The Truth About Islamophobia

All people have a fundamental right to life.  Therefore, any act of violence, be it implied or explicit must be condemned.  Especially when innocent people are targeted for their race, religion, gender, lifestyle or stage of human development.  This is asserted by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

With this in mind, sincere compassion and care is offered for the victims of the massacre at the Centre Culturel Islamique de Québec.  Prayers and thoughts from all faiths go to the victims, their families, as well as the suspect and his family.

The Trump administration’s new immigration policy and the Quebec attack on Muslims have stirred up a global discussion that boils down to one fundamental question; can Western Civilization exist peacefully alongside Muslims?  There has been a media blitz asserting that anyone who answers that question in the negative is an Islamophobe.

This is a very sensitive and complex question that cannot be answered by protesters in the street and should not be solved by ideological politicians or media supported lobbyists and advertisers.  The answer must be drawn out through investigative research into history, theology and political science.

A visceral response to the Quebec massacre is understandable.  Just as the United States wanted immediate action when Islamists attacked the World Trade Center, Muslim-Canadians are looking for action in response to the senseless attack on their brethren.

If we have learned anything from the 9/11 response, it is that emotional over-reactions will cherry pick evidence to support a solution that causes greater problems.  The invasion of Iraq based on imaginary Weapons of Mass Destruction created a vacuum in the Middle East for ISIS and other Islamist organizations.

Likewise, if Canadians change laws and regulations to accommodate an emotionally perceived Islamophobic culture, we may create a vacuum for extremists to dwell in our own nation.

What is Islamophobia and Where Did it Come From?

According to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR):

Islamophobia is closed-minded prejudice against or hatred of Islam and Muslims.

CAIR does not specify where the threshold of “closed-minded prejudice” lies.  Therefore, under their definition, the remaining parts of this article may be considered Islamophobic.

Nonetheless, Islamophobia is not only an erroneous term but is an intended method of political warfare used to silence opposition.  Firstly, in many cases, the implied close-mindedness is not a “pre-judgement” but rather a conclusion formulated through historical and sociological research.  By declaring that this person is clinically disordered is a human rights violation in itself.  Defining a person strongly opposed to Islam as having a phobia, is a phobia.  Allodoxaphobia is the fear of hearing other people’s opinions.

When a Protestant tells a Catholic that the Pope is the anti-Christ, they are offended but they don’t label them as having Catholophobia.  They simply label them as wrong.

Similarily, CAIR’s term, Islamophobia, should be labelled as false terminology.  However, unlike the Protestant who is unaware of the scriptural and traditional proofs of the Pope, CAIR’s error is insidiously opinionated.

What is CAIR?

CAIR was founded as a Muslim civil rights advocacy group in 1994.  It was founded by a group including Omar Ahmad of the Islamic Association of Palestine (IAP).  CAIR works in conjunction with various Islamic advocacy groups in North America such as ISNA, the Islamic Society of North America.  Their stated purpose is to enhance the understanding of Islam and empower American Muslims.

However, in 2004 the FBI discovered a document that reveals an ulterior motive for these groups. The document was made public when it was used during the 2008 Holyland Terror Funding Trial.

The 1991 document belonged to the Muslim Brotherhood and outlined the strategic goals for “their work in America (that) is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers…”.

To do so they explain how “[W]e must possess a mastery of the art of ‘coalitions’, the art of ‘absorption’ and the principles of ‘cooperation.”

On page 18 of the document, they list IAP (the precursor to CAIR) and ISNA as their friends to carry out their initiative.

The complete document in English and Arabic can be found HERE.

How Does CAIR Help Terrorists?

Lorenzo Vidino is the director of the program on extremism at George Washington University and author of The New Muslim Brotherhood in the West. He sees no direct links to terrorism among the group’s western supporters like CAIR.

However, rather than explicit violence, Vidino explains that together with foreign policy issues (such as immigration and prayer space in schools) they intend to prove that the West hates Muslims and Islam. “It’s that mainstreaming of this narrative which is very much the staircase to violent radicalization.”

This massive push to declare that western culture and laws are Islamophobic feeds directly into this narrative.

“That kind of narrative in the mind of a 16 or 18-year-old is extremely dangerous” says Vidino, “because violence is justified when Muslims are under attack.”

That is the danger of over emphasizing the anti-Islamic nature of the Quebec massacre.  When a radical Islamist attacks Christians, the Muslim community is quick to note that the attack has nothing to do with Islam.  Yet, the immediate blame for the attack on a Quebec mosque was directed at Donald Trump, far right extremists and an overall Islamophobic western culture.

In addition, the assertion that President Trump’s immigration ban is dangerous because it will make moderate Muslims sympathetic to Islamic terror is a self-defeating proclamation.  What they are saying is that Muslims are prone to violence if triggered by Western policies.  They are proving Trump’s justification for the Immigration ban.

CAIR and ISNA have passed the crescent-shaped baton to Justin Trudeau and the Liberal Party of Canada.  At the Liberal convention in 2016, they passed a policy resolution where Justin Trudeau has repeatedly declared he is ‘deeply disturbed’ by the increasing Islamophobia in Canada.  There is no evidence or research that backs up this statement other than mentioning a fire at a mosque in Peterborough.

Liberal Party and the Muslim Brotherhood

Research into some of the Liberal Members of Parliament unveils the reason for this push to promote Islamophobia as a Canadian crisis.

Omar Alghabra MP (Mississauga-Centre) was born in 1969 in Khobar Saudi Arabia to Syrian parents and came to Canada alone at the age of 19. In 2002, Mr Alghabra stated that he did not believe that HAMAS (Muslim Brotherhood proxy group) or Islamic Jihad are terrorist groups.  The government of Canada, who he works for, has declared that they are.

Mr Alghabra has openly stated that he favours Sharia Law for Ontario and that he was disappointed when it did not happen in Ontario after the 2003/2006 debate.

Upon being nominated in 2006, Mr. Alghabra thanked ISNA for their support. In 2007 he was a speaker at their annual conference.  Remember ISNA is the association listed first on the Muslim Brotherhood’s document detailing their goal to “destroy western civilization from within”.  Justin Trudeau spoke at ISNA in 2013.

Justin Trudeau with Iqra Khalid and Omar Alghabra at Paramount Fine Foods in Mississauga in 2015

In 2014, the Liberal Party nominated Iqra Khalid MP (Mississauga-Erindale).  Ms. Khalid stated that she was the president of the Muslim Student Association (MSA) while at York University in the early 2000s.  The Muslim Student Association handed out free books for its annual Islam Awareness Week in 2015. One of the books has a section on WIFE DISCIPLINING and advises that wives should only be beaten as part of a three-stage correctional process. It also notes that there are different kinds of women, including:


Submissive or subdued women. These women may even enjoy being beaten at times as a sign of love and concern…READ BOOK HERE

Now that Ms. Khalid is a member of our federal government she intends to protect these and many other Islamic teachings that are diametrically opposed to Canadian Constitutional values, morals and principles.

She has put a resolution known as M-103 before the House of Commons to be debated February 21, 2017 at 5:30pm.  The resolution aims to condemn Islamophobia and develop a “whole-of-government” approach to reducing it.   With a loose definition of Islamophobia, this resolution could make it illegal to disagree with Islamic culture and principles. The Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms already protects individuals from discrimination and hate speech making the resolution unnecessary. However, a resolution forcing citizens from speaking out against Islam, in particular, is a way to institute Sharia Law in Canada.

It’s important to note that neither Mr. Alghabra nor Ms. Khalid may be intentionally trying to destroy western civilization.  In the roll-out of extreme political ideologies like Nazism for example, the groundtroops aren’t necessarily aware of the ultimate goal. Often times they are sincerely doing what they think is best for the country.

It would be immoral to judge their intentions but it is fair to connect the dots between their conduct and how it aligns with the subversive strategies documented by the Muslim Brotherhood to overthrow the West.

Muslim Accomodations in Canadian Institutions 

Apparently Mississauga is becoming the hub for Islamic activism.  The Peel District School Board recently allowed Muslim students to write and preach their own sermons in a designated classroom every Friday for Jummah prayers.  Although the sermons must be in English, the verses quoted directly from the Quran will be in Arabic.  They cannot guarantee these verses will refrain from being anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, oppressive to women or violent to Gays and Lesbians because the supervisor in the classroom may not speak Arabic.

This is a current example of how public policy is shaped to specifically accommodate Muslims without any accountability for extremist interpretation.

No greater example of deceptive policy making is there than Canada’s Islamic History Month of October.  Catholics recognize October as the month of the Holy Rosary.  On October 7th, Roman Catholics celebrate the Feast of the Holy Rosary in commemoration of the Battle of Lepanto.  On October 7th 1571 a coalition of European Catholic maritime states (The Holy League) won a decisive victory over the incursion of Turkish Islamist that were attempting to take over Europe.

Painting in Seville, Spain depicting the Blessed Virgin Mary’s intercession in the Battle of Lepanto.

The Holy League attributed the victory to the Blessed Virgin Mary after the soldiers spent the night asking for her intercession by reciting the Holy Rosary.

In 2016, the government of Ontario officially recognized Islamic History Month on October 6th, the day before the commemoration of the Battle of Lepanto.  Like the date 9/11, October was not arbitrarily selected.  Throughout the liturgical year, Catholic’s pray to various martyrs that were killed at the hands of Saracens (Muslims).  For the Ontario government to make the month of the Holy Rosary the official month of Islam history is insensitive and offensive. Yet, it is not Catholophobic.

Muslims vs Islamic Ideology

A great number of Muslim-Canadians are peaceful, loving people. They interpret the Quran in a way that is aligned with western culture.  The root of the problem is that there is no objective ruling authority over the interpretation of the Quran.  To make matters worse, there are verses in the Quran that specifically call for killing of non-Muslims, beating and raping women, lying for the benefit of Islam and breaking treaties with nations for the benefit of Islam.  Unfortunately, the world has and continues to be affected by the literal interpretation of these verses.

The westernized Muslims are much like the Protestants in Christianity.  They both self-interpret their holy book to conform to the world they live in.

Catholics, on the other hand have an objective authority for interpreting scripture.  The objective authority prevents individuals from using scripture for nefarious means.

Islamic extremists interpret the Quran in a similar way that the Catholic Church interprets the Holy Bible.  Both agree that the interpretation remains the same regardless of the time period we live in.  The difference being in the words that were written.  The Jihadist’s interpretation of the Quran incites violent terrorism while the Catholic interpretation of the Holy Bible incites sainthood.  The Quran teaches conversion through force.  The Bible teaches conversion through submission.

Muslims can reform their interpretation of the Quran until it is unrecognizable to Mohammed himself but no amount of reformation will ever change the words that are actually written in the Quran.  Verses that literally advocate for actions that Western culture has deemed immoral, illegal and reprehensible.

Therefore, Western Civilization will never be able peaceably to live alongside Muslims unless all Muslims denounce the barbaric verses in the Quran.  Unfortunately, if they did, it would be legal for other Muslims to murder them (According the Quran).

C.S. Lewis wrote in The Abolition of Man “In every mixed movement the efficacy comes from the good elements not from the bad. But the presence of the bad elements is not irrelevant to the direction the efficacy takes.” Therefore, because the bad elements (Jihadists) are relevant to Islam, the good elements (peaceful Muslims) are now taking a direction to silence the truth about their history and theology.

How to Defend Against the Islamization of Canada

Muslims should be loved and revered in this country but we must make sure that their self-interpreted ideology remains governed and regulated.  We must protect our right to speak up against human rights violations performed in the name of Allah.

Before speaking we must be striving for holiness ourself.  Nothing empties an argument of its substance more than an hypocritical messenger.  If our views and opinions are formed through ignorance and pride, our voice will only be ammunition for their agenda.  If our issues are with their food, dress or language, we are xenophobic.  If our issues are with their history, theology and politics, we are STANDING ON GUARD FOR THEE.

We must educate ourself.  Read history.  Read the Quran.  Read Canadian law.  Understand the talking points before we take up an argument.

Lastly, St. Thomas Aquinas termed a moral act as meeting the following criteria:

  • What we do
  • Why we do it
  • What are the circumstances surrounding what we do

If one of these criteria is immoral, the act is immoral.  Speak out with boldness, but gentleness.  Do it for the good of God, country and man. Thirdly, make sure how we go about our activism is righteous and just.  Our beliefs cannot be based on our own self-interpreting doctrine but must be directed by an objective moral compass.

You have every right to speak up against realities within Islamic history, teaching and current practise that contradict the exigencies of a peace-loving culture.  By doing so and being called an Islamophobe is a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Hate speech directed at individuals for their race, religion, gender, lifestyle or personal characteristics will not be tolerated.  As much as we cannot equate a ISIS terrorist with our Muslim neighbour next door, we can’t equate a deranged white killer in Quebec with right wing political thinking.

I want to make a special acknowledgement to Terrorism and Security Experts of Canada and The Clarion Project for their continued research and efforts by which I drew much of my information for this article.


2 thoughts on “The Truth About Islamophobia

  1. Some good points are made here. Not sure what the advantage is in taking shots at Protestants. (And then quoting C.S. Lewis, one of the most prominent Protestants ever!) Christians need to united in Christ. He is our banner and objective authority. He is the model that we need to hold ourselves to and invite our Muslim neighbours to.


    1. The intention wasn’t to take a shot at Protestants but to highlight the issues with fideism which is the basis of Protestant and Islamic theology. Even Luther used Arabic interpretation’s of Aristotle rather than Aquinas.
      Indeed, Christians need to unite in Christ and He is our banner and authority, however, this union is impossible without a singular objective definition of who Christ is.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s