The decision to ban the niqab during citizenship ceremonies by Immigration Minister Jason Kenney takes effect immediately. It could not have come at a better time for the Conservative Party of Canada.

Stephen Harper’s administration is being criticized for pulling out of Kyoto, for its handling of the housing situation on the Attawapiskat reserve, and for a controversial new border security deal with the U.S. The hasty niqab ban is a calculated move. It is an attempt at changing the course of political discussion at the present moment.

By his own ministry’s admission, Kenney and his staff do not know exactly how many Muslim women actually show up to the ceremonies with face veils. The arrived decision is supposedly predicated upon the complaints from several judges, citizens, and MPs—all of whom remain unnamed.

A lack of seriousness by the women who don the veil is the apparent suspicion that these complaints carry. If the woman is wearing a veil, then how can one be sure that they are reciting the oath of citizenship, as required by law?

This contention, for anyone who has been to a citizenship ceremony, is difficult to take seriously. I am a Chinese Canadian citizen who took his oath over a decade ago. I have been to many other ceremonies since then. Not once have I come across a case where designated personnel of the state strolled the aisles between oath-taking individuals to make sure their lips were moving.

It is not such a stretch to propose then that the concern with proper recitation of the citizenship oath is just a way to bring the niqab issue into public discussion. For many, the veil is a symbol of gender inequality. It is a post-9/11 sign that reminds many people of another time, when women were not given the same opportunities and rights as their male counterparts.

Real as that sentiment may be, wearing the niqab is still not as much of a contravention against constitutional democracy as many may think. Even if women who don the veil due to their own ignorance, core Canadian values still protect the individual against state coercion. Calling the practice “bizarre”, as Minister Kenney did recently, does not neutralize this binding factor.

Playing the “Muslim card” has become an international favourite. Numerous European and Asian countries have either implemented a ban on the niqab or have flirted with the idea. By presenting to Canadian a “remedy” to an ailment that does not exist, Minister Kenney shows that playing on post-9/11 fears and prejudices is still a politically effective ploy.

True, in many families women may very well be forced to wear a veil. However, banning the garment at citizenship ceremonies cannot possibly be seen as a blow to Muslim patriarchy. Sexism, as it exists in all communities, is a much deeper and complicated matter not exclusive to Muslims.

It certainly does not help that Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced several months ago that “Islamicism” remains Canada’s greatest external threat. The coalescing of this foreign concern and the domestic debate around the niqab compliment each other, and is perhaps capable of suspending the average Canadian’s attention away from more pressing matters.

The truth of the matter is, if Minister Kenney wants to ensure that every single set of lips utter the citizenship oath correctly at each ceremony, he can do so by designating specific personnel. It may be a comical “solution”, but focusing exclusively on women who wear the niqab makes no sense.

Canadian citizenship is coveted around the world for good reason. The protection of individual rights, and the incorporation of religious freedoms within our constitutional democracy contribute greatly to Canada’s international reputation. As a Canadian Muslim by choice, I have come across plenty of intelligent and determined women who wear the niqab.

Their steadfast hold on Canadian identity and Islam should remind Minister Kenney that being a Canadian is not about one’s apparel, but one’s character. 

When it comes to serious political change in the Middle East, Monia Mazigh is a hopeful skeptic. The Tunisian-Canadian academic recently gave a talk in Ottawa to “The Group of 78” on the future of the Arab Spring and its effects on Canadian foreign policy.

She spent substantial time talking about Canada’s selective policy in terms of dealing with the Arab Spring. Most importantly, the Harper administration has not been vocal about the democratic transition that is starting to take place to take place in Egypt. On the other hand, the Canadian military played a substantial role in the ousting of Moammar Ghadafi in Libya, and has imposed sanctions on the Assad regime in Syria.

Mazigh is the wife of Maher Arar, who was awarded $10,000,000 by the Harper administration for being wrongfully renditioned to Syria at the behest of the U.S. Arar spent around a year in a coffin-sized Syrian cell and was tortured. Mazigh worked tirelessly to get her husband out, and knows first-hand the brutality that the Syrian regime is capable of.

She extends this same caution and suspicion to the rest of the Middle East dictatorships, including Egypt, which is going through its first post-Mubarak elections. Mazigh noted that a simple change of guard in Egypt is not enough. The current military leadership must go. Canada, given its role vis a vis other countries challenged by the Arab Spring, should assume a more active role in supporting the democratic movement in Egypt.

Instead, the Harper administration seems content to settle for criticism against Syria and its allies—namely Iran and its unclear nuclear ambitions. Among others, foreign affairs minister John Baird has announced more than once the need to support Israel in the case of a war with Iran. It doesn’t help that Iran is also known to have very war relations with Hezbollah, a political party in Lebanon currently on Canada’s list of terrorist organizations.

Add on to that Prime Minister Harper’s September announcement that “Islamicism” is Canada’s biggest foreign policy concern, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out why the Harper administration is selective in its policy with the Arab Spring. Hosni Mubarak was seen as an ally in the War on Terror, and capable of suppressing the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt, which is leading all parties right now in the ongoing elections in Egypt.

It was precisely this paranoid mentality in dealing with international terrorism that sent Arar off to a Syrian prison. Mazigh knows that, despite the current fear from the Harper administration, the best way to alleviate the threat of terror is through democracy. The Muslim Brotherhood renounced violence years ago, and has been acknowledged by the Brookings Institute, among other think tanks, as a party not to be feared.

Canada would do well to support the democratization process in Egypt if Harper is right and terrorism ought to be the nation’s main concern. Political scientists in the United States like Vali Nasr, who now works in the Obama State Department, have long acknowledged that incorporating Islamists into the democratic process also defangs them. Having a political voice and a place in the democratic system discourages violent behaviour.

Mazigh was also right in mentioning that Egypt’s current military regime led by Muhammad Hussein Tantawi could use a little prodding by the international community in terms of relinquishing power. Tantawi was a known ally of Mubarak within the Egyptian regime, and the military has taken violent steps to quell recent demonstrations by Egyptians who believe that their revolution is being stalled by the military.

Canada’s role in the region gives it substantial leverage to deal with the situation in Egypt. The Harper administration’s muted position on one of the key geopolitical nations in the Middle East indicates that Canadian foreign policy in the area is not primarily based on the willingness to see democratization.

Mazigh said that the Egyptian democratic movement, led by a substantial amount of youth, could use help from the international community. Dozens of Egyptians died in November when the Egyptian Armed Forces used live ammunition to quell protests. Canada has an opportunity to forge a productive relationship with the new Egypt by exerting pressure on Tantawi and the military.

Some have also noted that the revolts in places like Egypt and Syria are not guided by formal ideologies, thus prolonging uncertainty. Mazigh noted that this diversity is not a weakness in the movements of the Arab Spring, but can be exploited by hardline Islamists or foreign powers if those in the movement are not careful.

She pointed out that the surprising success of the socially conservative Salafi al-Nour party might become cause for concern. The party is backed by Saudi Arabia, which has been a centre for reactionary positions regarding the Arab Spring.

Nonetheless, should Canada become more involved in supporting Egyptian democratization, a positive relationship can be forged early on with one of the world’s most strategic geopolitical hotspots, no matter who gets elected.

When it comes to domestic violence education, Khadija Haffajee says Ottawa’s Muslim leadership needs to do more for their communities.

Haffajee has worked for more than 30 years in the Ottawa area as a community activist and educator. She recently spoke at the Ottawa launch of the “Neighbours, Friends, and Families Muslim Project” education campaign on domestic violence.

More community leaders could have showed support at that launch, says Haffajee.

“It would have been better to see more imams at the event,” she says. “Imams and community leaders need to be at the forefront to deal with the issue.”

Campaign organizer Shawana Shah said that many such leaders were invited, but none showed up.

Haffajee also noted in her speech that she is disappointed by the small number of Ottawa imams who signed on to a recent statement by Canadian Muslim leaders to condemn domestic violence.

The statement, entitled “Call to Action to Eradicate Domestic Violence”, cites religious scripture as a means of denouncing domestic violence, and it lists a six-point plan to deal with the issue. Over 100 organizations and community leaders have signed the statement, but only a handful are from Ottawa.

That statement coincides with the highly publicized Shafia family trial that began in October, which sees two Ottawa parents and their son accused of murdering three of the father’s children and his first wife in an apparent honour killing.

“[Domestic violence] is a problem we have to take on as a society,” says Anver Malam, imam of Ottawa’s Jami Omar mosque. Malam signed the statement to eradicate domestic violence, but did not attend the campaign launch. “We can’t just treat the symptoms. We have to tackle the roots of the problem,” he says.

Malam also said that Muslim communities should not be singled out in terms of struggling with domestic violence. “There is a deeper problem that we need to deal with as a society, like unemployment, which creates frustration in a lot of men who take it out on their family members,” he says.

Imam Mohamed Badat of Ottawa’s Masjid Bilal agrees with Malam’s view. “Domestic violence is something that the Muslim community struggles with, just like any other community,” he says.

Malam noted that now’s the time to raise awareness about Islam’s view of domestic violence. “We have to make it clear to people that Islam does not sanction murder of any sort, and that the so-called honour killings have nothing to do with our religion,” he says.

Haffajee said that although she knows how busy imams are with their congregations, she wants them to lead the fight against domestic violence.

“People don’t like to talk about the issue, and they hope that the problem will just go away,” Haffajee says, adding that she hopes the current campaign will help break the silence.

“The significance of the campaign is to open communication on the issue, and educate people to recognize warning signs that relate to domestic violence,” said Shah, who also works with Immigrant Women’s Services Ottawa.

Shah and others working on the campaign are trying to find 30 “champions” to take a lead in challenging domestic violence.

“Domestic violence is a problem that cuts across religions, cultures, ethnicities, and no one is immune,” Haffajee says. “It’s always an uphill struggle.”

I am writing of the deaths of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, the son of Anwar al-Awlaki, and Libyan dictator Mouammar Ghadafi. The former was a 16-year old American citizen, the latter a one-time client of the United States.  Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was the son of Yemeni-American Anwar al-Awlaki, who died from an American drone attack a few weeks ago. Abdulrahman died the same way. On the other hand, Ghadafi was captured by the rebel forces of the National Transitional Council (NTC). He later died under rather mysterious circumstances.

The Obama administration claimed victory in both cases. In reality, both deaths illustrate on different levels the extent of American paranoia and deception. Enough has been said about its inexplicable execution of the teenager Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. The Washington Post obtained his birth certificate to confirm his age. Barack Obama has successfully gained for himself the most radical executive power of all, more than the Constitution or the Bill of Rights ever sought to prevent.

Mouammar Ghadhafi was once the friend of the United States. Human Rights Watch’s Johanne Mariner pointed out the obvious:

“One remembers Reagan’s efforts to confront Qaddafi decades ago: the 1986 missile strikes, the skirmishes in the Gulf of Sidra, the labeling of Libya’s leader as the “mad dog of the Middle East,” and of Libya as a rogue state.

But the line that one is tempted to draw between U.S./Libyan relations then and U.S./Libyan relations now isn’t straight.  While Qaddafi is now despised as an enemy, for much of the past decade he was treated as a friend.

In 2006, announcing that the U.S. was restoring full diplomatic relations with Libya, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice held up Libya’s leadership as ‘a model’ for others to follow. Qaddafi’s glaring violations of human rights—which, in 2011, gave the U.S. cause for military intervention—were not simply overlooked during the Bush years; they were exploited.”

I’ve written about the implications of such exploitation, as have others. So where is the United States headed? The Arab Spring, among its list of impressive achievements, has also circumvented much of the rhetoric of the War on Terror. Not only has it made Al Qaeda almost irrelevant, it has exposed the hypocritical nature of U.S. policy vis a vis the popular uprisings.

After all, the U.S. claimed Mubarak’s regime as “stable” when it was under severe pressure in February. The U.S. continue to back the corrupt and violent regimes of Bahrain and Yemen, only to see the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to one of the most vocal leaders of the latter country’s opposition movement. It is starting to lose its hold on the region altogether.

And let us not forget the biggest time bomb of all. Every year, the United States gives more than $3,000,000,000 US to the state of Israel. It is a practice in aid-giving that has even established pundits scratching their heads. Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian Territories, along with its burgeoning demography problem may force it to enter a serious national crisis within a decade.

How will the United States deal with these changes?

After requests from students, Carleton administration has asked that the Libyan flag hanging in the Unicentre atrium be removed and replaced with the new one, according to the department of university communications.

Students have been lobbying for the flag to be replaced since September, said Reda Zarrug, a public policy student who’s involved in the local Libyan community’s effort to support the National Transitional Council in Libya.

The substitution is especially relevant now with the recent death of former Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, and a more representative flag must be raised, Zarrug said.

“It’s the only solid colour flag in the world. It’s just all green,” said Zarrug, referring to the flag Gadhafi implemented after he seized power.

“We live in Canada, and just because we’re not in Libya does not mean we can’t do anything,” Zarrug said. “There’s so much more peaceful stuff that we can do here, and this is just a little gesture that we feel is necessary.”

The crescent and star flag the students were advocating for is actually the original flag of Libya, Zarrug explained. It was taken down and replaced with Gadhafi’s solid green flag in 1977.

“It’s not representative of the Libyan people,” said Ala Fallah, another public policy student at Carleton.

The new Libyan flag will be hung upon its arrival, according to Christopher Cline, the university’s media relations co-ordinator.

Zarrug said administration noted a new flag would take some time to arrive.

The new flag will replace the current one, hanging beside dozens of other flags in the atrium, representing Carleton’s diverse student body.

Kevin Gallinger, Carleton’s assistant director of maintenance, said the logistics of changing the flag isn’t complicated.

“If the country decides that it wants a new flag, and it is being manufactured, then changing a flag is like moving a chair for us,” Gallinger said.

Zarrug said a flag has been ordered and it will arrive on site in a few weeks.

“It’s been more than a dream come true to see this man in the state he is,” Fallah said, referring to Gadhafi. “Before, we didn’t associate him with a human being, but now it’s like I can’t even believe it.”

When asked what came to mind when he heard of Gadhafi’s capture, Zarrug replied with one word: “liberation.”

“It’s sad to see that the death of one human being makes so many people happy, but he’s brought so much misery to everybody in Libya,” Zarrug said. “It’s an amazing thing.”

With help from local construction firm Urbandale Construction and Panasonic Canada, Carleton is set to build a new and innovative facility for solar energy research on campus.

The project, dubbed the Carleton Research and Innovation in Sustainable Energy House (C-RISE), will be for highly qualified graduate students to explore the possibilities of solar energy and its potential to help reduce heating and cooling costs, according to the Ottawa Business Journal.

The project will draw from a $582,242 grant obtained by Carleton engineering professor Ian Beausoleil-Morrison through the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, according to Carleton’s website.

The initiative first took shape when students from Beausoleil-Morrison’s fourth-year class played around with a design from Urbandale, according to the Ottawa Business Journal.

The class made a new design that met the voluntary energy efficiency standards from National Resources Canada, called the R-2000 standard of 2012. Further ideas are still being developed, such as incorporating solar water heaters and heat pumps, according to the Ottawa Business Journal.

The program will “recruit top students graduating from its sustainable and renewable energy engineering and conservation and sustainability [bachelor of engineering] and [bachelor of architectural studies] programs into graduate studies,” said Briana Paige Kemery, a member of Beausoleil’s team. These students will able to explore new designs that could potentially become available on the market.

Panasonic Canada has even offered to provide vacuum insulation for the facility.

Urbandale’s general manager Matthew Sachs is the “industry liaison” for the project.  Sachs, who worked with Beausoleil-Morrison, has helped students balance their ideas with practical and financial considerations. The initiative is estimated to cost Urbandale $200,000.

Those doing research at C-RISE will be examining the issue of single-family detached housing producing excessive greenhouse gas emissions.

In Canada, approximately 10 per cent of emissions come from such types of housing, according to Carleton’s website.

“The Carleton Research and Innovation in Sustainable Energy House (C-RISE) will bridge an important gap that currently exists between the modeling and reality to tackle these issues,” according to Carleton’s website.

Since that amount was clearly not enough last year – otherwise, why did we have another fundraiser this year? – it is only logical to assume that it will not be enough this year, and we may as well mark our calendars and be sure that the same fundraiser will be scheduled next Ramadan. This is the inevitable outcome of repetition. Which is why I am always surprised to see so many people express bewilderment when they come back the next year and see that the status quo has not budged. What did they expect?

Albert Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. In principle, that is exactly what we are doing. We are changing no variables, and yet, we expect that these problems will somehow disappear on their own, or better yet, solve themselves over time. They never do.

Take the self-sufficiency of our mosques (or lack thereof) as a case in point.

** (To be fair, the appeals made by our mosques are (usually) neither exaggerated nor hyperbolic. It is true: our mosques will not be able to continue their programs, and their very existence may even be threatened unless we collectively raise a large six-figure sum or more. So although I hate stating the obvious, allow me to issue an unequivocal disclaimer lest any reader misunderstands me:

There is more evidence from the book of Allah and the sunnah of His Messenger extolling the virtues of donating generously, whether publicly or privately, through hardship or ease, than there are words in this article. Needless to say, my objective is not to undermine the need of our mosques, or to suggest that we should stop donating to them. I am simply arguing that donations are not the only means by which our mosques could be financially supported, and certainly not the most creative one.)

Relying Exclusively on Donations: A Failing Strategy

Just like virtually all places of worship in Canada, our mosques are not publicly funded. So in order to pay their hydro bills, expand their parking lots, increase their prayer spaces, host soup kitchens, and engage in public relations, our mosques have no choice but to rely on private sources of revenue. Which is not really all that bad. Except, for some reason, our mosques have interpreted “rely on private sources of revenue” to mean “rely exclusively on the generosity of donors.” This is not only an exercise in poor reading comprehension, it is also a chilling demonstration of our collective lack of creativity.

Let us begin with the obvious problem that relying exclusively on donations not only stunts the growth potential of our mosques, but it also severely restricts the circulation of funds to various activities and community initiatives. And instead of finding novel (halal) ways to expand their financial resources so that they can accommodate this vast array of noble projects, our mosques opt for the easier option. They dump these wonderful opportunities into the trash – we are terrible at recycling, aren’t’ we? – and resign to the glass ceiling of donations.

Sadly, this has been the modus operandi of most of our mosques for time immemorial. They limit their activities not according to their creative capacity, but rather, according to how much money they are given. Over time, this leads to the atrophying of imaginations and results in money no longer being a means to an end, but rather, becoming an end in and of itself.

In the past, our mosques used to practice a needs-based approach to asking for money (“we have calculated our expenses for the upcoming year to equal ‘$$$’, and therefore, ask that you help us raise ‘$$$’”). Today, most of our mosques do not have a dollar amount in mind when they carry out fundraisers, precisely because they are not really sure how much money they need, and for what. They just ask for money first, and then find ways to spend it later. This kind of thinking is not only circular, but it almost guarantees that that things will spiral out of control very, very rapidly.

Indeed, this kind of disoriented financial entropy is already starting to taint the (once unshakeable) credibility of our mosques. Specifically, our community is growing more and more skeptical about donating to mosques that are becoming less and less transparent about what exactly they are doing with that money. Sure, we see large donation thermometers plastered inside many of our mosques, metaphorically revealing how unhealthy our financial situation is. But this is not transparent accountability; it is simply a progress report.

Accountability means lucid, detailed and straight-forward answers to some basic questions like:

What exactly are the expenses incurred by the mosque, and how much money is required to cover these expenses? How did the mosque administration use the donations that were collected last year?  Did the administration meet the goals they set, or did they fall short?

These questions are as simple as they are necessary. Yet, most of us do not bother asking them either because we do not want to offend the administration, or because the administration has a terrible history of providing meandering, unsatisfactory answers. The truth is, both of these concerns are entirely unwarranted in our faith. The biographies of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and the Righteous Caliphs who succeeded him are studded with examples of brute honesty and healthy confrontations for the sake of maintaining accountability, ultimately for the sake of Allah.

In fact, by not confronting these issues with clemency sooner, we make hostile confrontations inevitable later on. Last year, I was praying taraweeh at a mosque in Montreal, Quebec.  After the first four units of prayer ended, the Imam quickly rushed to the minbar (podium) and grabbed the microphone before anyone had a chance to furtively escape. He then proceeded to request – actually, demand – that the congregation help raise money for ongoing projects in the mosque. Out of no where, a brother sitting a few feet away from me shot up and shouted something at the Imam and then turned around and stormed out of the prayer hall. I gasped. So did everyone around me. I couldn’t believe that this almost sacrilegious act took place in front of me, and I felt compelled to give this brother a piece of my mind. So I followed him.

After listening to his fiery monologue – which lasted a full half hour – I realized that although unjustified, his rage was certainly understandable. “I donated ten-thousand dollars last year to this mosque brother, ten thousand!” he snapped, yelling in a deep voice that was punctuated with a dilute Middle-Eastern accent, drawing more and more people around us. “Last year, the mosque also asked for the same [amount of] money because of construction. I come back this year, and the mosque looks the same, the parking lot looks the same, the programs look the same, everything is the same! Where is our money going? Where are these projects? Where is the construction?”

I was speechless. All I could do was what I set out to do, which was to remind him that we were in a place of worship and that he ought to have exercised more restraint and greater wisdom. I also gave him a rather sheepish, disingenuous reassurance that ‘there is probably a very good explanation with someone somewhere’.

The truth is, we all shared his frustration deep inside. We all had the same questions burning within. And because our shyness prevented us from raising these concerns sooner, we created a void that this brother ended up filling in the manner he knew best.

Incidents like these are neither rare nor isolated, and unfortunately, mishaps like the one that occurred at the Islamic Society of North America earlier this year do not exactly help the situation. Although it was an extreme example of accountability-gone-wrong, the ISNA episode served as an eye-opening revelation to a simple fact we have all been ignoring all along: our mosque administration is made up of brothers and sisters like you and I, and we all make mistakes. That is what checks-and-balances are there for. They make those mistakes transparent enough for everyone to see, increasing the likelihood that they will be corrected promptly. 

Simply put, it is no longer good enough for our local mosque to tell us that we need $200,000 in order to expand the parking lot. We need to know how many more parking spaces that money is going to buy, and if the trade-off is ultimately worth it. We need to know who the contractor is, whether they offered the best deal, and what the expected date of completion is.  Above all, we want to know if this project is the most salient and productive use of our money, or if there are priorities whose need is of a far more pressing nature.

Implementing this level of transparency will make our mosques infinitely more efficient and effective. It will bolster our trust in our respective administrations, it will give us greater confidence in the agency of our mosques, and it will provide us feedback on the usefulness of our contributions. It may even inspire us to donate more. However, this still does not solve our fundamental problem. After all, we want our mosques to rely on donations less, not more.

So how can our mosques become financially self-sustaining? 

Towards Self-Sufficiency

To start with, none of the ideas I am about to share are either novel or unprecedented. In fact, several mosques have already tried to implement certain measures in order to generate their own revenue, and a few have even met this with some degree of success. However, these efforts are often isolated and there is very little incentive for them to be taken very seriously. (After all, why on earth should our mosques trouble themselves to make money if the money they need is given to them on a golden plate every year?)

Our Islamic Centers and mosques need to create consistent streams of revenue that can be channeled back into the mosque for the sake of funding its panoply of activities. Plainly speaking, our mosques need to make money, and then use that money to pay its own bills and possibly more. How can this happen? Well, that very question is the playground on which our creativity ought to run wild. Consider the following thought experiment.

Arbitrarily, I have selected the Halton Mosque in Burlington, Ontario as the subject on whom we shall conduct our experiment. Since you may not be familiar with this mosque and its specifications, here they are briefly:

The Halton Mosque is arguably the only mosque that serves the entire community of Burlington and its surrounding region, a significant 10 km radius. The mosque can accommodate approximately 600 worshippers at full capacity, give or take. The congregation is composed of virtually every background and ethnicity, but the overwhelming majority of worshippers are of Middle-Eastern descent, followed by those of South-Asian origins.  Finally, the property is divided approximately as follows: the mosque takes up 30% of the property, the parking lot takes up 60%, and the remaining 10% is essentially grass/unused space.

The question then becomes: What is a viable business venture that the mosque could embark on, which is likely to generate enough revenue to cover the expenses incurred by the Mosque? To answer this question, it is important to study the specific needs of the community in order to supply a demanded service.

Incidentally, there is only one ethnic food store in Burlington, and its inventory is extremely limited. As a result, the majority of Burlingtonians of South Asian and Arab descent (whom, as we’ve already established, make up the bulk of the Mosque’s congregation) end up driving anywhere between 15 km west or 20 km east in order to get their imported ethnic goods from stores that offer better varieties at more competitive prices. So here’s an idea: Why doesn’t the Halton Mosque add a few more walls to its east side and open an ethnic food store?

This idea is worthy of consideration for several important reasons. First, the store will have a guarantee of customer loyalty ab initio not only because of its convenient location, but also because the majority of congregants will be happy to know that their purchases are directly supporting their local Mosque. Second, the store will be frequented by non-Muslim residents surrounding the neighborhood, serving the wider community and possibly opening the door of da’wah. Third, since the store is owned by the Mosque, it can be used to distribute zakat to families with needs, as well as to subsidize grocery costs for the poor and even supply food drives. Fourth, it will provide employment opportunities for members of the community. Fifth…well, the list goes on.

Of course, an endeavor such as this will not be without obstacles. To start with, implementing such a project will not happen overnight, and will not be without red-tape. Certain complexities, including the legal hurdles of ownership, as well as the ramifications of owning a business (property and sales taxes, etc.) will have to be accounted for. In addition, staffing and supervising the store will require a separate administrative team of its own, equipped with competent managers and professional accountants. Finally, once established, the store will have to perform exceptionally well in order to cover its own costs, which can not be guaranteed.

Nevertheless, the merits of establishing self-sustainable Mosques are numerous, and in my opinion, completely outweigh the potential drawbacks and risks. You may disagree of course, and I would hope to hear your reasons. The point is, we seriously need to have this conversation.

Every community has different needs dictated by its own demographic and cultural make-up, as well as its geographic location. An ethnic food store may be the best idea for the Halton Mosque, but it could be a disastrous investment for an Islamic Center in Vermont. Maybe the need is greater for a women’s-only gym, or even a strip plaza. Maybe purchasing a piece of land and renting it out as public parking will do the trick. Or maybe not. I do not pretend to have all the solutions, and to be honest, I do not need to. Alhamdu li Allah, our community is replete with talented management consultants, urban planners, engineers of all varieties, and professionals with rich backgrounds in finance and accounting who have a collective ingenuity of an extremely high order.

Why don’t we bring these brilliant minds together and see what they can come up with?

But that seems to be changing. In a broad stroke of collective-libel, Toronto-based journalist Natasha Fatah (daughter of Tarek Fatah) has tried to refocus the scope of our prevailing discourse away from the older generation of Muslims in order to highlight that “It’s their children–in desperate need for identity–who have turned to conservative, hard-line and politicized Islam for the answers.”

In her July 6^th, 2011 op-ed for the Globe and Mail, Fatah cites several experiences in her life as a Muslim Canadian in order to “prove” that young Muslim Canadians are embracing a version of Islam that is overtly political, bent on imposing “Shariah law” on all Canadians, placing males over females, and demanding that all Muslims make violent jihad on non-believers.

Citing her experiences with MSAs (Muslims Student Associations) while in university, Fatah recalls how she “was told to sit behind the men, not next to them. That it would be better if I [Fatah] covered my [Fatah’s] hair. That sharia is the optimal way to resolve personal, legal and political issues, […] that, when filling out a form, the ink from my pen should not touch the ink of a ‘brother’s’ pen.” She then goes on to lament how most Muslim girls choose to wear the hijab (something she claims that their mothers have left behind), how most of the “Toronto-18” were teenage boys (leaving aside the case’s embarrassing incidents of government entrapment), and how she has met so many Muslim parents who have lost their sons to overseas “jihad”.

Surely, all this is evidence that Canadian Muslim youth are being turned into future Ahmadinejads.

Not really. First of all, Fatah is conflating two separate phenomena in her (lack of a) conceptual framework: violence cloaked by religious edict (i.e. al-Qaeda) and general social conservatism, the kind symbolized sometimes by the wearing of hijabs. Occasionally, the latter may produce a cohort of individuals who make off-colour recommendations like “Don’t touch the brothers’ ink!!” But to claim that this is representative of all Muslim youth is simply laughable. The root of Fatah’s confusion mirrors that of all Islamophobes. It is a conflation of personal conservatism with violence. According to Fatah’s piece, those who do not conform to “Western” values must be prone to wanting to kill non-Muslims. Not true.

Similarly, certain individuals within the Muslim community who make off-colour remarks about women are (1) not representative of all Muslim youth (the presidents of both the University of Toronto at Mississauga and Ryerson University MSAs for academic year 2010-2011, were female), and (2) cannot automatically be viewed as potential terrorists. It is true that members of al-Qaeda and similar organizations harbour literalist interpretations of the Quran and Sunnah. But the reverse is not necessarily true. There are no serious surveys or studies to support Fatah’s claims. Thus, just because a Muslim girl wants to wear the hijab (hardly an anomaly anymore), or just because a select number of ill-advised Muslims believe that God hates women and gays, is not reason to argue that they will soon commit acts of terrorism. Nor do they provide a “breeding ground” for future terrorists.

Fatah’s other confused conflation is her inability to distinguish between the miniscule number of Muslims who join organizations like al-Qaeda, and the bulk of Muslims who want to participate in their country’s political process—peacefully—just like everyone else. By Fatah’s estimation, those of the latter camp qualify as Islamists who cannot tolerate civil rights and non-Muslims. If Fatah is truly worried about Conservatives who want to undermine civil society and women’s rights, she ought to look no further than her own prime minister. When was the last time anyone labelled Stephen Harper a “Christianist” obsessed with violent crusades? If one were to replace the target of Fatah’s fear-mongering with the name of any other religious group, alarm bells would be going off in more than one corner of Canadian society.

Citing the Toronto-18 case and the occasional departure of Muslim teenagers to militant organizations overseas also do not qualify as evidence for Fatah’s argument. Apparently, Fatah is not familiar with the countless studies conducted on the matter of militancy in Muslim-majority countries. It would not have hurt for Fatah to have examined the work of, say, Dr. Robert Pape (University of Chicago). Pape, himself a conservative, heads up the Chicago Project on Security and Terrorism (CPOST). Perhaps the most significant academic organization to study the matter of terrorism by using serious data and evidence-based methodologies, CPOST revealed an unsurprising fact: foreign occupations around the world induce insurgent violence and terror. Similarly, the bomb plot hatched by members of the Toronto-18 (with the help of CSIS), and the departure of, say, Somali youth off to al-Shabaab, derive ultimately from their anger of what they perceive as the geopolitical injustices being imposed upon their peoples. The origins of their rage have nothing to do with Islam or “Islamism”.

The claim that “Islamism is spreading throughout our campuses” could use a lot more empirical backing. However, it is doubtful that Fatah would have found any had she actually bothered to seriously look into the matter. Take for example the Muslim youth organization, MYNA (Muslim Youth of North America). Perhaps the largest Muslims youth organization in North America, it provides youth-led camping trips and seminars that focus on civil participation and leadership within local communities. The youth come back to their respective communities and begin to organize food banks, community dinners, and refugee clinics. Here is one of MYNA’s promotional videos. One can now decide for oneself whether the largest Muslim youth organization in North American is constituted by young, women-hating, arch-conservatives who are dying to go and fight for al-Qaeda. MYNA is affiliated with ISNA (Islamic Society of North America), which currently has a female president with a Ph.D from the University of Chicago, Dr. Ingrid Mattson. How would Fatah explain all this?

Of course, a larger social phenomenon is at work here. Muslims like Fatah know which way the wind is blowing. Alas, post-9/11 stress and fear still lingers, and it would be a shame for individuals like Fatah to let it all blow by without exploitation. By antagonizing the bulk of Muslims in the Western world (old or young), Fatah is able to present herself as belonging to a minority of objective, liberal, tolerant, and well-integrated Muslims. This makes her much more attractive to the mass media and the political class, who have done nothing substantial in the past decade to help tell the truth about Canadian Muslims.

With a new parliamentary majority, Stephen Harper hopes to pass an omnibus crime bill (consisting of at least eleven individual bills) in order to re-write current legislation, and deliver on the government’s tough-on-crime platform.

Unofficially referred to as the “lawful access” bill, it is the most important piece of legislative business for the Tories after the budget. Debate has arisen in regards to its far-reaching implications, from increased police powers to issues of freedom of expression.

Analyzing the package, Toronto Star columnist Michael Geist emphasized its“three-pronged approach focused on information disclosure, mandated surveillance technologies, and new police powers.”

Combined with its proposition to extend police powers (a matter not yet debated extensively in parliament, nor subjected to committee hearings), “lawful access” would require service providers to disclose customer information (i.e. phone number, address, email, etc.) without judicial approval and for each service provider to adjust for “real-time surveillance.” In other words, law enforcement officials will be able to intercept personal online communication.

In an opinion piece for the Toronto Sun, Brian Lilley noted that the omnibus bill is being promoted as a bill that would allow police to track child-pornographers more proficiently. However, Lilley notes that “lawful access” would also make it illegal for anyone to link to any website that “promotes hatred.”

According to a summary of the bill on the Library of Parliament’s website, “Clause 5 of the bill provides that the offences of public incitement of hatred and wilful promotion of hatred may be committed by any means of communication and include making hate material available, by creating a hyperlink that directs web surfers to a website where hate material is posted, for example.”  The issue of hyperlinks in connection to defamation charges isbeing explored in a case currently before the Supreme Court, and some of the same concerns apply.

Thus, in addition to a lack of parliamentary deliberation, proper judicial oversight, “lawful access”—if passed in full—would have substantial effect on the legal perceptions/definitions of “hate speech.” The omnibus form of the bill reduces the possibility of it being fully examined, thus leaving concerns of privacy and free speech unevaluated. Furthermore, the administrative and technological costs are high, but there has been no mentioning of where the funding will come from.

Concerns over whether “lawful access” will amount to internet policing are high in circles worried about the freedom of expression and speech. Interpretation of such broad legislation will undoubtedly vary between groups and persons.

Sections 318 and 319 of the Canadian Criminal Code explicate “hate speech” or “hate propaganda” within an expansive framework. Anything from promotion of “genocide” to incitement of “hatred against any identifiable group” that may lead to a “breach of the peace” are categorized as illegal. The application and interpretation of these laws vis a vis cyberspace will surely become more frequent if the omnibus bill is passed. How will the surveillance apparatus deal with this challenge?

According to the omnibus bill, if one were to link to a website that contained hate propaganda, one could be subject to jail time. This then raises the question of context. What if a journalist is reporting on a case of hate speech and links to a particular “hateful” webpage in order to provide evidence or to cite his or hers assertions?  Will the surveillance apparatus set up to enforce these laws be able to distinguish between something like this, and an actual case of “hate speech” endorsement? The omnibus bill does not seem to distinguish between such matters of context.

If simply linking to a page that may qualify for “hate speech,” questions regarding issues of civil liberties and free expression become even more urgent and acute. Canada’s wide legal definition of “hate speech” compounds the problem.

A citizen’s right to express his or her opinion is liable to come under attack, regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with the actual statement. For journalists specifically, the dissemination of crucial information could be curbed. In any case, the enshrined right of Canadians to express their opinions freely may be undermined.

After 9/11, the collective representation of Muslims in the world has been mediated by a misleading, yet cogent public discourse. Underscored by a narrative of fear, this discourse is constructed and preserved by an opportunistic political class and a craven corporate media. The West—namely Europe and North America—has embraced a series of distorted representations of Muslims around the world. These distortions have perverted the language employed in the analysis of the broader public in order to make sense of 9/11 and its analogues.

While accepting the 2011 Tikkun Award from Tikkun magazine, Shaykh Hamza Yusuf of Zaytuna College, and one of the most influential Muslims in the West, called upon the religious communities to deal with the “negative externalities of religion.” An “externality” is an economic term used to refer to the unintended effects of a transaction, somewhat like how the term “blowback” is used in the intelligence community. In this case, Shaykh Yusuf was referring to those who used their religions in order to justify acts of terrorism. Like a corporation that inadvertently releases toxic waste into the river, religion—by such an approximation—when lived, is capable of emitting its own refuse. The analogy is not perfect, but one can appreciate its attempt at contextualizing the problem of terrorism.

However, when it comes to restoring the clarity, honesty, and nuance of our public discourse after 9/11, Shaykh Yusuf’s timely and appropriate proposition must be supplemented. There is nobility in trying to stop terrorism, in realizing that (in this case) the religion used to justify acts of terror is the same one that guides one’s life, and in caring about how one’s religion is perceived by the broader public. Shaykh Yusuf’s introspective gaze necessitates that Muslims look within their umma and be collectively responsible for how Islam is perceived by the rest of humanity. There is honour in such a proposal, but also a great deal of risk.

Firstly, while asking Muslims to collectively look within their own community (and themselves) is a noble attempt at warding off hypocrisy, it also inadvertently mirrors the ignorant attitude which lumps peace-loving Muslims with Muslim terrorists (not “Islamic terrorists”). One can easily fall for the assumption that collective responsibility results from collective guilt. Secondly, by characterizing the problem of terrorism as a phenomenon in which Muslims ultimately have to solve, one leaves out the real reasons for terrorism—reasons that lie beyond theological and religious justifications.

Among others, Dr. Robert Pape and the Chicago Project on Security and Terrorism (CPOST) have researched deeply into the motives and dynamic that drive terrorism (especially in the form of suicide bombing). Documenting a period of twenty-three years (1980-2003; 315 suicide missions in total), Pape and his colleagues have warned against the tendency to label “Islamic fundamentalism” as the central cause of terrorism, and “thus [concluding that] the wholesale transformation of Muslim societies into secular democracies, even at the barrel of a gun, [as] the obvious solution.” Over this twenty-three year period, the leading perpetrator of suicide bombing was the staunchly secular and Marxist resistance organization known as the Tamil Tigers (LTTE), who are active in Sri Lanka. The data, as CPOST has collected and examined, shows that the public discourse linking terrorism with religious piety is misleading. There is no shortage of such studies, coming from all segments of the political spectrum, of which CPOST occupies a pro-establishment and rather conservative position.

The real reasons behind terrorism of the al-Qaeda type lies in its purported grievances: military occupation, foreign intervention, and state terrorism. To ignore this colossal elephant in the room is dangerous, and allows for the further pollution of our public discourse, already suffused with fear and misunderstanding. Even so, it is crucial to mention here that telling Muslims (or any other group of people) to seriously examine the issue of terrorism is not an incorrect thing to do. However, the reasons for which one should examine this issue must, in this post 9/11 atmosphere, be crystal clear. In other words, our societies cannot afford any longer to be held hostage to a collective narrative that omits the “toxic externalities” of our foreign policy and our overall political orientation. Keeping the actual, political causes behind terrorism in mind, one finds that Shaykh Yusuf’s proposal and plea completes only half of the picture. According to the most updated scholarship, terrorism in the Muslim world is more a byproduct of sociopolitical circumstance than a result of “religion gone wrong”. Religion is often used in order to excuse one’s actions, and should not be confused with the elements that induce such actions.

Of course, when Muslim terrorists are brash and misguided enough to yell loud and clear that Allah and his messengers sanction terrorist means, they are intruding on sacred ground. For conscientious and intelligent Muslim leaders such as Shaykh Yusuf, the urge to keep the image and communities of Islam clean is a noble pursuit. There is no arguing about that. But rather than treat the problems of terrorism and political violence as issues exclusive to the Muslim community (and thus “ours” or “theirs” to solve), one should look at the bigger picture and realize that these issues are intimately related to the policies and actions executed by higher political powers. Therefore, curbing the resurgence of Muslim violence/terrorism should be a collective effort incumbent upon all peoples who refer to such institutions of power as their governments.

Muslim are no doubt responsible to a substantial degree in terms of condemning the usage of Islam as an excuse to carry out acts of terror. Imagine if, say, several Chinese individuals began to rob stores and somehow saw fit to use their ethnic background as an excuse. One would expect the massive bulk of Chinese people in the world (who hear of such an absurd event) to rebuke such a ludicrous justification. The same logic applies to the Muslim communities. But the case of Muslim terrorism comes with its own social and historical baggage. It is by now obvious that terrorism will not go extinct unless the correct social and political circumstances align in order to put out its fuse. It is incumbent upon all citizens to push their governments to pursue policies that do not encourage more violence, whether in the form of Muslim terrorism or not.

This is how a just and fair society must regain the public discourse: by completing the picture that Shaykh Yusuf began to sketch out in his acceptance speech.