Talk:Fiqh Council of North America

Comment

The long section "Backgrounder On the Fiqh Council of North America and the Council on American-Islamic Relations" seems to be possible vandalism, or at the very least biased and incorrectly placed.

Part of ISNA and the Egyptian Ikhwan

This article was probably written by someone in ISNA, of which the self-styled Fiqh Council of North America is a committee, or by somebody in CAIR, which is ISNA wearing different makeup.

It's typical of a handful of Egyptians to claim to speak for a whole continent.

For newer public info about this outfit, follow the Holy Land Foundation trial.

64.180.179.62 02:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

something needs to be added about the whole moonsighting/Eid controversy as the Fiqh council has people that are opposed to its view in regards to this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.252.88.150 (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It would seem something of a tiff is going on with the council this 8th day of jan 2008. Soon after cleric Salah Sultan (a member of the council) released a video calling for an attack on America (the country he is currently applying to become a citizen of) The council web site started purging his name and image from their site and now it has been brought offline entirely. After things unfold I am assuming at the very least his name will have to be taken off the council list though it is too soon for that now and depending on if they do remove him or not a statement about how they react to such extremist comments could prove useful for those trying to find out what type of orginization this is. Zynkin (talk) 07:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here, here, and here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 20:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Possibly unreliable source regarding the Fiqh Council of North America's ties to the Muslim Brotherhood

I have come across many articles regarding Islamic groups in North America where the sources are from websites with a strong bias (in my opinion) and was wondering what action should be taken. Any help would be appreciated :) I'm a new member and have looked through the articles on neutral point of view but couldn't find anything specific to my situation FriedSasuage59 (talk) 01:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that parts of this page depart widely from a neutral point of view, especially the section 'Ties to the Muslim Brotherhood'.

This remarkable claim is entirely based on a single document (footnote 3). This 1991 document: "An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North America" outlines an organizational plan for the Brotherhood in America, including the goal of "destroying the Western civilization from within." In an appendix it lists 29 names of Islamic groups, including FCNA, which it identifies as "our organizations, as well as the organizations of our friends [imagine if they all march according to one plan!!!]." The list include most of the major US Islamic organizations at the time.

The official connection of this document, of dubious provenance, to the Muslim Brotherhood is not clear, as pointed out in . There is no evidence that the document's author, Mohammed Akram, held any sway with the Brotherhood's top leadership or that the document was ever considered or adopted, let alone relevant 25 years later. The website linked to in footnote 3, investigativeproject.org is far from neutral. Its author is Steven Emerson, an anti-muslim "expert" who famously claimed on Fox News that Birmingham, UK was off-limits to non-muslims, attracting the ridicule of David Cameron.

The guilt-by-association of the 29 mainstream organizations is even farther fetched. The document says that only some of the names on the list are "our organizations" without specifying which or how many. It also suggests that the others do not "march according to one plan" -- i.e. not according to the author's plan.

Finally, this section is tendentious as it overstates even the claims of this dubious document, and it contains misspellings ("aimet", "Islami"). It is not up to the standards of Wikipedia. For these reasons I have tagged it as POV. rstephe —Preceding undated comment added 03:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

References

Changes Made: Removed a Source: "Jamal Badawi: Enduring Link to ISNA's Radical Past"

Hi all,

I have removed this source, and will give my explanations here. If anyone tries to reinstate it, without first discussing the objections here on the Talk Page, I will remove it again.

The source I have removed can be accessed at this link: Jamal Badawi: Enduring Link to ISNA's Radical Past. I also removed a reference to some Clarion Project, which made the same claims simply linking to this article in the title of this section.

I feel that this article fails WP:RS (i.e. it is not a reliable source), and I will elucidate the reasons to my conclusion below with source material from the article.

The article makes many statements while failing to cite sources for those statements. Here are some examples:

1) "During a February 2009 speech on "Understanding Jihad and Martyrdom," at the Chebucto Mosque in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Badawi explained that Gaza-based terrorists were fighting a jihad and that those who were killed were martyrs. He railed against those who criticized the terrorists or cooperated with the Israelis, saying that it was an 'excess' by more moderate Muslims to come out against their brothers fighting the Jewish state."

No source is cited. There are however audio clips presented, but again no source is given for the audio clips or how they were obtained nor is there any proof that they are indeed the words of Jamal Badawi (an audio file alone is not proof, I can record an audio file and say it is the words of Jamal Badawi).

2) A quote from the article: "...during the 2006 controversy surrounding the publication of Danish cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad. Badawi compared the publication to Holocaust denial, arguing it was beyond the limits of free speech."

There is a quotation given below that, but no citation for the quotation, no place where one may go to find the citation, and no claim about where this comparison was made.

3) Quote from article: "During a MAS conference in Los Angeles the same year, Badawi preached that democracy falls short of what Islam offers. It is "not only for the problems of any particular society, America or otherwise but the solution for the world…. And we believe that Islam is the only solution not only to the problems of America but to the malaise of the world at large.""

Again, there is no source for this. It is simply presented.

In addition to a failure to cite sources, the article also misrepresents the words that it does provide citations for. Here are some examples:

1) A direct quote from the article: "In June 2006, he led an Islamonline.net dialogue session called "Martyrdom in Islam: Let's Discuss it." In it, he compared suicide bombers fighting oppression to "freedom fighters" fighting the Nazis or the Japanese kamikazes fighting the Americans. At a 1999 Muslim student conference held at the University of Maryland, Badawi said that "resistance" was really an act of heroism. "So when an act of heroism like that is required to save others it is self-sacrifice you cannot really call it suicide. What Islam condemns is suicide in the negative sense. That's my understanding.""

The proof for this is this printout, allegedly of the discussion mentioned. A pdf is, again, not proof itself. I can print out a pdf which looks exactly like this. The claim is that this is an archived post on the WayBack Machine. If this is so, why is there not a given link to the discussion? Furthermore, none of the words found in quotation marks are actually in the printout pdf. Nowhere is it written "So when an act of heroism like that is required..." etc. Neither do the quotes compare suicide bombers fighting oppression to "freedom fighters" (the term isn't even used, the term he uses is "western fighters") against the Nazis or to kamikazes. What is actually said is, "It is known that people from various backgrounds sacrificed their lives in a way that many may classify as “suicidal operations” such as the Japanese pilots in the Second World War. Also operations by some highly courageous western fighters against Nazism". This is not saying that suicide bombers are like fighters of Nazism of kamikaze pilots. It is saying that in war, martyrdom and suicide have blurred lines, and that much is true.

2) The article also quotes an article written by Badawi and says this about him: "He also has openly questioned whether Islam and democracy are compatible. "The Qur'an and Prophetic tradition are the ultimate constitution," he wrote in 2004. Because Islam was given by God, "It's not something that anyone can update or change or supersede in any way; it is free from error or else, of course, there wouldn't be any belief in God. On the other hand, other systems, whether they are democracy, socialism, or otherwise, are man-made ideas or ideologies.""

But in the article which is linked here , Badawi does not question whether Islam or democracy are compatible. He is instead outlining the similarities and differences between Islam and democracy. In the article he says, "When saying that Islam is similar to democracy, this seems to carry an implication that democracy is “the way,” “the ideal,” and then we go back to Islam to find out whether it meets these ideals or measures up to these standards or not. And that is almost like saying: Let’s take God’s ordained way of life and judge it in accordance with the criteria established by humans. Therefore, democracy and the political system in Islam, although they may have some similarities, are not really synonymous."

It does not say the two are not compatible but that they aren't the same thing. He in fact stresses that in Islamic polity people must be able to choose their rulers: "In order to have what can be called an Islamic political system, it is not enough to simply implement some aspects of Islam, such as the criminal law, while neglecting some more fundamental issues, such as the freedom of the people to choose the rulers." And futhermore, he lays out the type of political system in which he sees Islamic doctrines and democracy co-existing: "A better term, however, has been suggested by Abul-A`la Al-Mawdudi: “popular trusteeship.” This suggests that the entire human race is appointed on this earth to be like trustees or vicegerents of God on earth, and it [trusteeship] is not to be claimed by one individual, group, or class. Rather, it is a collective type or responsibility to fulfill this duty, which means that the rules apply to rulers and ruled alike."

To use the quote "The Qur'an and Prophetic tradition are the ultimate constitution...free from error...on the other hand...democracy, socialism, or otherwise, are man-made ideas" and then say this means the author fundamentally questions whether Islam and democracy can co-exist is an egregious misrepresentation of the actual material being linked to. If one believes that Qur'an and Prophetic tradition are free from error and that other systems, like democracy, are man-made, that does not mean they don't think the two things can be compatible.

This covers nearly all of the claims made in the article and also covers a substantial amount of what has been referenced in the Wikipedia article about FCoNA.

For this reason, I deem this source, and other sources which rely on it as sufficient citation as in violation of WP:RS, and I ask that it not be referred to in the future. If someone can show me why this failure to cite quotations and provide actual proof of statements and speeches is admissible, then I will allow the source to be used in this article. Mavriksfan11 (talk) 03:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)