"The National Post uses the term 'Sharia law' without nuance or explanation which perpetuates Islamophobic tropes that paint Muslim beliefs and practices as inherently suspect."
December 20, 2024
To the National Post newsroom,
I am writing to strongly object to Adrian Humphreys’ article, “Jewish groups warn of antisemitic past of two speakers at large Islamic conference in Toronto,” published on Dec. 18, 2024. This piece misrepresents the pro-Israel group Tafsik and promotes harmful narratives about Islam and Palestinian advocacy.
I take issue with this statement: “Several speakers on the schedule have been criticized over the years for their stance on women’s rights and gay rights, and for advocating for Sharia law, but this year two speakers have brought particular concern from the Canadian Antisemitism Education Foundation, a charitable organization, and Tafsik Organization, a Jewish civil rights group.”
Could the National Post clarify what it means by “criticized… for advocating for Sharia law”? Moreover, I would request clarification over the National Post’s editorial stance when reporting on Muslim-Canadian communities.
The term “Sharia law” is often deployed in Western media as a vague and inflammatory catch-all term, frequently disconnected from its actual meaning within Islamic tradition.
Sharia, at its core, refers to the divine principles of conduct and ethical guidelines derived from Islamic teachings. It is not a fixed, codified legal system but rather an evolving framework that has informed diverse interpretations of Islamic jurisprudence over centuries. These interpretations are shaped by cultural, historical, and regional factors, reflecting the plurality of Muslim societies. Importantly, Sharia is not monolithic. Its application and understanding differ significantly between Sunni and Shia traditions and among various communities worldwide. The reductionist framing of “advocating for Sharia law” ignores this diversity and perpetuates harmful stereotypes that conflate Islamic legal thought with authoritarianism or extremism.
By using the term “Sharia law” without nuance or explanation, the National Post is perpetuating Islamophobic tropes that paint Muslim beliefs and practices as inherently suspect. This editorial choice appears to cater to a narrative of fear and prejudice rather than fostering informed discourse. I urge the National Post to adopt greater precision and context when discussing Sharia to avoid reinforcing harmful biases and misrepresenting the lived realities of millions of Muslims globally.
Furthermore, your depiction of Tafsik as a “Jewish civil rights group” is misleading at best. Tafsik is a far-right, pro-Israel organization notorious for promoting Islamophobia and anti-Palestinian racism. Its Twitter feed includes posts calling Palestinians “savages” and labeling the pro-Palestinian movement an “Islamist, Marxist death cult.”
Its executive director, Amir Epstein, has harassed pro-Palestinian advocates, including myself on social media.
While the National Post frequently publishes op-eds painting pro-Palestinian activists as violent or as terrorist sympathizers, my own experience demonstrates the hypocrisy of this narrative. In August, I was directly threatened via Facebook Messenger by Amir Epstein, the executive director of Tafsik, despite never having interacted with him. My personal Facebook account, where I refrain from posting political content, became a target for unprovoked harassment.
It is deeply troubling that the National Post continues to provide a platform to Tafsik, an organization that employs such alarming and inappropriate methods of “advocacy.” This raises serious questions about the paper’s commitment to journalistic integrity and its endorsement of groups that engage in harassment.
While reporting on the criticism of antisemitic remarks by Imams Yasir Qadhi and Omar Suleiman is more than legitimate, framing Tafsik as a credible “civil rights organization” while ignoring its hateful rhetoric is hypocritical. I am urging the National Post to remove the “Jewish civil rights group” descriptor for the Tafsik Organization and provide a fair and accurate descriptor of the group, like “far-right pro-Israel group”. An editor’s note would be appropriate.
Moreover, the article’s portrayal of Qadhi’s educational background as “unusual” reads to me as a subtle form Orientalism and Islamophobia.
I take issue specifically with this section:
“Qadhi is the dean of the Islamic Seminary of America, a Texas-based post-secondary religious school. He is unusual in having received his own Islamic seminary education in Saudi Arabia as well as a doctorate from the U.S. Ivy League university of Yale.”
Labeling Qadhi’s academic background as “unusual” wrongly implies that such a combination is rare or contradictory, echoing the false dichotomy between Islamic scholarship and Western intellectual traditions. Edward Said’s critique of Orientalism aptly describes this pattern of “othering,” which portrays Islamic education as incompatible with elite Western academia. Additionally, emphasizing Qadhi’s Saudi background—a country often tied in Western discourse to extremism—unfairly casts suspicion on his credibility. This selective focus appears to be a form of stereotyping. There is nothing inherently unusual about a scholar combining diverse educational influences. Yet, this framing undermines Qadhi’s intellectual breadth and subtly reinforces biases against Muslim scholars who navigate both Islamic and Western frameworks.
If Mr. Humphreys had reported on the critiques of Qadhi for specific controversies—such as his defense of Watatist thought which has led to him espousing numerous controversial statements including his Holocaust denial, this would be fair. Instead, this editorialized statement lazily leans on Islamophobic undertones to discredit Qadhi.
Finally, your treatment of Suleiman’s 2013 commentary on a hadith about “Bani Isra’il” is grossly irresponsible.
The hadith, when properly contextualized, is a moral critique, not an antisemitic statement. Reducing centuries-old theological discourse to sound bites fuels unwarranted accusations against Muslim scholars.
The hadith about the Bani Isra’il, often translated as follows:
“If it were not for Bani Isra’il, meat would not decay, and if it were not for Hawwa (Eve), no woman would betray her husband,”
It is reported in a hadith collection titled the Book of Prophets, Kitab al-Anbiya (see Hadith No. 3330) and the Book of the Virtues, Kitab al-Fada'il (see Hadith No. 1470). The references to Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim as collections of hadith date back to the 9th century CE during the Abbasid Caliphate. This is long before the time of modern nation-states including the modern state of Israel.
The first part of the hadith (“If it were not for Bani Isra’il, meat would not decay”) refers to an incident often interpreted within Islamic tradition. Some scholars link this statement to the Israelites' alleged hoarding or misuse of divine blessings, specifically in relation to manna and quails (referenced in the Qur'an). The phrase serves as a general moral lesson about disobedience and ingratitude.
The second part of the hadith (“If it were not for Hawwa, no woman would betray her husband”) is understood in relation to the story of Adam and Eve. It highlights a moral reflection on human behaviour rather than attributing blame to Eve alone.
Both parts of the hadith have often been the subject of scholarly debate in different Islamic schools of thought, but are understood in a metaphorical, not literal, sense by many scholars. The context is essential for proper interpretation, as these statements reflect broader human tendencies rather than being targeted critiques of Israel, Israelis and contemporary Jewish communities.
The National Post as well as Tafsik and the Canadian Antisemitism Education Foundation all seem to misunderstand the nature of the hadith. The statement must be understood within its historical and theological context. Islamic tradition, as an Abrahamic religion, frequently references the Children of Israel (Bani Isra’il) as a moral archetype, reflecting human tendencies such as ingratitude or neglect of divine blessings.
Given this context, Suleiman's role in summarizing this hadith does not imply an endorsement of any anti-Semitic interpretation. As a scholar, his comments appear to reflect the traditional recounting of Islamic texts, not a personal or ideological stance.
The manner in which the National Post frames this hadith is disingenuous and alarmingly Islamophobic. I demand a correction and an acknowledgment that this hadith critiques universal human tendencies, not contemporary Jewish communities. Misleading accusations like this undermine journalistic integrity and perpetuate harmful stereotypes.
To summarize, this article unjustly frames criticism of Israel as inherently antisemitic while excusing Islamophobia. The National Post must do the following:
- Correct its portrayal of Tafsik.
- Clarify its terminology and provide proper context for terms like “Sharia law.”
- Address inaccuracies regarding the hadith on Bani Isra’il.
Failure to amend these issues will prompt me to file a formal complaint to media accountability councils. I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Anthony Issa
Media Analyst
Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East