Canada Day, Ramadan and "jihad"

The Canadian Council of Imams (CCI) recently issued an official statement against the radicalization of Muslim youths in Canada. In their press release, the CCI warned young Muslims from traveling to join the “jihad” overseas.

This warning has particular significance in light of Canada Day celebrations which happen to coincide with the start of Ramadan, the most important month in the Muslim calendar.

Besides refraining from food, drink and various vices, Ramadan also calls for increased gratitude for our blessings and remembrance of the less fortunate, such as those suffering from natural disasters, famine, poverty and war.

As someone with ties to multiple “homes” (Canada, Malaysia, the Muslim ummah), being grateful for the blessings of life in Canada is easy but I always find it hard to fully immerse myself in Canada Day festivities. Between asserting my value in my new country of abode and claiming rightful membership to being Malaysian and Muslim, there is rarely a happy middle.

This is especially difficult given the ongoing conflicts where Muslims are directly affected such as in Burma, China, Palestine, Iraq, and Syria, and Canada’s direct or indirect role in those conflicts. On the home turf, there are still huge rooms for improvement in terms of the country’s relationship with minority, immigrant and Aboriginal communities.

How, then, can one be thankful while still acknowledging these faults?

In a short documentary by VICE, a young Briton named Amer Degahyes travels to Syria with his two brothers to fight with the Free Syrian Army. His father disapproves of the move and one of his brothers has been killed during a firefight. Nevertheless, Degahyes was calm and clearheaded in expressing his belief that it was his duty as a Muslim to join the fight.

Degahyes’s father, Abubaker agreed with his sons that they had an obligation to help their Muslim brothers, but he thinks they should have taken a different approach.

There are multiple channels through which the international community can be – and have been – helping those suffering through war, famine, or natural disasters. There are many charitable organizations – local, international, Islamic or secular – that have a long track record of delivering aid to the heart of conflict zones. They are always in need of funding and man power, and would always welcome our contribution.

There are also multiple channels through which we can express our concerns for what’s happening overseas and pressure the government into altering its policies and taking action. Contact your local MPs and make your concerns heard. Join the marches and peaceful protests to raise awareness about what’s happening in these seemingly faraway places. Sign and circulate petitions.

As the CCI explained, the Muslims who are suffering under oppressing have the right to self defense. Those living outside those countries do not have the same right to fight. What we do have, however, is the right to use the resources available to us towards helping those in need.

We’ve benefited tremendously from Canada’s systems of governance, welfare, social security and education. A show of gratitude for these benefits doesn’t mean silent and unquestioned acceptance of Canada’s policies, be they good or otherwise.

Being grateful for Canada means I have to speak up when injustice occurs, be it at home or abroad, and encouraging the government to support aid relief efforts. Being grateful also means channelling my energy and ideas towards making Canada better, in whatever way I can.

Do Muslims have a monopoly over "Allah"?

Malaysia's high court made international headlines when it recently ruled that Christians do not have the right to use the word "Allah."

The iconic Putrajaya Mosque, located in Malaysia's administrative city of Putrajaya.

After a long court battle, Malaysia's Catholic Church lost their case at the Supreme Court when a panel of seven judges voted to uphold the blanket ban preventing the use of the word "Allah" by non-Muslim groups.
 
I'll probably get a lot of heat for this but I don't believe Muslims have the monopoly over the word "Allah," least of all Malaysia's Malay, non-native Arab-speaking Muslims.

The fight over the word "Allah" has been a long one. Although Malaysia still can't quite decide what it's identity is - Muslim country, non-Muslim country, Muslim majority country - it has decided that its Muslims have the exclusive right to use the word.

In arguing their case, many forget that "Allah" is actually an Arabic term for God. In Latin it's deus. In French it's dieu. In Persian it's khoda. In Hindi it's bhagavana. Get the idea?

The word for God in Malay is Tuhan. Interestingly enough, there are no objections to Christians using the word Tuhan, although the majority of Malaysia's Christians are non-Malays or non-native Malay speakers, or both.

One of the arguments for preventing Christians from using "Allah" was that it would confuse Malaysia's Muslims and cause them to inadvertently convert to Christianity (apostasy is a crime punishable by law in Malaysia). Putting aside the sheer ludicrousness of this argument, let's try and conter it with some logic.

Firstly, while it is true that both are descendant of the Abrahamic tradition which worships one God, there are glaring differences between Islam and Christianity. Most fundamentally, Christians do not believe in Prophet Muhammad as the final messenger. Above any other human being, the Prophet is the single most influential person in any professing Muslim's life. Even non-Muslims know what an important figure the Prophet is. Just look at how the Danish cartoons and the Innocence of Muhammad film was successfully used to anger Muslims worldwide. In fact, Islam's foundational declaration of faith contains only two parts: first, there is no God but God and, second, the prophet is His messenger. A Muslim's faith is considered incomplete if either one of these tenets are missing.

Secondly, the ban prevents Christians from using the word "Allah" in their literature. But Christians can still use the word verbally - in conversations, for example - in discussing their faith with others. How are you going to stop the word "Allah" being used by Christians in propagating their faith? By spying in each and every single one of them in order to catch them in the act?

Thirdly, the word "Allah" was already commonly used in reference to God  in sixth century Arabia by pagan, Jewish and Christian Arabs. They used it before Muhammad received his prophecy and they continued to use the word after Islam spread in influence.

Yes, I am aware that we're not living in the Prophet's time. Back then, people received the message straight from him. Muslims today are a far cry from the noble and faithful companions of the Prophet, right?

Not quite. If you were to give even a cursory glance at the Islam's early days, you will notice that Muslims then were a small minority in the predominantly pagan Makkah. Worse, they were constantly under attack socially, economically, politically and even physically for accepting this new faith and disrupting the status quo. Many of the earliest Muslims were the most vulnerable members of Makkan society, from the city's poorest to slaves. They had very little political clout, very little material wealth and certainly no legal monopoly over the term "Allah."

Yet, despite those seemingly insurmountable challenges, Islam spread from Makkah, to the neighbouring city of Madinah and then to the rest of the world. How is that possible?

If the logic behind the ban applies, Islam should have gotten caught up in the confusion with Jewish, Christian and pagan Arabs using the word "Allah" as well, right?

The answer is simple. It lies behind the common claims Muslims like to make about their faith and their Prophet: it was the noble character of the Prophet and the values of justice, equality and dignity for all human beings before God that attracted people to Islam. It was Islam's respect for  different cultures and equal protection for everyone under its law - including people of other faiths - that made inroads for Islam across the African continent into Europe and Asia. It was its attention to the poor and needy that became an incentive for both the givers and the receivers of charity. Not its affinity for legal arm twisting.

Malaysia as a country is still struggling to feed its poor and clothe the needy, not least because billions of tax payers' ringgits still go towards supporting the lavish lifestyle of its royals families - yes, Malaysia has MULTIPLE royal families - including sultans who stand as a symbol of Islam as Malaysia's official state religion.

Winning this monopoly over the word "Allah" may feel like a victory but ratcheting up the law can only go so far.

If keeping Muslims muslim is the country's concern, then it needs to turn its attention to the values that Islam calls for - respect, dignity, equality and justice for everyone regardless of their faith; just and fair implementation of the law for everyone, not just a select group; and material, emotional and spiritual support for the needy and vulnerable members of society, regardless of who they worship.

National Aboriginal Day brings out Brantford's diversity

There’s a lot of diversity in Brantford, if you look in the right place.

The National Aboriginal Day celebration on June 21st at Harmony Square in the downtown core is one such place.

Amidst the toddlers splashing about among the square’s fountains, local residents from all walks of life came out to celebrate the occasion with spirit singers, drum circles, popcorn and snow cones.

Brantford Native Women's Drum Circle performing The Gathering Song during Brantford's National Aboriginal Day celebration

National Aboriginal Day is a nation-wide celebration of First Nations, Inuit, and Métis people’s unique heritage, cultures and achievements. It is also an opportunity for non-Aboriginal peoples to learn about Canada’s Aboriginal history.

Different communities across Canada held their own festivities to mark the occasion. Local organizations responsible for Brantford’s celebration of National Aboriginal Day include Brantford Native Housing, De Dwa Da Dehs Nye>s Aboriginal Health Center, Laurier Brantford’s Office of Aboriginal Initiatives, the Niagara Peninsula Aboriginal Area Management Board, the Woodland Cultural Center and the Grand River Employment and Training.

I took my mom with me and I was happy to see her go shutter-happy at everything she. As newcomers to Canada, we weren’t exposed to the country’s Aboriginal history and culture beyond what we found in a travel brochure.

My shutter-happy mom and Jefferson in his full traditional dress on National Aboriginal Day at Brantford's Harmony Square.

It was through our own exploration that we discovered the Mohawk territory and Kanata Village located just ten minutes from our house. Looking for a quiet place to read one day, my dad discovered Mohawk Chapel, officially known as Her Majesty’s Royal Chapel of the Mohawks. The oldest surviving church in Ontario, the chapel is home to the tomb of Joseph Brant, also known as Thayendanagea, leader of the Mohawk people. The chapel was a reward to the Mohawks for fighting with British troops during the American Revolution.

While jogging one day, I discovered that the path I was on was named after the late Tom Longboat, or Cogwagee, the renowned Onondoga long distance runner from the nearby Six Nations of the Grand River. Oh, and I also learned only very recently that the reservation – locally known as “Six Nations” – is the largest First Nations in Canada and the only territory in North America that is home to six Iroquois Nations – The Mohawk, Cayuga, Onondaga, Oneida, Seneca and Tuscarora.

This may all seem like common knowledge to some or even trivial to others.

To me, as a Muslim, this knowledge is of the utmost importance. It teaches me about my neighbours whose concerns and hopes for the community aren't so different than mine. It teaches me about those with whom the Canadian government has made agreements on my behalf. It is forbidden for Muslims to eat from the fruits of an agreement where one party is shortchanged while the other prospers; knowing that First Nations peoples have been severely shortchanged and that many treaties remain unfulfilled, I am obligated to support them in their struggles.

Most importantly, this knowledge led me on a personal path of learning about the similarities between my beliefs as a Muslim and the spiritual beliefs of First Nations, Inuit and Métis people. They consider the environment a sacred trust, as I do. They treasure the ties of family and community, as I do. They deeply revere their elders, as I do.

The "Old" Mosh Boys performing on National Aboriginal Day at Harmony Square, Brantford.

I’ve gained a whole new appreciation for the phrase, “we are more alike than we are different.”

In some strange way, learning about Canada’s diverse community of Aboriginal peoples gave me a stronger sense of belonging than any newcomer program has.

The English Defence League's Canadian Debut

by Lin Abdul Rahman
The Sputnik, Winter 2011, Issue 2

The English Defence League (EDL), a controversial far-right group, has joined forces with the Jewish Defence League of Canada (JDL) in its war against “political Islam.”

At the time of this writing, The EDL’s maiden rally is planned for Tuesday January 18th. It will be organized by the JDL at its headquarters, the Toronto Zionist Building on Marlee Avenue, near Lawrence Avenue and the Allen Road. Last Tuesday, JDL held a “support rally” there during which EDL’s leader, Stephen Lennon a.k.a. Tommy Robinson spoke to supporters via online hook-up.

Protesters congregated in front of the building, chanting “EDL, go to hell!” Despite the presence of eight Mounties, protesters and JDL supporters clashed, resulting in two arrests and a vandalized police car.

Bernie Farber, CEO of the Canadian Jewish Congress, wrote in the Toronto Sun last week that he foresees a far worse outcome from Tuesday’s impending rally and is “[concerned] about the inevitable mess that will be left behind.”

Prior to the “support rally,” Farber also told the National Post that the CJC is disappointed that the Jewish Defence League would associate itself with a group “whose record in the U.K. is one of violence and extremism.”

The EDL’s controversial stand against Islam and what it calls “Islamic fascism” in the UK has alienated the group from mainstream British Jewish associations as well as leftist groups. The EDL is said to have strayed from its professed opposition against Islamic extremism and now opposes Muslims as a whole.

Britain’s respected Community Security Trust said, “They are no friends of the Jewish community, or of Israel.” Even the Board of Deputies of British Jews has rejected EDL’s attempts at supporting Zionism, calling it “empty and duplicitous.”

This unfavourable British climate may explain why EDL has now set its sights on Canada.

EDL’s grope in the dark managed to land on the Jewish Defence League of Canada, as many noted in dismay. However, this “troubling marriage,” as Farber calls it, should come as no surprise.

To some extent, JDL can be considered EDL’s kissing cousin in Canada. Although small, JDL has long held similarly controversial stands against Islam. Perhaps even more telling is JDL’s website, which lists Jewish assimilation into society, inter-marriage and “Jewish love for the non-Jew” as the biggest threats facing Jews in Canada today.

It’s important to note that JDL and its position regarding Islam is not representative of that of the larger Jewish community in Canada. EDL itself has been described by mainstream media as mainly consisting of “football hooligans” and are not expected to gain much traction with Canada’s middle-class majority.

Nevertheless, the scuffle from Tuesday’s ‘support rally’ shows clearly the ripple effect that can result from throwing a proverbial pebble that is the EDL/JDL union into a pond that is Canadian society.

Although the EDL/JDL propaganda is not expected to have much resonance, we should never the less be vocal about rejecting such propaganda here. Quietly rejecting an unjust act does not relief us of the responsibility for its outcomes.

Case in point: Terry Loughner. Sarah Palin, Fox New et al and the media in general have been largely vilified as the invisible propagator of the Arizona shooting. What’s missing in the equation is society’s role – we are as equally guilty for accepting such hateful vitriol as passively as we do any other piece of news churned out by the networks. Often times we have even unknowingly amplified their message by spreading and “retweeting” those hateful quotes. Very seldom do we realize the ripple effect that those tweets cause and what they say about our social mores.

As I am writing this, the EDL rally is still set to go on. There will most surely be a protest in response and possibly some degree of violence from both sides of the fence. Inevitable, intense media attention will ensue with one party being given more than its fair share of the spotlight. However, the way we respond to that will say a lot about our values as a society.

Before you ban my wardrobe, get your facts straight

By Lin Abdul Rahman
The Sputnik, Issue 1, Winter 2011

As France and Belgium rally to legislate a full ban on the hijab, the religious headdress worn by Muslim women, Quebec prepares to follow in the footsteps of its European counterparts. Jean Charest has introduced Bill 94, which bans full-face coverings “pretty much everywhere but the street itself,” according to Sarah Wildman of Politics Daily.

The axial debate centers on whether the ban would liberate Muslim women from religious subjugation or be an impediment to the religious freedom that Canadians are supposedly afforded by the Charter.

As with any contentious issue, the debate generates an intricate mesh of opinions. Counter-intuitively, the Muslim Canadian Congress supports the ban while secularists worry that it may be inherently “unsecular.”

According to Dr. Tariq Ramadan, one of Europe’s foremost scholars in Islam and philosophy, secularism is about limitations: limitations on the state’s ability to enforce its authority on the church vis a vis religious institutions, and vice versa. So when the state spreads its tentacles into churches, mosques, synagogues and temples as France has so boldly done, it is going against the very principles that it claims to uphold.

According to the Montreal Gazette, 80 percent of Canadians in general and 95 percent of Quebecois support the ban on full-face coverings. I wonder how many people out of that 80 percent of Canadians understand the origins of the burqa and its contextual implementation in today’s society.

Nota bene: I oppose the wearing of the burqa, if and when it is enforced upon Muslim women against their will.

If women were to wear the hijab, niqab or burqa out of their own volition, the ban is then an outright infringement on their religious freedom – one of the basic tenets of fundamental human rights, as afforded by the Charter. In that case, a ban on religious headdresses simply reeks of religious intolerance.

As President Obama said in his speech in Cairo last June, “We cannot disguise hostility toward any religion behind the pretense of liberalism. Indeed, faith should bring us together."

Another fallacious presumption about religious headdresses is that women who wear them are oppressed, whether they know it or not. As someone who consciously chose to wear the hijab, I feel insulted that I am subjugated into the underclass of the ‘oppressed.’ The fact is that not all women who wear the hijab are forced to do so. In fact, not all Muslim women wear the hijab. To claim that Muslim women in western societies who wear the hijab are oppressed is to openly admit that you know nothing about the very people whose rights you claim to fight for.

Yet, conservative rightists, pandering to emotional politics, do not hesitate to call for a sweeping ban that would violate our individual rights as citizens. The Toronto Star’s freelancer Maggie Gilmore writes, “It's a repugnant value system and I reject it. So should all Canadians who embrace secular feminism. So let's ban the burqa, the niqab, and while we're at it, the hijab.”

Notice that no substantial argument is given as to why the hijab should be banned.

This is the very statement that would compel 80 percent of Canadians to check “Yes” when answering opinion polls about the hijab ban.

The Toronto Star’s Haroon Siddiqui was right in saying that it’s ‘scary’ when the majority feels threatened by a minority. It’s even scarier when they start harnessing the power of the law simply to quell that unfounded fear. In human rights courses, we call that ‘tyranny of the majority.’ It’s the same unfounded fear that sent the Jews to the ghettos and later extermination. It’s the same fear that sent Canadian and American Japanese to internment camps during WW2. It’s the same fear that poured billions of dollars of American tax payers’ money into a so-called war against terrorism.

My advice is, before you form an opinion on the hijab/niqab/burqa ban, find a woman who wears one and ask her why. That way, you can claim to be part of an informed public that supports democracy rather than an 80 percent majority that has possibly been misinformed. It is precisely this misinformed majority that is still amateurishly hung up on issues of assimilation versus isolation when discussing Muslims in the west. The possibility of convergence between immigrants’ culture of origin and their newly adopted one is rarely discussed.

Meanwhile, millions of Muslims in western societies already live as functioning and contributing citizens in Europe, America and Canada. They call themselves French, British, American and Canadian just as comfortably as Scientologist Tom Cruise calls himself an American or as Jewish Sacha Baren Cohen calls himself a Brit.

To borrow an oft-used expression: “Muslim women are here; they wear the hijab; deal with it.” There are far more important things we can spend our time and energy on.

The Islamic f-word

By Lin Abdul Rahman
The Sputnik, Issue 8, Fall 2010

I was admiring my burqa-clad Barbie at the F-Word Symposium last week when a journalism student cornered me with his notepad.

“What is Islamic feminism?” he asked me at point blank. I rubbed my chin in an effort to appear pensive and to buy myself some time. After spouting some painfully vague answers, I finally admitted that I know very little about feminism. That’s the reason why I’m one of the many wide-eyed wanderers at this event.

As for Islamic feminism – well, I didn’t even know the ideology existed until he questioned me about it.

Admitting that was embarrassing, to say the least. But I console myself with the fact that this kind of situation is out of my control – they are one of the drawbacks to being one of the few visible Muslims on campus. The hijab covering my hair is the equivalent of a bulls-eye on my back. I’m a natural target for all Islam-related curiosities.

For that very reason, my ears perked up when one of the symposium’s panellists, Margaret Toye, spoke of her experience as ‘the token feminist’.

“How ‘out’ do I want to be about my politics?” Toye said in talking about the dilemmas she faced during her earlier days of dabbling in feminism.

Of course, she eventually came clean about her newly-adopted ideology. Toye said she was subsequently and inevitably given role of “the token feminist” – the person people turn to when they need a short cut to understanding what feminism is all about.

Likewise, I stepped into the role of “the token Muslim woman” when I agreed to be interviewed at the F-Word Symposium. I became the shortcut to ticking off the “Muslim perspective” checkbox on this particular student’s checklist of people to talk to.

Don’t get me wrong – this isn’t a personal diatribe against interviews. I’m always happy to help a fellow student and I’m even happier to have my voice heard.

But in the same degree, I worry that people looking to me as an example of a Muslim may not realize that my voice is a minority within a minority. I am a far cry from being a credible representative of a group that is highly diverse politically, geographically, and even religiously.

That’s a huge responsibility, and one that I will probably never be able to handle. As it is, the public is already so grossly misled about the diversity that exists within the global Muslim population, thanks in large part to the mainstream media. When people think about Muslims, they think “Middle East”, and when they think of the hijab, they think of “oppression”.

This fallacious understanding of Muslims was almost perfectly played out, again, during the aforementioned interview that I felt more amused than upset. In the middle of answering yet another question, I realized why our conversation was such an uphill battle from the get go.

After several futile attempts, on my part, to explain the Arab culture’s treatment of women, I decided to come clean, even if it means I’ll have to turn my interviewer away empty-handed. I took a deep breath and confessed, “I’m not Arab, actually. I’m Asian,” I said.

His reaction to that confession told me that this is news and that the interview was about to come to an abrupt halt. I gave a mental sigh of relief, even though I had one regret; I wish I could explain to this student that race, religion and gender politics can intersect one another in ways that are very different from what he’s used to.

Alas, his eyes were already scanning the room for better prospects and I had promised someone else another interview.

As we took our leave, I formulated a disclaimer for the next person who might approach me for an interview: Ask me anything you want but be sure to check your presumptions at the door. Otherwise, this conversation ain’t getting nowhere.