Islam from a different point on the theological spectrum. And, as so often happens in government-NGO relations, each is being promoted by a different government department or agency because such an association matches a particular political desire or point of view.

So, for example, Britain's foreign office supports the Radical Middle Way project in an effort to counter extremism; the department of communities and local government promotes the avowedly anti-Islamist Sufi Muslim Council because it takes the view that the majority of Muslims do not want to take their faith into politics. Yet at the same time, the office of the mayor of London, Ken Livingstone (a member of the country's governing Labour Party) remains close to the MCB and its affiliated Muslim Association of Britain (MAB), in particular because of the MAB's association with the anti-globalisation left and support for Palestinian causes.

Comments

[UNO]

In the last couple of paragraphs there, Masood seems a little confused about the identities of the claimants to representation. The RMW project has on board at least 2 MCB affiliate organisations.

And I still wonder how the Sufi Muslim Council can be at all considered to represent Muslims when it has in its title an EXPLICIT limitation of remit. Sufis only, no? (Not that I think they actually represent Sufis at all).

[Abdiel]

Salaamun alaykum br. Osama,

Thanks for posting this--do you happen to have a link/source for this article? It's a very interesting perspective, and I'll make sure to share it with community representatives. However, I'd like to confirm whether or not Ehsan Masood restricted the visit to Ontario. Things in Quebec aren't quite as rosy--there's a real danger there of UK-style attacks on niqab and other elements of what political elites are calling "reasonable accomodation" of minorities, especially given the surge in populist politics in the last provincial elections. See here for more.

Also, that relatively rosy view of the media would quickly evaporate in western Canada, where I'm from. Media is dominated by a single player, Canwest Global Communications. In Vancouver, my hometown (the greatest city on earth) and the largest Canadian market west of Toronto, there are two major newspapers, one broadsheet, one tabloid, both printed by Pacific Press and both owned by Canwest Global. The company also owns a major national broadsheet daily, the National Post, which published a few chapters of Mark Steyn's roadmap to the New Final Solution, America Alone, in installments. As a corporation, it wears its bias on its sleeve and makes no apologies for it.

Regardless, Canada's multiculturalism model does work exceptionally well. Thanks again for posting this, Osama.

--A

[AnonyMouse]

As-salaamu 'alaikum wa rahmatullaahi wa barakaatu,

Yaaaaaaay Canada! :P
Although my parents are rather sceptical about how great Canada is towards Muslims (in comparison to other countries), I'm usually pretty happy with what we've got, al-Hamdulillaah!

Although as Abdiel pointed out, CanWest definitely dominates our media here in western Canada (I actually used to live in Vancouver, now I live in another city, although in the same province). Recent examples are that of the Vancouver Sun having TWO full page profiles on Ayaan Hirsi Ali (of course very happy about her). I responded to the first one in a letter to the editor; the second one, which came out recently, I have yet to deal with.

[AnonyMouse]

As-salaamu 'alaikum wa rahmatullaahi wa barakaatu,

Yaaaaaaay Canada! :P
Although my parents are rather sceptical about how great Canada is towards Muslims (in comparison to other countries), I'm usually pretty happy with what we've got, al-Hamdulillaah!

Although as Abdiel pointed out, CanWest definitely dominates our media here in western Canada (I actually used to live in Vancouver, now I live in another city, although in the same province). Recent examples are that of the Vancouver Sun having TWO full page profiles on Ayaan Hirsi Ali (of course very happy about her). I responded to the first one in a letter to the editor; the second one, which came out recently, I have yet to deal with.

[aineliva]

What evidence can you provide for this statement
"avowedly anti-Islamist Sufi Muslim Council", where is the proof?

The Catholic Church had the Holy Inquisition, to maintain orthodoxy within the ranks. What will Islam produce to maintain orthodoxy? Or are we already seeing the Islamic Inquisition in the form of terrorist extremists?

We have many different strains of Christianity, why not Islam? Why are you so avowedly anti-Sufism, and anti-diversity?

[Osama]

Sorry it was remiss of me not to link to the article. I can't remember where I actually read it, but it's on Open Democracy
http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization/canada_muslims_4414.jsp

Aineliva, I don't know if you mean to be talking to me, but if you are, you'll find I am not the author of the words above. However, any analysis of the SMC's own professed raison d'etre is as Ehsan Masood has said. Your comparison with the Inquisition is interesting, because if you see that as a minority at the top imposing orthodox practise on a majority at the bottom, it's possibly actually the opposite with the SMC. Lastly, yet again, you're seeing criticism as an attempt to clamp down on people's legitimate opinions and actions. It's not, and I would hope that we could engage in a more grown up discussion by now.

[joe90]

Or are we already seeing the Islamic Inquisition in the form of terrorist extremists?

I take it, that is actually an endorsement by you verbaldiarrhai?

Shouldn't these 'terrorist' extremists' be called 'men of honour' by yourself verbaldiarrheia, after all, you approve of sectarian violence, or used to. Now you don't, or don't seem to.

Which is it, or don't you know because someone is asking you are reasonable question about your actual views (or what used to be your views, who knows)?

[aineliva]

Osama, my comparison with the Inquisition is that the criticism of Sufiism implicit in the post reminds me of the Catholic Church's attempts to ensure orthodoxy among it's faithful and allow no deviance from the "accepted ways". This form, type of control actually results in stagnation.

From what I have seen recently on "The Retreat" BBC2, Sufiism is a more spiritual approach to Islam, one that allows for diversity among believers. So I am wondering if, is it possible that extreme and radical Islam is a response to the idea the Islam may be diluted in some way by "western" ideas? a fear of this?

My comment re the Inquisition, was loosely connected to the idea that Catholic Church responded to dilution with the Inquisition, legalised violence and murder; and is it possible that the response from extreme and radical Islam is along the same lines.

As to your last remark, when you get to my age Osama, you worry less about being "grown-up", and more about the sanity of government, become quite cycnical about politics and politicians, because you will have seen it all before. Dia Duit.

[joe90]

Catholic Church responded to dilution with the Inquisition, legalised violence and murder
- the Inquisition was a method developed to in reconquered Spain, to eradicate any remaining Jewish of Islamic folk or influences -
- only later was the Inqusisition used in the high politics of Church and Royalty-Aristocracy -
- after which it was recycled with renewed life and used against the new 'heresy' of Protestantism (whose followers verbaldiarrhia here, thinks it is right and proper to blow to bits - so much for our resident, middle-of-the-road irish sectarian bigot and self-poclaimed champion of progress and diversity).

The proper term is 'heresy' not 'accepted ways', whatever that is - you don't seem to have much of a grasp of anything outside your head, do you, or am I being emotional again, or male, or un-funny, as usual, or something?

[Osama]

Aineliva, despite the name, the Sufi Muslim Council has nothing to do with Sufism, as UNO pointed out above.

And when you get to your age? I never took you to be an old lady? ;)

[aineliva]

Joe90, when you wrote - "The proper term is 'heresy' not 'accepted ways', whatever that is...." - you've given an example of my point about inflexibility in thinking.

"Heresy" is the term used, in that instance, by the Catholic Church to denote how members of the Church deviated from the accepted ways, therefore making any deviation unacceptable, hence the need for an Inquisition to enforce the Orthodoxy, and demonstrate to the "faithful" what will be their fate should they stray from the Orthodoxy. But did those who chose to move away from the strict interpretation of the Church's teachings, consider themselves to be "heretics". There are many areas of Catholic teaching that I do not find acceptable, that I consider to be myth and legend as opposed to having origins in verifiable fact and reason. I don't consider myself a "heretic", although the Catholic Church might.

Th Inquisition was also used in the case of the Albigensian Heresy in France and Italy, 11th through to 14th century.

This method of control (Inquisition) had little to do with religion or spirituality, (since Christianity itself is an offshot of Judaism, and therefore a deviation,) and a lot to do with control and power and politics. Which makes any religion/belief system that seeks to control and become political a very dangerous brew.

You continue to say here and elsewhere that I do not answer your questions. However much of your comments are statements; and most questions, rhetorical questions.

[aineliva]

Osama, now that is confusing. Why call themselves by this name, if they have nothing to do with it? That question is bourne out of my confusion, and one that you may not know the answer to.

No, I don't think of myself that way either.:-) Except when I realise that I'm witnessing repeats of historical stupidity, and political attempts to manipulate people.

Taking a very current example, 15 people somewhere in a boat, arguably off course or not as the case may be. And both sides playing for as much media attention as they can get.

Newspaper and media playing it up, into something it doesn't ever have to be. Some idiotic comments today about "shiny suits" and said personnel being "traitors to their country". I'm just glad that there has been a peaceful outcome, and I will ignore the rest. Yesterday's newspapers used to be today's chip paper and sometimes that's all they're good for.

[joe90]

You continue to say here and elsewhere that I do not answer your questions. However much of your comments are statements; and most questions, rhetorical questions.
- thanks for telling me what I already know, mrs terrywogania

Are you going to answer them though - or are you going to pretend that your latest rubbish is some kind of an answer, especially to a question nobody has asked you, typical.

And thanks for telling me what I already told you about 'heresy' -
- I also see you haven't included its proper definition in your latest inconsequential drivellings though.

[johnmellor77]

Joe,
Are you going to answer this rhetorical question and prove you're a moron?

[joe90]

I didn't think you'd be able to live up to the standards you expect everyone else to john -
that's pretty much your own standard.

Your behaviour and reply is as I already predicted, if you'll notice my argument.

After all (just to add some more rich texture to my views) you cannot remain consistent in your arguments if you don't speak your own views, in your in voice, using your own words.

You always borrow the views of others, and speak from behind them - hence, the only time you do speak your own mind you inevitably start to contradict yourself, left right and centre.

After all, if you do start to champion some lying journalist article peddled by some Murdoch hack, the it is guaranteed that you are going to make a public spectacle of yourself john!

I'll see what your other comments about - should be fun!

[johnmellor77]

A simple "yes" would have sufficed.

[joe90]

ah, john
still scared to make up big sentences.

Give me a clue john, what are you talking about now, or don't you know because there's nobody to hide behind?

[johnmellor77]

Joe, my original comment on this thread was a dig at you not knowing what rhetorical meant. I left a post inviting you to reply to a rhetorical question, something you would only do if, in fact, you were a moron...

You did.

[joe90]

My comment 6:47pm above was intended for another thread,
http://www.osamasaeed.org/osama/2007/03/the_terrorism_m.html>The terrorism monkey is off the MCB's back

I got the two threads confused for a mo!

Explain that to me again O Wise and witty john -
- apart from the fact you were unable to say a straightforward 'yes' or 'no' to my ethical question on the thread (and still can't), something you are demanding of others - you had to wander off and start a mis-direction on this thread in order to hide your embarrassment -

It is either you answer serious questions seriously (as you demand others do) or you can play games with yourself -
- so carry on if you like, what is all this witty thing about that has you in stitches, apparantly?

[johnmellor77]

Honestly Joe, I don't know what you're on about now.

[aineliva]

Joe, just another point of information for you. The "Holy Inquisition" remained in it's original form until 1908, when it changed it's name to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. And I believe that our current Pope, Benedict was, until he became Pope, it's CEO.

Oh and Joe, as to your recurring (.99999) request, that I answer your questions. I will repeat what I have said before, in plain English. Your questions, are not really questions. They are structured in such a way, that you have generally answered them yourself, filled with your consistent projections onto me, (and you are consistent in that because you address others in the same way). You answer your own questions, as you do, because you are a polecimist. So really now, why would I bother to answer questions that you really don't want answered. You are my dear the very living embodiment of a "diversionary tactic" and a heckler. Where does one get a PhD in Heckling? The University of the SWP perhaps?

You really need to stop asking, because at no time will I be answering your questions, because in my opinion you are what my father would have termed "a gurrier". A possibly intelligent and pleasant and humourous individual, who just loves a good scrap, and will do anything to provoke such a situation.

One of the things that I notice, repeatedly, is that Joe wades in at a point where Osama has been asked questions. Is this Joe's attempt at diversionary tactics on Osama's behalf?

Osama, you've not responded to my enquiries and the parallel I drew (see my comment, 4th April 07). I imagine, that you feel unable to, or in some way constrained, and unable to give a view on my enquiry, by your status as a potential politician.

I do understand, it is almost impossible for anyone who is, or hopes to enter the political arena, to share their feelings or views as they risk later being quoted, or that information being used against them. So I will take that to be the situation. Although, had you upfrontedly stated that you could not or didn't wish to enter that discussion, I would have understood.

That is very unfortunate, as it raises the possibility that nothing will ever be allowed the oxygen of discussion on this blog.

[joe90]

Your questions, are not really questions.
- and your answers aren't really answers terrywogania -
- but I'm not complaining, I'm just pointing out your violent sectarian bigoted hypocrisy.

So when was the Church of England dis-established, which you seem to be asserting?

What is the proper definition of a 'heretic' or a 'heresy' which you haven't given yet, but you seem to be implying expertise in this area?

The reason I ask, is because you mentioned something called 'accepted ways' then when asked to state the proper definition of Catholic 'heresy' (a question from me which you seemed to have understood ok at the time) you rambled on incoherently.

Surely these are all proper questions, or do you just prefer your 'men of honour' blowing people to pieces just because they prefer reason to sectarian violence?

It's just that you don't have proper answers thouhg, because your an oirish sectarian bigoted balloon who hasn't a clue what they're wittering on about.

[johnmellor77]

Aineliva,
I know you're trying to be generous and hold onto the high ground but Joe is not just after a scrap, he's an actual moron.

[joe90]

Of course john,
terrywogania has the high-ground,
she supports anti-British sectarian terrorism, and so do you now apparantly.

So now
you are saying its ok to butcher and murder members of the British police and security forces?

So not only john,
would you not cooperate, or even resist, representatives of British authority, but you are now an advocate of actual assassination and the murder of British police and security services, as well as the British public.

So what is it you are objecting to about Osama, in the Dundee article you seem so obsessed with - after all, Osama isn't advocating terrorism like you and your violent irish sectarian bigot pal here?

[johnmellor77]

Run Forrest Run!!!

What on Earth are you on about now young man? Women won't pay attention to you if you insist on spouting drivel like this:

"So John, would you not cooperate, or even resist, representatives of British authority, but you are now an advocate of actual assassination and the murder of British police and security services, as well as the British public."

Once again all you've done is prove you don't know how to read or write a coherent sentence. Plus ce change...