One of the problems which one encounters with Islamic fundamentalism is the lack of a central doctrinal authority, and the lack of a hierarchical clergy. Imams are "leaders," based on the derivation of the word. However, the meaning of the term can vary both in usage and from one sect of Islam to another. Any leader of prayer in a mosque is entitled to the honorific "Imam," and the term can in fact be applied to any leader of prayer when two or more Muslims gather to pray. Although certainly no one is going to be able to sustain a claim to the honorific without a good knowledge of the Quran and the ability to read and write Arabic, there is otherwise no standard by which anyone can judge who is or is not entitle to describe himself as an Imam.
Futher complicating the issue is the use of the honorific Sheikh. This derives from the Arabic verb meaning to grow old, and can be as simple as old man, in the sense of a chief or village or tribal leader. But is is also applied as an honorific to those who assert themselves to be, or who are asserted by others to be Imams. There is a sort of silliness in that "Sheikh Imam" So-and-So could be translated as "Leader Leader"--but the point is that someone who has what might be termed dangerously radical notions could be esteemed an Imam, and given the honorific Sheikh by one community, and then impose himself on another community based upon credentials which ultimately rest only on the judgment of the congregation which orginally gave him the honorifics which he bears.
Therefore, the Muslim community lacks a means of reviewing the credentials of those who are purported to be, or purport themselves to be Imams. One of our members here, who has kept his head down since the incident, came into one of the threads announcing the death of al Zarqawi and referred to him as Sheikh, and a holy man. The fluidity of authority in the Islamic world both allows the extremist a "bully pulpit," and prevents the certification or falsification of any individuals credentials.
Recently, an Imam from Leicester in England, Riyadh ul Haq, who is given the honorific "Sheikh," was the subject accusations of inciting hatred, declined to appear in Canada. There had recently been an arrest of seventeen Muslim men and boys who were "suckered" in a sting operation to buy chemicals from which bombs could be made, and one of them had been the member of a campus group in Hamilton, Ontario, who had booked a hall for this Imam to speak. Thereafter, the Imam was invited to speak at a conference in Toronto, but Jewish groups and some Muslim groups objected, and asked the Federal immigration officials to prevent him from entering the country. He made life a little easier for Federal officials by declining to attend, and instead whill speak by a video feed.
The story can be read here, with the caveat that this story is in
The National Post, the extreme right-wing organ in Canada.
Some Canadian Muslims claimed that his previous remarks had been taken out of context and that he was being unfairly maligned. In an interview on CBC radio which i heard, he made the same charge. But other Muslims in Canada were among those who made such charges against them. How are we to know, and how is any honest Muslim to know, who to believe in such circumstances?
