Angry in the Great White North

When leaders of the Canadian Muslim community came together to denounce terrorism, I criticized the statement as consisting of so many meaningless platitudes. The source of my sour evaluation was that there was no mention in the fatwa that Muslims had a duty to work with the authorities when they suspected someone in their midst of being a terrorist, or of having knowledge of terrorist plans.

This is critical, because it firmly puts the Muslim community on the side of the greater Canadian community. The lack of such a statement makes the fatwa toothless, demanding nothing of the faithful.

Many people criticized me for being mean spirited or petty, but I'm sticking to my guns on this one.

Then I was directed to this story at the Globe and Mail:

Just hours after yesterday's explosions in London, 120 imams from across Canada issued a statement condemning terrorism in the name of religion, going so far as to say it is their "duty" to turn extremists in to the authorities.

The statement condemned terror and religious extremism as "twisted acts [that] betray the most basic value of the sanctity of human life."

The declaration was co-ordinated by the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-CAN), marking the first time in Canada such a large group of imams from diverse ethnic backgrounds have articulated their position on jihadi Islam, and was presented days after the Sunni Council in Britain issued a fatwa calling the July 7 suicide bombings an act against Islam.

Let's be clear on this. The fatwa has not changed. Follow the link from CAIR-CAN, and the document remains the same. The quote about the "twisted acts" appears in the text.

The word "duty", quoted in the Globe and Mail piece, does not, nor is there any direct reference to helping authorities.

So where did the Globe and Mail get this? It turns out it was spoken at the newsconference.

The imams were prodded to go further, and asked how they would deal with someone harbouring extremist thoughts in their congregation.

They said they would help the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the RCMP.

"You try to deal with the situation. You educate that person that even joking about this is not appropriate," Imam Haddara said. "And if they are serious about it, then it is my obligation as an imam to report this to the authorities."

Imam Ahmad Kutty, who is from the Islamic Institute of Toronto, added that since the July 7 London bombings, he has been urging fellow Muslims to co-operate with authorities as well.

"It is your religious duty, it is your civic duty, if you know anybody is harbouring this kind of extreme views or terrorist tendencies, to report them to security or the law enforcement. We consider that as a religious duty."

This is excellent news, and I'm glad that these respected men have said these things. Imam Kutty in particular has spoken the importance on forming friendly ties with non-Muslims. Other scholarly interpretations of the Koran have guided people to specifically direct the faithful to work with non-Muslim authorities.

So what is my concern? The problem is that this advice to cooperate with the authorities does not appear in the signed fatwa. There are 120 imams whose opinion is represented by this document. Though two have been explicit in word and in print as obliging Muslims to work with the authorities, I would have prefered that it appeared in the signed fatwa, representing the opinion of all 120 signatories:

CAIR-CAN's executive director, Riad Saloojee, dismissed the notion that some Islamic leaders did not agree with their statement, saying that everyone his organization had approached was enthusiastic.

I have to wonder where that notion came from? Of the imams who signed, would any have refused if the fatwa had demanded the Muslims work with non-Muslim authorities to hunt down and capture fellow Muslims, no matter what their crime?

Could that have been a compromise when the fatwa was fashioned?

Call it an uneasy feeling about what is otherwise excellent news.