Refutation of Elmasry’s allegations
By Sheikh Abdul Hadi
Palazzi
The CIC communiqué opens as follows:
MEDIA COMMUNIQUÉ THE CANADIAN ISLAMIC CONGRESS March 4, 2004
CANADIAN JEWISH GROUPS CRITICIZED FOR HOSTING EXTREMIST ANTI-MUSLIM
SPEAKER The Canadian Islamic Congress has issued a strongly critical
statement in response to B'nai Brith Canada and other Canadian Jewish
groups (including Betar Tagar, the McMaster University Zionist student
club, and a private foundation called Hadar) for sponsoring the
controversial Italian lecturer Abdul Hadi Palazzi, who was scheduled to
speak at Hamilton-area synagogue. Palazzi, claiming a Ph.D. of doubtful
origins, is a self-styled Muslim convert who on previous speaking
engagements in this country, asserted that "more than 80 per cent of
mosques and Muslim organizations in Canada [including the CIC] are
controlled by extremist members of the Muslim Brotherhood." He has also
directly accused the majority of Canadian Muslims and their mosque
communities of being controlled by active terrorist elements.
Dr. Elmasry has a past record of systematic defamation and slanders
against those who oppose the extremism agenda of his organization. In the
recent past, he attributed to Dr. Daniel Pipes and to Prof. Bernard Lewis
the view according to which "Islam is not compatible with democracy". On
the contrary, whoever is familiar with the writings of those authors is
aware that they stand for the opposite view. They say that contemporary
Islamism is surely not compatible with democracy, but that "nothing in
Islam immutably contradicts democracy."
Daniel Pipes' refutations of Elmasry claims can be read at http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/166
For what concerns myself, Dr. Elmasry concentrates in few lines four
false accusations:
1) That my Ph.D. in Islamic Sciences is "of doubtful origins";
2) That I am "a self-styled Muslim";
3) That I am "a convert";
4) That I have "directly accused the majority of Canadian Muslims and
their mosque communities of being controlled by active terrorist
elements".
Let me answer Dr. Elmasry's lies one by one.
A person who, like Dr. Elmasry, claims to speak as a representative of
Islam, should be reminded that the Prophet Muhammad (God's blessings and
peace be upon him) said: "A liar, as long as he goes on lying, cannot be a
believer." Now, Dr. Elmasry lies about me in the same why he lied about
other people who contributed to unveiling the role of extremist, Wahhabi
organizations in North
America. He must realize that by doing so he
actually helps people understand how extremist militants deliberately
violate the basic principles of the very same religion that they claim to
"represent". Evidently, In Dr. Elmasry ethics, lying about people one
dislikes is acceptable. In Islam, one the other hand, the liar, by his
lies, only unveils his lack of faith.
As for point (1), I received in my Ph.D. in Islamic Studies from
the Board of ISRI, the Italian Institute for Islamic Studies and
Researches, Naples. The Board was chaired by Maulana as-Sheikh Abu Ibrahim
Ali ibn al-Hussein al-Badawi as-Siddiqi, and appointed by the late Grand
Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Abdul Aziz ibn Baz. Consequently, there is
nothing "doubtful" about my Ph.D. In contrast, if one looks at the
credentials of Dr. Elmasry, one finds that he received no special Islamic
education, and consequently is not qualified to speak as if he were a
Muslim scholar or a representative of Islam. That is not "doubtful", but
certain. That also explains why he is unable to realize that someone who
claims to speak for Islam and then circulates lies disqualifies himself in
the eyes of the Muslims.
As for point (2), I am not "self styled", but am a traditional
Sunni scholar. I do not innovate anything in the different fields of the
Islamic knowledge, but strictly abide by the Sunni belief (`Aqidah of
Ahlu-s-Sunnah wa-l-Jama`ah). I follow the Shafi`i school in jurisprudence
(fiqh), the Ash`ari school in speculative theology (kalam) and the Qadiri
order(Tariqah al-Qadiriyyah) in Sufism (Tasawwuf).
When the government of Malaysia arranged a world assembly of Muslim
scholars, I was invited together with 300 Muslim scholars from every part
of the world; when the World Muslim League arranges the yearly assembly of
experts in Islamic Law in Mecca, it invites me. I have never seen Dr.
Elmasry invited in any assembly of Muslim scholars, and the reason is
evident: he is competent in software engineering, not in Islamic sciences,
a field in which he has no degree, no authorization to teach and no
special qualification.
When I teach Islamic sciences, I abide by the teachings of the schools
I belong to, and abide by the example of those Sunni authorities who
authorized me to teach. On the contrary, were one to check which are the
"authorities" on which Dr. Elmasry bases his personal belief, one would
realize that he quotes as "authoritative" the most nefarious self-styled
reformists, people like Jamal al-Din al-Afghani, Muhammad AbduH, and
Rashid Rida. Those people were actually those who rejected the Sunni
belief, and strove hard to spread among the Muslims that kind of
self-styled reformism (as-Salafiyyah) which is the direct forerunner of
the contemporary militant radicalism.
The Sunni scholars attributed a great importance to the refutation of
the heretic, conjectural reformism promoted by Jamal al-Din al-Afghani,
Muhammad AbduH, and Rashid Rida, i.e. by those same persons who Dr.
Elmasry considers to be "authoritative". Being himself a follower of
self-styled reformists, Dr. Elmasry still dares to accuse of being
"self-styled" those Muslim scholars who - like myself - oppose self-styled
reformism and abide by the Sunni belief. Incidentally, Dr. Elmasry admits
his dependence on self-styled reformists in the same article in which he
attributes to Daniel Pipes and Bernard Lewis the opposite of what they
stand for:
http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/4196/
Evidently, Dr. Elmasry knows no shame, and does not even realize how
that same article make him appear ridiculous in the eyes of those who are
familiar with Islamic sciences.
As for point (3), Islam surely regards converts as honorable; as
a matter of fact, however, I am not "a convert", but was born into a
Muslim family.
As for point (4), saying that "more than 80 per cent of mosques
and Muslim organizations in Canada are controlled by extremist members of
the Muslim Brotherhood" is nothing other than the plain truth, confirmed
by those who are informed about the role of the Muslim Brotherhood as a
network which attempts to hijack the representativeness of those Muslims
who live in democratic countries. Sheikh Hisham Kabbani and Dr. Khalid
Duran denounced this palpable reality even before 9/11, respectively, in
the 1999 briefing at the U.S. State Department, and in the essay, "Muslims
and Islamists in North America". Experts like Steven Emerson and Daniel
Pipes also contributed to make the Western public opinion and the Western
governments aware of the danger that the international network of the
Muslim Brotherhood represents for democracy and for peaceful co-existence
in North America.
In any case, denouncing the fact that more of the 80 % of the mosques
in North America (and the same is unfortunately true for Western Europe)
are under the control of an extremist network directed by the Muslim
Brotherhood and funded by the House of Saud is quite different from
levelling an accusation that 80% of the Muslims are extremists. This same
misrepresentations of facts was attempted by those leaders of the
extremist network who started defaming Sheikh Hisham Kabbani, after his
courageous statements. Specifically, Sheikh Kabbani denounced the
extremism of the professional militants, and those same extremists claimed
that he was accusing the Muslims in general. Now, Dr. Elmasry is trying to
play exactly the same trick against me. Contrary to Mr Elmasry statements,
both Sheikh Hisham Kabbani and I declare that the great majority of the
Muslims who live in Canada, in the United States and in Europe are not
extremists; rather, their right to be represented in the right light
before the public is hijacked by extremist, Wahhabi-oriented organizations
like CAIR, ISNA, ICNA, or Elmasry's CIC. In my opinion, the Muslims are
not responsible for that tragic situation, but are its main victims. It is
because of the extremism which pervades the Saudi-funded network, and
because of the powerful resources that the Saudi regime put at disposal of
those extremist organizations that the Muslims in general risk being
accused of extremism by those who are not aware of the reality as I
presented it.
Thank God, after 9/11, moderate Muslims are raising their voices to
denounce extremism, and are openly proclaiming that CAIR, ISNA, ICNA and
CIC only represent their Saudi masters, and not the Muslims who live in
North America. While Dr. Elmasry goes on circulating his deliberate lies,
Irshad Manji and Sarah Nasser are telling the truth about extremism in
Canada, and Sheikh Hisham Kabbani, Khalid Duran and Stephen Schwartz are
telling that same truth in the United States. In Europe, the Mufti of
Marseille Sohaid Bencheikh and I are denouncing the same danger. There
exist moderate Muslims who have the courage to denounce those extremist,
Saudi agents who claim to represent the Muslims as a whole. Muslims who
are not afraid to unveil the extremist agenda of Saudi-funded,
Wahhabi-oriented organizations exist and are active. They are not a silent
majority anymore.
Interestingly enough, Elmasry's organization is resorting to defamation
against me in the same exact way it is resorting to defamation against
Irshad Manji. Irshad Manji is a Muslim journalist who has an extremely
liberal approach to Islam, while I am a Muslim scholar who abides by the
traditional Sunni belief. What we have in common is that both of us
denounce the threat represented by the extremist network which controls
the majority of the mosques in North America and Western Europe, and both
of us claim that as Muslims we feel the duty to condemn the barbarous
terrorism perpetrated by the PLO and Hamas against innocent civilians; we
voice our solidarity with the State of Israel, the only State in Middle
East in which Muslims live in democracy and not under a totalitarian
regime. Our condemnation of Wahhabi extremism, our condemnation of
terrorism and our friendly attitude toward Israel is enough for Dr.
Elmasry and for other similar extremists to slander us and to forge
against us the most absurd claims.
In response to Palazzi's continuing allegations, CIC
national president Dr. Mohamed Elmasry stated categorically that "the
CIC absolutely has never been, and never will be, affiliated with or
controlled by any group or organization outside Canada."
If so, let Dr. Elmasry try to prove --if he can -- that the CIC has
absolutely no relations with the Muslim Brotherhood, with CAIR-Canada,
with CAIR-U.S., or with ISNA. Let him also show --if he can -- that in the
United States, no member of CAIR or of ISNA is under investigation for its
involvement in terrorism. Moreover, if there exist a document in which CIC
has peradventure condemned Hamas and its strategy of suicide bombing, Dr.
Elmasry is kindly requested to show it.
"I said it before and I'll say it again. These are very
emotionally charged times and many Canadian Muslims and Jews are deeply
affected by what is happening in the Middle East," he continued. "To
bring this known anti-Islam campaigner into our midst is bad enough and
tantamount to hate-crime, but to use synagogues and respected
educational institutions to give him public voice is simply
irresponsible. It undermines all efforts to foster good relations
between two significant Canadian faith communities. What we need now,
more than anything, is understanding and sensitivity."
Since I denounce extremism, condemn terrorism, and claim that Muslims
are not
To be held responsible for the extremist views circulated by
the Muslim Brotherhood, since I claim that Islam does condemn terrorism
and must not be confused with the totalitarian pro-terror ideology
promoted by CAIR, ISNA or CIC, Dr. Elmasry accuses me of being an
"anti-Islam campaigner". By doing so, he simply confirm my thesis. He
evidently identifies Islam with support for terrorism and with extremism.
Incidentally, accusing me of being "anti-Islam" is so ridiculous that
wasting time to refute that claim is not even necessary. With God's help,
I have spent plenty of years in defending the reputation of Islam in
Europe, in America and in Middle East, and have contributed to educate to
Islam hundreds of Muslim students and new converts.
My writings are used as textbooks for training Imams at the
International Islamic University of Tashkent, Uzbekistan. The Grand Mufti
of European Russia, Sheikh Salman Farid, wrote me to thank me for
contributing to the defence of Islam from anti-Sunni fanatics. My
commitment to expanding the knowledge of Islam in the world and in
refuting pseudo-Islamic extremist sects is known to Muslims and
non-Muslims alike. Sheikh Abdurrahman Wahid, the leader of Nahdlatul
Ulama, the biggest Muslim organization in the world, having 50,000,000
members, has recently reproduced in his Web site my recent interview with
Israpundit; see:http://www.gusdur.net/english/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=659&Itemid=42.
"It would be wise for B'nai Brith to cancel Mr. Palazzi's
Canadian tour," suggested CIC national vice-president Mrs. Wahida
Valiante. "Both Muslim and Jewish communities in our country are going
through difficult times.
It is dangerously inappropriate for anyone to exploit such a
sensitive situation."
The CIC has also informed the hate crime
unit of the Hamilton Police, requesting that Palazzi's speeches in the
area be closely monitored.
Hard to believe, but the CIC equates the defense of Islam and the
refutation of extremism to a "hate crime"! Moderate Muslims should be
silenced, and extremist Wahhabis should be the only ones to have the right
to speak. Does Dr. Elmasry realize that he lives in Canada, or
peradventure he believes that he live in Gaza? Does he really think that
Canadian justice is like the "justice" of Yasser Arafat?
Since the CIC media communiqué mentions Ms. Wahida Valiante, I think it
is extremely interesting to deal with what the Vice President of the
organization which accuses me of "hate crime" actually stands for.
Instead of monitoring my speeches which condemn extremism and promote
interfaith dialogue, the hate crime unit of the Hamilton Police and other
units of the Canadian police which investigate hate crimes should rather
closely monitor Ms. Vialiante's articles and each of the CIC weekly
bulletins. On February 2004, for example, the CIC bulletin circulated a
rabid antisemitic and racist piece by Ms. Valiante, the text of which can
be read at http://atlanta.indymedia.org/newswire/display/26307/index.php.
In that outstanding example of inflammatory antisemitic propaganda, Ms.
Valiante shamelessly equates the notion of "chosen people" (a known aspect
of Judaism) with "institutionalized racism"; she also claims that that
notion represents "a terrible precedent for human history in general". The
article basically blames Judaism for racism, the annihilation of North
America's Aboriginal people and most of the rest of the world's ills.
However, it was not written by Joseph Goebbels, the Minister of Propaganda
of the III Reich, but by Wahida Valiante, the Vice President of the
Canadian Islamic Congress.
I have read that a Canadian court condemned a Christian minister who
uttered derogatory statements about Islam to serve for 800 hours in a
mosque, with the clause that in case he repeats that same statements he
will be sent to jail. I know that the principle "the law is equal for all"
is one of the basis of democracy. Islam is the religion of some Canadian
citizens, and Judaism in the religion of other Canadian citizens. If a
Canadian citizen is not allowed to utter derogatory statements against
Islam, justice requires that another Canadian citizen should not be
allowed to utter derogatory, racist and antisemitic statements against
Judaism. Consequently, I sincerely hope that a Canadian court will soon
apply the same principle to the case of Ms. Valiante, and condemn her to
serve for 800 hours in a synagogue; this should be accompanied by the
proviso that should she voice the same statements which are contained in
her horrible article, she will be sent to jail.
Apart from monitoring the articles by Ms. Valiante, in order to
ascertain whether she repeats her hate crime, the Canadian police should
also monitor the sudden change of attitude of Dr. Elmasry toward
terrorism. In a communiqué dated 12 May 2000, the CIC accuses the National
Post of "high levels of anti-Islamic bias". That supposed bias was deduced
from the fact that among other news, the daily newspaper informed its
readers that "U.S. fears bin Laden is building crude radiation bombs". In
other words, before 9/11 the CIC was considering accusations against Bin
Laden as aspects of "anti-Islamic bias". Immediately after 9/11, Dr.
Elmasry nominally condemned the terror attack, but at the same time "urged
the media to exercise core professional ethics and refrain from
speculating on who might be responsible for this latest and unprecedented
tragedy that some U.S. officials are already calling an "act of war"."
While the U.S. immediately identified al-Qa'idah as the party
responsible of the attack, Dr. Elmasry called this "speculation"! It was
only on 10 October 2001, after that the involvement of Bin Laden was
proved beyond any possible doubt, that Dr. Elmasry finally said about Bin
Laden "He Doesn't Speak For Me".
Now, those who investigate hate crimes and the Canadian public opinion
should seriously ask this question: which is the real Elmasry, that of 12
May 2000 or that of 10 October 2001?, the one who considers accusations
against Bin Laden to be an expression of anti-Islamic bias, or the one who
afterwards claims that Bin Laden does not speak for him? This deep
ambiguity characterizes the whole network of the Muslim Brotherhood: they
never condemn terrorism, except when they are absolutely compelled to do
so. We have heard that Dr. Elmasry claims to have condemned Bin Laden, but
we have not yet heard that he condemns Ahmad Yassin. We have never heard
that he condemns Hamas for its propaganda in favor of suicide terrorism or
for Yassin’s shameful abuse of the name of Islam in order to legitimize
suicide terrorism. We have never heard Dr. Elmasry to declare that Ahmad
Yassin is infamous, since he claims that Islam legitimizes suicide
bombing. Quite the contrary, we hear from Dr Elmasry that Sheikh Palazzi
is "infamous" for condemning terrorism in the name of Islam, and we have
even heard that condemning terrorism in the name of Islam must be equate
to a hate crime!
Palazzi has been publicly discredited by a number of
European Muslim organizations in recent years; others have disavowed any
association with his viewpoints or activities.
Interestingly, those supposed European Muslim Organizations are nothing
but the local branches of the Muslim Brotherhood, i.e. of that same
international Saudi-funded network which in North America includes CAIR,
ISNA and CIC. By that claim of his, Dr. Elmasry only proves that the other
Saudi agents who are his colleague share the same hatred that he himself
harbours against me and against any other Muslim who has the courage to
stand against extremism.
Following his Canadian tour, Palazzi is scheduled to visit
Chicago, Texas, California, New Jersey and Massachusetts, speaking at a
number of American universities.
That is the last of Dr. Elmasry false claims. After my visit to Canada,
I only spoke in Chicago. My speeches at University campuses in Texas,
California, New Jersey, Massachusetts [and Ohio] preceded my speeches in
Ottawa and Hamilton. Clearly, in Pro. Elmasry's ethics, telling the truth
has no relevance. What matters is defaming those who denounce the
extremist network he represents in Canada.
Sheikh Abdul Hadi Palazzi
http://www.amislam.com/
islam.inst@flashnet.it
-----------------
Ed. Note: For readers who wish to contact the CIC, I am enclosing the
two relevant e-mail addresses:
Dr. Mohamed Elmasry,
np@canadianislamiccongress.com
Mrs. Wahida
Valiante,
nvp@canadianislamiccongress.com
Prof. Palazzi refutes Elmasry’s allegations
In a previous posting, I noted that on March 1, 2004, Prof. Palazzi addressed an audience at the Carleton University in Ottawa (the contents of the talk were recorded in another post, namely http://israpundit.com/archives/005068.html).
Because the message was one of peace and conciliation, it was met with hostility by the Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC), which released a media communiqué, dated March 4, 2004, and signed by a certain Mohamed Elmasry. The following is Prof. Palazzi’s response, with sections of Elmasry’s communiqué embedded. The post was authorized by Prof. Palazzi.
Refutation of Elmasry’s allegations
By Sheikh Abdul Hadi Palazzi
The CIC communiqué opens as follows:
Dr. Elmasry has a past record of systematic defamation and slanders against those who oppose the extremism agenda of his organization. In the recent past, he attributed to Dr. Daniel Pipes and to Prof. Bernard Lewis the view according to which "Islam is not compatible with democracy". On the contrary, whoever is familiar with the writings of those authors is aware that they stand for the opposite view. They say that contemporary Islamism is surely not compatible with democracy, but that "nothing in Islam immutably contradicts democracy."
Daniel Pipes' refutations of Elmasry claims can be read at http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/166
For what concerns myself, Dr. Elmasry concentrates in few lines four false accusations:
1) That my Ph.D. in Islamic Sciences is "of doubtful origins";
2) That I am "a self-styled Muslim";
3) That I am "a convert";
4) That I have "directly accused the majority of Canadian Muslims and their mosque communities of being controlled by active terrorist elements".
Let me answer Dr. Elmasry's lies one by one.
A person who, like Dr. Elmasry, claims to speak as a representative of Islam, should be reminded that the Prophet Muhammad (God's blessings and peace be upon him) said: "A liar, as long as he goes on lying, cannot be a believer." Now, Dr. Elmasry lies about me in the same why he lied about other people who contributed to unveiling the role of extremist, Wahhabi organizations in North
America. He must realize that by doing so he actually helps people understand how extremist militants deliberately violate the basic principles of the very same religion that they claim to "represent". Evidently, In Dr. Elmasry ethics, lying about people one dislikes is acceptable. In Islam, one the other hand, the liar, by his lies, only unveils his lack of faith.
As for point (1), I received in my Ph.D. in Islamic Studies from the Board of ISRI, the Italian Institute for Islamic Studies and Researches, Naples. The Board was chaired by Maulana as-Sheikh Abu Ibrahim Ali ibn al-Hussein al-Badawi as-Siddiqi, and appointed by the late Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Abdul Aziz ibn Baz. Consequently, there is nothing "doubtful" about my Ph.D. In contrast, if one looks at the credentials of Dr. Elmasry, one finds that he received no special Islamic education, and consequently is not qualified to speak as if he were a Muslim scholar or a representative of Islam. That is not "doubtful", but certain. That also explains why he is unable to realize that someone who claims to speak for Islam and then circulates lies disqualifies himself in the eyes of the Muslims.
As for point (2), I am not "self styled", but am a traditional Sunni scholar. I do not innovate anything in the different fields of the Islamic knowledge, but strictly abide by the Sunni belief (`Aqidah of Ahlu-s-Sunnah wa-l-Jama`ah). I follow the Shafi`i school in jurisprudence (fiqh), the Ash`ari school in speculative theology (kalam) and the Qadiri order(Tariqah al-Qadiriyyah) in Sufism (Tasawwuf).
When the government of Malaysia arranged a world assembly of Muslim scholars, I was invited together with 300 Muslim scholars from every part of the world; when the World Muslim League arranges the yearly assembly of experts in Islamic Law in Mecca, it invites me. I have never seen Dr. Elmasry invited in any assembly of Muslim scholars, and the reason is evident: he is competent in software engineering, not in Islamic sciences, a field in which he has no degree, no authorization to teach and no special qualification.
When I teach Islamic sciences, I abide by the teachings of the schools I belong to, and abide by the example of those Sunni authorities who authorized me to teach. On the contrary, were one to check which are the "authorities" on which Dr. Elmasry bases his personal belief, one would realize that he quotes as "authoritative" the most nefarious self-styled reformists, people like Jamal al-Din al-Afghani, Muhammad AbduH, and Rashid Rida. Those people were actually those who rejected the Sunni belief, and strove hard to spread among the Muslims that kind of self-styled reformism (as-Salafiyyah) which is the direct forerunner of the contemporary militant radicalism.
The Sunni scholars attributed a great importance to the refutation of the heretic, conjectural reformism promoted by Jamal al-Din al-Afghani, Muhammad AbduH, and Rashid Rida, i.e. by those same persons who Dr. Elmasry considers to be "authoritative". Being himself a follower of self-styled reformists, Dr. Elmasry still dares to accuse of being "self-styled" those Muslim scholars who - like myself - oppose self-styled reformism and abide by the Sunni belief. Incidentally, Dr. Elmasry admits his dependence on self-styled reformists in the same article in which he attributes to Daniel Pipes and Bernard Lewis the opposite of what they stand for:
http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/4196/
Evidently, Dr. Elmasry knows no shame, and does not even realize how that same article make him appear ridiculous in the eyes of those who are familiar with Islamic sciences.
As for point (3), Islam surely regards converts as honorable; as a matter of fact, however, I am not "a convert", but was born into a Muslim family.
As for point (4), saying that "more than 80 per cent of mosques and Muslim organizations in Canada are controlled by extremist members of the Muslim Brotherhood" is nothing other than the plain truth, confirmed by those who are informed about the role of the Muslim Brotherhood as a network which attempts to hijack the representativeness of those Muslims who live in democratic countries. Sheikh Hisham Kabbani and Dr. Khalid Duran denounced this palpable reality even before 9/11, respectively, in the 1999 briefing at the U.S. State Department, and in the essay, "Muslims and Islamists in North America". Experts like Steven Emerson and Daniel Pipes also contributed to make the Western public opinion and the Western governments aware of the danger that the international network of the Muslim Brotherhood represents for democracy and for peaceful co-existence in North America.
In any case, denouncing the fact that more of the 80 % of the mosques in North America (and the same is unfortunately true for Western Europe) are under the control of an extremist network directed by the Muslim Brotherhood and funded by the House of Saud is quite different from levelling an accusation that 80% of the Muslims are extremists. This same misrepresentations of facts was attempted by those leaders of the extremist network who started defaming Sheikh Hisham Kabbani, after his courageous statements. Specifically, Sheikh Kabbani denounced the extremism of the professional militants, and those same extremists claimed that he was accusing the Muslims in general. Now, Dr. Elmasry is trying to play exactly the same trick against me. Contrary to Mr Elmasry statements, both Sheikh Hisham Kabbani and I declare that the great majority of the Muslims who live in Canada, in the United States and in Europe are not extremists; rather, their right to be represented in the right light before the public is hijacked by extremist, Wahhabi-oriented organizations like CAIR, ISNA, ICNA, or Elmasry's CIC. In my opinion, the Muslims are not responsible for that tragic situation, but are its main victims. It is because of the extremism which pervades the Saudi-funded network, and because of the powerful resources that the Saudi regime put at disposal of those extremist organizations that the Muslims in general risk being accused of extremism by those who are not aware of the reality as I presented it.
Thank God, after 9/11, moderate Muslims are raising their voices to denounce extremism, and are openly proclaiming that CAIR, ISNA, ICNA and CIC only represent their Saudi masters, and not the Muslims who live in North America. While Dr. Elmasry goes on circulating his deliberate lies, Irshad Manji and Sarah Nasser are telling the truth about extremism in Canada, and Sheikh Hisham Kabbani, Khalid Duran and Stephen Schwartz are telling that same truth in the United States. In Europe, the Mufti of Marseille Sohaid Bencheikh and I are denouncing the same danger. There exist moderate Muslims who have the courage to denounce those extremist, Saudi agents who claim to represent the Muslims as a whole. Muslims who are not afraid to unveil the extremist agenda of Saudi-funded, Wahhabi-oriented organizations exist and are active. They are not a silent majority anymore.
Interestingly enough, Elmasry's organization is resorting to defamation against me in the same exact way it is resorting to defamation against Irshad Manji. Irshad Manji is a Muslim journalist who has an extremely liberal approach to Islam, while I am a Muslim scholar who abides by the traditional Sunni belief. What we have in common is that both of us denounce the threat represented by the extremist network which controls the majority of the mosques in North America and Western Europe, and both of us claim that as Muslims we feel the duty to condemn the barbarous terrorism perpetrated by the PLO and Hamas against innocent civilians; we voice our solidarity with the State of Israel, the only State in Middle East in which Muslims live in democracy and not under a totalitarian regime. Our condemnation of Wahhabi extremism, our condemnation of terrorism and our friendly attitude toward Israel is enough for Dr. Elmasry and for other similar extremists to slander us and to forge against us the most absurd claims.
If so, let Dr. Elmasry try to prove --if he can -- that the CIC has absolutely no relations with the Muslim Brotherhood, with CAIR-Canada, with CAIR-U.S., or with ISNA. Let him also show --if he can -- that in the United States, no member of CAIR or of ISNA is under investigation for its involvement in terrorism. Moreover, if there exist a document in which CIC has peradventure condemned Hamas and its strategy of suicide bombing, Dr. Elmasry is kindly requested to show it.
Since I denounce extremism, condemn terrorism, and claim that Muslims are not
To be held responsible for the extremist views circulated by the Muslim Brotherhood, since I claim that Islam does condemn terrorism and must not be confused with the totalitarian pro-terror ideology promoted by CAIR, ISNA or CIC, Dr. Elmasry accuses me of being an "anti-Islam campaigner". By doing so, he simply confirm my thesis. He evidently identifies Islam with support for terrorism and with extremism.
Incidentally, accusing me of being "anti-Islam" is so ridiculous that wasting time to refute that claim is not even necessary. With God's help, I have spent plenty of years in defending the reputation of Islam in Europe, in America and in Middle East, and have contributed to educate to Islam hundreds of Muslim students and new converts.
My writings are used as textbooks for training Imams at the International Islamic University of Tashkent, Uzbekistan. The Grand Mufti of European Russia, Sheikh Salman Farid, wrote me to thank me for contributing to the defence of Islam from anti-Sunni fanatics. My commitment to expanding the knowledge of Islam in the world and in refuting pseudo-Islamic extremist sects is known to Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Sheikh Abdurrahman Wahid, the leader of Nahdlatul Ulama, the biggest Muslim organization in the world, having 50,000,000 members, has recently reproduced in his Web site my recent interview with Israpundit; see:http://www.gusdur.net/english/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=659&Itemid=42.
Hard to believe, but the CIC equates the defense of Islam and the refutation of extremism to a "hate crime"! Moderate Muslims should be silenced, and extremist Wahhabis should be the only ones to have the right to speak. Does Dr. Elmasry realize that he lives in Canada, or peradventure he believes that he live in Gaza? Does he really think that Canadian justice is like the "justice" of Yasser Arafat?
Since the CIC media communiqué mentions Ms. Wahida Valiante, I think it is extremely interesting to deal with what the Vice President of the organization which accuses me of "hate crime" actually stands for.
Instead of monitoring my speeches which condemn extremism and promote interfaith dialogue, the hate crime unit of the Hamilton Police and other units of the Canadian police which investigate hate crimes should rather closely monitor Ms. Vialiante's articles and each of the CIC weekly bulletins. On February 2004, for example, the CIC bulletin circulated a rabid antisemitic and racist piece by Ms. Valiante, the text of which can be read at http://atlanta.indymedia.org/newswire/display/26307/index.php.
In that outstanding example of inflammatory antisemitic propaganda, Ms. Valiante shamelessly equates the notion of "chosen people" (a known aspect of Judaism) with "institutionalized racism"; she also claims that that notion represents "a terrible precedent for human history in general". The article basically blames Judaism for racism, the annihilation of North America's Aboriginal people and most of the rest of the world's ills. However, it was not written by Joseph Goebbels, the Minister of Propaganda of the III Reich, but by Wahida Valiante, the Vice President of the Canadian Islamic Congress.
I have read that a Canadian court condemned a Christian minister who uttered derogatory statements about Islam to serve for 800 hours in a mosque, with the clause that in case he repeats that same statements he will be sent to jail. I know that the principle "the law is equal for all" is one of the basis of democracy. Islam is the religion of some Canadian citizens, and Judaism in the religion of other Canadian citizens. If a Canadian citizen is not allowed to utter derogatory statements against Islam, justice requires that another Canadian citizen should not be allowed to utter derogatory, racist and antisemitic statements against Judaism. Consequently, I sincerely hope that a Canadian court will soon apply the same principle to the case of Ms. Valiante, and condemn her to serve for 800 hours in a synagogue; this should be accompanied by the proviso that should she voice the same statements which are contained in her horrible article, she will be sent to jail.
Apart from monitoring the articles by Ms. Valiante, in order to ascertain whether she repeats her hate crime, the Canadian police should also monitor the sudden change of attitude of Dr. Elmasry toward terrorism. In a communiqué dated 12 May 2000, the CIC accuses the National Post of "high levels of anti-Islamic bias". That supposed bias was deduced from the fact that among other news, the daily newspaper informed its readers that "U.S. fears bin Laden is building crude radiation bombs". In other words, before 9/11 the CIC was considering accusations against Bin Laden as aspects of "anti-Islamic bias". Immediately after 9/11, Dr. Elmasry nominally condemned the terror attack, but at the same time "urged the media to exercise core professional ethics and refrain from speculating on who might be responsible for this latest and unprecedented tragedy that some U.S. officials are already calling an "act of war"."
While the U.S. immediately identified al-Qa'idah as the party responsible of the attack, Dr. Elmasry called this "speculation"! It was only on 10 October 2001, after that the involvement of Bin Laden was proved beyond any possible doubt, that Dr. Elmasry finally said about Bin Laden "He Doesn't Speak For Me".
Now, those who investigate hate crimes and the Canadian public opinion should seriously ask this question: which is the real Elmasry, that of 12 May 2000 or that of 10 October 2001?, the one who considers accusations against Bin Laden to be an expression of anti-Islamic bias, or the one who afterwards claims that Bin Laden does not speak for him? This deep ambiguity characterizes the whole network of the Muslim Brotherhood: they never condemn terrorism, except when they are absolutely compelled to do so. We have heard that Dr. Elmasry claims to have condemned Bin Laden, but we have not yet heard that he condemns Ahmad Yassin. We have never heard that he condemns Hamas for its propaganda in favor of suicide terrorism or for Yassin’s shameful abuse of the name of Islam in order to legitimize suicide terrorism. We have never heard Dr. Elmasry to declare that Ahmad Yassin is infamous, since he claims that Islam legitimizes suicide bombing. Quite the contrary, we hear from Dr Elmasry that Sheikh Palazzi is "infamous" for condemning terrorism in the name of Islam, and we have even heard that condemning terrorism in the name of Islam must be equate to a hate crime!
Interestingly, those supposed European Muslim Organizations are nothing but the local branches of the Muslim Brotherhood, i.e. of that same international Saudi-funded network which in North America includes CAIR, ISNA and CIC. By that claim of his, Dr. Elmasry only proves that the other Saudi agents who are his colleague share the same hatred that he himself harbours against me and against any other Muslim who has the courage to stand against extremism.
That is the last of Dr. Elmasry false claims. After my visit to Canada, I only spoke in Chicago. My speeches at University campuses in Texas, California, New Jersey, Massachusetts [and Ohio] preceded my speeches in Ottawa and Hamilton. Clearly, in Pro. Elmasry's ethics, telling the truth has no relevance. What matters is defaming those who denounce the extremist network he represents in Canada.
Sheikh Abdul Hadi Palazzi
http://www.amislam.com/
islam.inst@flashnet.it
-----------------
Ed. Note: For readers who wish to contact the CIC, I am enclosing the two relevant e-mail addresses:
Dr. Mohamed Elmasry,
np@canadianislamiccongress.com
Mrs. Wahida Valiante,
nvp@canadianislamiccongress.com
Posted by Joseph Alexander Norland at March 15, 2004 08:39 AM