He would have dismissed conservative theologians as "irrelevant" for promoting the view that Islamic life is only possible in Muslim lands under Muslim laws, a view that makes Islam seem "difficult and confusing."
"There is nothing in Islam that commands Muslims to withdraw from their society, or even to become visibly ghettoized, in order to be closer to God," he wrote. "On the contrary, in order to be in full harmony with their identity, Muslims need to exercise even more vigorously the choice and freedom to practise Islamic teachings in a Canadian context."There is nothing in Islam that commands Muslims to withdraw from their society, but as Delic well knows (but is hoping we don't, or if we do that we're prepared to overlook it) there is something in Islam that commands Muslims to wage jihad on the kafir until the one and only authentic law, Allah's law, is instituted world-wide. As for the the requirement ("Muslims need to") that the faithful exercise Islam even more vigorously here--isn't that the opposite of "freedom," taking away the choice to practise, or not to practise, Islamic teachings? Teachings which, by the way, enshrine inequities and guarantee Islamic superiority. Awfully hard to "contextualize" these teachings in a Western land where such ideas are supposedly anathema. Then again, this is Canada, where multiculti dogma has made a place for every peoples' bad ideas, and placed them on par with Western ones (thereby all but ensuring that, as per Gresham's law, the bad will eventually drive out the good). And Imam Delic has already figured out how to play the angles in this "context," since we have put instruments in place--"human rights" bodies, criminal hate speech laws, and our laughable Charter of Rights and Freedoms--that have made it much easier for those inclined to do so to Islamize the joint.
Iman Delic all but said as much in a 2008 article about "freedom of speech," a freedom which both Section 13 of Canada's Human Rights Act and every school of Islamic jurisprudence agree must be subject to certain "limits":
On a broader policy level, these hearings [the Mark Steyn/Maclean's magazine show trial in B.C.] illustrate what our democracy is about: balancing a number of rights and values protected by our Charter of Rights and Freedoms: freedom of expression, equality, and the preservation of a multicultural society in which our differences are viewed as a source of strength and not as a basis for exclusion and suspicion. Indeed the Supreme Court of Canada has upheld the anti-hate provisions of both the human rights codes as well as the criminal code on the same basis.No, but the sharia--that works superbly for some "communities," eh, Imam? In "the Canadian context," I mean.
The fact is that a discussion of free speech cannot be divorced from a discussion of who in our society has the power to express themselves and through which medium. The limitless free speech model -- which posits that the solution to harmful and hateful speech is more and better speech -- does not work for minority communities...