VIDEO: Media and government responses in EU to the murder of an Egyptian woman in Germany ...

The following discussion on the al Jazeera Inside Story program concerns media and government responses in Germany and wider Europe to the murder of an Egyptian woman in a courtroom in Dresden, Germany. The video along with its accompanying text is reproduced below. Notice the cautious comment made by the German Muslim representative.

Words © 2009 Irfan Yusuf

Inside story discusses the motivation behind the killing of Marwa al-sherbini.
An Egyptian Muslim woman was killed in a German courtroom by a man convicted of insulting her religion.

The brutal killing of the pregnant Marwa Al Sherbini, 32, raised a lot of questions about the rise of right wing fanatics in Europe.

Al Sherbini was stabbed 18 times by a German man of Russian descent, formally identified only as Axel W, last week as she was about to give evidence against him as he appealled against his conviction for calling her a "terrorist" for her wearing the headscarf (hijab).

While the German authorities focus on court security, we ask, what about the underlying problem - the motivation behind the attack.

Inside Story discusses with guests: Maleiha Malik, a professor of law at King's college London, and author of "Anti Muslim prejudice: past and present"; Sulaiman Wilms, a media spokes person for European Muslim council and editor of the German language newspaper and Douglas Murray, a director of the centre for social cohesion, and author of "Neoconservatism: why we need it".

Bookmark this on Delicious

COMMENT: More thoughts on free speech and hate-speech

Geert Wilders, a Dutch far-Right wacko recently elected to the EU parliament, was invited to speak at a number of synagogues in the United States, his tour partly organised by the Middle East Forum with which this chap is associated. And what is the agenda of Wilders' party? Well, part of it includes ...

The PVV wants to close the borders to people who belong to one particular religion, and ban the houses of worship and schools for one population group. Wilders once told De Limburger newspaper that he wants to "tear down the mosques". He told HP/De Tijd newsweekly that "it is okay for the Netherlands to have Jewish and Christian school but not Islamic schools". In other words: pure discrimination.

Wilders has also said that his utopia is a Netherlands without immigrants, and that it is unacceptable that Dutch cities could one day have a majority of non-white people. He is also anti-democratic. He is the only member of his private party. PVV parliamentarians are not elected by the party but appointed by Wilders himself. The PVV meets behind closed doors in meetings where no one has the right to vote. So the main defining characteristics of an extreme-right party - nationalist, anti-democratic and racist - are all found in the PVV.

The party also likes to flirt with violence. Wilders has referred to his own parliamentary group as a "motley crew marching into parliament". He has said Moroccan football hooligans ought to be knee-capped, and that race riots are "not necessarily a bad thing".

... In the Netherlands, the Anne Frank Foundation researched the PVV and concluded that it was indeed an extreme-right party.

Janet Albrechtsen defended Wilders' right to free speech in a recent column, though she did acknowledge:

The Dutch MP with the flamboyant hair style has opinions that are surely offensive, perhaps hurtful and even hateful. You may say Wilders is wrong. Indeed, feel free to do so.

She didn't feel free to do so. Funny that.

Words © 2009 Irfan Yusuf




Bookmark this on Delicious

COMMENT: Between free speech and hate speech ...

Some readers will recall the enormous fuss surrounding Michael Backman’s column in The Age column, which contained two questionable remarks:

*That, through its excesses against the Palestinians, Israel was responsible for inciting Muslims across the world to hate her;

*That the West suffered because of this through terrorist attacks by Muslim extremists; and

*That Israeli trekkers were all badly behaved in Nepal.

The first two claims, while dubious, were more political judgments than racist remarks. There was a fair bit of emotion-charged debate at the Crikey website, with media writer Margaret Simons insisting The Age had some explaining to do while other Crikey contributors denied Backman was anti-Semitic at all given Israeli newspapers print complaints about Israeli tourists.

The Australian ran hard on the story, its editorial asking whether editors at The Age shared Backman’s ...

... [u]ndergraduate, ill-informed nonsense.

It continued:

There is no evidence that Backman hates Jews, but people who do will endorse his arguments and continue to cloak their anti-Semitism in a faux concern for the Palestinians.

In the same vein, I cannot claim that Janet Albrechtsen’s recent claims on her blog that ...

... a significant distinguishing feature between Muslim countries and the West has been our belief in freedom of expression ...

... show that she hates Muslims per se, even if she refuses to distinguish between different Muslim-majority states.

(I myself have gone on record about the lack of freedoms citizens in most Arab states enjoy. However, I distinguished between Arab League states (who make up around 15% of the world’s Muslim population) and other states. I also don’t cast aspersions on all 1.2 billion, knowing that around one third live as minorities.)

But will Albrechtsen’s arguments, ostensibly defending a far-Right Dutch politician’s freedom to compare Muslim scriptures with Hitler’s autobiography, be endorsed by people who do hate Muslims and allow them to cloak their hatred in a faux concern for freedom of speech? Read the 7 pages of moderated comments and judge for yourself.

Or to use language Albrechtsen will no doubt appreciate, being the free speech crusader she is, should the rights of a far-Right Dutch MP to offend racial and religious minorities be deemed more important than that of a British columnist? Indeed, the big question in my mind is this: why didn’t Janet Albrechtsen raise her voice in defense of Michael Backman? I won’t bother holding my breath for an honest answer.

Writing in the New York Times on January 29, Dutch journalist Ian Buruma addresses the prosecution of far-Right MP Geert Wilders. He begins with this observation:

IF it were not for his hatred of Islam, Geert Wilders would have remained a provincial Dutch parliamentarian of little note.

(I can't help but wonder the same about Janet Albrechtsen, whose rise to fame was on the back of her rather creative use of the work of European academics.)

Buruma provides the context of the Wilders prosecution, something Albrechtsen finds impossible to do with an equal degree of clarity.

[Wilders] is now world-famous, mainly for wanting the Koran to be banned in his country, “like Mein Kampf is banned,” and for making a crude short film that depicted Islam as a terrorist faith — or, as he puts it, “that sick ideology of Allah and Muhammad.”

Last year the Dutch government decided that such views, though coarse, were an acceptable contribution to political debate. Yet last week an Amsterdam court decided that Mr. Wilders should be prosecuted for “insulting” and “spreading hatred” against Muslims. Dutch criminal law can be invoked against anyone who “deliberately insults people on the grounds of their race, religion, beliefs or sexual orientation.”

Buruma acknowledges that Wilders' supporters are not all far-Right fruitloops.

Whether Mr. Wilders has deliberately insulted Muslim people is for the judges to decide ... When the British Parliament refused to screen Mr. Wilders’s film at Westminster this week, he cited this as “yet more proof that Europe is losing its freedom.” His defenders, by no means all right-wingers, also claim to be standing up for freedom. A Dutch law professor said he found it “strange” that a man should be prosecuted for “criticizing a book.”

Buruma then identifies the method used by Wilders, and in doing so provides an effective and nuanced antidote to Albrechtsen's simplistic linear free-speech rant.

In a bewildering world of global economics, multinational institutions and mass migration, many people are anxious about losing their sense of place; they feel abandoned by their own elites. Right-wing populists like Geert Wilders are tapping into these fears.

Since raw nativism is out of fashion in the Netherlands, Mr. Wilders does not speak of race, but of freedom. His method is to expose the intolerance of Muslims by provoking them. If they react to his insults, he can claim that they are a threat to our native liberties. And if anyone should point out that deliberately giving offense to Muslims is neither the best way to lower social tensions nor to protect our freedoms, Mr. Wilders will denounce him as a typical cultural elitist collaborating with “Islamo-fascism.”

It is tempting to conclude (as Albrechtsen suggests) that Wilders is merely seekng to criticise a religious belief. Followers of that belief need not be afraid of that criticism. But is Wilders really just criticising a religious belief?

Comparing a book that billions hold sacred to Hitler’s murderous tract is more than an exercise in literary criticism; it suggests that those who believe in the Koran are like Nazis, and an all-out war against them would be justified. This kind of thinking, presumably, is what the Dutch law court is seeking to check.

One of the misconceptions that muddle the West’s debate over Islam and free speech is the idea that people should be totally free to insult. Free speech is never that absolute. Even — or perhaps especially — in America, where citizens are protected by the First Amendment, there are certain words and opinions that no civilized person would utter, and others that open the speaker to civil charges.

This does not mean that religious beliefs should be above criticism. And sometimes criticism will be taken as an insult where none is intended. In that case the critic should get the benefit of the doubt. Likening the Koran to “Mein Kampf” would not seem to fall into that category.

If Mr. Wilders were to confine his remarks to those Muslims who do harm freedom of speech by using violence against critics and apostates, he would have a valid point. This is indeed a serious problem, not just in the West, but especially in countries where Muslims are in the majority. Mr. Wilders, however, refuses to make such fine distinctions. He believes that there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim. His aim is to stop “the Islamic invasion of Holland.”

There are others who share this fear and speak of “Islamicization,” as though not just Holland but all Europe were in danger of being engulfed by fascism once again. Since Muslims still constitute a relatively small minority, and most are not extremists, this seems an exaggerated fear, even though the danger of Islamist violence must be taken seriously.

However, a closer look at the rhetoric of Mr. Wilders and his defenders shows that Muslims are not the only enemies in their sights. Equally dangerous are the people whom Mr. Wilders and others refer to obsessively as “the cultural elite.”

Yep, those blasted leftwing university-educated elites who can only be exposed by their exact opposite - rightwing edlites with doctorates in law who get appointed to the boards of national broadcasters.

So what do I think of the movie? Well, I'm still wondering what all the fuss is about. It's rather ordinary, dare I say "undergraduate" and somewhat "ill-informed". The responses of another bunch of Muslim "elites" can be viewed here, and you can also

My Dutch co-religionists didn't exactly feel threatened by the movie.

The lawsuit against Mr. Wilders has been hailed in the Netherlands as a good thing for democracy. I am not so sure. It makes him look more important than he should be. In fact, the response of Dutch Muslims to his film last year was exemplary: most said nothing at all. And when a small Dutch Muslim TV station offered to broadcast the film, after all other stations had refused, the grand champion of free speech resolutely turned the offer down.

I guess that's what happens when you aren't one of the elites.

Speaking of which, feel free to watch the movie here and judge for yourself. I doubt Janet Albrechtsen would have the guts to broadcast this freely-available YouTube clip on her elite blog.



Words © 2009 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

COMMENT: Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism ...

I've been impressed with the work of British sociologist Frank Furedi ever since I saw him speak at a symposium on Enlightenment values organised by the (right-of-) Centre for Independent Studies last year.

Furedi is hard to pidgeon-hole. He skirts around the edges of liberal, conservative and libertarian. Perhaps the best way to describe him is independent. He doesn't treat issues like so many cultural warriors do - as if every issue has to be treated as a choice between binary opposites, as spectators in some kind of ideological footbal match where one must barrack for one side or the other. At least that's my assessment in the brief time I've been following his work.

I don't agree with Furedi on many issues, but I can't also help noticing him often displaying the kind of consistency that can pierce through layers of rhetoric and popular hysteria. This is on display in his most recent column published in The Australian today.

Anyone who follows this blog will know that in the current crisis between Israel and HAMAS, my sympathies are firmly with civilians of both sides. I believe the greater aggression is being committed by the Israeli Defence Forces, and Israeli spin-doctors are lying through their teeth.

But how should we respond? Do we automatically assume criticism of Zionism or Israel's actions necessarily represents anti-Jewish sentiment? I agree with Furedi when he writes:

I HAVE always criticised the tendency of some Zionist commentators to dismiss all criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic.

Such a defensive knee-jerk reaction simply avoids confronting the issues and undermines the possibility of dialogue.

If all you can do is place labels on those who disagree with you, it's obvious you aren't terribly interested in dialogue. However, we also need to recognise prejudice wherever it is found. We need to call a spade a spade. If Israeli racism toward Palestinians (where it exists) is evil, so is racism toward Israelis and/or bigotry toward Jews.

In fact, the very notion that the actions of Israel necessarily reflect the sentiments of those who tick the "Judaism" box on their census forms is grossly offensive, even if it is something which some unconditional defenders of Israel regard as an article of faith.

Supporters of the Palestinian cause need to recognise and root out anti-Semitism wherever it exists on their "side". Similarly, Zionists must root out anti-Arab, anti-Muslim and/or anti-Palestinian prejudice where it exists on there "side". When it comes to fighting racism and bigotry, there must be no sides.

So it should be of great concern when someone as independently-minded as Furedi writes paragraphs such as these:

... in recent years, especially since the eruption of the latest conflict in Gaza last month, anti-Israeli sentiments often mutate into anti-Jewish ones. Recent events indicate that in Europe the traditional distinction between anti-Zionist and anti-Jewish feelings has become confusing and blurred.

During a demonstration earlier this month, the Dutch Socialist Party MP Harry van Bommel called for a new intifada against Israel. Of course he has every right to express this political standpoint. However, he became an accomplice of the anti-Semites by choosing to do nothing when he heard chants of "Hamas, Hamas, all Jews to the gas" and similar anti-Jewish slogans. Many people who should know better prefer to keep quiet when they hear slogans such as "Kill the Jews" or "Jews to the oven" at protest demonstrations.

At a demonstration in London, such chants provoked little reaction from protesters who otherwise regard themselves as progressive anti-racists. Nor did they appear to be embarrassed by the sight of a man dressed up as a racist Jewish caricature - wearing a mask with a long, crooked nose - pretending to eat babies.

Increasingly, protesters are targeting Jews for being Jews. The demand to boycott Israeli goods in practice often means a call to boycott Jewish shops ...

And in case you thought this was limited to some crazy Muslim types, consider this:

European anti-Semitism is not simply a rhetorical act confined to a minority of Islamists or pro-Palestinian protesters. In Britain, Jewish schoolchildren have been castigated for belonging to a people with "blood on their hands". Their elders sometimes encounter intimidation and regularly report having to face verbal abuse ...

There is no doubt that the conflict has intensified the frustration and anger of supporters of the Palestinian cause. But it is important to note that the rise of European anti-Semitism is not a direct outcome of the fighting between Israel and Palestinians.

Muslims themselves are not immune from this, often hiding it as anti-Israel feeling.

During the past two decades, and particularly since 2001, anti-Western feelings among European Muslims are often expressed through the language of anti-Semitism. Denunciations of the US are frequently accompanied by the targeting of the Jewish lobby's alleged influence. Such attitudes have gained momentum throughout this century.

For example, one survey carried out in 2002 indicated that 25 per cent of German respondents took the view that "Jewish influence" on American politics was one important reason why the Bush administration invaded Iraq. The association of Jews with business, finance and the media has encouraged current anti-consumerist and anti-modernist sentiments to regard the influence of "these people" with concern. Is it any surprise that last year there was an explosion of conspiracy theories on the internet which blamed Jewish bankers for the financial crisis?

Muslims don't like it when people make up generalisations about them. It is true that some of those generating prejudice against Muslims are themselves of nominally Jewish heritage, including those behind the Obsession DVD that was distributed during the last US elections. But how reflective are these people of mainstream Jewish opinion? And if it is reflective (something which I strongly doubt), does that mean Muslims should replicate? How effective is it to fight prejudice with prejudice?

Around 50% of Gaza's population are children under 18 years. Some 80% live below the official UN poverty line. But before you get angry at Israelis, remember the name of Amira Hass. And before you become angry at Jews, consider all the millions of Jews who refuse to openly support this bombardment.

A seventh century Arab Sage named Ali bin Abi Talib once remarked:

A believer is your brother in faith. A non-believer is your brother in humanity.

A Jewish Sage named Hilel who lived just before the time of Christ once remarked:

If I am not for myself, who is for me? But if I care only for myself, what am I?

The wise ones of either "side" are in fact on the same side.

CRIKEY: What does a free Kosovo mean to America?

The fireworks are going off across Kosovo as the people of this ethnic Albanian nation celebrate their independence from Serbia. Europe’s newest nation has a population that is 92% Albanian. The vast majority are of nominally Muslim faith.
Should the US be scared of this development?

Conventional wisdom says another Muslim nation in Europe would be a potential hotbed of anti-US religious extremism. But Kosovars regard such conventional wisdom as political heresy.

Some allegedly conservative commentators in Australia regarded David Hicks’ Kosovo expedition as the beginning of his radicalisation. But the fight for Kosovo's independence was certainly no holy war against the West. It shouldn’t surprise anyone to see young Kosovars celebrating by flying both Albanian and American flags.

The BBC quoted one elderly Kosovar Albanian declaring: "Thank you USA, thank you. I am free of Serbia, my grandchildren are free of Serbia."

He had a large American flag draped across his shoulders. I first discovered this pro-US phenomenon at a 9/11 anniversary conference organised by a Sydney Turkish Muslim group on Sunday 11 September, 2005. Almost all speakers (including media identity Keysar Trad) castigated the United States for its hypocrisy in the Middle East, as if to suggest that 9/11 represented the US reaping what it had sown.

One speaker, however, stood out from the panel. This Bosnian imam, a graduate of one of Europe’s oldest Islamic seminaries, complained that far too many young Muslims, especially from the Middle East, were infected by the rhetoric of anti-American elements and those he described as "the blind followers of Noam Chomsky". He then reminded the audience that the United States had saved Bosnia and Kosovo from near-oblivion. He also reminded them of the crimes of communism against his people.

The imam’s speech drew only muted applause from many peace activists and young Muslims of Arab background. Arguably, the Yanks didn’t do much for the Bosnians when they were being slaughtered during the mid-1990’s. But the Americans did turn a blind eye when the desperate Bosnians were channelling weapons in from Iran and other controversial yet sympathetic countries.

In the case of Kosovo, American Albanians sent truckloads of cash into Kosovo, as well as lobbying the United States to act and stop another Balkan attempted genocide. The Americans pounded Serbia’s capital with air strikes in 1999. These were the air strikes they had threatened Serbia with during the Bosnian war some five years earlier. So here, in the heart of Europe, a set of young nominally Muslim countries are happy to fly the stars and stripes.

I just hope they remember that American-style democracy also involves affording equal rights to minorities

First published in Crikey on 18 February 2008.

OPINION: Justice the remedy required to help Bosnia heal ...

Radovan Karadzic, the murderous Sarajevo psychiatrist, was the architect of a brutal war in Bosnia Herzegovina during the mid-1990s that cost hundreds of thousands of civilian lives and that involved the gang rape of tens of thousands of women.

Karadzic masterminded the worst atrocities in Europe since World War II. His forces set up concentration camps where supporters of the Bosnian government were tortured, butchered and murdered.

In his memoir Enemy Combatant, former British Guantanamo inmate Moazzam Begg describes meeting a Bosnian Muslim refugee who was gang raped in the presence of her husband and with their three-month old baby screaming. Soon after the rape her husband was shot and her baby decapitated, all in her presence.

The bulk of Karadzic's victims were indigenous Bosnians who did not fit into the categories of "Serb" or "Croat" and whose ancestral faith was Islam. Of course, this did not make Bosnia a Muslim state in any theocratic sense. To be Muslim was more an ethnic than religious feature. Hence, the expulsion of Muslim and Croat populations by Karadzic's forces was appropriately referred to as "ethnic cleansing".

Indeed, when it declared its independence from the Yugoslav federation on March 1, 1992, Bosnia was a country of three large ethnic minorities - Muslim, Serb and Croat. Members of all three communities supported Bosnian independence. Politicians from all three communities formed the Bosnian government. Soldiers from all three communities fought to defend Bosnia's independence and territorial integrity.

Bosnia Herzegovina was established by Europeans who included Muslims not wanting a uniformly Islamic or theocratic state but rather a genuinely modern pluralist European state. Muslims showed their commitment to European values and liberal democracy.

And for this, they were rewarded with genocide and an arms embargo that crippled this young state's ability to defend itself. Karadzic rejected that pluralist vision and fought it using violence reminiscent of the worst excesses of Nazi Germany. He received international support by default in that the world refused to lift an arms embargo and so deprive Bosnia's army of weapons it needed to defend itself.

To describe the newly established republic of Bosnia back in the 1990s as a Muslim country was and remains an absurdity. At least 30 per cent of Bosnians had ethnically and religiously mixed parentage. One tragic image of the war was two young lovers, a Bosnian Serb boy, Bosko Brkic, and his Bosnian Muslim girlfriend, Admira Ismic, gunned down by Serb snipers while attempting to flee Sarajevo. They died in each other's arms. Their funeral service was attended by both families and friends, and included elements of both Orthodox Christian and Muslim liturgy.

Yet if Karadzic's war actually achieved anything arguably positive for his foes, it was putting indigenous European Islam on the world map. This was an Islam happy to live in (and indeed lead) a genuinely pluralist society. The central square of Sarajevo, once Europe's oldest centre of Islamic learning, still has the houses of worship of four communities (a synagogue, a mosque, an Orthodox and a Catholic church).

It's a bitter irony. For many non-Western Muslims and Muslim migrants living in Western countries, the existence of Bosnian Islam first hit their radar via the images of imams leading the funeral prayers of children shot by Karadzic's snipers or cut to pieces by shrapnel fired by Karadzic's forces. For many of us, Bosnian Islam became a reality at a time when it faced extermination.

Countries like Bosnia and Kosovo serve as reminders that Islam is a European faith. If it were not so, large indigenous European Muslims would not exist in the heart of Europe.

I remember being told of an incident where an imam was invited to say a prayer at an interfaith service a few weeks following the September 11 attacks on the United States. The imam was Bosnian. A Muslim attending the service went up to the imam and asked why he was wearing European dress. "Because I am European," was the imam's reply.

For some Western Muslims, the message of the Bosnian war was clear. What point is there in trying to culturally integrate into Western societies? Integration didn't stop Bosnian Muslims from being slaughtered, raped and butchered. Muslims felt they were damned if they did and damned if they didn't ...

Karadzic may be in custody and awaiting trial but his sentiments and prejudices are alive and well.

The International Court of Justice has already described the Bosnian war as genocide, even if it deprived Bosnians of justice by refusing to rule in favour of Bosnia's application holding what is left of Yugoslavia responsible. Let's hope the International War Crimes Tribunal can deliver the justice Bosnia needs to heal.

Irfan Yusuf is a Sydney lawyer and writer. An edited version of this article was first published in The Canberra Times on Monday 18 August 2008. Another version of this article was published on the same date in The New Zealand Herald.

UPDATE I: Queensland is an amazing place. But some Queenslanders continue to display the sort of disposition a certain deceased peanut farmer was famous for. Among them is this tasteless creature who views everything through the prism of masturbation. Read it and understand why modern medical science (as in psychopharmacology) cannot assist everyone.

Words © 2008 Irfan Yusuf

COMMENT: Europe's demographic winter?

I haven't seen a white Christmas for years. Then again, I haven't held a handful of snow for quite sometime either. The last time I saw snow was during a flight from Christchurch to Sydney. Our Pacific Blue jet took us over some mountains (real mountains, not the Claytons mountains we have in Australia), whose peaks were snow-covered. Or was that just cloud?

Anyway, some far-Right fruitloops in the United States are warning of a nasty winter about to hit Europe. Apparently Europeans are being out-bred by nasty aliens of Middle Eastern appearance.

It's the kind of thing that would scared the living be-jesus out of at least one irrelevant Federal Liberal back-bencher. And according to the in-breds of American Christian conservatism, the fault isn't that of the nasty "Mozlems" or "Ayrabs". Rather, the Europeans are too much into that nasty decadent women's rights, abortion and homosexuality stuff.

Salon writer Catherine Price cites a number of these conservatives as suggesting the only solution is to virtually force good European Christian women to have more babies.

Price provides a summary (well, not really) of an article first published in the March 3 2008 edition of The Nation. That article talks about the possible outcome if white Christian Europeans don't start throwing away the pills and frangers. Here is Price's spin on the message of the article:

The feared result would be a "demographic winter" where, to put it bluntly, Europe would run out of white people. By not having enough children, these doomsayers say, Western civilization is "laying itself down to die."

The solution is to take a leaf out of the cultural books of so many cultures practised by Muslim migrants. That means adopting socially conservative family values even if it means potentially curtailing gender rights. So the best way for us to beat those misogynistic "Mozlems" is to behave more like them. Or rather, to behave more like how we stereotype them.

Price continues ...

... American religious conservatives are trying to convince European secularists that to solve some of their demographic woes, they might want to rethink their position on women's rights. As author Kathryn Joyce explains, "The real root of racial tensions in the Netherlands and France, America's culture warriors tell anxious Europeans, isn't ineffective methods of assimilating new citizens but, rather, decades of 'anti-family' permissiveness - contraception, abortion, divorce, population control, women's liberation and careers, 'selfish' secularism and gay rights - enabling 'decadent' white couples to neglect their reproductive duties." They have, she explains, defied the biblical command to "be fruitful and multiply."

In other words, if those bloody "Mozlems" are going to have lots of babies, we should start doing the same. Which all sounds good and fine except for one minor point. As Muslim migrants move into their second and third generation, they tend to adopt the reproductive practices of their fellow Europeans. After all, they share the same economic, social and cultural conditions as their fellow citizens.

That means you won't be seeing a 3rd generation British Muslim lawyer or merchant banker in London having more kids than, say, a 3rd generation Irish Catholic lawyer of merchant banker in London.

There's another problem too. if you start encouraging people to have more babies, what happens when the wrong group start having more and more of them? As Price notes ...

... when Italy offered "baby bonuses" to families who had a second child, it revealed its racial motivations when it asked for refunds from immigrant families who had been accidentally issued checks (those weren't the types of kids the government was trying to promote). If I were an immigrant in Italy, I don't think that policy would make me feel too warm toward mainstream Italian society.

The emphasis in this quotation is Price's not mine.

You can watch a short clip of The Nation story here.

The Syrian Muslim writer Abul A'la al-Ma'arri may have had a point when he commented on the eve of the Crusaders conquering his town:

In this world, there are only two classes of people: those with lots of religion but not much sense, and those with lots of sense but not much religion.

Words © Irfan Yusuf 2008


Bookmark this on Delicious

CRIKEY: Talking Turkey, democracy and EU membership

Turks have just elected an Islamist government. But we aren't talking about HAMAS here. Turkey’s Islamists combine free market economics, recognition of Israel, pro-Western foreign policy and more zeal to join the EU than any of its more allegedly secular predecessors.

Still, many conservatives (both social and economic) oppose Turkey’s entry into the EU. I saw this in action back in October 2005 at the launch of the Australian edition of In Defence of Global Capital published by the CIS.

The author is an ex-greenie ex-socialist Swede, Johan Norberg, who converted to capitalism after researching ways to fight global poverty. He now believes globalised capitalism, removing trade barriers and liberalising international labour markets is essential to solving intractable economic, social, environmental and security problems.

Paul Kelly from The Oz and James Morrow (whose Investigate magazine’s Australian edition seems to have gone underground, if not under) introduced Norberg with all smiles and praise. One even praised him for his good looks!

Norberg lapped it up before telling us to open our borders to new goods, services, people and money. He attacked the EU’s rhetoric on globalisation and its hypocrisy in placing high tariff walls to stop imports from the third world.

I noticed a slight change in tone from Kelly, Morrow and the audience when Norberg said the West should liberalise their immigration policies and acknowledge that the greatest achievements and contributions in culture, business and politics often come from migrants and refugees.

I couldn’t help myself. In question time, I asked whether Norberg supported EU membership for Turkey. To the chagrin of his conservative Sydney audience, Norberg went on to explain why arguments EU conservatives use to oppose Turkey’s entry are in fact excellent reasons to support it:

1. Turkey is too big and will make up 15% of the EU’s population. True, but size represents opportunities, especially given Turkey’s growing economy.

2. Turkey is too poor. True, but many recent entrants are poorer and will prove a greater drain. Plus poor Europeans often do the jobs that rich Europeans refuse to do.

3. Turkey is too Muslim. Norberg said that not all Muslims are the same. Some of Europe’s more troublesome Muslim migrants are victims of overly generous welfare policies and inflexible and overly regulated labour markets. A fresh injection of Westernised Turkish Muslims will help the process of economic and social integration for (often less integrated) South Asian and North African ethnic Muslim groups.

Further, if the EU strings Turkey along with all these promises of membership if Turkey reforms its economy and polity, then dumps Turkey just for some historical and religious prejudice, it will damage the EU more than Turkey.

Norberg wasn’t exactly the most popular person in the room after all that. My notes show Paddy McGuinness almost choking on his wine, then arguing profusely about the hordes of German and French Muslims rioting, and Norberg responding by saying it was more complex than just culture and sect.

It seemed my Turkey-EU question let the kebab out of the bag. It was hilarious to see this allegedly conservative crowd push their free market economics out the window to make way for their pet sectarian prejudices.

First published in the Crikey daily alert on 25 July 2007.

Words © 2007 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

REFLECTION: Meeting Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a woman with a mission. The problem is that I’m not quite sure what her mission actually is. And to make matters more interesting, after reading at least 100 articles about her (not to mention reading her The Caged Virgin and sitting with her for 40 minutes), I’m not sure if she knows what it is either.

If her mission is to increase sales of her books (including her autobiography Infidel), she certainly is achieving her mission. She is without doubt the star of the show at this year’s Sydney Writers’ Festival, and her book was by far the biggest seller. But apart from dollars and euros, does she have any other goals?

I spoke with Ayaan Hirsi Ali this afternoon. Joining me during the interview was Jose Borghino, editor of the online magazine NewMatilda.com. I don’t wish to give too much away at this stage as I would otherwise be operating off my own recollections of the discussion. If you wish to know what transpired, you will have to subscribe to NewMatilda.com and part with A$77. It isn’t much for a yearly subscription of a superb publication.

I am, however, prepared to share some impressions.

Firstly, I know that many of Hirsi Ali’s allegedly conservative supporters such as Paul Sheehan are obsessed with her good looks. However, Hirsi Ali has a very strong mind and resents being treated as “just a pretty face”.

Secondly, Hirsi Ali is not an archetypal American conservative. In fact, she has views that would make many American conservatives reject her (and it seems many are starting to already).

For instance, when it comes to abortion, Hirsi Ali believes women shouldn’t be barred from access to abortion. She doesn’t believe it should be used as a contraceptive, but she does believe that women should have a choice.

Hirsi Ali is also deadly opposed to the teaching of Creation “science” in schools. In fact, she is opposed to the policies of Christian conservatives who want to bridge the separation or church and state.

She wants Muslims to adopt the values of the European enlightenment. Hirsi Ali hopes that Muslims can come up with an interpretation and understanding of their texts which is consistent with enlightenment values. She doesn’t believe one exists, but claims to have an open mind about the possibility.

Hirsi Ali seems to believe that there is little difference between the AK Party and al-Qaeda. She supports the maintenance of Kemalist secularism, and believes the AK Party wants to introduce sharia law by stealth. She also supports a military intervention to stop the AK Party, and suggests Muslims should be forced to adopt what she sees as secularism even if it is not popular.

The first translation of the Qur’an Hirsi Ali read was the one by Abdullah Yusuf Ali. The views she expressed to me about the Qur’an are certainly different to the ones she has expressed in other media appearances. Is she being misquoted?

Jose asked some absolute gem questions, but I’m afraid you will have to wait until you subscribe and the recording and our articles are placed on the NewMatilda.com site.

Words © 2007 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

OPINION: On averting another European Holocaust ...

OVER the weekend, 360 Australians of all ages and faiths from across the country gathered at Old Parliament House for a deliberative poll on relations between Muslims and non-Muslims in Australia. They heard from a panel of speakers, including Cardinal George Pell, columnist Janet Albrechtsen, lawyer Waleed Aly and journalist Nadia Jamal.

Twenty years ago, such a conference would have been unthinkable. Muslims weren't regarded then as a monolithic entity. Today's dangerous jihadists were bankrolled by the US to fight communism. Saddam Hussein was provided with WMD, including chemical and biological weapons, by the West to use on Iran.

Now, Muslims are no longer regarded a complex phenomenon but a giant blob of monolithic cancer ready to engulf the planet.

The weekend's deliberative poll saw Australia First Party representative Denis McCormack cast aspersions on the Jewish heritage of another speaker, claiming she was part of a multiculturalist cabal. He was rightly condemned by the audience.

The same audience was almost silent when Pastor Daniel Scott told delegates that all Muslims represented a threat to Australia and that Muslim spokespeople were deliberately sugar-coating their message to hide the violent reality of their intentions.

This kind of conspiratorial thinking can also be found in the latest book of British tabloid columnist Melanie Phillips entitled Londonistan: How Britain is Creating a Terror State Within. Phillips recently concluded a short Australian tour to promote the book she describes as

an attempt to piece together this complex jigsaw puzzle, the deadly fusion of an aggressive ideology and a society that has lost its way.

Phillips argues the British elite have wrongfully abandoned the dominant Judeo-Christian monocultural heritage in favour of a rampant multiculturalism that bends over backwards for ethnic, religious and even sexual minorities. This has allowed jihadi Islamism and Muslim “clerical fascism” to infiltrate British society, manifesting itself in the London bombings of July 7, 2005.

Phillips suggests jihadi Islamism has become today the “dominant strain” within the Muslim world, as well as in Western Muslim communities. This absurd claim contrasts with the enormous variety of religion practised by nominal Muslims across the planet. Hence, Javanese Muslims have culturally and linguistically more in common with Balinese Hindus than with Bosnian Muslims, who have more in common with Serbian Orthodox or Croatian Catholics.

Indeed, Phillips' insistence of “minorities accepting the terms on which minorities must relate to the majority culture in a liberal democracy” would have little application in the new European states, many of which are comprised completely of minorities.

In 1992, the people of the former Yugoslav republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina voted in favour of independence. Bosnia was to be a multi-ethnic and multireligious state consisting of a number of religious minorities, including Muslims, Orthodox Christians, Catholics and Jews.

Within months of independence, the country was plunged into a war characterised by genocide, concentration camps, ethnic cleansing and mass rape. Some 100,000 Bosnians (mainly Muslims) were killed and more than a million were displaced. The International Court of Justice recently ruled that genocide occurred in Bosnia.

Today, Canberra plays host to two senior religious figures who witnessed much of the carnage. Dr Mustafa Ceric is Reis al-Ulama (chairman of the Council of Religious Scholars) for Bosnia- Herzegovina. He is also mufti of Croatia, Slovenia and the Sanjak region bordering Serbia and Montenegro. Ceric is accompanied by the mufti of the Bosnian city of Mostar.

Ceric also sees a crisis of values engulfing Europe. He warns Europeans not to become complacent about sectarian hatred. He told BBC at the weekend that Europe promised “never again” after the Holocaust, only to sit back and watch as genocide was perpetrated against Muslims in his nation.

I wish that Islamaphobia that is now [in place] in Europe and in the West will not result in a Muslim Holocaust. Europe must start speaking with Muslims and hear what they have to say and help them to make their place in society that is responsible, respectable and future- looking.

Ceric says Muslims in Europe also have a role to play, that Muslim migrants must stop behaving like tribal entities and adopt European values like democracy and pluralism.

If the Muslims do not accept the fact that they have to learn about democracy not only within the larger context of the European community but within their own community... then I think the Muslims will be in a position to fear what will happen in their future.

Ceric singles out the United States and Australia for praise as nations more accepting of migrants than Europe. Ceric speaks from experience, having completed his PhD and acted as imam of a major Chicago mosque.

Ceric personifies indigenous European Islam whose culture and values have sat comfortably (apart from the occasional externally imposed genocide) within Europe for centuries. Melanie Phillips, on the other hand, personifies the type of sectarian paranoia and hysteria that for centuries poisoned relations between European Christians and Jews and now threatens to use the pretext of cultic jihadi extremism to poison relations between the West and the rest.

Irfan Yusuf is a Sydney lawyer and writer. This article was first published in the Canberra Times on 7 March 2007.

© Irfan Yusuf 2007

COMMENT: Balancing the burqa

Some readers will be aware of the mass-debate in Europe concerning the veil worn by some Muslim women. What few are aware of is that this issue has been debated by Muslims themselves over the centuries. Canadian TV viewers have already had a taste of this debate later today. No doubt Australian TV viewers will also be treated to similar debates.

Only a small minority of Muslim women actually wear what has become known as the burqa, a tent-like single piece of cloth that covers women from head to tail. This is traditionally worn in Afghanistan and some parts of the Indian sub-Continent.

The burqa should be distinguished from the niqab which consists of a cloth to cover the hair and a separate cloth to cover the face except eyes. Only a minority of Muslim religious scholars have regarded the niqab as religiously mandated. The niqab is worn by a minority of Muslim women. Its historical origins arise from it being a symbol of female aristocracy as well as by reports that the wives of the Prophet Muhammad used to speak with men (other than the Prophet and men they would not marry such as their male relatives) from behind a curtain.

A larger minority of women wear the hijab which is of varying sizes and fashions and which covers only a woman’s hair. The hijab is commonly worn by Muslim woman in different styles and colours across the world, and can be adapted for climate and uniform requirements. Victorian policewoman Maha Sukkar was the first to wear the hijab as part of her uniform. In fact, some Western writers have coined the term muhajababes to describe women in the Muslim world who wear the hijab as a fashion symbol.

Although there is no empirical evidence to back this up, anecdotal evidence suggests most Muslim women do not cover their heads with anything other than an umbrella to protect against rain. However, many are upset by the insistence on some (usually male) politicians telling them how to dress. They also feel resentful at attempts to marginalise the few Muslim women who choose to wear any one of three forms of Muslim head dress.

Personally, I prefer not to wear a veil of any form. Though my partner often says I should wear a face veil if I haven’t shaved for a few days …

Words © 2006 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

COMMENT: Turkey's PM sets foot in Australia & New Zealand

Over the next fortnight, Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan will be visiting Australia and New Zealand. His tour will be the first visit by a Turkish Prime Minister for at least 10 years.

Mr Erdogan represents a new generation of conservative Muslim leaders. In the past decade, Turkish politics has stepped in a more Islamist direction, especially as Muslim parties have enjoyed increased popularity after more secular parties have been wracked by corruption and scandal.

Mr Erdogan came to power as the leader of the conservative Islamist AK Party. The term “Ak” literally means “purified” and has been used by a number of Sufi groups as a pronoun to their various operations. A group of Islamist radio and TV stations in Turkey are called “AK-RA” and “AK-TV” respectively. But in reality, the AK Party is little more than a Muslim version of the Christian Democrat parties common in other European countries.

Indeed, even the most sceptical observers of Turkey agree that the present Turkish government is not turning its face totally eastward. Erdogan is a firm believer in liberal democracy, and he has proven to be the most active Prime Minister in terms of seeking Turkey’s entry into the European Union.

Turkey’s proposed entry to the EU is being opposed by some European leaders who see Turkey as too big, too poor and too Muslim. During a recent visit to the conservative Centre for Independent Studies, Swedish economist Johan Norberg suggested that Turkey’s entry to the EU should be supported for these very reasons.

In relation to Turkey’s Muslim culture, Norberg suggested that the influx of Turkish workers will force EU nations to free up their over-regulated labour markets and break down existing migrant ghettoes which are categorised by high unemployment and simmering resentment.

He also suggested that Turkish Islam is hardly the type which would reinforce existing pockets of extremism. If anything, Turkey’s more liberal Ottoman Sufi approach to Islam and its historical engagement with Europe will be an effective antidote to the threat of alleged radicalisation of European Muslims.

Norberg’s words are not the observations of a neo-capitalist idealist. His views are grounded in an understanding of Ottoman and modern Turkish trends of Islamic thought. The Ottoman Empire was a very European empire. It should be remembered that the Ottomans were already in Europe prior to the conquest of Constantinople, and indeed that conquest took Ottoman armies eastward and not westward. Further, Ottoman religious institutions tended to be dominated by European converts.

Modern Turkish Islam has a very strong foundation in the classical Sufism of universalist thinkers such as Rumi. Indeed, the city of Konya where Rumi is buried is regarded as Turkey’s Islamic heartland.

My own experience with Turkish Islamic scholars has been that they place enormous emphasis on this-worldly affairs, especially on business. Turkish Imams (who make up the majority of Imams in Australia) emphasise engagement with the mainstream in all areas of life. Their message is a far cry from the isolationist theology of some more radical Middle Eastern Imams.

Erdogan himself is a reflection of this thinking. Despite his impeccable Islamic credentials, he is also no stereotypical mullah. He is a father of four whose son is currently studying at Harvard. Erdogan refused to follow the lead of the newly elected Iranian president by calling for the destruction of Israel.

If anything, under the Erdogan government Turkey’s relations with Israel have improved. Turkey has sponsored talks between the foreign ministers of Israel and Pakistan, and Turkey maintains close diplomatic, military and cultural ties with Israel.

The current Turkish PM is also firmly opposed to all forms of Islamic extremism and terrorism. In this regard, Erdogan is following Turkish public opinion. During a recent terrorist attack on an Istanbul synagogue, Mr Erdogan vowed to pursue those responsible and bring them justice. By all indications, his calls resonated positively across all sectors of Turkish society. Further, as an active NATO member state, Turkey continues to support the war on terrorism.

Turkey’s engagement of European liberalism goes beyond merely winning the Eurovision song contest. In April 2004, the Turkish government led a campaign for Cypriot Turks to support the re-unification of Cyprus.

Greek Cypriots voted overwhelmingly against Cypriot unity. Ironically, despite their rejection of UN-sponsored reunification, the Greek section of Cyprus was granted EU membership.

Australia has a large and well-established Turkish community. Over 100,000 Turks and their descendants have had a presence in Australia since the 1950’s. Out of all Muslim ethnic groups, they are the most organised, the best integrated and have the greatest number of mosques. Australia needs to make greater use of its Turkish communities with a view to secure the substantial advantages flowing from closer economic ties with this growing economy.

Both Australia and New Zealand forged their first links with Turkey on the battlefields of the Gallipoli peninsula. Each year, our embassies and high commissions across the world hold ANZAC Day ceremonies, and we make a point of inviting Turkish diplomats to also attend.

Turkey’s economic and cultural ties with Australia and New Zealand have overcome the effects of that initial encounter. And with Prime Minister Erdogan’s visit, it is hoped these ties will grow stronger.

Words © 2005 Irfan Yusuf