Ron Banerjee. The Canadian Hindu Advocacy. The two are essentially the same, merely euphemisms for the other, considering that The Canadian Hindu Advocacy is a one man army. Now that we've established that the organization is just really Ron Banerjee, we need to move on to more pressing issues. The focus of this blog post is to shed light on Ron Banerjee's recent vitriol against a Hindu woman, Sushmita Banerjee, who was murdered by the Taliban. We will let the tweet do the speaking for itself (see below). Tweeter Sebastian Roche, writes:
"The Taliban are the lowest life form known to man BBC - Indian diarist Sushmita Banerjee shot dead in Afghanistan."
To which the overzealous Ron Banerjee responds:
"Serves her right for marrying a Muslim. A Hindu whore who weds a Muzzie deserves what she gets."
Ron Banerjee justifies Sushmita's murder by suggesting that her death was "deserved" for simply wedding a Muslim man. Ron Banerjee's vile language is hurtful to say the least, but also incredibly bigoted for someone who claims to be a cultured, Canadian citizen. What we discover is that Ron Banerjee is an uncouth personality who deserves to be rebuked by his fellow Canadians for his lowly character. Ron Banerjee has on occasion been caught in espousing a superiority complex towards Muslims, such as when he outright said "But I'm a Hindu, so I'm superior" at one anti-Islam rally. Canadians, beware of this man and his folly: do not let him destroy the nation's cherished social mosaic.
More on Ron Banerjee & The Canadian Hindu Advocacy:
Who is Ron Banerjee & The Canadian Hindu Advocacy?, click here!
If you happen to be a regular on internet apologetics you must have at one point in time come across "The Rationalizer". He has an entire channel and blog dedicated to providing "evidences that disprove Islam" as the ultimate truth. He cites sources and does his best to conjure up arguments against the faith, with unreserved ostentation. Online Muslim apologists have waited for someone to come along and debunk the pretentious charlatan, and the wait, is finally over. A Hafiz, or one who has committed the entire Qur'an to memory, and astrophysicist by the name of Chuck Connors has recently published a video that sheds lights on The Rationalizer's fallacies and ignorance:
Tarek Fatah is known for many things; and his obsession with the hijab is certainly no exception. On August 28, 2013 Tarek Fatah authored another pathetic diatribe in The Toronto Sun in which he alleges that the hijab is a concept foreign to Islam. In fact, he asserts that the only Quranic injunction pertaining to women's modesty is that of covering her breasts (see 10th paragraph of the published article in the image below). Again, we must ask ourselves, is Tarek Fatah really a scholarly representative for Islam? After all, his award-winning books are chock full of mistakes; ranging everything from jaw-dropping translation errors to factual/historic blunders. Furthermore, Muslims, let alone non-Muslims, have a hard time determining whether Tarek Fatah is really a "secular Muslim" or an "ex-Muslim secularist" based on the hate he espouses on his Facebook and Twitter accounts We can then be confident that we have already ascertained that Tarek Fatah's understanding of Islam is both absolutely unreliable and biased. Hence, the next argument requires no leap of faith: Tarek Fatah's claim that the Qur'an doesn't mention the head-cover can also be considered to be utter nonsense -- in fact, it is.
Nouman Ali Khan, CEO and founder of Bayinnah, an organization devoted to the sole instruction of Qur'anic Arabic & exegesis, explains in detail that the hijab is in fact a significant aspect of a Muslim woman's modesty. Most importantly, the religion of Islam does make absolute reference to it as seen in the YouTube video below. As Nouman Ali Khan explains:
"Overwhelmingly there is actually no disagreement among our scholars about what the hijab means, what are its bear minimum requirements...hijab as itself, as an injunction, because it is in the Qu'ran, and its very direct and explicit, and the Prophet (PBUH) himself explained it in very explicit terms -- there is not really any debate whether or not it is an essential part of Islam and something required of women."
Furthermore, Nouman Ali Khan makes a very clear, succinct statement about the head-cover in which he states that it is explicitly mentioned in the Qur'an as khimar. Linguistically speaking the word khimar implies something that clouds or covers the mind:
"By the way the hijab, the Quranic term for that is khimar, and it comes from the word khamar, and the word khamar literally means to cover something. And khamar is also a word for alcohol - why? - cause it covers your intellect, you can't think straight....anything that overshadows your intellect is khamar....regardless khimar means something that covers and that's for the top garment."
Tarek Fatah, we ask that you drop your dishonest pandering to Islamophobic polities and contributing to the hype over the non-existent threat of "Islamism" (whatever that means). We understand that controversy earns you air-time on the Michael Coren Show, which translates into big bucks for you, but honesty is, as they say, always the best policy. If you wish to learn about Islam a great starting place would be the Deen Show. We invite you to Islam.
More on Tarek Fatah:
Tarek Fatah's errors in his books "Chasing A Mirage" click here.
Tarek Fatah: A "Secular Muslim" or an "Ex-Muslim Secularist"?, click here.
Do Canadians ever wonder why Canadian Muslims are so averse to Tarek Fatah's thinly veiled diatribes against Islam? Is the Muslim Canadian Congress (MCC) really a group devoted to protecting the social fabric of Canada against the non-existent threat of "Islamism"? The answer to these questions are not difficult and really require one to simply look at the evidence. Tarek Fatah claims to be a Muslim, all the while being a secularist, despite showing lucid contempt for Islam. As one tweeter recently noted on the 24th of August, 2013:
Tweeter Doug Janack does make a good point "I don't think I've read a single thing by you that doesn't support Dawkins' sneering contempt for Islam." It's not a difficult statement for a Muslim to understand because all Tarek Fatah has done in the last decade is demean and vilify the vast Canadian Muslim public (let alone Islam) while pretending to be an expert on Islam. On the same day which the above tweet was taken, Tarek Fatah displayed some of his anti-Islamic bigotry. In the first tweet a tweet by the name of O.J. rightfully claims that Tarek Fatah is not an authority on Islam. In response Tarek Fatah tweets back in his usual banal and derogatory language -- hardly fit for a so-called "real Muslim". Tarek Fatah tweets "Yeah right, I'm just not ugly enough to be considered a real Muslim by Islamists in black shrink wraps." Firstly, Tarek Fatah alleges that like the majority of Muslims, he's not "ugly" enough, to be considered one, especially by scholars in "black shrink wraps".
In another tweet Tarek Fatah alleges that only "bearded Islamic scholars can come up with with the science of flying horses and moon splitting". In this tweet Tarek Fatah's belief in Islam comes under attack as he employs sarcasm to mock 1) bearded men and the "science" of 2) flying horses, and 3) moon splitting -- all three ideas core to Islam. Firstly, it is incumbent on Muslim men to grow the beard. Secondly, the baraq* (not horse) upon which the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) rode on into the 7 heavens is an essential belief in Islam. Thirdly, the miracle performed by the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in which he split the moon is mentioned in the Quran, Surah 55, The Moon, Verses 1-2.
Whether Tarek Fatah is really a Muslim is up to the reader's discretion. One can only wonder how an alleged "Muslim" such as Tarek Fatah agrees with the following tweet by Richard Dawkins.
Muslims are honestly left speechless. What is Tarek Fatah really? A "secular Muslim" or an "ex-Muslim secularist"? It wouldn't be far-fetched to assert that Tarek Fatah is really an "ex-Muslim secularist" robbing people of their hard-earned money whilst pretending to be an authority on Islam.
More on Tarek Fatah:
For Tarek Fatah's errors in his book "Chasing A Mirage" click here.
When religion and science are mentioned together one imagines opposing forces, systems of thought that are anathema of each other, there being no sign of reconciliation between the two. One classic historical example is Galileo's indictment by the Catholic Church for supporting the idea that Earth was not the center of the universe (and even stationary), an idea that verged on heresy and demanded immediate reprehension. However, upon researching Islam's history, one does not come across a situation where Islam and science were diametrically opposed to each other. In fact, classical Muslim orthodoxy adopted science as a tool in both realms of academia and daily life. In 1987, Islam studies specialist and historian A.I. Sabra submitted a ground-breaking paper that described the three stages in which Muslims adopted the scientific tradition. David C. Lindberg, author of The Beginnings of Western Science, informs the reader about the conclusion of Sabra's research:
"A. I. Sabra proposed three stages in the fortunes of the classical tradition in Islam. In the first stage, he argued, 'Greek science entered the world of Islam, not as an invading force...but as an invited guest'--a guest, moreover, whose Hellenistic worldview experienced 'an almost immediate and almost unreserved adoption...by Muslim members of the household.' In the second stage,the guest, now a comfortable member of the community, was the source and inspiration for remarkable scientific achievements by outstanding scholars, who accepted the fundamental assumptions of the classical tradition, took up its unresolved problems, and corrected, refined, and extended its conclusions. This was not the beginning of a new scientific tradition, as some have argued, but a continuation of the Greek classical tradition on Islamic soil and with an Islamic voice. Finally, by the time the third stage made its appearance, the pioneers of Hellenistic science had passed away, to be replaced by a generation of scholars, almost every one of whom 'had undergone a thorough Muslim education' and 'were imbued with Muslim learning and tradition.' The result was the integration of Greek disciplines with traditional learning and Islamic culture more generally. Thus logic became incorporated into theology and law; astronomy became an indispensable tool for the muwwaqqit, who was responsible for determining the times of daily prayer in his locale; and mathematics became essential for a wide variety of commercial, legal, and scientific purposes. In this stage, which Sabra calls 'naturalization', the classical tradition had become fully assimilated and put to use. The guest had become a member of the household in the role of handmaiden [1]."
This information is easily summarized in three succinct points:
1. Greek science entered Islamic world as an invited guest within the Muslim household.
2. As a member of the community, served as source of scientific inspiration & innovation.
3. The final result was that the guest had become a member of household as handmaiden.
Atheists, especially the bulldog of Atheism, Richard Dawkins, considers religiosity a brazen affront to empirical observation and rationale. The only problem with this thesis is that Muslims played a major role in shaping science for centuries to come before the torch was passed on to Europeans, who then further refined the ideals of science during the Renaissance. However, how much thought and consideration should medieval Muslims be given for the extent of their scientific achievements? David C. Lindberg writes,
"The scientific movement in Islam was distinguished and of long duration. Translation of Greek works into Arabic began in the second half of the eighth century; by end of the ninth century translation activity had crested, and serious scholarship was under way. From the middle of the ninth century until well into the fourteenth, we find impressive scientific work in major branches of Greek science, carried forward in widely scattered cities of the Islamic world. If we concentrate our attention on mathematics and astronomy, where many of Islam's greatest achievements lay, we find serious research by capable mathematicians and astronomers as late as the first half of the sixteenth century. This period of Islamic preeminence in the mathematical sciences lasted well over half a millennium -- a longer period than the interval between Copernicus and ourselves [2]."
Furthermore, the pioneer of the scientific method, the very intellectual bastion of empiricism, is none other than Ibn al-Haytham (ca. 965 - ca. 1039), a Muslim known for his outstanding accomplishments in the realm of mathematics and astronomy [3] [4]. This is a stark reminder to atheists who proudly contend that science is purely secular endeavor.
Works Cited [1] Lindberg, D. C. (2007). Islamic Reception and Appropriation of Greek Science. The beginnings of western science: the European scientific tradition in philosophical, religious, and institutional context, prehistory to A.D. 1450 (2nd ed., p. 174). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [2] Ibid, pg. 189 [3] Ibid, pg. 179 [4] Heinen, A. M., & Biruni International Congress. (1973). Al-Biruni and ibn al-Haytham: A comparative study of scientific method. Pakistan.
One could say that Ron Banerjee and The Canadian Hindu Advocacy are completely synonymous. After all, The Canadian Hindu Advocacy is essentially comprised of one lone member -- it's founder! -- Ron Banerjee himself. Indeed, actions speak louder than words, so it would be prudent for the reader to watch this YouTube clip (below). In the following video a news reporter from City News asks Ron Banerjee at one of his hate-filled rallies where the rest of his members of the Canadian Hindu Advocacy are. Ron Banerjee asserts him that his members are present at the rally before he sets out to bring a few of them out for the camera. To the reporter's nonchalance -- as it was already expected -- Ron Banerjee returned with absolutely no one:
What Ron Banerjee and The Canadian Hindu Advocacy are well known for are their Islamophobic sentiments towards Canadian Muslims. In fact, Ron Banerjee was recorded on video at a neo-conservative Jewish conference in which he expresses that "Islam -- the Islamic civilization -- has invented, and contributed less to human advancement than a pack of donkeys. That's the truth." The mere diction and his choice of words, mainly derogatory (e.g. pack of donkeys), clearly suggest that the man hates not only the faith of Islam, but it's people, considering that he makes mention of "the Islamic civilization" in particular to drive his point home. To reinforce this idea, one cannot compare the "achievements" of faith, a religion, a system of thought, to animals. It becomes increasingly clear that a distinction is made between faith itself and people who believe it. His statement can be viewed in the YouTube clip below:
One may argue that this does not alone confirm Ron Banerjee's bigotry as his allusion to history may have been to point out that Islam was responsible for the degenerate thinking of human beings (a ludicrous idea). This being beside the point (and will be dealt later); it is important to note that Ron Banerjee has made it explicitly transparent that he believes himself, as a Hindu, to be superior to Muslims. One should ask, why does this question even arise in his mind? What has provoked him to come out and state this so clearly in the light of day? Some have proposed that Ron Banerjee, as a first generation Canadian (his parents being immigrants, this being entirely speculative), has brought over some of his anti-Muslim sentiments from India where clashes between Hindus and Muslims are not unheard of. Again, the following YouTube video makes it unequivocal, without a shadow of a doubt, that Ron Banerjee belongs to the same group of Islamophobes that include personalities such as Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, and Daniel Pipes:
Canadians, including the nation's conservatives, need to think twice before giving this Islamophobe a platform to spur his incendiary vitriol. It's hurtful towards Canadian Muslims, and seeks to rupture the social fabric of Canada. Canada prides itself as a nation where, in the face of civil rights and law, one is not discriminated based on race, ethnicity, religion, or system of thought. Together we can stop hate crimes being committed in the name of conservative notion of secular equity.
Tarek Fatah, author of The Jew Is Not My Enemy: Unveiling the Myths that Fuel Muslim Antisemitism and Chasing A Mirage: The Tragic Illusion of an Islamic State, is a self-proclaimed secular Canadian Muslim known for his regular appearances on The Michael Coren Show. He is extremely vocal of his antagonistic sentiments towards the vast Canadian Muslim public, so much so that he advocates an immediate inquisition on mosques across the country and a complete halt to immigration -- behavior that typifies the neo-conservative. In his attempt to convince the Canadian public of the current "Islamist Problem" he emanates an air of intellectual prowess and historical understanding that belies his shady agenda. Canadian Muslims, by and large, are well aware of Tarek Fatah's lucrative slamophobic agenda and urge their fellow Canadians to recognize Fatah's falsehoods. On January 29th 2011, Tarek Fatah was invited to debate with Imam Sheryrar Shaikh at the NAMF Islamic Center in Toronto. Tarek Fatah, however, failed to show up to the debate citing that a new moderator was chosen unilaterally, security problems which could not ensure his safety, and that the debate was somehow an "inquisition" against himself. Putting the drama aside, Imam Sheryrar Shaikh was able to continue with the canceled debate by listing a number of problems with both his books; the point being that Tarek Fatah has taken advantage of western ignorance to promulgate his anti-Islamic vitriol. Imam Sheryrar Shaikh drives this point home by aptly stating:
"Mr. Fatah, doesn't even know the primary language of Islam: that is Arabic. I wonder which dictionary he uses?"
We will be using Imam Sheryrar Shaikh's work to help "steer" the direction of the following information. The essence and purpose of this blog post is to reveal that Tarek Fatah is a fraud who has capitalized on the anti-Muslim campaign and cannot claim to be an authority. Once it has become clear that Tarek Fatah has taken advantage of western ignorance, a question must be posed at his publisher, John Wiley & Sons, Inc: will you continue to publish this charlatan's work? This post will be regularly updated as new information received. The following issues will be discussed:
Chasing A Mirage: The Tragic Illusion of an Islamic State | Error #1 on Page 321
Tarek Fatah writes in Chasing A Mirage: The Tragic Illusion of an Islamic State, Page 321 -- underlined in the page below -- that the Farsi (Persian) phrase "velayat-e-faqih" translates into "Supreme Leader". This, of course, to all Islamic studies specialists and historians is incorrect as "velayat-e-faqih" properly translates into "Rule of the Islamic Jurists" or "Guardianship of the Jurisconsult" [1] [2]. One does not need to refer to a Farsi-English lexicon or dictionary as its meaning is all too well-known in academic discourse. I have included two scholarly works in the "Works Cited" section; the first which is easily accessible to the general public whereas the latter can be found in popular academic literature.
Imam Sheryrar Shaikh makes this point clear in his video with his (cancelled) debate with Tarek Fatah: YouTube Link. It is important to note that the phrase is borrowed from the Arabic language, and is not pure Farsi.
It is poignant, yet startling that a widely known fact readily available in Islamic studies literature can be mistranslated. Where the correct translation implies plurality, Tarek Fatah's choice of words of "Supreme Leader" implies a singularity. Such a blunder changes the entire historical meaning of "velayat-e-faqih" in context of the Islamic Revolution (also known as the Iranian Revolution).
Chasing A Mirage: The Tragic Illusion of an Islamic State | Error #2 on Page 103
Tarek Fatah writes in Chasing A Mirage: The Tragic Illusion of an Islamic State, Page 103 -- underlined in the page below -- that the Arabic word "wuzura" translates into "subordinate". Again, it comes as no surprise to the learned Muslim that the Arabic word "wuzura" is really translated "minister", as per Edward William Lane's Arabic-English Lexicon [3]. There is not a single definition that gives the suggested meaning of "subordinate".
It is important to note that wuzura (more appropriately pronouncedas wazara') is the infinitive form of wazeer, or more commonly parsed in English as vizier. The extract from Lane's lexicon is reproduced below for the reader's perusal:
Imam Sheryrar Shaikh also addresses this issue in his video with his (cancelled) debate with Tarek Fatah: YouTube Link.
One sees a world of a difference between addressing an entire people as "subordinates" opposed to "ministers". Whereas the former implies a base, relegated position, the latter provides one with a dignified rank in society. In fact it gives the sentence on Page 103 a entirely different meaning. Again, one has to consider Tarek Fatah's knowledge of the Arabic language, before evaluating his ostentatious claims about Islam -- and from what has been seen so far, he has been absolutely negligent, if not ignorant, of his translations. Chasing A Mirage: The Tragic Illusion of an Islamic State | Error #3 on Page 202
Tarek Fatah writes in Chasing A Mirage: The Tragic Illusion of an Islamic State, Page 202 -- underlined in the page below -- that the Arabic word "as-Saffah" can be translated to mean "slaughterer" based on Edward William Lane's Arabic-English Lexicon [4]. Upon on my research I was unable to come across any definition that even suggested the term "slaughterer". You may check the "Works Cited" section to cross-check my listed references.
One may ask if Tarek Fatah really distorted the meaning if he simply mentioned slaughterer in place of bloodshedder, or "one who sheds blood" -- after all, they do sound as if they allude to the same idea. However, a closer look at the extract from Lane's Lexicon we find that the word "saffah" signifies the act of "pouring out, or forth", and in this case blood (see image below). However, the word slaughterer merely implies the killing many innocents by means of aggressive actions. The words are not even considered to be synonyms by any well-known dictionary (Merriam Webster, Oxforod Dictionary, etc).
Imam Sheryrar Shaikh reports this fact in his (cancelled) debate with Tarek Fatah here: YouTube Link.
Chasing A Mirage: The Tragic Illusion of an Islamic State | Error #4 on Page 326
Tarek Fatah writes in Chasing A Mirage: The Tragic Illusion of an Islamic State, Page 326 -- underlined in the page below -- that the Arabic word "Ya Abdi" literally means "Oh black slave". However, according to Edward William Lane's Arabic-English Lexicon the translation should actually read "Oh my slave", as the term "abdi" denotes merely "my slave" and not "black* slave" [5]. How Tarek Fatah was able to mix up the possessive noun "my" with the color "black" is left up to the imagination of the reader. As stressed before, Tarek Fatah is not the academic he so smugly champions to be.
On another note many Arabs are of Afro-Arab ethnic origin, and therefore are dark-skinned. Hence, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever why Arab Muslims would refer to sub-Saharan Muslims as "black slaves". Again, upon examining the aforementioned lexicon in the image below we find absolutely no reference at all to "black slave", but "slave". When the Arabic word "abd" is rendered "abdi" the noun becomes possessive, hence the correct and more meaningful translation "Oh my slave."
Imam Sheryrar Shaikh critiques this fact in his (cancelled) debate with Tarek Fatah here: YouTube Link.
Chasing A Mirage: The Tragic Illusion of an Islamic State | Error #5 on Page 156
Tarek Fatah writes in Chasing A Mirage: The Tragic Illusion of an Islamic State, Page 156 -- underlined in the page below -- that "Kitab futuh al-buldan", a book authored by a famous 9th century Persian historian, means "The Origins of the Islamic State". One doesn't need to refer to Lane's lexicon, as the book is well known to mean "Book of the Conquest of the Lands" [6]. What Tarek Fatah makes parenthetical reference to is not the translation of the title, but a two volume academic translation of the book itself published by two authors from the 19th century. A quick search on Wikipedia will confirm this fact.
Imam Sheryrar Shaikh notices this error in Tarek Fatah's book and makes not of it in his (cancelled) debate here: YouTube Link.
Chasing A Mirage: The Tragic Illusion of an Islamic State | Error #6 on Page 367
Tarek Fatah writes in Chasing A Mirage: The Tragic Illusion of an Islamic State, Page 367 -- underlined in the page below -- that the Arabic word "munafiq" means "apostate". Categorically speaking, Canadian Muslims have evidence that Tarek Fatah fits the definition of a munafiq quite well, but what isn't readily transparent is his religious convictions. Tarek Fatah would have non-Muslims believe that when he is called a hypocrite -- and rightly so -- what Muslims are actually doing is calling him an apostate. This, however, is incorrect as Lane's lexicon proves once again that Tarek Fatah has taken western ignorance to an entirely new level. The extract from Lane's lexicon has been reproduced below for the reader's perusal: More to come later! Stay tuned!
Works Cited
[1] Survey: The Surreal World of Iranian Politics. (2003, Jan 18). The Economist, Pg. 366, 5-S7
[2] Buchta, W. (2005). Taking stock of a quarter century of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Cambridge, MA: Islamic Legal Studies Program.
[3] Lane, E. W., & In Lane-Poole, S. (1968). An Arabic-English lexicon. Beirut: Librairie du Liban, Pg. 2939 [4] Ibid., pg. 1369
[5] Ibid., pg. 5
[6] Thatcher, Griffithes Wheeler (1911). "Balādhurī". In Chisholm, Hugh. Encyclopedia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press.
