Talk:Muslim Association of Canada

Terrorism links

In today's newspapers, the RCMP note that the Muslim Association of Canada provided money to a terrorist organization from 2001 to 2010, and that the Association has been under police surveillance for financing terrorists, as of March 6, 2014. Information related to this should be added to the article, but we should find additional sources (the Toronto Sun is a tabloid), and be careful in the wording. From a quick search, the information I found shows that the group that MAC was donating to was not listed as a terrorist organisation at the time of the donations. --Yamla (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

A couple of other people added this information, along with information from a press release acknowledging this support but indicating that financing stopped at some unspecified point in the past, prior to IRFAN-Canada's delisting as a charitable organization. This issue (adding the information) is now resolved. --Yamla (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Consensus on "Alleged"

Several IPs have been adding the word Alleged to "Connections to Hamas", despite the fact that the ties have been confirmed by the RCMP (Which is a trustworthy source). I propose that we rename it to "Previous Connections with Hamas" with a sentence in the content that states that they are not funding IRFAN-Canada any more. This is a proper, non-partisan solution that most clearly states its reality. Redflorist (talk) 00:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

A minor correction: The IPs actually added "alleged" to "Connection to A Terrorist Group". I changed it to Hamas afterwards. Haminoon (talk) 00:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps even changing it to "Previous Connections to IRFAN", so that these IPs do not harper on the fact that MAC never directly associated with Hamas. Although changing it to "Previous Connections with Hamas" is a good idea as well. CanadaProud12 (talk)

I don't like "Previous Connections to IRFAN" because hardly anyone has heard of IRFAN. "Previous connections with Hamas" should be okay as long as the body text makes it clear the connections were indirect. Haminoon (talk) 01:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Just curious - is "harper" a Canadianism? Haminoon (talk) 01:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I consider it to be. Regardless of one's political leanings, he is the leader of the nation and is well known throughout Canada, potentially even representing many of its ideals. Having been in power for 9 years, he's also one of the few representatives of Canada on the world stage (Alongside Justin Bieber and the previous Governor of Canada). Redflorist (talk) 02:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC) *Correction: This is only about the PM, not the actual word

There's no 'alleged' about it. MAC has acknowledged that they gave money to IRFAN. They have acknowledged IRFAN's relationship with problematic groups. I'm removing that from the title. As to Haminoon's question, "harper" was used long before Harper was in power. I don't think it's a Canadianism, but it's hard to be sure. --Yamla (talk) 15:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I've added a reference clarifying that MAC was under police surveillance for terrorist funding in 2014. This is important because it goes against MAC's claim that this stopped in 2011. However, I'm now concerned that the article (with my change) swings the tone too far against MAC. Perhaps we could restructure that section a bit? I'm not sure. --Yamla (talk) 15:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Is there a better reference we could use for that? The comments on the Muslim Brotherhood in the article make me think this is a terrible muck-raking piece of journalism. Haminoon (talk) 08:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm mostly concerned with the fact that 3 different IPs have, on 7 separate occasions, edited the article so as to downplay MACs ties with these groups. I support calling it "Previous Connections with Hamas", with a greater explanation in the text about what actually happened. Redflorist (talk) 15:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

That certainly seems reasonable to me. I'll edit the article to make the change to the title (though I'm certainly not implying that this matter is settled). Additionally, I'll add a comment noting that editors must take the matter to the talk page before adding 'alleged' (on the basis that MAC has acknowledged the link). I'm not immediately sure how to reword the text, so I'll leave that to Redflorist or other interested editors. --Yamla (talk) 21:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Haminoon that we should do our best to avoid sourcing the Toronto Sun. As well I still feel that we should have the title changed to "Previous connections with IRFAN", because to be fair MAC did have previous connections with IRFAN and not Hamas.CanadaProud12 (talk) 01:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

And the origins of harper are 9th century England, it means to tediously dwell on a subject.CanadaProud12 (talk) 01:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. I believe the title should change back to Hamas. IRFAN is only really relevant as they are funding a terrorist organisation. Far more people have heard of Hamas than have heard of IRFAN. And MAC *did* have previous connections with Hamas. Those connections were through IRFAN. Alternatively, we could change the title to “Previous connection to terrorist organisations", or perhaps, "Controversy", which would be more generally useful and almost certainly less inflammatory? --Yamla (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

IRFAN is relevant because that’s who MAC was (directly at least) giving money to. As far as we know MAC never spoke to/contacted Hamas. A lot of people might not know IRFAN, but then again what’s wikipedia for? Correct me if I’m wrong (I’m new at this) but if they don’t know what it is, is it not our responsibility to tell them? As is done in the article, mind you. However, changing it to “Controversy” makes a lot of sense to me. CanadaProud12 (talk) 02:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy with "Controversy". I'm not happy with “Previous connection to terrorist organisations", because IRFAN is not a terrorist org in any normal sense of the word, and its not how we sum up Hamas. Haminoon (talk) 08:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, IRFAN-Canada is indeed a terrorist organisation, according to the Canadian government. As is Hamas. But, I think we've come to a good consensus which means we don't have to debate whether or not to consider the Canadian government's designation as relevant here. :) I'll change the title to 'Controversies', and I sincerely thank you for helping us come up with appropriate titles and wording, around a particularly difficult area here. --Yamla (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Is this even a controversy?

Are MAC donations to IRFAN before IRFAN was designated a terror group even a controversy? AFAIK, only QMI agency reported this and this was copied by tabloids like the Toronto Sun. If you read their article, its fairly clear that last allegation of MAC involving itself with IRFAN is March 2014. IRFAN wasn't designated as terrorist until April 2014. How is this controversial or worthy of reporting?VR _talk 15:48, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

The Muslim Association of Canada claims that all donations stopped after IRFAN was delisted in 2011. However, the allegations (and sworn statements) are that the donations continued until 2014. I think that's incredibly relevant. I mean, I think it'd be relevant even if the donations stopped in 2011, before IRFAN was delisted, given that IRFAN turns out to have ties to a designated terrorist group. Note that there's no claim in the article, and I most certainly make no claim here, that the Muslim Association of Canada was deliberately funding a terrorist group. But worth mentioning this funding of IRFAN in the article? Most certainly. --Yamla (talk) 16:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

It seems that this "controversy" is sourced entirely to the Toronto Sun, which is a tabloid. Are there any other sources that talk about it?VR _talk 20:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Muslim Association of Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150130034511/http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2015/01/20150128-090519.html to http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2015/01/20150128-090519.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:12, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Director Jamal Badawi

An anonymous editor has concerns about the article discussing the link between Dr. Jamal Badawi and the Muslim Brotherhood. By request, I have reintroduced the content with a reliable source meeting WP:RS, showing the controversy. I want to be clear, though, I'm open to discussion and to a consensus against me for this piece of information. I think it's relevant, the Edmonton Journal appears to think it's relevant, but it may not be. --Yamla (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I have no issue with the use of the Edmonton Journal at all. However, the use of "Investigative project" is problematic because it seems to be a partisan, agenda-driven organization with no reputation for accuracy or fact-checking. Furthermore, the source you provided is a primary source, and articles on Wikipedia should largely be based on secondary sources. You include a reliable source for Badawi's assertion denying any links to Muslim Brotherhood, then provide a primary source in response to his assertion (his name being in the directory). I find that problematic in light of WP:NOR because you are making an original argument with a primary source. We don't know why the primary source included his name. For example, the Muslim Brotherhood might as well have made a hitlist of sorts with certain perceived enemies on it. Imagine then that a Wikipedia editor uses the primary source to suggest that the targeted individuals are instead affiliates of the organization. I'm not saying that that is what the directory is, but I am making the point that the use of this primary source is problematic, particularly in regards to a living person, without further information from a reliable secondary source. 2601:243:903:3F5B:254F:CE78:74E5:1209 (talk) 14:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

On second thought, the Edmonton Journal does not discuss this within the context of the Muslim Association of Canada. This Wikipedia article, as currently written, on its own accord then proposes an argument about the link between the Muslim Association of Canada and the Muslim Brotherhood that is not attributed to a reliable secondary source. 2601:243:903:3F5B:254F:CE78:74E5:1209 (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Here's an article from the Toronto Sun establishing and explaining the link, too. I think that's significantly better than the Investigative Project, a site I have substantial concerns about (as you clearly do, too). Note that the Toronto Sun is owned by the same publishing network as the Edmonton Journal but is not, in my opinion, as high quality. --Yamla (talk) 14:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I would never use a tabloid in a Wikipedia article, particularly when it comes to assertions about living people. The entire section is really problematic. The first citation is to an opinion piece in the WSJ. While the WSJ does have a reputation for fact-checking, newspapers generally do not hold editorials written by guest writers to the same standards as an article (non-opinion piece) written by its own staff. Then the section goes on to cite a primary source, Canadian Senate testimony. I can appreciate your drive to establish the truth in this article, but you understand that Wikipedia is not about establishing the truth; instead, it's about presenting to its readers what is verifiable through reliable secondary sources. 2601:243:903:3F5B:254F:CE78:74E5:1209 (talk) 15:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

2601:243:903:3F5B:254F:CE78:74E5:1209, it would also be helpful if you pointed out if you had any conflict of interest here. Please understand, I am not saying you do. My concern is that we have had to block a number of editors who had undisclosed conflicts of interest; most recently, Leena RS. Even if you have a conflict of interest, you are still more than welcome to participate in this, and other, discussions here on the article's talk page. --Yamla (talk) 15:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I have no conflict of interest and am not affiliated with this organization. 2601:243:903:3F5B:254F:CE78:74E5:1209 (talk) 15:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

(outdent) Thanks very much for clearing up your lack of conflict of interest. That's useful! Okay, how about this. I inquire over on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources about whether the Toronto Sun counts as a reliable source. If it does, I'll modify the article to add that citation and remove the Investigative Project (which we both agree on). If it doesn't, I'll remove that whole paragraph (starting with "Badawi has been criticised" and ending with "listed in a Muslim Brotherhood directory". You've brought up other concerns. I'd like to stick with this single paragraph for now, to avoid this getting overly convoluted. I'm suggesting only that we table the other discussion until this single paragraph is resolved. --Yamla (talk) 15:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Your proposal regarding the Toronto Sun is entirely fair. In your inquiry, I would specify that you are considering using the Toronto Sun to make a claim about a living person since Wikipedia policies tend to emphasize even higher sourcing standards for living persons. 2601:243:903:3F5B:254F:CE78:74E5:1209 (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Of course. I'll make the request later today. --Yamla (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it would also be helpful to clarify that the Sun Post article is an op-ed as well. I point this out because op-eds are subject to different editorial standards and (as far as I know) a lower-level of scrutiny. 2601:243:903:3F5B:254F:CE78:74E5:1209 (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

(outdent) I have requested clarification, see Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Is_Toronto_Sun_a_reliable_source?. I have tried to represent your concerns accurately but if you believe I have mischaracterised anything I posted there, I encourage you to respond there. As previously mentioned, if the consensus there is that the citation is insufficient, I will remove the content from the article. --Yamla (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Your post was fair. Thanks. I did find some additional guidance at WP:NEWSORG that may be relevant here. 2601:243:903:3F5B:254F:CE78:74E5:1209 (talk) 21:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion moved to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_Toronto_Sun_a_reliable_source?. I noted WP:NEWSORG there, too, though I expect the people who patrol that noticeboard are more familiar than you or I. :) --Yamla (talk) 21:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I've found this source which I think would be much more useful in this article. It's not an op-ed, nor a primary source, and this article could still attribute the allegation to Vidino. 2601:243:903:3F5B:254F:CE78:74E5:1209 (talk) 23:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

(outdent) The clear consensus over at the reliable sources noticeboard was that the particular Toronto Sun article was insufficient to cite the claim. As previously discussed, I have therefore removed the entire paragraph. Anonymous editor at 2061:..., you are welcome to use the source you identify above as you see fit. It looks to me to be a quality citation, if perhaps not ideal. Anonymous editor, I expect you are going to make a number of related edits to the article over the next few days. I look forward to seeing them. In particular, thank you for your efforts ensuring the article uses high quality reliable sources, and thank you for your polite and reasoned discussion. --Yamla (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

WSJ Citation

An op-ed in the Wall Street Journal is cited (paywall) to support the assertion that the Muslim Association of Canada "was identified in Canadian Senate testimony as a front group for the Brotherhood" and is also used to cite the motto for the Brotherhood, for whatever reason. Full copies of the WSJ op-ed are available here and here. There is not a single instance of the "Muslim Association of Canada" being mentioned in the op-ed. 2601:243:903:3F5B:254F:CE78:74E5:1209 (talk) 23:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Muslim Brotherhood

I do not see any reliable sources connecting the MAC to the Muslim Brotherhood. Most of the allegations come from unreliable sources. Unless any can be found, it should be removed. TFD (talk) 00:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

There is this source, but it doesn't explain anything at all. All it says is

Groups sometimes go to great lengths to sever or hide such ties, Vidino told the committee. He said they include the Muslim Association of Canada...

That sounds more like a smear than an allegation backed with evidence.VR _talk 20:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

How old is this masjid

Idk 2001:569:7EEB:8600:9D47:240B:EB52:87C (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)