Is the Calgary Muslims' Fatwa on Terrorism a Way to Avoid Losing the Immigration Grounds That Muslims Have Gained?

In my last post, "Fatwas on Terrorism by Imams: What Does This Really Mean?" and in a post in January, "Clever Calgary Imams Playing it Safe" I've been trying to figure out what is the meaning of the fatwas on terrorism that Imams in Canada and in England are declaring.

Here is the last part of the fatwa that the Calgary Imams have sent out:

Therefore, any attack on Canada and the United States is an attack on the freedom of Canadian and American Muslims. Any attack on Canada and the United States is an attack on thousands of mosques across North America. It is a duty of every Canadian and American Muslim to safeguard Canada and the USA. They must expose any person, Muslim OR non-Muslim, who would cause harm to fellow Canadians OR Americans. We, Canadian and American Muslims, must condemn and stand up against these attacks on Canada and the United States.

As Islamic scholar Andrew Bieszad, about whom I have written in my previous post, said in his speech, it is a sin for a Muslim to kill another Muslim. Could part of what these Imams are doing is to avoid Muslims killing other Muslims, since killing a fellow-Muslim is a sin? Do the Imams believe that there is now a substantial Muslim population in Canada, which could easily fall victim to terrorist slaughters, that they have to protect it from such deaths?

The fatwa clearly shows that Muslims have gained huge grounds just by their presence alone:

There is no single city in Canada and the United States where MASAJIDS (Mosques) are not built. In all major cities Islamic schools provide education to Muslim children about Qur’an and the Islamic traditions. Thousands of Muslims perform Hajj every year and travel to Saudi Arabia with complete freedom and respect. In the month of Ramadan, both Canadian and the United States governments recognize the occasion and greet all Muslim citizens. Muslims pray five daily prayers in mosques without any fear or restrictions. Muslims have complete freedom to pay Zakat (poor due) to the charity or a person of their choice. Muslims have complete freedom to celebrate their festivals openly, publicly and Islamically. Muslims enjoy freedom of religion just like Christians, Jews and others. No one stops us from obeying Allah and His Messenger (Peace be upon him). No one stops us from preaching Islam and practicing Islam. In many cases, Muslims have more freedom to practice Islam here in Canada and the United States than many Muslim countries.

Read the whole quote, it is quite disconcerting to read how much gains into our societies these Imams feel they have made.

Are the Imams also saying that terrorist actions in Canada will only exacerbate these gains already made in Canada, by focusing attention on the negative and violent aspects of Islam? And that other (jihadi?) Muslims are to leave this successful strategy, of invasion through occupation, alone?

I think part of their explanation for no terrorism (no jihad) is that as Bieszad says, jihad is not mandated by Islam, although at the very least it is permitted, and at its highest value it is commendable and noble. So, the Imams are not contradicting any Koranic orders by declaring terrorism - which is clearly a form of jihad - on Canada and the U.S. a fatwa. It is important to keep their population safe from death by other Muslims, and to continue this incredible Hijra, or immigration, which their host countries are welcoming with open arms.

Fatwas on Terrorism by Imams: What Does This Really Mean?

There's a strange phenomenon going on where Imams are issuing fatwas on terrorism. The first time I heard this, I reported it on this blog as, "Clever Calgary Imams Playing it Safe." But, now I'm not even sure if that is what's going on.

The latest is Pakistani-born Imam Muhammad Tahir ul-Qadri, now living in Canada, who issued a fatwa on terrorism and suicide bombing saying that suicide bombers will enter hell, not paradise.

Muhammad Tahir ul-Qadri is a Sufi Muslim, and Sufis are from the more pacifist strain of Islam. Assuming that his pacifist Sufism has to do with his declaration, then his position is to some extent understandable. But, I could not fully figure out the Calgary Muslims' intentions, so I declared their declaration as Taqqiya (i.e. lying in the name of Allah).

But, this might explain some things, at least in the Calgary fatwa. This recent video, "Islam and the West...Can They Co-Exist", features an Islamic theology expert Andrew Bieszad. I fortuitously watched the video today and came upon these comments (paraphrased below) by Bieszad on killing non-Muslims. I will go through his points, to come to the final conclusion that Bieszad makes, which is that Muslims are not mandated to kill non-Muslims, but that such an act is permissible, or acceptable, and at its pinnacle highly commendable and noble. You can watch his comments between the 20-25 minute points.

Bieszad says that (these are not direct quotes):

- Everyone is created a Muslim and through this gains his humanity and dignity.

- But there are those who, despite being born Muslim, are raised as non-Muslim. Such people have had their humanity and dignity revoked from them.

- Such persons can be given a chance at reversion - a return to the true religion to regain their humanity and dignity.

- If a person refuses to revert to Islam, he is no longer human, and has forfeited his dignity. He will not be treated like a human.

- A person is always given (or always should be given) the chance to revert to his original (and true) faith of Islam.

- If a forewarned person refuses to convert, and Muslims decide to do something about it (like throw bombs, send out suicide missions, or start a jihad), it is not the Muslim's fault, but the non-believer's fault.

- Therefore, it is not a sin to act negatively towards, and even to kill, these non-believers, since they brought these actions onto themselves.

- Most terrorist videos, including those sent by Osama bin Laden, provide a chance for this reversion. They also talk about the consequences of rejecting this reversion back to Islam, which is often killing these apostates and rejecters of Islam.

- Bieszad says that killing apostates and those refusing reversion via jihad is not a mandate of Islam, but is a range of acceptable actions from simply permissible to highly commendable and noble. He calls the most conservative acceptance of jihad as "not mandatory, but almost mandatory for one's salvation."

- My interpretation of this is that since the non-believer (either the apostate or he who refused reversion) is at fault for his rejection of Islam, Muslims are, at the very least permitted to evoke jihad (i.e. kill the non-believer in the name of Islam) or at the epitome of Islam’s beliefs, highly commended for these actions. There is no sin in jihad, or killing the apostate, since the Muslim is trying to rectify the original sin of the apostate. But, there is also no coercion to perform jihad. It is the choice of the Muslim (or Muslims) to go through with it or not.

Now, back to the Sufi Imam. Well, this makes sense because if viewed this way, if jihad and killing apostates is not a mandate of Islam, then as a pacifist branch of Islam, he can condemn it as not being prescribed in the Koran (permitted but not mandated). But, it took him 600 pages to explain his position, so it must have been really hard to substantiate!

And the Calgary Muslims, in my view, are using both this indefinite interpretation of jihad, and Taqqiya to tactically allow the acceptance of Muslims and Islam in the West. And this leaves the Westerners exactly where the Muslims want them: Confused, conciliatory and accepting of this religion. Muslims' ultimate purpose is not to live in harmony with non-Muslims, but to find any possible way to expand Islam into their lands, and ultimately include everyone in this Ummah.