Tarek Fatah, one of the best-known Muslim public figures in Canada has stepped down from his high-profile position as communications director of the Muslim Canadian Congress (MCC) due to fears for his and his family's safety.
 
The Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC), a conservative Muslim organization, recently put him at the head of a list of those who they claim are guilty of "smearing Islam and bashing Muslims." Last month, a conservative circle of Muslim students carried out an campaign, bombarding several influential Canadian media outlets with emails declaring that Tarek Fatah does not represent Canadian Muslims and should not be seen as a legitimate Muslim voice.
Fatah has been outspoken in his opposition to the new-defunct project of having Sharia tribunals in the province of Ontario which were to have implemented family laws derived from the Sharia for Muslims. He has openly supported women-led prayer, praying behind female imams. He is also the only Muslim community leader in Canada (to my knowledge) who has had the courage to publicly support equality under Canadian law for gays and lesbians.
His public expression of these sorts of views in the media---through interviews, as well as on his own TV show, the Muslim Chronicle---have the conservative organizations such as CIC upset. It is revealing that the student group's emails to the media declared that while Fatah was not a legitimate voice, reporters should instead talk to mosque imams, representatives at CAIR, or other conservative institutions and personalities in order to obtain 'authentic' Muslim viewpoints.
As anyone who has had dealings with Fatah can attest, he has a rather abrasive personality. When addressing issues which are controversial in the Muslim community, he tends to want to draw lines in the sand which mark off the "acceptable" from the "unacceptable" views, rather than trying to foster mutually respectful dialogue or build consensus. As a result, he has put off a number of Muslims who share many of his views, but feel that they cannot work with him. Some of these are no doubt nodding their heads now and saying that they saw it coming.
But I think the real issue here is not Tarek Fatah's personality, or the Islamic "correctness" of his views, but the fact that our communities tend to squash any public dissent. Conservative organizations such as the CIC aren't satisfied with their thousands of rmembers and readers of their weekly email bulletins, or the media coverage they get---they want to establish and maintain a virtual monopoly on the public, media face of Islam in Canada. In their view, conservative Sunni Muslim groups, whose leading (male) figures often have a Muslim Brotherhood-ish approach to Islam deserve the limelight; all others should be shoved to the margins.
But this is not only an organizational problem; many Muslims also feel perturbed by community debate and dissent, especially if this makes it into the media. Muslims regularly insist that Islam is not a monolith, and that the Muslim world is highly diverse, yet many seem to want to have one unified (conservative male) voice on Islamic matters.
Why is this?
Fatah most definitely made me want to smash my head against a wall in frustration. He smeared and insulted Muslims who publicly supported the same issues as he. One could argue that his inability to work with others is the primary reason that the Progressive Muslim Union fell apart. I will come out and say right now, he is the top reason why I left. That said, I never took him for a quitter. He knew how to drive an issue through no matter how uncomfortable it made the community. He is a major reason Muslims can count on a modicum of separation of Church and State in Canada. He would never stand down on gay rights or women-led prayer. He is an honest man and a courageous man. He can be a destructive ass, to be sure. But not many people who have his sort of determination are easy to get along with or do not make mistakes, even serious mistakes, as they carry through. If he is resigning due to threats, those threats are very real. We should consider his resignation an alarm called out to continue fighting irrational and exclusivist conservatism in our communities.
Don't know the guy, but "[w]e should consider his resignation a [sic] alarm called out to continue fighting irrational and exclusivist conservatism in our communities."
Mos def.
PS- Like my use of [sic]?
you seem to have made a [sic] error.... Oh the wonders of editing one's own comments.
Yes on your yes, btw.
I am not entirely in sympathy with the line being towed here.
I live/work in San Francisco and my attitudes about sexual orientation have evolved from something conservative and narrow to ones more open minded and accepting.
Same with atheism and other options different from my own.
Live and let live.
However, that does not mean we should or must normalize and broaden every institution to accept these choices into our belief systems.
There can be acceptance AND mutual exclusion. This notion that gender issues, sexual issues and so forth all have to be embraced and unconditionally accepted is bullshit.
Being a Muslim comes with doctrine and rules. You cannot be a Muslim AND an Atheist. Alright? That is just non-sense.
I respect your right to be an atheist and you should be free to do so and to speak your mind from whatever platform you ascend. When you ascend the Mimbar to espouse atheism, a line has been crossed. Homosexuality follows this same contradiction.
We all deserve acceptance and values. Do not cheapen mine and I will not cheapen yours. We cannot abandon every tradition and teaching to accomodate the latest trend.
If Lesbian, Bi, Gay, Straight coalition wants to form a Muslim organization, they can do so by branching off. To force their choices on my belief system is a insult and an imposition on me and I have the same rights they do.
There is middle ground for all of us and it is not found by trodding all over my sacred ground.
What exactly are you responding to in this post or in the comments? Seriously, what is the line being towed? No one has mentioned anything specific.
All I can see from your comment is that you find it insulting when people try to force you to accept a position that is not yours. So do I. So do others who hold other positions different from you or I. With good reason. It is insulting. It is also a violation of trust between members of a community.
Difference of agreement is normal even on highly contested matters. The community has been learning to agree to disagree, to draw lines, and yet remain one community since the very beginning. Some matters get sorted out only to be questioned again, other matters remain resolved, some matters we leave in God's hands with a well placed, "God knows best."
Marhaba bik! So talk to us, please. Start a reader blog (just register and it will be created for you automatically) and pose your questions, pose your issues and concerns, maybe we can come to understand one another enough to agree to disagree and remain an umma.
"Being a Muslim comes with doctrine and rules. You cannot be a Muslim AND an Atheist. Alright? That is just non-sense."
I simply disagree with this on so many levels.
A.) First a final and be-all-end-all of what "God" is would have to be established to determine who is God-conscious and who is not, and since that definition will never be resolved, without a considerable amount of coersion, I think we'll just have to "live and let live" as you say.
B.) Not to mention, I think it's pretty obvious by now that the so-called doctrine and rules associated with Islam are and will be forever debated.
Alhumdulillahi!
Perhaps there is some confusion regarding Islam and the "institution" of Islam as stated in this sentence:
"However, that does not mean we should or must normalize and broaden every institution to accept these choices into our belief systems."
But this is not only an organizational problem; many Muslims also feel perturbed by community debate and dissent, especially if this makes it into the media. Muslims regularly insist that Islam is not a monolith, and that the Muslim world is highly diverse, yet many seem to want to have one unified (conservative male) voice on Islamic matters.
This is the issue and it is real. In our times, we have accepted people, usually assigned to the fringe, as partners in society: Good!
However, what I fear is that we have abandoned our values in the process for a generalized, politically correct, constantly evolving set of mini-values which apply to the day but not to the stability or long-term interests of society.
Witness: there is no political will to say how WRONG the Bush administration is. How our values as Americans are completely undermined.
No one says anything anymore. We just accept what we fear we cannot change.
This is social impotence and it is dangerous.
There has to be a balance between long-held values, doggedly defended and tolerance for new ideas and new ways of looking at things.
We seem very unbalanced these days.
Baraka
You have stepped into relativism.
That is a chasm I will not follow you down.
I'd rather chase rabbits down the rabbit hole.
what are the long term interests?
From a religious position, I would say salvation in the next world and living ethically/beatifully in this.
What do you think they are?
Then, what are the specific issues that threaten these long term interests? Do not just say "homosexuality." Please say exactly what you mean. There is no way to talk about it if we are not entirely straightforward with one another. Do you mean the mere existence of people who understand their sexual identity as homosexual? Do you mean homosexual licensiousness? Are you comfortable with homosexual love relationships or marriage? Do you mean homosexual sex acts only? If so, which?, the jurists are actually a little divided on this. For some jurists the only real issue is penetration. Penetration marks sex outside of marriage. Anal penetration is thus fornication for homosexual men. This has led some scholars to argue that lesbian sexual activity (assuming the absence of penetration) is not fornication. I think the freaky business about all this is that the jurists were much more comfortable talking about these matters than we are, and much more comfortable thinking through problems. They are almost always disturbingly practical.
I'm not asking you to be relative, I am asking you to say exactly what you mean.
Laury
I don't know...I don't know...I don't know!!!
I have personal answers for some of these questions and that is only between God and me.
I don't know what the consequences of devaluing traditional values are.
Sometimes common sense advises us: men and women are equal. Tradition has men in front of the ummah. But the Qur'an states, "Men and Women...Believers..Men and Women..." to such a degree that I am certain that there should be no such prohibition against women.
But there are other issues where I am not so sure. I admit my limitations and I look to the past and to Holy scripture for advisement.
I have NO freakin' agenda. I am voicing a general concern about abandoning traditional values that was sparked off by the resignation of the "progressive" canadian muslim leader.
I am not so sure that we should condemn the people against him or condemn him.
Everything these days is mixed up.
I cannot fully sympathize or condemn Hizbollah. Nor the Israelis.
Our values and our sense of right and wrong has become jammed like a moral compass in the middle of the Bermuda Triangle.
Intol/Tol:
Just as a note, and then you can pick this up with Laury, I take great offense to you simply lumping a response that takes its cues from far and wide (exceeding so-called relativism) as relativism.
It's disingenuous to bring up Islam w/o bringing up God, and it's even worse to deny God the uncontainable "chasm" God the uncontainable deserves.
If you're not willing to dive head first into the chasm than you might as well stay out of the religion game.
But by the way: what "values" are we endangering as per: "I fear is...we have abandoned our values"
Just as you so willfully slighted my concerns as being relativist from this I coudl easily state that you are being awfully "moral."
Baraka
I am confessing ignorance in the face of such questions while you claim absolute knowledge about God having no absolutes.
This is akin to atheism actually.
It means YOU are your god. You make the rules and God's Laws are not absolute for everyone.
Or atleast that is my reading.
Like it or not.
Regarding homosexuality, Tarek Fatah and the MCC essentially said this:
We Muslims are protected by law in this country because the law gives equal rights and freedoms to all, regardless of race, skin colour, ethnicity, creed/belief, gender, social class, sexual orientation, etc. It is because we have these legal protections that we can freely live and practice our faith in Canada. Therefore, it is not only hypocritical but extremely foolish for conservative Muslims to try to change this legal situation, so that some citizens are more equal than others.
Conservative Muslim groups who are ready to get into bed with right-wing anti-gay forces, arguing that they are cooperating with the People of the Book in order to enjoin good and forbid evil (as they see it) are blind to political realities.
Right-wingers who are opposed to gay rights also tend to be anti-immigrant (sometimes virulently so), and (especially since 9/11) supportive of targetted policing and surveillance of Canadian Muslims. Working to arrest or chip away at legal trends towards greater equality for all citizens doesn't serve long-term Muslim interests, to say the least.
This is actually a pretty conservative stance, if you ask me. It also says nothing about how "Islam" sees homosexuality, or how mosques should approach the issue. But even for this, people are getting upset. One has to ask why.
It's really very basic. If God is limited, than it's containable. If it's containable than it's worthless.
"This is akin to atheism actually."
You'd be surprised how close God and atheism seem to be. At least for those of us not afraid of either.
"It means YOU are your god."
These are your words. Though I must confess for a second I thought YOU were my God. Especially with all those values you've been throwing around.
I appreciate you bringing the subject to the table, MH.
In times like these, with terrible crises everywhere and everyone espousing a different side of the "truth" (small t), I have felt particularly lost.
Sanity seems like a very far off beacon in the middle of a real bad shit storm.
Baraka.
Mainly: Whatever.
Secondly: I have not been throwing any values around. That is your kneejerk response to someone openning up some inward conflict to the blog.
Something you are either intolerant of or simply cannot process.
In either case, good for you and all your knowledge and certainty.
God bless or Baraka bless if you prefer.
"Whatever." That's a shame.
Ugh... really I can't be dragged into this name calling personal attack. I'm not intolerant of conflict, I'm not knee jerking, I'm not a relativist, I'm not God, I'm not unable to process information, I'm not etc etc etc... You're freaking me out with all this banter.
Wake up call! The only person having a problem with debate is you. Right now. In every post I've written to you you've come back at me with some " You think you're God""You're a this and that."
Geesh. Calm down.
But just to refresh your memory as to your reference to "values" you have yet to define but that should be protected AND respected:
1. "We all deserve acceptance and values. Do not cheapen mine and I will not cheapen yours."
2. "I don't know what the consequences of devaluing traditional values are."
I was just wondering what these values were. Surely if they are so important we should get a synopsis?
Baraka
You took offense from my first post forward.
Maybe you should calm down.
I read you loud and clear. If my position is unclear, read again or have a nice day.
In either case, I think we're done.
Actually, and I hate to have to keep using actual posts to verify everything that you don't directly respond to, but my initial response to your post was a disagreement with some points of yours and a question. I wasn't offended. I was offended in the second post that you took my disagreements and question and rather than respond to them, lump them into a class of critique that is supposed to limit their scope or make them "irrelevant". That was expressed in my second response.
I don't care if you don't want to respond to my direct questions, but don't play like it's all me, cause it ain't.
"In either case, I think we're done."
Now that sounds rather tough and bold how you just stop it whereever you like. Grrrrr.
But in all seriousness, you just happened to think wrong. Now that's pretty anti-relativist of me to say...
PS- Off to the doctor. Don't kick a man when he's down! I won't be able to respond and that's just not fair play!
Peace and love all.
Have a grand weekend.
Intol/Tol, With respect to long term interests, I was always told by traditional scholars and guides that the first place to start is with yourself and not with other people. Clean your own house first. There is so much ethically in our own actions that needs work first.
MH point is a good one. Generally when people are talking about gay rights all they are asking for is that everyone be accorded equal civil rights without respect to gender and sexual orientation. No one is asking anyone to believe something they do not.
Let me just say this, theologically the thing about homosexuality and other matters is that no one requires you to have an opinion. You can just leave it with God.
Tarek Fatah was not someone I particularly cared for, I guess I have this weird relationship with other Progressive Muslims, you could say I'm "special" as Nakia would put it.
Laury
With respect to long term interests, I was always told by traditional scholars and guides that the first place to start is with yourself and not with other people. Clean your own house first. There is so much ethically in our own actions that needs work first.
I was not really looking for you to solve my problem, nor was I even seeking advice. I was simply making a point.
MH point is a good one. Generally when people are talking about gay rights all they are asking for is that everyone be accorded equal civil rights without respect to gender and sexual orientation. No one is asking anyone to believe something they do not.
As a citizen, I am interested in fair play and fair access. I would expect my STATE representative to address such an issue. As a religious person, I am not sure it is the place of a Muslim leader to comment on Gay/Lesbian rights. On what basis does he make such a statement? On that of a Muslim or a statesman? As a Muslim leader, perhaps he did not represent the values of his constituency. Canada, I believe, does recognize the separation.
Let me just say this, theologically the thing about homosexuality and other matters is that no one requires you to have an opinion. You can just leave it with God.
Everyone has their opinion. You are certainly entitled.
My ruse is this: Progressives can, and in my short experience are often, just another interest group with obligatory "group think." BAAAAAAAA! Sheep are not just for Eid. They range right and left with few in the middle who not subscribe to the absolute conservative or liberal agenda.
Repost - html tags (like seem to not work
Laury
"With respect to long term interests, I was always told by traditional scholars and guides that the first place to start is with yourself and not with other people. Clean your own house first. There is so much ethically in our own actions that needs work first."
I was not really looking for you to solve my problem, nor was I even seeking advice. I was simply making a point.
"MH point is a good one. Generally when people are talking about gay rights all they are asking for is that everyone be accorded equal civil rights without respect to gender and sexual orientation. No one is asking anyone to believe something they do not."
As a citizen, I am interested in fair play and fair access. I would expect my STATE representative to address such an issue. As a religious person, I am not sure it is the place of a Muslim leader to comment on Gay/Lesbian rights. On what basis does he make such a statement? On that of a Muslim or a statesman? As a Muslim leader, perhaps he did not represent the values of his constituency. Canada, I believe, does recognize the separation.
"Let me just say this, theologically the thing about homosexuality and other matters is that no one requires you to have an opinion. You can just leave it with God."
Everyone has their opinion. You are certainly entitled.
My ruse is this: Progressives can, and in my short experience are often, just another interest group with obligatory "group think." BAAAAAAAA! Are we sure sheep are just for Eid? They range right and left with few in the middle who do not subscribe to the absolute conservative or liberal agenda and their various thought taboos.
I/T out
Sorry Tol/Intol, I was not trying to solve your problem. That is for you do to on your own. I thought that is what I was saying.
We're all sheep. All we can do is go under the knife of the truth like Ishmael did willingly.
I think it's almost impossible to try to change one's political environment without resorting to normative behavior--endorsing, on some level 'group think' and 'group do' (and group don't. A lot of group don't.) That's the nature of the beast, the nature of large-scale change. I think progressives are certainly guilty of this, but certainly not moreso than conservatives--not by a long shot. I was not terribly fond of Fatah (why are we talking like he's dead? I guess I should say 'I am not fond of Fatah' but that doesn't sound right either...) but if he was actually receiving death threats then that's just deplorable. And worse, unsurprising. Perhaps Mr. Intol is right and progressives are sheep, but conservatives are sheep with big sharp teeth, and I for one prefer my sheep-friends vegetarian. No one is helped by these hysterical violent scare tactics. They've frightened off Fatah in a way that virtually ensures he'll emerge from all this an even bigger influence than he was before. Everyone loves a martyr. Even the most secular of secularists.
I throw up my hands in disgust.
never met the guy; have no interest either....it seems what his is doing is all about him. he wants attention. his writings indicate that he is arrogant and more interested to be in the limelight than anything else.
I read with great interest your statement that " You cannot be a MuslimAND an Atheist.
I could easily imagine some progressive, reform-minded Muslims creatingthe equivalent of the Jefferson Bible, by taking the Qur'an and extracting only the moral-ethical portions, and creating a Masjid in which the form and feeling of Islamic worship is preserved, but Allah and the Prophet Muhammed are omitted, and replaced by an ethical humanism and existentialism.
I watched a documentary about one group of Jews who are so progressive that they have rewritten all their prayers to omit reference to God, and, in effect, to practice an atheist form of Judaism which celebrates a kind of existential humanism. Such a movement was motivated in part by the disillusionment that many Jews felt over the German holocaust. They felt that there cannot be a God if such a thing as genocide is
allowed to take place in the world.
Also, one may see such human-centered, humanistic religious movements, in Christianity, with Jefferson's Bible, where Thomas Jefferson took scissors, and cut away all the supernatural and miraculous passages, and left only the moral and ethical
passages.
I am quite certain one might also find such human-centered (as opposed to God-centered) forms of practice in Hinduism and Buddhism.
I certainly feel that the Unitarian Universalists are an example of such a human-centered theology. I feel that terms such as human-centered, humanist, activist, are more fair than than terms such as atheist.
I have seen documentaries of Mainland China during Mao's regime where the youth preached an atheist gospel of humanist morality, and they were just as pious and zealous as any religion and they EVEN made up a fictitious peasant saint, who was totally selfless, and worked tirelessly for the good of society as a perfect Communist.
Try to get ahold of Alfred Adler's book "What Life Can Mean for You".
Adler was quite an amazing man.
Once, after a lecture in New York City, during a question period, one student raised his hand and asked "Mr. Adler, What of God?
What do you say on the subject of God."
With the greatest equanimity, Adler answered, "If there is a God then I hope God shall be pleased with the manner in which I have conducted my life."
If only we could have the attitude of someone like Alfred Alder then all the religions and gods and prophets and revealed scriptures in the world are extraneous, because the purity of life of an atheist who seeks virtue as its own reward, rather than from craving for paradise or fear of hell, ... such a purity exceeds all the two faced
hypocrisy of those who huddle in mosques, churches, synagogues, mandirs and gurudwaras, but lead secret lives of indulgence and iniquity.
See the book "Religion Without God"
http://atheism.about.com/od/bookreviews/fr/ReligWithoutGod.htm
by Ray Billington
and also
http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/unitarians/dietrich.html
JOHN H. DIETRICH: RELIGION WITHOUT GOD?
1878-1957
The Father of Religious Humanism
by Mason Olds, Unitarian Universalist Minister
John H. Dietrich was born on January 14, 1878, on a farm near Chambersburg, Pennsylvania. His family had descended from some German-Swiss who had emigrated to Franklin County, Pennsylvania, in 1710 from the vicinity of Berne, Switzerland. Dietrich's parents were simple, uneducated farm people, his father being a fairly successful sharecropper. His family professed the Reformed faith, which had originated with Ulrich Zwingli, the Zurich reformer in the sixteenth century Protestant Reformation. It was a rural minister who suggested that young John, who was a good student, become a minister.
Sitaram wrote
"I read with great interest your statement that " You cannot be a Muslim AND an Atheist."
Here is how I see IT.
The statement was hardly meant to be profound. One submitted to something one denies is a bit of a problem.
Put another way would be a "God-loathing Selfist."
But the main issue is the frustration with god and the alternative to some humanist agenda.
This is a secular path to me and totally legitimate, but like these other alternatives, seems quite out-of-place or presumptuous to attempt to invade into Islam.
There are many who have sought God and given up due to God's apparent lack of presence in their lives. What is it the old Taoists use to say? "Lack of Faith is lack of Good Faith." We become disappointed with what we imagine and hold up (like an idol) to be a legitimate God. This is putting the cart before the horse.
Islam and other Religions are a search for a Higher Power and that power should introduce Itself to us. We should not imagine It and then become enamored or disenchanted with the false image. Such actions are selfish and indicate a form of atheism.
Another legitimate stance is agnostic humanism. "I don't know the Truth about God but I know the immediate experience of being Human and I want to focus on working good here." This is an honest position.
Finally, we have the position of the infinitely complex and unknowable god. There is the soft sufi and the orthodox conservative version of this.
The soft sufi version is the "create your own god - don't put your belief system on me" - hippie god. All belief systems point towards one relative and personal version of the truth and one can pick and choose, like an easter egg hunt, what one wishes to believe along the way.
The other one is the orthodox, conservative view which says there are a hierarchy of scholars who have studied a whole bunch of books and they totally aced the God Exam and now they can guide you since most of this is too complex for the simpleton to even raise question (and don't raise questions because the won't be answered).
Both deny the mission of the Prophets which is to bring real and practical knowledge to the individual seeker.
Sorry, but I htink Inol/Tol's post reads like a "protect the purity of Islam" speech that attempts to put a codified set of approaches to God in neat little packages all too conviniently keeping Islam clean and crisp. I don't think it is or ever thankfully will be.
"This is a secular path to me and totally legitimate"
Thanks for the assurance.
"presumptuous to attempt to invade into Islam."
I don't think so and feel creeped out with any language that replicates the dar al-Islam / dar al-Harb paradigm. That binary is for Sultans and fascists. Invade Islam?
"Such actions are selfish and indicate a form of atheism."
Sounds scary but I don't buy it. Atheism and Islam simply do not seem so at odds to me. In a similar way that Zen Buddhists may still appreciate God-ness despite their often supposed atheism.
"[Agnosticism] is an honest position."
I never liked how quickly (presumably) believers in God lush over Agnostics, as if they're great cause there's always that possiblity! Agnosticism as a practice is more pro-active than that. People tend to think that it's this in limbo Hey I'm just not sure position. Agnostics I know tend to be very pro-NOT knowing and not caring to know. Nevertheless the God worshippers have hope in them...
"The soft sufi version is the "create your own god - don't put your belief system on me" - hippie god."
Uh... "hippie god" (not capitalized of course!) This is so judgemental on ... hmm... I can't even count how many levels.
I am curious to know if there are any progressive reform masjids where the readings and prayers are actually in Engish, and where no Arabic is used. I did come across one Islamic group in America which advocates a movement back to "just the Qur'an", rejecting all of Hadith. Such a movement resembles the "Bible based" Protestant churches which reject everything except the literal Gospels and Epistles.
There are certainly reform Jewish temples where the rabbi is a woman who lesbian.
And there are Christian churchs with gay/lesbian pastors and bishops.
Regardless of religion, one cannot speak of reform, and expect a round of applause and approval from conservatives and fundamentalists.
But there is still always going to be that reform activity, somewhere on some level.
I worked for several years at a programming job, side by side with a woman who was a phi beta kappa math major/theology minor. Her husband was a protestant pastor of a local church. She supported the family with her income. She was very aggressive and outspoken and in reality wanted to be a preacher herself. Now, it irked her that Paul, in one of his epistles said, "It is a shame for a woman’s voice to be heard in a church." Now Paul had written a letter to a particular church which was plagued with disruptions (epistle means letter, obviously). Now those epistles of Paul have come to be reckoned as equal in value and authority with the Gospels. Yet, originally, they were simply letter to address various ad hoc problems. And, in my mind, Paul was a very practical, compromising, political, ad hoc kind of individual.
from ask.com searchÂÂ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarek_Fatah
http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20060803/fatah_resigns_060803/20060803?hub=TorontoHome
"This is a classic threat to label anyone as an apostate and then marginalize them,'' Fatah said. "And this is what Mr. Elmasry has done by listing me as the top anti-Islam Muslim.'' Concern expressed by his wife and two daughters also motivated his decision, he added. "They're constantly worried about what's going to happen to me,'' Fatah said. "In a way, it's not fair to them.'' Fatah said he believes threats and pressure tactics are a common practice in Islamic countries. "This is quite widespread in the Muslim world. This tactic is used to label people as apostates to silence them. In some ways, they are successful in doing that.'' Fatah viewed the label from Elmasry as tantamount to a death sentence, but some Islamic scholars do not share this opinion. "There's nothing particularly Islamic in this,'' said Leonard Librande, a professor of religion at Carleton University in Ottawa. "There are differences of opinion frequently in the community. It doesn't mean somebody is going to kill you.'' Fatah's actions were understandable in light of his family situation, Librande added. Elliot Tepper, Librande's colleague at Carleton's political science department, said he was concerned by the message Fatah's resignation sends across the country.
http://www.mideastjournal.com/muslimsnotnazis.html
http://www.muslimcanadiancongress.org/
http://www.muslimwakeup.com/main/archives/2005/02/amina_wadud_res.php
http://www.selvesandothers.org/view3493.html
Sitaram, are you Hindu?
Thank you for asking regarding my religion.ÂÂ
I was raised with absolutely no religious training (never brought to a house of worship even once) ... raised by parents who were Protestant in name only.
I became curious about all forms of religion, practiced several (but not Islam), and studied many religions.
Several years before the World Trade center attack, I fancied myself one of the greatest critics of Islam.
During the past two years, quite by accident, I became very close Internet friends with a young secular journalist in Pakistan and a secular medical student in Tehran. They thirsted for Western (non-Islamic) culture, literature, philosophy, which is how they came to be attracted to my company in chat rooms and message boards.
I decided that perhaps it might be more constructive if I tried a different, more positive approach, by joining a message board such as this excellent message board.
It is my hope that civil dialogue will help me to deal with the anger, rage, and fear that I have felt for many years now, and also perhaps help in some small way to avert what I see as a possible Armageddon conflict, a mutual attempt at genocide.
After many years of trying and studying many things, I finally feel that I am healed of the misguided need for corporate worship in any form.
I dislike the quid-pro-quo aspect of religions which purport to do something for me, if I will do something, and do something TO me, if I neglect to do something.
I see no point in belief which recommends eternal torment with no hope or possibility of reform. Nature evolved pain as a warning, to avoid injury, and not as an eternal state.
I admire and value spirituality, regardless of its source or context and I admire most that virtuous person who is virtuous for virtue's one sake, apart from any hope of reward or fear of punishment.
I do have personal beliefs, which are eclectic, taken from various sources and traditions, and which resemble Hindu and Buddhist beliefs more than anything else. My beliefs and understanding change and evolve over the decades, and I hope I will always be willing to abandon an inferior idea for a better idea. Galaxies, continents, species, language and culture all evolve, change and adapt. That which does not and cannot change is no longer alive but is dead and inert.ÂÂ
As Gandhi said, in his autobiography, he rejected Christianity because he did not seek merely to avoid the consequences of his evil action but, if possible, to extinguish evil at its very source.
I think it is valuable for you to have here the participation of non-Muslims who have some knowledge of and interest in Islam, and I thank you all for your tolerance and patience in having me here as your guest.
Salam alaikum, Although I am new to Toronto (so take my comments with a grain of salt), I quickly have discovered that Mr. Fatah is truly loathed by most Muslims here that I have met. Their complaints about Mr. Fatah are substantive and have nothing to do with his "progressive" politics but his rantings and ravings about "reactionary" Muslims with agendas to Talibanize Canada. I was told by reliable sources (not associated with the CIC) that in a meeting the Canadian prime minister held with leaders of the Muslim community following the arrest of the alleged 17 terrorists a couple of months ago, that he (or persons associated with him) was demanding that the government do things like certify imams and other nonsense -- all of which are blatant violations of basic principles of religious freedom. His role in the shari'a arbitration debacle -- which I witnessed from the US -- was also shameful. The rhetoric he used in that debate could have come from Daniel Pipes. Indeed, Pipes considers the whole episode to have been a great victory for his "movement." He also participated in a screening of the infamous anti-Islam film "Islam: What the West Needs to Know". One of the (free) progressive city papers in Toronto panned the movie as hate propoganda and questioned Fatah as to why he would lend his prestige to that movie. His answer was something like "The problem is that Muslims believe force is the solution to their problems." In any case, I would be skeptical that CIC (which does not appear to have much strength or credibility in Canada relative to CAIR-Canada) could have intimidated him. Finally, my impression so far of Canadian Muslims (at least the university students), is that they are very individual rights oriented, and they understand the difference between citizenship rights and morality, and on that basis, have no problem with gay-lesbian rights. I would conclude by noting that pluralism is based on the mutual recognition of the dignity of all persons, including those with whom you disagree on profound questions of truth. If one cannot tolerate the fact that other Muslims are more fastidious in their practice of Islam than you without accusing them of being proto-Taliban, you have a profound problem. Having said all this, it is a shame that Mr. Fatah cannot solve his personality problems. He obviously has many positive things to contribute to the community if he could exercise the same virtues of toleration toward those with views who dissent from his as he does toward non-Muslims. I have long wondered, despite myself, whether Muslims have a mahdi-complex, because it seems all Muslim leaders seem to believe that but for them, the umma will be doomed. Was-salam, Mohammad Fadel
These are apt points and demonstrate that Fatah does not always perceive how his comments are playing into the hands of the very ideologies that he hates. He ends up entrenching unfathomably conservative elements in his community and their like in the non-Muslim community.
There are theological and legal interpretations in our communities that might as well be straight from Taliban or al-Qaida. There is no lying about that.
But here is the thing. I do not see all Muslims lying to each other about it as he claims. I see Muslims from across the interpretive spectrum concerned about this issue and working on it.
Again, Zaytuna makes a good example. They are exceedingly conservative traditionalists. I certainly do not mean to say that I share all their views by mentioning them here. But Zaytuna has been successful at training North American Muslims in the traditional Islamic Sciences well enough that they are not attracted to Taliban/al-Qaida-like interpretations.
When I was in PMU, Tarek Fatah would not condone talking to these people. Tarek would not condone working with anyone who did not share his own views. This inlcuded members of PMU whom he called "Islamists" when it suited him. He did not seem to understand that you can talk to people you disagree with and make progress in some areas while you agree to disagree on others, even publicly and vehemently so.
For all my frustrations and disagreements with him, he is and always will be an important figure in North American Islam. His support and courage for woman-led prayer and gay rights is serious stuff. I am ashamed to critique him. I do not have the right. I do not even have the right to praise the positive work he has done for the community and the gains he has made in a life-time of activism in North America and abroad. He has risked his life, was jailed, and was tortured for his human rights activism. God protect him.
Salaam Mohammad,
Good to "see" you on this forum. Your post raises a number of important issues, each of which deserves a post. (Hopefully, some day in the near future...)
The greater Toronto has a large, sprawling and very diverse Muslim community, as I'm sure you're finding out.
Some university students here are indeed individual rights oriented, and I'm not surprised that you'd meet them in law school, of all places. But in the conservative corners of the community here that I know best, it is absolutely not acceptable to support equal rights and protections for all under Canadian laws regardless of sexual orientation.
As for the Shari'a thing, let me say this: "The believer is not stung from the same hole twice."
Laury,
By your own admission, Tarek is a Pakistani immigrant who feels he has a "patent" on Islam.
Sorry if this sounds like Persian arrogance, but perhaps it is.
I like Zaytuna Institute, even if they are conservative, conservatives have more appeal to me as a gay man than most "progressive" Muslims.
No, I was wtf on the whole direction of the thread into petty fighting and the "miss silvers" insult. What is the point of being mean to me? What have I done to you other than provide a space for you voice your ideas and be supportive? I'm sorry if I don't get the appeal of all the fighting.
Muhammad,
Gays in North America are asking for civic recognition, not religious sanctioning of gay marriages.
And when the time comes, I will probably make headlines when I have a family as a gay man in my local masjid.
I hate it when even "progressive" Muslims speak of gay and Muslim issues as being mutually exclusive identities.
Laury, I was not insulting you.
I appreciate the space you provide me but when Ginan attacks me unprovokedly, without so much substantiating her claim, I will fight back.
Call this the Shia in me!
Laury,
I don't mind people disagreeing with me, but this is the second time Ginan has attacked me personally by first calling me self-centered (in one of OmarG's threads) and then calling me racist/xenophobic.
It is she who started this affair, not me.
MWU! reminds readers not to attack the person, attack and debate the ideas, so that we avoid interpersonal conflict.
I was only defending myself.
Good bye Mr. Fattah. I truly wish that those who call themselves "progressive Muslims" would have the courage to leave Islam altogether. Calling yourselves Muslim and at the same time bashing the Sharia and and Islam puts you out of the pale of Islam. I'd have more respect for such people if they'd admit that they really don't believe in Islam and have formally left the fold. Perhaps they are afraid of losing their Muslim families or do they wish to creat a niche for themselves. Hypocrites are the worst.
Bilal,
Are you a Black revert to Islam?
I ask because of your name.
Post new comment