CBC partners with Islam Extremists?

[stignasty]

In the present church age, Christians are under New Testament Christian law and are commanded not to kill enemies, are required not to take physical revenge, and are instructed to not perform physical violence.

Too bad that memo didn't get to Bosnia in the '90s, among others.

[dpwozney]

Are you pointing out that many Christians didn't follow the teachings of the New Testament ?

No.

That's not exactly new information.

What's not exactly new information?

Too bad that memo didn't get to Bosnia in the '90s, among others.

People in Bosnia in the '90s, among others, had access to the New Testament.

[Michael Hardner]

Ok, dpw, then I don't understand what you meant with this post.

In the present church age, Christians are under New Testament Christian law and are commanded not to kill enemies, are required not to take physical revenge, and are instructed to not perform physical violence (Matthew 5:38-45, Matthew 26:52, Luke 6:27-28, John 18:11, Romans 12:19-21, Romans 13:9-10, 2 Corinthians 10:3-4, Ephesians 6:12, 1 Thessalonians 5:15, 1 Peter 2:21-24, 1 Peter 3:8-9).

[dpwozney]

Christianity had bloody wars that established the necessity of plurality - because there were different Christian sects within a small space - all with conflicting goals. I don't know that it opened up the minds of the adherents, but it established a way for them to co-exist.

Can you prove that “Christianity had bloody wars” and that “there were different Christian sects within a small space - all with conflicting goals”?

[Michael Hardner]

dpw,

Ummm... proof ? I don't remember my grade 11 history all that well, but the period we're talking about is the 'reformation'

The Reformation led to a series of religious wars that culminated in the Thirty Years' War. From 1618 to 1648 the Catholic House of Habsburg and its allies fought against the Protestant princes of Germany, supported at various times by Denmark, Sweden and France. The Habsburgs, who ruled Spain, Austria, the Spanish Netherlands and much of Germany and Italy, were staunch defenders of the Catholic Church. Some historians believe that the era of the Reformation came to a close when Catholic France allied itself, first in secret and later on the battlefields, with Protestant states against the Habsburg dynasty.[1] For the first time since the days of Luther, political and national convictions again outweighed religious convictions in Europe.

The main tenets of the Peace of Westphalia, which ended the Thirty Years' War, were:

* All parties would now recognize the Peace of Augsburg of 1555, by which each prince would have the right to determine the religion of his own state, the options being Catholicism, Lutheranism, and now Calvinism (the principle of cuius regio, eius religio)[10]

* Christians living in principalities where their denomination was not the established church were guaranteed the right to practice their faith in public during allotted hours and in private at their will.[10]

Wikipedia Article

Eventually the idea of the right to practice faith evolved into the separation of church and state, which was championed by French philosophers, that were read by colonial Americans. These ideas ended up in the American Constitution.

[ToadBrother]

Can you prove that “Christianity had bloody wars” and that “there were different Christian sects within a small space - all with conflicting goals”?

When you're not too busy sticking your head up your a$$, go look up the Thirty Years War. The fate of the Huguenots ought to be educationa as well. For an earlier bit of fun, you might want to look up the Fourth Crusade and the Great Schism. For a long-long example, look up what happened to the Arian Christians.

Oh, and visit a lawyer. You need to launch a lawsuit against your high school history teacher.

Edited December 15, 2008 by ToadBrother

[Michael Hardner]

S'ok TB - I linked in the Wikipedia article on the reformation.

I know we've had to backpeddle as far back as 1980 on this board in the past - to justify having a constitution.

But I never thought I'd find myself arguing against the divine right of kings, or Mary Queen of Scots converting an entire country etc.

[dpwozney]

Ummm... proof ? I don't remember my grade 11 history all that well, but the period we're talking about is the 'reformation'

The provided quote does not refer to “blood” or to “different Christian sects within a small space - all with conflicting goals”.

“For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare [are] not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;)” (2 Corinthians 10:3-4)

“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places].” (Ephesians 6:12)

[ToadBrother]

S'ok TB - I linked in the Wikipedia article on the reformation.

Which is a good example, but Christians were slaughtering Christians over sectarian differences before the Reformation. The Fourth Crusade is really delightful because a pack of God-fearing Christian soldiers went and sacked perhaps the greatest Christian city of the age; Constantinople. In fact, the theft of icons from Byzantium and ending up in the hands of European princes and the Popes is still a sore spot between Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Christians.

[ToadBrother]

The provided quote does not refer to “blood” or to “different Christian sects within a small space - all with conflicting goals”.

Then the Thirty Years War ought to do it nicely. Europe's first general war was fought because the Holy Roman Empire couldn't come to grips with being part Lutheran, part Catholic.

The Huguenots suffered horrifying persecution in France. Since you don't seem to want to read links, I'll just drop a delightful event; the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre.

[dpwozney]

... Christians were slaughtering Christians over sectarian differences before the Reformation. The Fourth Crusade is really delightful because a pack of God-fearing Christian soldiers went and sacked perhaps the greatest Christian city of the age; Constantinople. In fact, the theft of icons from Byzantium and ending up in the hands of European princes and the Popes is still a sore spot between Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Christians.

Jesus said:

“My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:” (John 10:27);

and,

“Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have [thy] cloke also.

And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.” (Matthew 5:38-45).

[ToadBrother]

Jesus said:

“My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:” (John 10:27);

and,

“Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have [thy] cloke also.

And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.” (Matthew 5:38-45).

Where in that precisely was a response?

[Argus]

So CBC is giving to an anti-hunger charity that is also being supported by a Muslim organization that was founded by a guy who believes Muslims should have their own courts ?

You think you might be understating his beliefs somewhat?

[Michael Hardner]

Argus,

I went from the first post and that's all I saw that was controversial. I didn't research the man beyond that.

[kimmy]

While this thread has turned into another massive train-wreck (like just about every thread about Islam turns into...) I would like to go back to somethings said earlier on.

So CBC is giving to an anti-hunger charity that is also being supported by a Muslim organization that was founded by a guy who believes Muslims should have their own courts ? And the headling is 'CBC partners with Islam Extremists' ?

Sorry, there's just no controversy here.

Michael, this just doesn't seem like your usual quality of writing.

Given the claims made about Hassan Al-Banna in the original post, with citations, trying to describe him as "a guy who believes Muslims should have their own courts" seems like an absurd attempt at soft-sell (in the same sense as saying "Ronald Reagan was an American actor...")

Sorry, MC, but no go.

"strives to to implement... the teachings of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and as understood in its contemporary context by the late Imam, Hassan Albanna"

The CBC gave to the same charity as these people, who strive to implement teachings... by someone who founded a brotherhood... It's too contorted a relationship for you to set this up as the CBC plotting to be politically correct.

There are real controversies out there. Go find one.

...and this seems like another. The CBC has not merely given to the same charity as this group. The LMOP show, which is heavily promoted by CBC, has entered into a charity partnership with this organization, and the CBC is providing promotion and support for the whole partnership. There is undeniably a degree of partnership between the CBC and this group, and arguably even endorsement.

It should be obvious why there is potentially a controversy here. To provide a non-Muslim analog, I suggest that most people would not complain if the CBC entered into a similarly good-intentioned partnership with Christian charities such as the Salvation Army or Catholic Social Services... but a great many people would be upset if the CBC entered into a charitable partnership with the Westboro Baptist Church, no matter how well intentioned it was.

Now, what the Muslim Association of Canada actually stands for is another matter. They allegedly wish to implement the teachings of Hassan Al Banna... what do they interpret those teachings to mean in the context of Canada in 2008? Do they interpret it to mean that Muslims should isolate themselves, as Pipes alleges? Do they interpret it to mean pressing for Sharia law, as Pipes alleges? Nothing on the group's website gave me an answer to those questions.

Perhaps some journalist will provide more information about what the CBC has actually partnered up with here, but not if people are intent on taking the attitude you've adopted towards this.

-k

[dpwozney]

Where in that precisely was a response?

“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Corinthians 2:14)

[Michael Hardner]

Sorry, kimmy, a few points:

1) I went back to look at the original post. It seems to me that something was added there. I sure wouldn't have soft-peddled any of this if there was reference to violence there at the outset.

Correcting a post is fine, but adding substantive information to an argument after the fact should be highlighted in my opinion.

2) I misunderstood what was being done here. Initially, I thought there was a charity that they were all giving to but I can see now that it's just a list of charities that they have listed on the program's web page.

Is that how you understand it ?

[Oleg Bach]

“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Corinthians 2:14)

CBC is as aggressively socialist and secularist as can get. It's impossible for their staff to truely understand Islam - they are materialist - and a materialist can never step into the realm of the spiritual to have a good look at how things work- most of the talk at CBC about Islam is acedemic and professatorial - they have no spirit - it's the CBC

[kimmy]

Sorry, kimmy, a few points:

1) I went back to look at the original post. It seems to me that something was added there. I sure wouldn't have soft-peddled any of this if there was reference to violence there at the outset.

Correcting a post is fine, but adding substantive information to an argument after the fact should be highlighted in my opinion.

Sorry, I hadn't realized what was added after the fact. I gathered he'd fixed a dead link, but that was all.

2) I misunderstood what was being done here. Initially, I thought there was a charity that they were all giving to but I can see now that it's just a list of charities that they have listed on the program's web page.

Is that how you understand it ?

Not exactly... from their website:

"Little Mosque on the Prairie's cast and crew, in association with the CBC, Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-CAN), Muslim Association of Canada (MAC), Islamic Institute of Toronto (IIT) and MuslimServ, are asking YOU to join us in the fight against hunger."

The phrase "in association with..." certainly sticks out.

As far as I can gather, the producers and cast of the show have partnered with these Muslim groups to raise donations for Canadian food banks. The CBC itself is providing support and promotion for this endeavor. Cast members will be appearing at events, with proceeds going to the charity, and so forth. The organizations will I assume be inviting their members to donate.

And to reiterate, I have no complaint about the cause. It sounds like a terrific idea, and I think it is great that the cast of the show and these Muslim organizations are helping to support food banks. My concern here is just with the possibility that this one group may have ideology that just isn't compatible with Canadian values, and if that is the case then it is unfortunate that the CBC has partnered with them in an arrangement that amounts to more or less an endorsement. I would like to know more about MAC before I rush to any judgment about whether this is appropriate.

-k

Edited December 15, 2008 by kimmy

[Michael Hardner]

k,

The charities appear to be the ones listed just below on the website. So they're basically saying 'The CBC and these organizations ask you to give to these charities.' I'm not even sure why the other charities are listed on the page. It's unclear, but you seem to think "The organizations will I assume be inviting their members to donate." If that's the case, then that's not much of an association.

Still, if one of the organizations supports violence, directly or indirectly, then the CBC needs to distance themselves from it absolutely.

This bears more examination. So far, I'm slightly suspicious of the original poster's methods, though. There's a trust factor when arguing on these boards.

[kimmy]

An editorial by Tarek Fatah in the Calgary Herald addresses this issue:

Tarek Fatah: CBC and Jihad

For those not familiar with Fatah, he is highly outspoken about conservative Islam, and Islamists in particular. He is somewhat like Irshad Manji, in the sense of being a Muslim who has been accused of trying to make a name for himself by bagging on Islam. His bias on this subject is well known, so read with a grain of salt. That said, he also makes it his business to know about groups like MAC. Disclaimer over, here is some of what Tarek Fatah says about MAC:

The Muslim Association of Canada --MAC --makes no attempt to hide its links to the radical jihadi group, the Muslim Brotherhood. MAC says on its website that its "roots can be traced to the Islamic revival of the early 20th century, culminating in the movement of the Muslim Brotherhood."

If the reader is left with any doubt about MAC's links with the Muslim Brotherhood, their website makes it abundantly clear:

"MAC adopts and strives to implement Islam . . . as understood in its contemporary context by the late Imam, Hassan Albanna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood."

One has to marvel at the audacity of MAC to endorse Albanna, who proclaimed that armed "Jihad is obligatory on every Muslim," and that martyrdom in the name of Allah is better than life on earth.

Fatah also blasts CAIR, although his ammunition with regard to CAIR does not appear relevant to the Canadian branch, other than raising the everpresent spectre of Saudi funding.

Fatah's conclusion sums up my concern about the CBC allying with a group with dubious goals, although he says it in much stronger language:

To those of us Muslims who escaped the tyranny of Islamists in the Arab world and South Asia, shivers run up our spine when we see the ease with which MAC and other Islamists can fly under the radar and even manage to appropriate the CBC name and logo in their plans.

The question all Canadians should be asking is this: What good is it to send our troops to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan when our own public broadcaster is tricked into according respectability to Islamist organizations that share the same doctrine of Jihad?

I hope Hubert Lacroix, the new head of the CBC will recognize that the good name of the public broadcaster is tarnished as a result of partnering with CAIR and MAC. Lacroix should ensure such a hijacking of the CBC is prevented in the future. The world is witnessing a world-wide struggle that is pitting ordinary Muslims against well-funded Islamists. The least the CBC can do is not side with those who wish to implement the Muslim Brotherhood agenda on Canada.

-k

[Michael Hardner]

Looking into this a little more, I found MAC's website wherein integration with Canada is a stated mission:

Integrated though distinct...because we envision Muslims as a community in Canada that is an essential, integral and vibrant part of this society yet maintaining its religious attributes as a community of believers with distinct needs and values.

MAC site

Was Al-Banna a violent person ? Did he preach violence ? Or resistance ? I can't find a lot of evidence that supports him as a violent figure. He certainly doesn't seem to be more violent than say, Nelson Mandela, or George Bush Sr. who fought for their nations with bombs and bullets.

Let's hear more.

[kimmy]

Looking into this a little more, I found MAC's website wherein integration with Canada is a stated mission:

MAC site

Was Al-Banna a violent person ? Did he preach violence ? Or resistance ? I can't find a lot of evidence that supports him as a violent figure. He certainly doesn't seem to be more violent than say, Nelson Mandela, or George Bush Sr. who fought for their nations with bombs and bullets.

Let's hear more.

I read that on their site as well, but dismissed it as being so vague it's completely meaningless (integrated but distinct, a vibrant part of Canada, with its own culture and values... sounds like something lifted out of the Meech Lake Accord, mais oui?)

Someone's vision of how "an Islamic presence" could be integrated into Canada would be for Muslims to participate in society and the workforce and amongst other Canadians regardless of differences of faith. I'd be fine with that.

Someone else's vision of how "an Islamic presence" could be integrated into Canada might call for Sharia courts and Islamic schools to be officially sanctioned, and I wouldn't really be into that at all.

I have read nothing about the group to justify the label "Islam Extremists". I glanced through their site and their Muslim Youth magazine and nothing I saw seemed anything but benign. However, this figure Hassan Al Banna that they cite as their inspiration seems to be somewhat controversial. The group itself could probably put this to rest by being more specific in talking about what sort of social ideas they stand for and how they envision Al Banna's ideas being applied in Canada in 2008.

-k

[Michael Hardner]

I read that on their site as well, but dismissed it as being so vague it's completely meaningless (integrated but distinct, a vibrant part of Canada, with its own culture and values... sounds like something lifted out of the Meech Lake Accord, mais oui?)

Someone's vision of how "an Islamic presence" could be integrated into Canada would be for Muslims to participate in society and the workforce and amongst other Canadians regardless of differences of faith. I'd be fine with that.

Someone else's vision of how "an Islamic presence" could be integrated into Canada might call for Sharia courts and Islamic schools to be officially sanctioned, and I wouldn't really be into that at all.

I don't care about non-criminal courts and schools being offered as long as it's the same rules for all faiths.

I have read nothing about the group to justify the label "Islam Extremists". I glanced through their site and their Muslim Youth magazine and nothing I saw seemed anything but benign. However, this figure Hassan Al Banna that they cite as their inspiration seems to be somewhat controversial. The group itself could probably put this to rest by being more specific in talking about what sort of social ideas they stand for and how they envision Al Banna's ideas being applied in Canada in 2008.

-k

Agreed. Although it's not exactly fair, they need to recognize that their faith is more under the microscope if only for the fact that it's the newest and probably one of the faster growing religions. As such, they should endeavor to be clear about what they stand for. It's in everyone's interests.

And I actually like the analogy to Quebec that you dropped into this. Agreeing to disagree has kept Quebec in Canada so far. It's an intriguing model. The only think I don't like about the model is that the rest of Canada clearly believes that Quebec gets advantages that the other regions don't. This wouldn't fly with religious privileges and preferential treatment.

[ToadBrother]

I don't care about non-criminal courts and schools being offered as long as it's the same rules for all faiths.

I do have a problem with it, because such separate courts would be conducted with little or no supervision. There can be guarantee of a lack of bias, of undue influence on the complainant, defendants and witnesses. What's more, aspects of Shariah Law, such as inheritance and divorce, run completely counter to Canadian law.

I'm against any sort of religious courts. We have one law in this land for all citizens. Immigrants know this when they come in. If they wish Shariah courts, then they can remain where they came from or move somewhere where such courts exist.