COMMENT: Religious minorities ...

In Egypt, following the bombing of a Coptic Church in Alexandria, Christians and Muslims marched in the streets in protest. Christians and Muslims called on the government to end discrimination against Coptic Christians. Muslims offered protection to Christian churches. Muslims even attended Christmas services in Coptic churches, acting as human shields.

That's what is happening in Egypt. So what about Australia? This is what we read in The Australian:

Father Gabriel Yassa, of Archangel & St Bishoy Church, at Mt Druitt, in Sydney's west - one of the targeted churches - told The Weekend Australian that the nation's Islamic leaders needed to speak out against the threats.

"I just hope that the leaders in the Islamic community take their responsibilities well and crush out any of those elements in their community," Father Yassa said.

"The important thing is that all of us take this matter seriously and look out for one another."

Father Yassa said he did not know the exact wording of the threat, but said the terrorist group was "just throwing out a message to the Islamic community to hurt Coptic Christians and I suppose they then just wait to see whoever picks up on it and who goes with it".

What unnecessary and ridiculous comments to make at this time. Does Father Yassa honestly think that terrorist groups put out feelers to get ordinary Muslims to bomb churches?

Instead of inviting Muslims to a common platform, Father Yassa seems more interested in alienating them. He must be getting PR tips by watching clips of Shaykh Hilaly's past verbal indiscretions.

Seriously, how ridiculous. No doubt many Aussie Copts will be extremely embarrassed.

Perhaps someone should remind Father Yassa that when anti-Muslim prejudice rises in Australia, among the first targets are Arab churches that resemble mosques. Like the Egyptian Coptic church shown below while under construction.



On the other hand, Muslims need to do much more than speak out. We need to pressure embassies and governments of Muslim-majority states to ensure that the rights of religious minorities are protected.

UPDATE I: Very interesting discussion on the Riz Khan show below.



UPDATE II: A really disturbing report from Iraq.




Words © 2011 Irfan Yusuf

Bookmark this on Delicious

COMMENT: Tony Abbott on immigration ...

Apparently Tony Abbott is playing the race card. Or is he?

AN IMMIGRATION speech by the Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, has been criticised as divisive, hurtful and deliberately crafted to push buttons and play the race card before Australia Day ...

"I don't think you can run away from problems that some people have with the immigration program," he said. "I was reminding people of the national interest reasons for the immigration program but reminding migrants that their migration has to be in the national interest, too … It has to be possible to have an intelligent discussion about this."

Mr Abbott repeated his claim that some groups of migrants had failed to respect democratic values and cited followers of the former mufti of Australia Sheikh Taj el-Din al Hilaly.

So followers of Sheik Hilaly fail to respect democratic values. Does that mean all followers, past, present and future? And exactly how does one become a follower of Hilaly? Does attendance at the Imam Ali ben Abi Taleb mosque in Lakemba for a Friday prayer service make one a follower? Does recognition of Hilaly's scholarly credentials make one a follower? Does being Arab and/or Muslim make one a follower?

Please explain, Mr Abbott.

Words © 2010 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

COMMENT: On Howard, Hollingworth & Hilaly ...

Last night, President of the Islamic Friendship Society Keysar Trad addressed a group of students at Melbourne University on the subject of the role of media in Australian politics. Or maybe it was former Prime Minister John Howard. I guess it could have been either of them.

Howard decided to defend former Governor General Dr Peter Hollingworth for using the kinds of words Howard condemned Sheik Hilaly for using. And using the kinds of words Trad defended Hilaly with.

Howard claimed that ...

... by and large that the Australian media treated Peter Hollingworth disgracefully ... the relentless pursuit and character assassination of a very, very decent man - I thought that was appalling, and it went largely right across the media.

Hollingworth resigned in May 2003 after outrage when his handling of child abuse allegations during his period as Brisbane Anglican Archbishop was revealed. He was accused of showing minimal if any compassion for sexual assault victims in much the same way as Hilaly’s comments about uncovered meat and the allegedly disproportionate sentences handed out to the Skaf brothers also showed gross insensitivity to sexual assault victims.

Hilaly’s remarks were revealed some months after Howard appointed him to a hand-picked Muslim Community Reference Group set up in the wake of the July 2005 London bombings. The Group consisted largely of middle-aged men of Mr Howard’s generation, most of whom had poor English skills and little ability to deal with scrutiny from and interaction with media and politicians. Having given Hilaly a privileged position, Howard dumped on him from a great height as soon as the uncovered meat comments were revealed.

Hilaly deserved to be condemned for his comments. Apart from his family members and a small number of die-hard supporters such as his interpreter Keysar Trad, Hilaly almost overnight lost what little support he had left among various congregations.

Hollingworth also had little support from across the broader community. But he did have his own Keysar Trad figure in the person of John Howard. And like Trad, Howard continues to defend the indefensible.

UPDATE: More of my tendentious writing ...

A certain tabloid columnist recently described my writing as tendentious. According to the AskOxford website, the word "tendentious" means: "calculated to promote a particular cause or point of view" The bulk of what I write is opinion and review. So obviously I do promote a point of view. As for whether I promote a cause, I wonder what possible objection the tabloid columnist in question would have to the causes promoted here, here, here and here.

Anyway, here is some of the stuff I've written recently ...


The events in Islamabad shook all of us. The disgusting and cowardly attacks against civilians brought home yet again the fact that terrorism affects all people regardless of background, ethnicity and faith. My take on these dastardly acts appeared in The Age here, as well as on the Brisbane Times website here.
The New Zealand Herald published this piece I wrote about Western silence on the continued attacks by (pseudo-)Hindu militants against Indian Christians.


A recent piece I wrote for Crikey on the documentary Embedded With Sheikh Hilaly broadcast on SBS on 23 September 2008 appears here.

UPDATE I: In relation to The Age article, I received correspondence from Professor William Shepard, who taught religious studies at the University of Canterbury in Christchurch, New Zealand. Professor Shepard is fluent in written and spoken Arabic (both classical and modern) and is regarded as a world authority on the work of Syed Qutb. Here is what Professor Shepard said ...

Good article, but let me point out that Ramadan is not one of the "sacred months" when there is to be no fighting. I believe they are Dhu-Qa‘da, Dhul-Hijja, Muharram and Rajab. I might add that it is not only the "post-modern left" have hijacked terrorism studies but also the neo-conservative right.

Thanks to Professor Shepard for his correction and comment.

UPDATE II: A Kiwi chap named Bill wrote this response to my NZ Herald article ...

I have just read the article by Irfan Yusuf your associate editor in the NZ Herald 22/8/08. May I congratulate him for his courage and honesty. I have never seen an article in a New Zealand paper criticizing Hindu and Muslim extremist and government actions against Christian minorities in Asia (especially those who have changed or wish to change their religion). It blew me away! Our politicians and Western media are too secular, anti-Christian and self-interested as well as being scared of the political and trade consequences. Coming from Mr Yusuf they carry great weight and are overdue.

I have often thought of contacting our government or some authorities in Asia over this long standing tragedy but have been warned off as it might put local Christians in danger from Islamic and Hindu government security police who constantly harass them or from violent religious extremists. If your protest is taken to heart it will go a long way to right a wrong and convince us that Islam's claim to be a peace loving and tolerant religion isn't just words. However I'm afraid I won't be holding my breath waiting as it has been allowed to become so ingrained and widespread.

Well done! I respect you for your stand for what is right.

Yes, tendentious writing indeed!

UPDATE III: In relation to the Crikey piece, one chap named Tony had this response on the Crikey website ...

The Hilaly 'documentary' was an exercise in opportunism which didn't work for either the sheikh or the interviewer because both were so clearly inept in the art of ingenuous communication. What positive outcome this show could possibly have delivered remains a mystery, as does the steady decline of the SBS ethos to report intelligently on our multicultural society. I can hear dopes prattle incomprehensibly any day of the week. Both these clowns should retire.

I guess all this controversy about the program will do wonders for the ratings. Once again, SBS will be laughing all the way to the bank! Given their positive nett contribution to television in Australia, good luck to them.

Words © 2008 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

COMMENT: An inappropriate comparison?

One reader recently told me that he believed my use of the name "Ayaan Hirsi Hilali" in this posting was inappropriate. He argued that it would be inappropriate to compare a religious scholar to an ignorant know-it-all who chooses to be an athiest. Apart from Sheik Hilali making the frequent claim to being quoted out of context, there really is no comparison between him and Ayaan Hirsi Magaan/Ali.

I think he may have a point, although to some extent he has also missed the point. What do other readers think? Should we in any way be comparing religious scholars to those who incite hatred against believers?

Comments are welcome. And a message to the moron who leaves violent, threatening and abusive messages here: I know who you are.

CRIKEY: News Ltd outrage patronises ordinary Australian Catholics ...

Australian believers of all faiths, and of no faith in particular, read newspapers. However, when newspaper editorialists (and some columnists) try to read believers and their sentiments, they often miss the mark.

Certain columnists and editorialists at The Australian and other metropolitan News Ltd papers have heavily criticised the ABC and Fairfax reporting of sexual abuse allegations against Catholic priests. You can read some of these criticisms at the ABC Media Watch website here. That criticism was repeated again in today’s editorial in The Oz.

The gist has been that widespread reporting of the issue is an affront to World Youth Day pilgrims and ordinary Catholics. The goal seems to be defending the sentiments of ordinary Catholics. The effect is that the editorialists and columnists are patronising Catholic believers. It’s as if Catholics must necessarily be offended by reporting of the misdeeds of Catholic clergy.

On Saturday night, I attended a gathering of Jesuits in Melbourne. These devout Catholics had no hesitation in using the strongest language against the comments of Cardinal Pell and Bishop Fisher about sexual abuse victims. It reminded me of the colourful language many Muslims (including myself) used when Sheik Hilaly was caught out using Ramadan sermons to develop new advertising copy for the cat-food industry.

These Catholics had no hesitation in criticising their religious leaders in the presence of a non-Catholic. They said it was an issue of human rights that affected everyone regardless of faith. Indeed, the Pope himself showed far more leadership and openness on this issue than some News Ltd editorialists.

The concern shown by some News Limited editorialists and columnists for Catholic sentiments wasn’t present when these editorialists commented on another religious leader caught out making disparaging remarks about rape victims. In one edition, The Oz devoted an entire 7 pages of broadsheet copy to Hilaly’s cat-meat comments. Further, editorialists and columnists had no hesitation in casting aspersions on Australian Muslims and indeed Muslims across the world.

Indeed, when yours truly argued in Crikey that The Oz’s Hilaly overkill was only making Hilaly’s position stronger, The Oz ran a highly offensive editorial accusing me of "covering up Islamic outrages", and even suggested I was letting ...

... intolerant attitudes fester in the shadows before exploding and catching Australia unawares, as has happened in countries such as England, Denmark, Spain and The Netherlands.

As if I spent most of my time defending Hilaly.

So on the one hand, editorialists at The Oz and its sister papers think it’s ok to use the insensitive words of a Muslim "cleric" to pillory some 360,000 Australians who tick the "Muslim" box on their census forms. On the other hand, these same writers and editors think Catholics are so over-sensitive that they won’t be able to cope with reporting of sexual abuse by Catholic clergy.

Both are extreme positions, patronising and offensive to believers. The presence of both extremes in the same newspapers takes media hypocrisy to new levels.

First published in the Crikey daily alert for 24 July 2008.

Words © 2008 Irfan Yusuf

COMMENT: Come clean, Keysar ...

You've got to hand it to Keysar Trad. He's always ready to face the difficult questions from journos and shock jocks, even if it means he is grossly defamed (such as on Sydney talkback radio station 2GB).

For many Australians, Keysar has become a household name. Much of his credibility stemmed from the fact that he was President of the Lebanese Moslems Association (LMA) as well as adviser and translator to Sheik Hilaly.

Indeed, many readers will remember Sheik Hilaly as the man who, whilst claiming the mantle of "Mufti of Australia, New Zealand & the South Pacific", repeatedly made grossly offensive remarks which embarrassed Muslims across the country.

And each time Hilaly had his foot in his mouth, Keysar Trad was always there, faithfully making excuses and explaining away the Sheik's gaffes. So often did we hear Keysar claim the Sheik was misinterpreted or misunderstood or quoted out of context. So often did we cough the words "bullsh#t, bullsh#t".

However, Keysar is no longer on the executive of the LMA, an organisation which only allows full membership to adult males eligible to hold a Lebanese passport. Indeed, even back then Keysar could only, at best, have represented LMA members.

Further, Sheik Hilaly is no longer Mufti of Australia, New Zealand & the South Pacific. It's arguable that few people in this huge chunk of the planet had even heard of him, let alone recognise his title. As such, Keysar Trad can no longer ride of Sheik Hilaly's coat tails.

But it isn't just sheik Hilaly's gaffes that are stunning. Keysar has had a few stunning gaffes of his own. He was quoted in an article in yesterday's The Australian of suggesting that taking out an Apprehended Violence Order against an imam is appropriate should the imam have "made a major breach of religious teachings or the law".

Thus far, Trad has not suggested he has been misquoted. Indeed, in a letter published on various Muslim e-mail lists (see Update III here), Trad says senior reporter Natalie O'Brien interviewed him.

We should not underestimate the sheer embarassment Trad has caused to all those Australian muslims he claims to represent. The remedy of Apprehended Violence Orders (AVO) is designed to pretect past, current and potential victims of violence, harassment etc. Trad is suggesting AVO's can be legitimately used by mosque congregations to enforce orthodoxy in their imams.

So on what basis can Keysar claim to appear in the media as a Muslim leader holding some representative capacity?

There are many nominally Muslim people commenting publicly on community issues and ccontroversies. I'm one of them. But I don't claim any representative capacity. I haven't manufactured some front organisation which has conveniently chosen me as spokesman.

Keysar continues to pass himself off as President of an entity called the "Islamic Friendship Society". But what is the IFS? What kind of entity is it? Is it a company or cooperative or an incorporated association? Does it have members? Who are its members? Is there any gender, ethnic or sectarian restriction on membership? When does it hold meetings? Does it have premises or a registered office?

Or is the IFS a sham organisation run out of Keysar Trad's lounge room?

Keysar owes it to the 300,000-odd ordinary Aussies who tick the "Muslim" box on their census forms to be honest about the IFS. If he wants to continue speaking on their behalf using the IFS banner, they have a right to know what representative authority or capacity IFS has to give him.

Keysar must come clean.

Words © 2008 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

CRIKEY: One law for the mufti, another for the pastor

While The Australian manages to find excuses to keep Sheik Hilaly on its pages (even if only by citing Lebanese community leaders, as if the other 59 nationalities of Aussie Muslims are irrelevant), one of the major wedges used by its conservative columnists and the politicians they serve seems to have fallen between the cracks.

What made Hilaly’s statements so outrageous were that they compromised an essential Aussie value – gender equality. They also potentially justified violence against women, something hundreds of prominent Australian men campaign to eliminate each year.

So what happens when a Christian pastor takes a soft line on domestic violence? Fairfax newspapers have reported on a debate within the Assemblies of God churches to extend the acceptable grounds of divorce ...

... to include cases of serious physical abuse.

And who is opposing it? Who thinks women who get bashed by their husbands shouldn’t be allowed a divorce blessed by the Church? According to Danny Nalliah ...

Divorce must be kept in line with scripture and remarriage should only be on the grounds of sexual infidelity, as upheld by Christian leaders for the past 20 centuries.

Will John Howard remind us all of a small minority of Pentecostal Christians needing to learn Australian values like equality for women? Will Kevin Andrews tell Mr Nalliah to consider leaving Australia? Will Kevin Rudd suggest removing Nalliah’s citizenship?

It’s OK for Danny Nalliah to behave like a Christian version of Hilaly, effectively telling women in his congregation to shut up and take it when their husbands bash them up. He’ll probably still receive a reference from Treasurer Peter Costello for his next court case. No doubt the PM will still send a special Australia Day message to Nalliah’s Catch The Fire Ministries.

So as we get ready to pay tribute to the diggers who gave their lives to defend our values, we can feel secure in the knowledge that certain clerics (and their Liberal Party supporters) can continue to preach, rally and protest against these values. Clearly what’s good for Mufti Goose isn’t good for Pastor Gander.

First published on the Crikey! daily alert on 24 April 2007.

© Irfan Yusuf 2007

NB: To switch off the funky music, go to the playlist at the bottom of this homepage.


Bookmark this on Delicious

COMMENT: Hilaly & Australia's Muslim convict heritage

With all this controversy over Sheik Hilaly’s views on Australia’s convict heritage, I felt it would be appropriate to share with readers some passages from what must be the first and most authoritative work on the history of Muslims in Australia.

Bilal Cleland served as Secretary of the Islamic Council of Victoria for many years. Himself a descendant of Irish and English convicts and settlers from the 1st and 3rd Fleets, Cleland has for years been an ardent critic of Hilaly.

Here is Cleland’s research, taken from the chapter entitled “White Christian Settlement to the East”. Footnotes have been excluded. The emphases are mine.

This book was first published in the 1980's, and a summary and annotated version forms the first chapter of the book Muslim Communities In Australia edited by Abdullah Saeed & Shahram Akbarzadeh.

Words © 2006 Irfan Yusuf
____________________

British shipping companies were already making good use of the vast supply of labour British imperial expansion had delivered to them. Muslim sailors were apparently frequently employed and in January 1796 Norfolk Island acquired several of them at one time. They were classed as Lascars (Indians and Ceylonese) by the Norfolk Island Victualling Book, the record of all those receiving government food assistance. They were abandoned there due to a misfortune related to the shoddy quality of colonial shipbuilding at that time and of course to the racist attitudes of their officers.

In September 1795 the colonial-built ship Endeavour left Port Jackson with a companion ship Fancy, intending to touch at New Zealand and Norfolk Island before sailing to India. The Endeavour, with its Muslim sailors and with convicts destined to expand the labour supply on Norfolk Island, began leaking and it was feared it might break-up. It had to run aground at Dusky Bay New Zealand. The sailors found a partly assembled ship on the beach, built by the carpenter of The Britannia while at Dusky Bay in 1793. The crew finished the ship, named it Providence and with Fancy, sailed on to Norfolk Island. Some forty of the convicts from the Endeavour were returned to Norfolk Island and completed their sentences. The excess sailors were dumped with them.

Little was recorded of these exotic arrivals but it is apparent that they were not provided with passage home. Some fifteen years later, according to the Victualling Book, John Hassan a sailor from the Endeavour was on the Island working as a labourer. He was relocated to Port Dalrymple in Tasmania with the remaining settlers in 1813 when this settlement was closed.

Another Muslim from Endeavour was Sua (or Saib) Sultan. He had an eleven and a half acre block of land on the island. He and his unnamed wife were transferred from Norfolk Island on the Lady Nelson as third class passengers on 9 November 1809. He was given the name of Jacob on the 1818 stores list for Hobart Town and by then he had a much larger block of land. He was given a 27 acre grant in his new location on the Derwent River near the village of New Norfolk. He apparently did well as The Land and Stock Muster of Van Diemen's Land for 1819 notes that “Saib Sulton (sic) possessed 28 acres of pasture and two acres of wheat”.

Mahomet Cassan is also listed as coming free on the Endeavour 1795. An alternative spelling of his name is also given on this list as "Cassom". Another name which crops up on the Stores Lists is that of number 615, Mahomet Cassem. Probably the same as "Cassan" and "Cassom" he appears on the “General Muster of Free Men, Women and Children off and on Stores in His Majesty's Settlement of Hobart Town 2 October 1818” as "came free", from Norfolk Island and off the stores. Number 514 on the list is a Memerich Cossam. It is possible that some semi-literate clerk confused by the foreign name mixed up the lists but this may be another individual.

These names disappear from the records, they left no Muslim families, no institutions, no mosques. Perhaps they changed their names, like Saib Sultan, assimilated into the Christian community or returned home after earning sufficient for their passage. It is certain that they would have suffered from considerable religious intolerance.

As Muslims and a subject people, despised for their race, they would have lived on the edge of society. Even Christians suffered persecution at that time if they were from the wrong sect. The British Test and Corporation Acts were not repealed until 1828. These Acts, passed under King Charles II, required that any person who wished to hold a position under the Crown or even in a town corporation, had to take Church of England communion. Protestant sects which differed in doctrine from the Established Church were thus humiliated. Roman Catholics were excluded from public office until the Catholic Relief Act of 1829. Even so, until this day, no Catholic can become King or Queen or Regent of Britain.

The men who 'came free' might have been despised, but they were not subjected to the horrors of the penal system which the convicts experienced. The system of transportation of convicts was cruel enough, separating them from all they knew for years, perhaps forever. It was however relatively humane compared to the system which followed the Bigge Report of 1823. The administration of NSW was accused of excessive leniency, contributing to the failure of transportation as a deterrent to crime whereas Bigge "wanted to tighten up the transportation system and make punishment more of a deterrent." Zimran Wriam, an Indian Muslim convict who arrived in Atlantic on the Third Fleet in 1791, missed this most oppressive time.

Born in Hyderabad, Zimran was sent to Norfolk Island and in 1813 was removed to Port Dalrymple in Van Diemen's Land as a third class passenger on the Lady Nelson with John Hassan. He was given a 40 acre land grant to permit him to be economically independent. Unfortunately he did not live long to enjoy it as two currency lads (locally born men) beat him to death.

Other Muslim convicts who arrived in this relatively humane period included a convict from Oman, Nowardin, who said he was born in Muscat. A sailor on a ship visiting London, he had been convicted of a minor offense and in 1815 was sentenced to seven years transportation. He arrived in Sydney on the Fanny on 18 January 1816. Another Muslim, one John Johannes of Bengal, in London on 6 December 1815, was also sentenced to transportation for seven years. He arrived in Sydney on the Almorah on 3 August 1817. A relatively minor offence committed in the Port of London could have disastrous consequences.

In total there were at least eight convicts who arrived in Australia after 1813 who may have been Arab or part Arab. Five came from Oman, one from Bussarah (Iraq), one from Mauritius and one from South Africa. All of these people were Muslims.
…

Siedy Abdullah, like Nowardin, was also from Muscat, Oman. Looking for employment no doubt, he had migrated to Mauritius and worked as footman or groom. He was one of several sentenced to ten years transportation in February 1837 for the crime of mutiny. Under the conditions of that time this meant disobedience of an employer or refusal to work. He arrived in Sydney on 26 May 1838 where he subsequently disappeared. On the 26 April another footman and groom, also convicted of mutiny in Mauritius, arrived in Sydney to serve a life sentence. He was Hassan Sheikh of Bombay and he arrived on the Moffat via Hobart. Siedy Maccors Mahomed originally from Bussarah, was another of those sentenced for mutiny in Mauritius and he arrived at the same time as Siedy Abdullah. He completed his ten years and was granted a Certificate of Freedom in 1847.

Mauritius must have offered a hazardous work environment for three years before, in 1834, Bargatta Lascar, also known as Sheikh Burkhit, had been sentenced in that place to fourteen years transportation. He was born in Calcutta in 1798. He arrived in Sydney in July 1834 and was later assigned to work for a Mr J. Philips on his property near Port Macquarie.

Capetown, a key supply port on the British route to the East, and now included within the British Empire, also supplied its convicts to New South Wales. Two men described as 'of the Malay faith' arrived in Sydney on the Eden on 11 January 1837. Ajoup, a groom, had been sentenced to fourteen years transportation in Capetown and another named Matthys was sentenced to seven years. Both men were born in 1815. They appear but briefly in records and like those who 'came free' to Norfolk Island, disappear without trace.

There may have been a much larger Muslim population of Australia from this early period had a scheme advanced by some NSW pastoralists come to fruition. To help solve the labour shortage they intended to import labourers from India. Evidence was given before an Immigration Committee in 1838 that over a hundred settlers had organised for 1203 Indian labourers to be brought in and between 1837 and 1844 about 500 did arrive. The Colonial Office prohibited this traffic in 1839.


Bookmark this on Delicious

OPINION: Good & Bad News re Hilaly

I have some good news and some bad news in relation to Sheik Hilaly.

The bad news is that, thanks to an aggressive media and political campaign, Hilaly will probably survive as Senior Imam of the mosque in Lakemba managed by the Lebanese Moslems Association (LMA).

The good news isn't really news at all. Hilaly's status in the wider Muslim community is the same as it was when he first arrived in Australia . For most Muslims, Hilaly barely registers on their spiritual radar.

3 out of 4 Muslims don't speak Arabic. The vast majority of Muslims communicate in English. When I want to communicate with Muslims in Sydney , I don't go to the Arabic press or speak on Arabic radio. I write for this newspaper. More Muslims in Sydney read this newspaper than any foreign language paper.

Sheik Hilaly just isn't capable of writing in this newspaper without an interpreter. He isn't capable of communicating with most Muslims without an interpreter. Sydney has over 150 mosques and well over 200 imams. Quite a few (though sadly not most) imams speak English. The rest are largely irrelevant outside their small congregations.

Most Muslims, like most Christians, hardly go to the mosque more than once or twice a year. Some go every Friday for the congregational prayer. The LMA mosque where Hilaly preaches can hardly fit 5,000 people. Auburn Gallipoli Mosque fits around 6,000 people.

This Sunday, Sydney 's newest mosque in Bonnyrigg will be officially opened. Citizenship Minister Andrew Robb will be there for the event. So will be the most influential imam in Australia .

Am I talking about Hilaly? Nope. Australia 's most influential imam is a man who presides over the vast majority of imams in Australia . Most mosques are managed by Turks. Most Turkish mosques employ Turkish imams. Virtually all Turkish imams are trained in Turkey under the Presidency of Religious Affairs, a body run by the Turkish government.

So when the head of the Turkish Presidency of Religious Affairs, Dr Ali Bardakoglu, visits Australia over the next week or so, it should be an event the media will notice. It certainly is being noticed at most Australian mosques.

I rarely if attend Friday congregational prayers at the LMA mosque in Lakemba. The sermon is always in Arabic. Very rarely is any translation done. I learn nothing at the sermon. Frequently, sermons are known to take upto 2 hours. I have work to do. Lakemba is too far for me to travel to. I'd rather pray where the sermon is in English and I can budget for time on a busy Friday afternoon.

Hilaly may proclaim himself to be the Mufti. But to most Australian Muslims, he is at best irrelevant and at worst a complete embarrassment. Non-Lebanese Sydney Muslims and Muslims from other cities and states regard Hilaly as a Lebanese problem. Disputes between Hilaly and his opponents in the Lebanese community are seen as a Lebanese turf war.

So when Australian-Lebanese GP Dr Jamal Rifi predicted Hilaly's refusal to resign would lead to rioting in the streets, the e-mail lists were hot. No, not hot with plans for which streets to burn and which windows to smash. Instead, Muslims were cracking jokes about how the only riot would probably be one in Dr Rifi's backyard!

Thankfully, Hilaly called off any protest or rally. He went on SBS Arabic Radio and on the Voice of Islam (VOI) Radio to speak. VOI has only one English-language program which runs for half an hour. The rest is in Arabic. Sheik Hilaly's call wouldn't have been understood by most Muslims, and few would have been interested in attending a rally in which virtually all speeches would be in Arabic.

Perhaps it is a good thing Hilaly refuses to learn English. If his views on Jews and women and cats were anything to go by, he deserves the status of irrelevance he has with Australia 's overwhelmingly non-Arabic-speaking Muslim communities.

An edited version of this article was first published in the Daily Telegraph on Saturday 4 November 2006.

Words © 2006 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

OPINION: Mufti of New Zealand?

Women who refuse to cover up to the level expected by Islamic teachings are comparable to meat. Men are comparable to cats that enjoy eating meat left out in the street. Women who appear in public dressed a certain way bring rape (or at least fornication) upon themselves.

You'd think these attitudes belong in the 19th century. Sadly, a Muslim prayer leader has been caught out delivering this message to some 500 Muslims at a Sydney mosque. The comments, made some weeks back during the sacred fasting month of Ramadan, are creating headlines across the world.

So why should any of this concern New Zealand readers? The prayer leader concerned, Sheik Tajeddine Hilaly, has been given the title of "Mufti of Australia, New Zealand & the South Pacific". And he has held this title for over a decade.

That means this latest case of "foot-in-mouth" disease from the Sheik may well reflect upon Muslims in New Zealand , many (if not most) of whom have probably never heard of him.

Across Australia, the Sheik's comments have been greeted with disgust and uproar by both Muslims and non-Muslims. The Chairman of the Islamic Council of Queensland has described the remarks as indefensible and that Sheik Hilaly should be “put in his place”. Waleed Aly from the Islamic Council of Victoria says the comments were “particularly inflammatory and really caused a lot of pain to a lot of people”.

Politicians have also stepped in, with Prime Minister John Howard calling upon Muslims to act decisively or risk harming relations between Muslims and the rest of Australia. The PM told ABC TV:

What I am saying to the Islamic community is this - that if they do not resolve this matter it could do lasting damage to the perceptions of that community within the broader Australian community, and that would be a tragedy.

That's all fine. But Australian Muslim leadership organisations are divided and seem powerless to act. The implications of their inaction could well be felt by Muslim communities across the Tasman and the Pacific.

New Zealand and South Pacific Muslims had little say in the appointment of Sheik Hilaly as their Mufti. The appointment was made during the late-1980's. At the time, Sheik Hilaly's immigration status was not finalised. He faced deportation after being caught out making grossly anti-Semitic remarks during a speech to students at the University of Sydney .

Paul Keating, Acting Prime Minister at the time, was keen to grant the Sheik permanent residency and so gain support from the Sheik's congregation who lived largely in Keating's electorate. Such a decision could only be made if Hilaly was given a special title. The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils (AFIC) decided to create the position of "Mufti" and appointed Hilaly to fill the post.

The term Mufti is frequently translated as spiritual leader or archbishop. Yet Islam knows no priesthood, and the Mufti is usually little more than a legal expert able to give authoritative but not binding opinions on the application of Islamic religious law to novel situations.

The appointment of Hilaly as Mufti was done without any meaningful consultation with Muslims on either side of the Tasman. No record seems to exist of the Federation of Islamic Associations of New Zealand (FIANZ) or any peak Muslim body in the South Pacific endorsing the appointment.

Making matters worse, Hilaly is senior imam at a mosque managed by the Lebanese Moslems Association, a body which only allows males eligible for Lebanese citizenship to be members. So the Mufti of our region is imam at a mosque whose membership structure institutionalises racism and sexism.

Sheik Hilaly's recent remarks are the most recent instalment in a chequered career of offensive remarks. Some months back, just prior to the Lebanon conflict, Hilaly questioned the numbers of European Jews murdered in the Holocaust. Given that Australia 's Jewish communities have the largest concentration of Holocaust survivors outside of Israel , the remarks were particularly offensive.

Sadly, Sheik Hilaly's gaffes do remove focus from some of the good work he has done over the years. Ironically, Hilaly is among the more progressive imams when it comes to women's issues. As a founding member of the United Muslim Women's Association, Hilaly was instrumental in the establishment of Australia 's first Muslim women's refuge. He was also recognised by the Australian government as playing an instrumental role in the freeing of Australian hostage Douglas Wood from his Iraqi captors.

Even in relation to his recent comments, many Muslims felt Sheik Hilaly may have been misquoted by hostile elements in the Murdoch Press. Rupert Murdoch was quoted some months back as suggesting Muslim migrants had dual loyalties, and the flagship Murdoch broadsheet The Australian has allowed openly racist and xenophobic commentary about Muslims to be printed in its op-ed pages.

But on this occasion, the newspaper did its homework and released the recording of the Sheik's speech to other competing media outlets, all of whom came up with substantially the same translation.

Even worse is that Hilaly's words reflect attitudes not limited to some Muslims. AAP reported on October 27 a study showing two fifths of Australians surveyed believed men who rape do so as they are unable to control their urges. The Violence Against Women Community Attitudes Project survey also found one in four people believe domestic violence is OK as long as perpetrators genuinely regret it afterwards.

If the Hilaly incident illustrates anything, it is that society's attitudes toward violence against women need a major re-think on both sides of the Tasman.

An edited version of this article is to appear on 31 October 2006 in the Dominion-Post published in Wellington New Zealand.

Words © 2006 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

COMMENT: Muslim criticism of Hilaly continues

Reaction in Muslim circles to the media assault on the embattled Sheik Hilaly has been largely negative. Even in his own ethno-religious backyard of Arabic-speaking Muslims from South-Western Sydney, Hilaly is facing plenty of criticism.

Any claims to Sheik Hilaly being possibly misinterpreted and mistranslated have been swept away. Richard Kerbaj from The Oz can feel exonerated by the fact that other media outlets (including SBS) have come up with effectively the same messages in Hilaly’s speech.

Lebanese Moslems Association President and Auburn Councillor Tom Zreika summed up the mood of Muslims everywhere when he told Fran Kelly on Friday words to the effect of:

We’ve been doing so much work to try and build bridges and now this incident has thrown all that work down the drain.

He also confirmed the LMA would take no action. With respect, this is a cop-out. There is plenty the LMA can and should do. They can start by sacking him from his role as Senior Imam at the mosque they manage.

The sad reality is that the LMA likes to present itself as “the largest and most established Muslim organization in Australia ”. Yet the reality is that full membership of the LMA (and hence voting rights and ability to sit on the executive) is limited to male Muslims eligible for Lebanese passports.

So you have this absurd situation where the senior imam of a mosque which practises membership apartheid claims the mantle of leadership of a multiethnic religious congregation.

Friday’s Daily Telegraph shows three prominent Muslim women (including a colleague of Tom Zreika’s on Auburn Council) standing outside Auburn Gallipoli Mosque expressing their condemnation. Mosque Prez Ibrahim Din was also there (as was yours truly). Din made the position of his congregation (and no doubt of Turkish-speaking Muslims who manage more mosques than any other ethnic group) clear: “He is not my Mufti”.

Sadly, some Muslim spokespeople continue to life with their heads in the sand. Executive Director of the Forum on Australia’s Islamic Relations (FAIR) Kuranda Seyit issued a Press Release this morning calling for an end to the “media witch hunt”, claiming: “I have read his public statement and apology and I am satisfied that Sheikh Taj did not imply that women are the cause of rape.” Yet FAIR’s resident scholar, Na’eem Abdul Wali has contradicted Seyit.

Perhaps the most colourful comment comes from one Canberra Muslim who e-mailed this to me:

Hilaly with two similar sphincter muscles at either end and nothing but **** comes out at either end I don’t whether to laugh or cry at his outburst; who needs enemies when we have this loose cannon on board. He should be reprimanded by Muslims first then others.

Words © 2006 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious