DIVERSITY: Centre for Independent Studies hosts genetics expert ...

As part of its Big Ideas Forum this year, the Centre for Independent Studies is hosting German Thilo Sarrazin, a German former banker and politician who claims Muslims are lowering German intelligence and that all Jews share certain genes.

Lovely. Janet Albrechtsen will also be sharing the podium. You can read a gushing tribute to Sarrazin in The Australian authored by Oliver Marc Hartwich, a research fellow at the CIS. Hartwich believes that Sarazzin is the victim of German political correctness.

Heck, why shouldn't a German, less than a century after the Holocaust, claim that Jews have shared features that are inherited? Why shouldn't the CIS be allowed to host someone with such rabid views? And why shouldn't those sponsoring the CIS, among them some major Australian corporations that supply goods and services to Jews and Muslims, not be able to finance the promotion of such opinions?

And why shouldn't I and my Jewish friends be allowed to name and shame these corporations? It's a free country.

VIDEO: Anti-Semitism Texas style

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Jewish Speaker of Texas State House
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog</a> The Daily Show on Facebook

Bookmark this on Delicious

COMMENT: Arab Derangement Syndrome

Shaykh Musa bin Maymun, also known as Moses Maimonides

Arab Derangement Syndrome. Or ADS for short. An obsessive hatred of all things Arab or associated with Arab (or broader Muslim) culture.

No, I didn't make up this term. David Shasha did. And who is David Shasha?

David Shasha is the director of the Center for Sephardic Heritage in Brooklyn, New York. The Center publishes the weekly e-mail newsletter Sephardic Heritage Update as well as promoting lectures and cultural events. His articles have been published in Tikkun magazine, The American Muslim, the Christian Progressive and other publications.

In a recent piece for the Huffington Post on the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" controversy, Shasha argues:

In recent weeks, we have heard a number of prominent right-wing Jews like Bernard Lewis, Hillel Halkin, Daniel Pipes, and David Horowitz express their outrage over the use of Córdoba as a symbol of Muslim openness, arguing instead that Córdoba was a place of Muslim intolerance and fanaticism.

In the midst of this new ginned-up outrage over what Sephardic Jews see as their cultural home, we can discover a much larger problem that has surfaced in what has become "Arab Derangement Syndrome" among so many Zionists.

Over the course of many centuries, Sepharad/Al-Andalus was a marker of Jewish creativity and cosmopolitanism afforded by Islam in contrast to the prison that was Christian Europe. "Arab Derangement Syndrome" sees things in quite the opposite way.

Shasha goes further.

The current demonization of Córdoba stems from an irrational and fanatic hatred of all things Arab and is clothed in the disingenuous garb of academic expertise. European-style Anti-Semitism is back-referenced to the Arab world ...

In other words, the Spanish city of Cordoba under Muslim rule was and remains the cultural heartland of a large proportion of the world's Jewish population. Yet other Jews are engaged in a process of what Shasha describes as ...

... this recent demonization of Sephardic Jewry and its Arabic culture ...

The piece makes very enlightening reading, though I wonder whether Shasha's depiction of Ashkenazi Judaism as being ...

... caught up in its disdain for the outside world and conducted an internecine battle waged over strictness in the observance of Jewish ritual.

... is a little unfair.

Shasha also has some harsh words for Zionists who enter into alliances which the ideological descendants of their former persecutors.

Jews, in spite of their startling success in the Western world, feel more alienated and fearful than at any other time in their history. This is strange given the recent experience of the Nazi genocide. But what Zionism and the ongoing problems of the state of Israel have generated in many Jews is a sense of insecurity that has served to reframe and refocus the Jewish mindset. Alliances with fundamentalist Christianity serve as a marriage of convenience that strengthens the perceived vulnerable status of Israel in what is seen as a region of Arab-Muslim barbarians. This is back-referenced to the Middle Ages and to Islamic Spain and Córdoba, and ultimately linked to the Sephardic Jews and their Arabic culture ... The demonization of Córdoba is often accomplished with the help of the very Sephardim whose history is being ripped to shreds by their Ashkenazi brothers. This Jewish fratricide is not simply an obscene act of sociocultural violence by one part of the Jewish community against another; it is a sign of a much larger problem for the Jewish world.

Those nutty anti-Semites (sadly many of them Muslims) who still maintain fantasies of Jewish conspiracies should take their heads out of the sand.

RACISM: Germany's answer to Glenn Beck?

If you thought Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book contained gross generalisations, wait till you get your hands on the German Central Banker Thilo Sarrazin's book. Published in German as Deutschland schafft sich ab ("Germany does away with itsel").

So what does he say that is so offensive? According to DW:

At the launch, Sarrazin reiterated his beliefs about the threat of Muslim culture to European societies. He told reporters that Germans were in danger of becoming "strangers in their own country" and demanded stronger checks on immigrants.

You don't need to know German to read that kind of sentiment. Just listen to the likes of Pauline Hanson, Fred Nile or Andrew Bolt.

But it gets better. Philo also talks about the existence of a "Jewish gene". What a ridiculous suggestion.

"All Jews share a particular gene," Sarrazin said in an interview published on Sunday. "That makes them different from other peoples."

Still, why should anyone complain about that? After all, he was only saying about Jews what a certain American citizen has said about Muslims.

Perhaps FoxNews could have its own German language version. And with Thilo Sarrazin, Mr Mrdoch might have his own Glenn Beck.



Words © 2010 Irfan Yusuf

Bookmark this on Delicious

CRIKEY: Costello shows little faith in the possibilities of education ...

In 1980, I started grade five at Sydney’s only Anglican cathedral school. My parents wanted to send me to a school which taught their values. But my parents are not Anglican. They are South Asian Sunni Muslims. Among my closest friends at school were a Jew, a Mormon and an atheist brought up in a nominally Catholic family. Their parents may have sent them to the school for similar reasons.

But Peter Costello thinks the main reason parents send their kids to a Christian school is this:

Parents who choose to send their children to a Christian school have a reasonable expectation that the child will get a Christian education. How could the school fulfil its obligation to the parents if it is required by law to employ non-Christian or anti-Christian teachers to provide it?

Perhaps Mr Costello should consult his well-heeled constituents of Sikh, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist and other non-Christian faiths to find out why they choose to send their kids to exclusive (often selective) Christian schools. Perhaps having a name like Sydney Grammar or St Andrews on one’s resume can help overcome the prejudice of employers at allegedly unpronounceable surnames.

Presently religious institutions and faith schools are exempt from the provisions of anti-discrimination legislation which forbid discrimination in employment on the basis of religion. This could change in Victoria, and Costello writes in both The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald expressing his opposition ...

... to restrict the freedom of religious schools to choose their employees on the basis of their religious faith.

I’ve acted for both Muslim and non-denominational independent schools in workplace relations matters. Muslim schools employ non-Muslim teachers, only requiring them to display respect and empathy to Muslim religious values. Female teachers aren’t required to cover their hair. School principals told me that they had to hire non-Muslim staff as there weren’t enough Muslim teachers.

This presumably means these schools would take advantage of discrimination exemptions and employ only Muslim teachers if they had half a chance. Would Costello support Muslim schools insisting Muslim kids only be taught by Muslim teachers? Perish the thought! This kind of non-integration and breach of Australian values is what Costello so often pontificated on when he was treasurer.

I’d be appalled by the idea of kids from Islamic schools not having non-Muslim teachers. Hopefully by the time there are enough Muslim teachers, the law will have changed so that neither Muslim nor any other faith schools can discriminate. Religious and cultural cocoons aren’t healthy for children or for social cohesion.

Then again, Anglican cocoons didn’t harm me. Back when I was at school, to be employed at St Andrews as a teacher, you had to show some kind of commitment to Christianity. Some teachers evidenced this by a letter from their parish priest. We’re not sure exactly how my popular Year 11 English Teacher, Mr Scott, evidenced his Christian commitment. But at the last St Andrews’ Class of ’87 reunion, one of the lads recalled Scott had a habit of wearing polka-dotted ties. I’m not sure if he still wears them to work.

First published in Crikey on 29 July 2009.

COMMENT: Jeff Halper on Israel and the diaspora ...

In his recent op-ed for the Sydney Morning Herald, Jeff Halper raised some interesting points on how many ordinary Jews (or at least those linked to public community organisations) see their relationship with the modern state of Israel. For me as an Australian gentile of Indo-Pakistani heritage, it has always been an interesting process to watch, if for no other reason than that it has some similarity to the relationship between overseas Pakistanis and modern Pakistan.

The problem seems to be that Diaspora Jewry uses Israel as the lynchpin of its ethnic identity, mobilising around a beleaguered Israel as a way of keeping the community intact. But this does not foster a healthy relationship. Israel cannot be held up as a voyeuristic ideal by people who, though professing a commitment to Israel's survival, actually need an Israel at conflict for their own community's internal survival.

That is why I, as a critical Israeli, am so threatening. I can both conceive of an Israel very different from the "Jewish state" so dearly valued at a distance by Diaspora Jewry - and I can envision an Israel at peace. Ironically, it is precisely such a normal state living at peace with its neighbours that is so threatening to Jews abroad, because it leaves them with no external cause around which to galvanise.

But Israel cannot fulfil that role. Diaspora Jews need to revalidate Diaspora Jewish culture (that Zionism dismissed as superficial and ephemeral) and find genuine, compelling reasons why their children should remain Jewish. Blindly supporting Israel's extreme right-wing and militaristic policies is not the way to do that. Such uncritical support contradicts the very liberal values that define Diaspora Jewry, driving away the younger generation of thinking Jews.

So many Pakistani diaspora elders I see feel compelled to defend their idealised vision of Pakistan as they left it during the 1950's or '60's. They cannot tolerate even the midlest criticism of Pakistan, to the extent of even defending the indefensible.

(Then again, they at least grew up in Pakistan. I'm not sure how many Australian Jews have spent significant amounts of time growing up in Israel.)

Indeed, perhaps the healthiest trend I see among the local Pakistanis here is a greater exposure to Pakistani media. If General Pervez Musharraf did one thing right, it was to allow a freeing up of the Pakistani media. A variety of cable news channels such as GeoTV and Aaj are now challenging the idealised version of Pakistan previously held dear by so many of my "unklez" and "aunteez". Halper doesn't seem to believe a similar process is in place among Australian supporters of Israel.

The uproar caused by the prospect of my speaking to the Jewish community in Australia is truly startling to an Israeli. After all, opinions similar to mine are readily available in the mainstream Israeli media. Indeed, I write frequently for the Israeli press and appear regularly on Israeli TV and radio.

The level of healthy debate and indeed criticism of various political and social trends among both diasporas is almost inevitable. Resistance to such criticism may be understandable but certainly isn't healthy in the long run.

HATEWATCH: Tim Blair's buddies inadvertently accuse Jews of belonging to an "intolerant faith" ...

I've said and written this many a time. The prejudicial rhetoric used against certain minority groups today is merely a repetition of the prejudicial rhetoric used against other minority groups in times gone past. In the years leading upto the Holocaust, the European and Western far-Right imposed their uncontrolled and unmedicated hate toward anyone they deemed Jewish. Today they do the same against anyone deemed Muslim.

The regular band of nutbags that surround Daily Telegraph opinion editor Tim Blair are typical examples of this phenomenon. Even before his blog was hosted by the Tele, Blair allowed a host of racist commentary onto his site, including this classic about Rupert Murdoch's daughter.

Being hosted by a major newspaper appears not to have lifted the standards of comment at Planetim. Blair couldn't help but comment on the Royal North Shore Hospital beat-up, claiming that the hospital chapel had been "de-Jesused".

Aiming to avoid conflict and anger, the Royal North Shore Hospital has instead increased it.

But anger among who? It seems the only angry people are some of Tim Blair's cyber-nazis. Here are some of their rants:

kae replied to kae
Thu 09 Apr 09 (06:45pm)
We want a separate place.
We want you to abide by our rules.
We need to have special concessions because of our religion.
We need special food.
Why don’t you treat us the same as everyone else?
Before anyone bags out Jews and Jewish food requirements, just remember that Jews have never expected KFC, Maccas, et al, you and me, to change to suit them.

Aiming to avoid conflict and anger, the Royal North Shore Hospital has instead increased it.
It’s worse than that.
Why would a person of one faith be offended by seeing the religious symbols of another faith?
The only reason could be that their own faith is intolerant of others.
So, the question is: What is the hospital doing, validating and encouraging intolerant faiths?
Brett_McS of Newcastle (Reply)
Thu 09 Apr 09 (12:30pm)

John E replied to Brett_McS
Thu 09 Apr 09 (02:39pm)
Indeed, Brett.
It actually highlights the deep-rooted insecurity of these other, intolerant faiths.
For if their followers are so secure in their beliefs, they would surely not feel threatened or offended by the religious symbols of other faiths.

Hey, Tim.
On the evening news tonight no mention was made of who might be offended by crosses and bibles. In fact the news reader talked about the move without once mentioning Muslims.
kae (Reply)
Thu 09 Apr 09 (06:39pm)

OK, you know you have screwed up when the Muslims appear more tolerant.
pgrossjr (Reply)
Fri 10 Apr 09 (03:45am)

Yes, these intolerant people who want to support religious separatism, who impose their intolerant religion on us. Who are these nasty devious ugly despicable people with their intolerant religion? Why kind of foreign Middle Eastern force is at work here? What kind of people would support a hospital chapel being "de-Jesused"?

Well, you'd have to have read the hard-copy version of Sydney's Daily Telegraph on Thursday 9 April to know the answer. On page 2, health reporter Kate Sikora writes:

The Australian/Jewish Affairs Council [sic.] supported the hospital, saying more people would be likely to use the chapel.

Bren Carlill, a policy analyst, said some from other religions might be offended.

"The fact that they are willing to go to such lengths to encourage religious communities to worship is great," he said. "There are people from lots of different groups who almost like getting offended - and then there are the other people who don't get offended."

So which nasty evil foreign intolerant separatist group supports such actions and has earned the ire of Tim Blair's buddies for having a hospital chapel "de-Jesused"?

THE JEWS!!!

But don't dare describe Tim Blair as a racist. He doesn't need to be. His commenters to it all for him. Tim just moderates it all.

UPDATE I: In case it matters, Bren Carlill happens not to be Jewish.

UPDATE II: As if to confirm the above, Tim Blair doesn't hesitate to source a story from neo-Nazi Sheik Yer'mami. It's not the first time Blair has used the "Yer'mami News Network".

And what kind of material does Yer'mami publish? Well, his website currently carries this poll:

Are you convinced now that Obama is a Marxist Muslim?

°No way!

°More Marxist than Muslim

°More Muslim than Marxist

°Muslim ueber alles!

Thus far, out of 50 votes, 17 persons have voted Obama is more Marxist than Muslim while another 17 have voted him more Muslim than Marxist. 12 have voted he is Muslim ueber alles. It would be interesting to know which way Tim Blair voted.

And read this extraordinary gushing tribute to Austrian neo-Nazi politician Joerg Haider from Yer'mami. Here's what Ha'aretz has to say about Haider:

He commended the Third Reich's employment policy, called SS members "decent people," compared the Jews' deportation during the war to the expulsion of the German Sudetens and described the extermination camps as "punishment camps."

... he said that "every foreigner, even if he's a criminal, receives more government support than an Austrian pensioner," or "it makes no difference whether it's a Romanian pickpocket or a Socialist finance minister who's taking the money out of your pocket." Or, "did you know that under Socialist rule, a black African with a fashionable suit and a state-of-the art cell phone can sell drugs unhindered?"

What delightful sources the opinion editor of the Daily Telegraph has.

Words © 2008 Irfan Yusuf




Bookmark this on Delicious

VIDEO: US conservatives still talking Turkey over the "Judeo-Christian" nation ...

Some alleged conservatives in the United States are getting their nickers in a knot (or should that be knickers in a not?) over President Obama's remarks at a joint press conference with his counterpart in Turkey. It seems some are still peddling this myth that there is such a thing as a Judeo-Christian tradition.

In Australia, conservatives have also been peddling this myth of our country being founded on "Judeo-Christian values". Peter Costello has made such claims from time to time. Including during a speech he made to a crowd of Pentecostal Christians at Scots Church in Melbourne in 2004.

If the Arab traders that brought Islam to Australia, had … settled or spread their faith among the Indigenous population, our country today would be vastly different. Our laws, our institutions, our economy would be vastly different.

But that did not happen. Our society was founded by British colonists. And the single most decisive feature that determined the way it developed was the Judeo-Christian-Western tradition. As a society, we are who we are because of that tradition … one founded on that faith and one that draws on the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Indeed he's right. Arab traders didn't bring Islam to Australia. Indonesian fisherman did. But they didn't come here to preach and conquer but rather to trade with local indigenous people in the Northern Territory. And these Indonesian fishermen kept trading up until the early part of the twentieth century when their centuries-old trade was stopped by legislators in Adelaide behaving in an allegedly Judeo-Christian manner.

But what of this whole idea of Judeo-Christian values? When did they come about? And what role, if any, did the "Judeo" bit play in the 18th century? At this point it might be appropriate to plagiarise myself:

Costello’s 2004 speech suggests only the traditions of British colonists mattered. Australia’s first few fleets consisted of a handful of English free settlers accompanying shiploads of convicts of various faiths - Jews, Catholics, Muslims and a smattering of perhaps reluctant followers of the Church of England.

Costello’s much touted Judeo-Christian culture wasn’t exactly alive and well in England. Both colonists and convicts would have been aware of the passing of the Jew Bill through the English Parliament in 1753, allowing Jews to be naturalised by application to Parliament. Mr Costello’s ideological ancestors, the Tories, opposed the Bill, claiming it involved an “abandonment of Christianity”. Conservative protesters burnt effigies of Jews and carried placards reading “No Jews, no wooden shoes”.

Jews were forbidden from attending university and practising law in England until the mid 19th century. One can only imagine the prejudice the 750-odd First Fleet Jewish convicts faced from English jailors brought up in such an anti-Semitic environment.

These considerations would apply even more in the United States, where the Founding Fathers deliberately avoided any mention of a religious qualification for public office.

Anyway, watch a Republican chap try and resurrect the Judeo-Christian myth in the context of Obama's recent comments in Turkey.

Words © 2009 Irfan Yusuf




Bookmark this on Delicious

BLOGS: Caroline gives Indian Parsees a good slap ...

It seems slapping an ALP candidate at the last federal election wasn't good enough for Caroline Overington, blogger for The Australian. Overington now decides that the best way to defend Jews from collective calumny is to impose some collective calumny on Indian Parsees.

Overington disputes the following claims written in a recent column for The Age:

The Parsees of India might provide a model. The Parsees are a very tiny, very rich ethnic and religious minority. They own perhaps most of the land in central Mumbai as well as the country’s largest conglomerate. And yet ordinary Indians admire and
respect them. Violence against them is unthinkable ...

Their overriding characteristic is a deep interest in the welfare of others. They have established hospitals, libraries, schools, museums and many other institutions and, most importantly, not for the Parsee community exclusively but for everyone.

To rebut this claim, Overington cites that great and most reliable resource - Wikipedia - to claim Parsees are self-centred and not as selfless as they are made out to be:

Well, actually no, as this article points out:
Parsi-only fertility clinic has been set up in Mumbai to encourage the community to reproduce itself.

Perhaps Caroline should travel to India and Pakistan and see what important work Parsees are doing in the fields of health, education and other philanthropy before she next maligns this minority community.

There are generous philanthropic Jews, Christians, Muslims, Parsees, Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, athiests etc etc. Anyone can be generous. And anyone can have an ulterior motive for their generosity. Which religion teaches people not to be generous?

Caroline could have made that point without collectively slapping one particular group. In attacking what she felt was someone else's bigotry, she exposed her own.

With friends like Overington, unconditional supporters of Israel don't need enemies.

UPDATE I: It seems that those nasty racist anti-Jewish anti-Israeli Israelis have now joined the neo-Nazi bandwagon. Margaret Simons' blog The Content Makers reports about a rather nasty anti-Semitic anti-Israeli column that appeared on this mainstream Israeli website which apparently is:

... the website of the country’s largest circulating newspaper.

Simons was tipped off about this offensive vicious anti-Semitic diatribe by:

... an Israeli-Australian who ... points out that [the Backman piece] is mild in the extreme compared to some of what is published in the Israeli media.

Here are some lengthy excerpts from this disgraceful column ...

Our reputation – our fault
Israelis' violent, vulgar behavior abroad is root of growing hatred towards us that has nothing to do with anti-Semitism
Yehuda Nuriel
Published: 12.06.08

If you continue the trek a little further, you can encounter the women of the Dao tribe, who have learned to say "Come and fuck me" in Hebrew. Yes, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef was right – these women's teachers were asses. No, actually why insult the asses? Their teachers were plain Israelis like me and you.

The global traveling season is now at its peak. Hordes of tourists are storming Thailand and Laos, South America and Kenya. And the battle has already been decided. The Israeli, any Israeli, has become an icon of evilness, ugliness, corruption and exploitation. There is no use searching for ways to change the behavior of Israelis abroad. This is a lost cause.

Worsening reputation

Travel Independent (www.travelindependent.info) is the online Mecca for tourists worldwide. The website offers accurate, concise and helpful reviews on any destination in the world.

And this is what the site has to say about us in its summary on India: "Aside from Indians you will find travels from all over Europe, USA and Australia/NZ, including as in Nepal/Thailand and South America, a large number of Israelis many of whom are fresh out of the army and seem to do everything they can to further worsen their reputation with locals and foreigners alike."

Travel Independent isn't anti-Semitic. As a travel destination, it gives Israel very warm recommendations. The Hmong women aren't anti-Semitic as well, and neither are the people of Japan, Peru or Tanzania, or most of the western travelers who witness this humiliation.

A new form of hatred towards Israelis is developing among people who don't even have a clue where the country is. An "anti-Semitism" that has nothing to do with God or Judaism.

Years of cultural corruption

For his part, the Israeli traveler goes out of his way not to be identified as an Israeli, not due to security concerns but simply for fear he will not be welcome. And he makes great efforts not to go where other Israelis go, not for the sake of exclusiveness, but simply because he knows that his countrymen will be the first ones to screw him over.

The Israeli pig is the product of years-long and ongoing cultural corruption. He will force the locals to watch episodes from the reality show "the Big Brother" and give them Israeli nick-names just for laughs.

His language is poor, and he is utterly uninterested in broadening his horizons. He is hostile towards Arabs and hostile towards foreigners in general and feels obligated to cheat them whenever he can (empty the open buffet; sneak six people into a double room at night so as not to come out "a sucker.") He takes over drug and women trafficking hubs just for the sense of power and bullying.

And this image can no longer be altered. Look at them and see us: a violent horde that treats the world as yet another policing mission, a destination that needs to be conquered and subdued.

No wonder that in Hebrew the verb "to do" refers both to the act of sexual conquest and to the completion of the Israeli traveler's tough, military-style trip abroad: "I did Bolivia."

I urge The Australian to immediately commission an editorial asking whether such anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic comments really reflect the opinions of the editors of Yedioth Ahronoth. There's absolutely no doubt that the amount of anti-Israel and/or anti-Semitic material in Israeli newspapers has just gone too far.

I mean, seriously! Fancy Israeli writers and journalists and newspapers publishing articles critical of Israelis! What next? Will we see Islamophobic anti-Muslim sectarian bigots like this disgraceful character write and publish articles critical of Muslims, Muslim countries and Muslim community leaders?

VIDEO: Sir Gerald Kaufman speaks the truth ...

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.

OPINION: Mumbai's melting pot gives way to forces of intolerance ...

On a small islet off the coast of Mumbai lies a whitewashed monument that attracts tourists and locals. Here, the patron saint of Mumbai is believed to be buried. Known to his devotees as Haji Ali, this wealthy 15th century Muslim merchant is said to have renounced his riches and devoted his life to worship and service to the poor.

Ali died in Mecca while performing the Haj pilgrimage which millions of Muslims are about to perform. Local legend has it that his casket drifted and settled at the site of the present tomb and mosque.

A narrow walkway approximately 1km in length and linking the shrine to the rest of Mumbai easily becomes immersed in water. Hence the shrine can be accessed only during low tide. At high tide, this landmark of Mumbai, as sacred to Hindus and Sikhs as it is to Muslims, appears to be floating on water.

Bollywood tragedies frequently show distraught characters drowning sorrows in the rhythmic devotion of traditional Indian Sufi qawwali music at the tomb of a Muslim saint. Across India, people of all faiths and castes and creeds visit the shrines of saints who taught the message of divine love made available to all.

And it's likely that, following the past few days of terror for the people of Mumbai, the crowd of distressed devotees seeking solace at Piya Haji Ali's shrine will be much larger.

People from across the Indian faith and cultural spectrum - Hindus of all castes, Muslim of various ethnic groups and denominations, Parsees, Jains, Sikhs, Christians, indigenous Beni Israel and Baghdadi Indian Jews and other combinations of belief or lack thereof - have made Mumbai their home for centuries. However, dark forces of intolerance have haunted this city where in previous centuries people used the universal language of trade to overlook if not overcome their differences.

Hemant Karkare, the Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS) chief in Mumbai's Maharashtra state, was gunned down with two of his colleagues by Muslim extremists on Day 1 of the terror attack. Ironically, Karkare had earlier received death threats from extremist followers of Hindutva theocratic politics similar to that which inspired the assassins of Mahatma Gandhi.

Karkare, himself a Hindu, had recently launched an investigation into a Hindutva cell, uncovering evidence that implicated senior supporters of the pro-Hindutva BJP Opposition as well as senior members of India's military.

The Times of India on November 27 quoted one ATS official saying this cell

... wanted to make India like what it was when it was ruled by the Aryans.

Evidence of this wider plan was found on one detainee's laptop.

For pursuing this line of inquiry, Karkare was accused by BJP leader L.K. Advani of

... acting in a politically motivated and unprofessional manner.

On the first day of the Mumbai terrorist strike, the Indian Express reported BJP President Rajnath Singh accusing Karkare's anti-terrorist squad of "harassment and humiliation" of Hindutva terror suspects.

Yet many BJP leaders have watched silently while their members orchestrated atrocities against religious minorities. Those perpetrating the 2002 Gujarat pogrom of Muslims, which led to at least 2000 deaths, have not been brought to justice.

Among them is Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi, who was refused a visa to enter the United States for his role in the slaughter. Activists of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), part of the BJP opposition, have in recent months terrorised Indian Catholic communities and institutions.

The VHP regards Semitic faiths such as Christianity as foreign faiths, despite their presence in India for at least a millennium. In August, a senior VHP leader was murdered in the eastern state of Orissa.

Maoist rebels claimed responsibility, but this didn't stop VHP terrorists from going on the rampage against local Catholics and their institutions. Churches and other Christian institutions (including those linked to the order of the late Mother Teresa) were destroyed.

Christian homes were burned and Christians fled into surrounding jungles. Nuns were raped and burned alive.

India is a country where extreme elements of almost all communities have used terror. As Ajai Sahni, editor of the South Asia Intelligence Review, recently told Newsweek:

The fact of the matter is you have Hindus who are terrorists. You have Muslims who are terrorists. You also have Christians who are terrorists. [S]everal other denominations that have proven their capacity for terrorism. We must realise that terrorism is simply a method by which civilians are intentionally targeted. That's it.

Of course, the vast majority of Indians have no tolerance for such extremes. Mumbaiyan Hindus joined Mumbaiyans of other faiths in paying tribute to Karkare who received a state funeral on Saturday. And no doubt tens of thousands more will seek solace at the tomb of Mumbai's patron saint Haji Ali.

* Irfan Yusuf is a Sydney lawyer and associate editor of AltMuslim.com. This article was first published in the NZ Herald on Tuesday 2 December 2008.

UPDATE I: How's this for a reasoned rebuttal?

UPDATE II: Here is a balanced and completely unbiased letter to the editor published in the New Zealand Herald on 5 December 2008.

Blame for Mumbai

In the aftermath of the Mumbai massacre, the Herald has published two opinion pieces from non-Anglo Saxons.

I commend Dev Nadkarni for venturing into Pakistan, to where the Mumbai terrorism has been traced. Terrorism could spell disaster for its fragile democracy.

But I was saddened by the views of Irfan Yusuf, who yet again bashed the so-called Hindu terrorists, ignoring the real terrorists.

He is an apologist for the Pakistani terrorists who shot some 200 people in cold blood and who were indoctrinated with hate by those associated with a religion that is supposed to preach peace.

There was not a word from Yusuf on the cold-blooded murder carried out by brainwashed young people. It would greatly contribute to world peace if Muslim writers used their energy to stop the brainwashing of their brethren, who carry out mayhem that hurts peace-loving Muslims, rather than justifying terrorism by enumerating the supposed faults of the victims.

Thakur Ranjit Singh. Te Atatu Peninsula

I guess Mr Singh also regards the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad leaders to be apologists for Pakistani terrorists.

REFLECTION: Hurried thoughts on Mumbai ...

Well, it looks like this is going to be an all-nighter. Lots to read and write after having spent virtually the entire day with my eyes glued to the TV screen. My mother has spent a fair bit of time making and taking phone calls and speaking with family friends who have relatives living in Bombay.

We still refer to the place as Bombay. The name “Mumbai” seems like a kind of strange political and cultural correctness, an attempt to impose a provincial dialect on what is essentially a city for people across India. And now across the globe.

It sickens me that the people who could pull off such a coordinated and deadly attacks could dare call themselves “mujahideen”. They may use Iraq and Afghanistan and Kashmir and countless other causes for rhetorical purposes. But what they do bears little relation to jihad and to Islam as most Indians (and broader South Asians) know it.

I saw images on TV and in newspaper reports of people in Bombay hiding behind barricades and walls to avoid shooting. It reminded me of scenes of innocent civilians in Sarajevo having to crouch down behind concrete slabs and makeshift walls and anything else they could find to dodge sniper bullets. The so-called mujahideen are behaving like the goons of Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic.

Mumbai or Bombay, call it what you will, simply doesn’t deserve this. India doesn’t deserve this. Neither does the broader South Asia, Asia and the world. Nor do Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Jains, Jews, Catholics, Parsees and the followers of any number of indigenous Indian faiths.

Terrorists regard nothing as sacred. Just a few months back, they attacked a hotel in Islamabad in the heart of Ramadan. Now they have attacked innocent civilians in a crowded Indian city. They even kidnapped an elderly rabbi, a man of God, Clearly these people have no shame.

Soon the Mumbai locals will be burying or cremating their dead. They will pray to God / G-d / Bhagwaan / Allah to have mercy on their deceased relatives. Other people from a host of different countries (including Australia) will be mourning their dead. I urge even hardened atheists to pray with me that God gives them strength.

In the meantime, let’s hope that the perpetrators are caught and brought to justice.

MEDIA: More Kerbaj inaccuracies exposed ...

Well, it looks like my old buddy Sheik Dicky Kerbaj is keeping up with The Times and making waves about those blasted cousin-marriers in the United Kingdom.

This time, Kerbaj has co-authored an article claiming there could be tensions between Muslims and the UK police during the 2012 Olympics. Kerbaj et al have cited terrorism "experts" warning Scotland Yard that hungry and thirsty Muslims might get a little impatient with all the crowds.

The two experts cited are Michael Mumisa (an Islamic scholar) and Edward Kessler (of the Wolff Institute for Abrahamic Faiths).

Here is what Kerbaj said about both these gentlemen:

Michael Mumisa, an Islamic scholar, and one of four experts hired by Scotland Yard who began training the police this week on inter-faith issues, said that the commemoration of the 11 Israeli athletes, killed by Palestinian militants from the Black September Organisation at the 1972 Munich Games, could become a national security threat if it was not managed properly and was perceived by Muslims to be “hijacking” the Games.

Edward Kessler, executive director of the Woolfe Institute, which deals with inter-faith dialogue, teaching and research, said that police needed to have a “minimum level of faith literacy” to help them deal with religious issues during the London Games. Dr Kessler said: “During Ramadan you’re going to have a lot of tired, hungry, less evenly tempered people because they haven’t eaten for 18 hours.”

However, both the Jewish Chronicle and the UK Police have discredited the report. Writing for the Chronicle, Leon Symons cites Dr Kessler as saying ...

Sheikh Mumisa's words have been twisted in a way that is not accurate. I know what was said because I was there throughout the course. We were very unhappy with what appeared because it did not reflect the course that the officers took.

We are not experts in terrorism, we are experts in faith and interfaith and that's what they were here to learn. It was a very positive programme which dealt with subjects including antisemitism and Islamophobia.

The possibility of a ceremony to commemorate the Munich Olympics massacre was mentioned as being key to the Jewish community. But it was discussed in terms of one type of commemoration being wholly appropriate and another being wholly inappropriate. The police would have to deal with the situation on the ground and the point was that they should be aware of the sensitivities of each faith community. It was certainly not talked of as a ‘national security threat' or the Games being ‘hijacked'.

And here is how Sunrise Radio reported the story on 29 October:

The Met Police have rejected a national newspaper’s claims that Ramadan coinciding with the 2012 Olympics has increased the security threat.

An Islamic scholar allegedly warned the paper that the timing of the games could create a security threat, but he claims the paper misrepresented his words.

Sheikh Michael Mumisa, of the Woolf Institute of Abrahamic Faith, told Sunrise News he said nothing of the sort, and that journalists must act responsibly.

Chief Inspector Andy Goldstone from the Met Police Olympic Security Directorate agrees there should not be a problem.

You can read more about this episode in dangerous media silliness here. You can also read more of Kerbaj's works on the blog of one of Daniel "Saddam financed Obama's house" Pipes here.

And Australian readers can again have a good laugh by reading Kerbaj getting even the most basic Arabic naming practices muddled.

COMMENT: Andrew Bolt accuses Jews and Vietnamese of living in ghettos ...

Herald-Sun blogger Andrew Bolt has claimed that ...

... Australia risks becoming not “home” but a host community.

Under a blog post entitled City of ghettoes, Bolt cites a report in the Sydney Morning Herald with an emphasis on three ethno-religious groupings in Sydney ...

They show that up to 40 per cent of Auburn and Lakemba identify as Muslim. There are also large Muslim populations in Greenacre (30.7 per cent), Silverwater (27 per cent), Roselands (22.1 per cent), Arncliffe and Turrella (21.7 per cent), and Bankstown (21.6 per cent). 

Ethnic and religious forces converge in Cabramatta, where more than 40 per cent of the population identify themselves as Buddhist and Vietnamese.
Sydney’s Jewish population is the most concentrated in Rose Bay, Vaucluse and Watsons Bay, where up to 30 per cent identity with the Jewish faith...

Bolt's emphasis is on what he sees as a Muslim "ghetto" in various south-west Sydney suburbs. Yet Vietnamese, Buddhist and Jewish communities aren't excluded from his slur.

Still, Bolt has done his readers a favour by showing that when it comes to discrimination, he prefers not to discriminate.

COMMENT: "... the basic problem of the Jewish people was that they married their cousins ..."

So what does the world's most powerful media mogul think of "the Jewish people"? Here's what happened during a recent interview with Michael Wolff of Vanity Fair ...

All right, he’s not quite a liberal. He remains a militant free-marketeer and is still pro-war (grudgingly, he’s retreated a bit). And there was the moment, one afternoon, when over a glass of his favorite coconut water (meant to increase electrolytes) he was propounding the genetic theory that the basic problem of the Jewish people was that they married their cousins.

Yep, Jews are all from the same part of Adelaide. Go figure.

UPDATE I: A university researcher has some interesting views about cousin marriage. I couldn't help but notice the name of the university.

UPDATE II: Woops, I made a typo. Replace "Jewish" with "Muslim" and "Jews" with "Muslims". Now, that reads a little less offensively, doesn't it?

Words © 2008 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

HATEWATCH: Daniel Pipes goes troppo on hijabs ...

Once again, Mr Daniel Pipes finds reason to share with us why he doesn't exactly love Muslims and their religion. Pipes has posted on his blog a number of photos of Western "political women" wearing hijab. Why does he do it? To poke fun at a religious symbol? To prove somehow that the West is becoming too much infected by some nasty alien cultural practices?

Among the "leftist" women shown are: the late Princess Diana, Hillary Clinton (former First Lady and Democrat Presidential nominee), Camilla Parker Bowles (wife of Prince Charles), Nancy Pelosi (Speaker of the US House of Representatives) and Dr Condoleezza Rice (US Secretary of State).

Condi Rice? A leftist? How is that? I guess it's because she's the wrong colour ...

Anyway, the hijabs worn by these women don't look too hijabish to me. In fact, they look more like loosely-fitted scarves of the type my mum wears on religious occasions. Except that you can generally see through my mum's dupatta, an example of which you can see below (though it isn't a picture of my mother!)



However, there are other kinds of hijabs for which I'm sure Mr Pipes would (or, if he was intellectually honest, should) feel equal hatred toward ...


Jewish woman in promotional poster of award-winning Israeli documentary ...



Orthodox Jewish women pose for a photo at a wedding party ...



Jewish woman seated with her Muslim sister ...



Jewish women lighting candles to commemmorate the Holocaust ...



Ethiopian Jewish women in worship ...


I wonder what nasty things Mr Pipes will say about the hijabs of these women.

COMMENT: That bloody Moslem Obama ...

Forget about actually being one. It's bad enough if your dad is one or if you even have a name that makes you sound like one.

There was a time when European Jews used to flock to the lands of this "one" to seek protection. Today, some of their descendants are actively involved in drumming up venom and hatred toward any person deemed to have even the most tenuous link to "one".

Under the heading "But did you know he's a Muslim?", Haaretz columnist Bradley Burston talks about the resistance Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama is having in Jewish circles both in the United States and Israel.

Some cynics would argue: "Well, what do you expect? Those blasted Moslems are blowing themselves up in cafes in Tel Aviv and in Yeshivas in Jerusalem".

Yep, just like some Muslims tell me: "Irfan, why do you bother with them Jews? After all, they are the ones spreading hatred and venom against us through their columnists and think tanks and lobbyists".

But should I presume that all Jews are as hate-filled as Daniel Pipes or "Mad Mel" Phillips? Or that all Jewish organisations would sponsor and promote speaking and lecturing tours by Raphael Israeli?

Where do I find the Muslimphobia in George Soros? Or in Sven Alkalaj?

Not all Jews hate or despise or even resent Muslims, nor vice versa. But the Obama effort to secure the Democratic nominee is exposing some really ugly shades of opinion within Jewish circles that were not as apparent or widespread during Congressman Keith Ellison's entry to Congress.

Returning to Burston's column. He begins with Mel Levine, a former Board member of the hawkish American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) as well as Middle Eastern adviser to Al Gore and John Kerry. he is now a key foreign policy adviser to Barack Obama. And whether in the US or East Jerusalem, Levine must put up with a "viral rumor campaign" about Obama allegedly being in some way a Muslim. Here's how Levine puts it to Burston ...

A couple of Israelis I've spoken with - very smart, well-educated, thoughtful Israelis - told me that yesterday. I was a little taken aback, but why should I be surprised, when Americans tell me that all the time?

Levine claims that the venom directed toward Obama is unprecedented. Writes and quotes Burston ...

... [Levine] has never seen the likes of the ongoing mass e-mail campaigns, which have leveled a succession of allegations against Obama, branding the senator a secret anti-Semite, a closet Muslim who took his official oath of office with his hand on the Koran instead of the Bible, and a disciple of fiery Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, further alleging that several of Obama's Mideast policy advisors are pro-Palestinian haters of Israel.

"I've been involved in politics for quite a long time, and I've never quite seen anything like this before," Levine says of the e-mail campaigns. "It's offensive to me, particularly as a Jew who cares very deeply about Israel and bipartisan American support for Israel, because the e-mails are filled with lies, innuendos, distortions and misrepresentations about someone who has been, and is, an extremely good friend of Israel, a strong supporter of Israel, a good friend of the Jewish community, and someone who has been a leader in helping to repair black-Jewish relations in the United States in a courageous way."

E-mails portraying Obama as bad for the Jews appeared in great numbers ahead of hard-fought primaries in states with significant Jewish populations, such as California, New York and Ohio.

The Obama camp has worked intensively to counter e-mails hinting at or "proving" the Democratic senator's ties to Islam, among them the photo of a turban-clad Obama and a Fox News video clip of radio talk show host Bill Cunningham saying, "His parents called him Barack Hussein Obama, not me."

So Obama might have ties to Islam. So his father and step-father may have been Muslim. So Obama may have attended a school in Indonesia and may have even entered a mosque. What should we make of this? That he is a Jew-hating extremist moron that will enter the White House wearing a suicide vest?

Hardly 100 years after the Dreyfus trials, we are seeing the similar strains of innuendo being thrown around. I'm no fan of Obama or MacCain or Clinton any any other Presidential hopeful. But this kind of nonsensical ethno-religious lunacy is poisoning American politics. It also isn't doing alot for Jewish-Muslim relations.

Then again, some Jews are as disinterested in such relations as some Muslims.

Words © 2008 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

COMMENT: More on guide dogs and cabbies ...

Poor Daniel Pipes. He's been caught out misrepresenting an Australian Human Rights Commissioner. In an effort to manufacture group-hatred against anyone deemed Muslim, he has repeated a report from a tabloid newspaper without bothering to check the source. And he's sent his trumped-up article to op-ed editors of Australian broadsheets.

Who knows how many other lies and distortions Pipes has knowingly or recklessly peddled in other articles promoting his kind of sectarian bigotry. But will this pseudo-academic polemicist stop?

(And will his followers stop leaving abusive and racist anonymous messages on this blog?)

Pipes has struggled to find a response to my allegations. He knows he has been caught out. He knows he should have checked with Commissioner Innes before repeating the discredited claims of a reporter from the Daily Telegraph tabloid.

At the end of his article, Pipes provides an update which refers to my "long analysis". But does he provide a hyperlink? Does he want his readers to decide for themselves whether what I wrote was an accurate reflection of what he said? Does he want his readers to be able to make up their own mind about what he describes as "screed"

If we were talking about someone seriously and sincerely searching for truth, or at least someone interested in intellectually honest debate, we would expect Pipes' update to contain a hyperlink. But we aren't talking about truth and intellectual honesty. We are talking about neo-Conservative rcism and bigotry.

In short, we are talking about Daniel Pipes.

And what is Pipes' precise complaint against my exposure of his deceipt? Pipes alleges that I have criticised him for making "a mistake in the caption to the picture [of Commissioner Innes] that accompanies [his] column".

Having re-read my post, I must concede that Pipes may have a point if we were to consider my treatment of his caption out of context from my entire post. But as any reasonable reader will concede, Pipes' so-called critique misses the broader point. Hence Pipes is able to repeat the dishonest claim that ...

... Innes indicates that the drivers sometimes cite a religious reason for refusing his guide dog, a clear allusion to the Shari‘a, the only religious law with strictures about contact with dogs.

Where does Commissioner Innes say this, Mr Pipes? Have you asked Innes? Have you contacted his media officer? Have you contacted the man himself? Have you spoken to the Commissioner directly? Or are you relying on a discredited report from a tabloid newspaper?

Even on the Barking Buddies website, it mentions in relation to cab drivers that ...

They claim they’re afraid of the golden Labrador, or that she will make their vehicle dirty. One said it was against his religion to carry the animal in his car.

A number of cab drivers have expressed fear of the golden labrador. Others have expressed concerns that the dog might cause their cab to become dirty. At the very most, only one cab driver has mentioned some religious concern, though no religion is mentioned.

Yet Pipes happily uses the words of one cab driver are used to spread hatred and venom toward an entire sacred legal tradition and the 1.2 billion people across the globe who respect it (even if many don't follow it).

Pipes then concludes that this must be a reference to ...

... the Shari‘a, the only religious law with strictures about contact with dogs.

Perhaps Mr Pipes isn't aware that many non-Muslim cultures across the Middle East, Central Asia and South Asia also regard dogs as unhygeinic animals. Perhaps he isn't aware of the hygeine rules of some upper-caste Hindus or observant Sikhs.

But forget all that ecumenical and cross-cultural stuff. Pipes simply ignores the fact that Commissioner Innes has specifically stated on the record that ...

I never mentioned any specific religion and never intended to cast aspersions on any religion.

So if Commissioner Innes doesn't think this is an issue about Islam or Muslims or sharia, why does Daniel Pipes think it is? And why does Pipes insist on involving Innes in his unholy war against the religious law of 1.2 billion people?

Will Pipes now acknowledge that his article and update misrepresented the views of an Australian Human Rights Commissioner? Will Pipes admit he was wrong and apologise to Commissioner Innes?

Finally, it's clear Pipes hasn't even bothered to read Dr Williams' speech on sharia. Because if he had, he'd have realised that Williams specifically states that any reference to sharia in his speech equally applies to Jewish sacred law.

If Pipes was intellectually honest, he would spread hatred and venom toward Jews in equal measure as he does toward Muslims. He talks about the draconian punishments of sharia whilst ignoring the equally (if not more) draconian and violent teachings of Jewish sacred law.

There are parts of the Jewish law that talk about slaughtering women and children of gentiles. And stoning blasphemers and adulterers. These provisions still exist. The verses are there in the Old Testament. But seriously, how many Jews (other than the Israeli far-Right that Pipes often champions) seriously wish to implement these rules?

Scholars of the Jewish sacred law know that there was a time and a place for certain aspects of the sacred law. That time and place is not now. It has long gone. The same applies to Muslim jurists and the Islamic sacred law. Only the most fringe individual would suggest that we should start stoning adulterers in Sydney or London or New York (or even in Karachi or KL or Sarajevo).

Understanding and appreciating such issues requires a certain degree of intellectual sophistication. This is esoteric and complex stuff. It isn't the sort of stuff you'd expect to read on CampusWatch or a Pipes column in the New York Post. If this discussion and debate is out of Pipes' league, he should consider leaving it to others.

UPDATE I: Melanie Phillips, tabloid columnist and author of pseudo-conservative conspiracy thesis Londonistan, specifically refers to Pipes' fixation with guide dogs in a blog for The Spectator here. As expected, Phillips just cannot handle criticism. Hence she allows comments of those who share her big-"R" acism and huge-"X" xenophobia but not comments of her critics. Check these beauties out ...

... the chaff of Islamic dissembling.

... daily insights into the more disagreeble aspects of the Islamic world by the media (well, not Al Beeb and Al Gruaniad) and alerting people to the shape of the enemy ...

... any excuse to impose themselves on their host nations and express their disapproval ...

None of what is required to protect our culture is going to happen without an uprising taking place in the general population ... The best we can hope for is an after the fact resistance movement and guerilla warfare for the 50 or so years after takeover.

You don't have to be a Human Rights Commissioner to realise how scary and wacky these people are.

© Irfan Yusuf 2008

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


Bookmark this on Delicious

COMMENT: Archbishop of Allah?

According to his profile on OnlineOpinion, Jonathan Ariel is ...

... an economist and financial analyst. He holds a MBA from the Australian Graduate School of Management.

He also enjoys dabbling in political polemics. Heck, so do I. Who doesn't?

But after reading his take on the pseudo-controversy surrounding a recent academic speech by the Archbishop of Canterbury, it seems clear to me that Ariel should stick to financial analysis.

Ariel makes his position clear with this quote ...

Sharia law is simultaneously undemocratic and unChristian.

In a sense, any religious law is unChristian. This is because Christianity (at least in its protestant format) is a faith which has rejected any role for law within religion. Unlike Jews, Christians have rejected the laws of Moses as espoused in the Torah and explained in the various Jewish scholarly commentaries.

In this sense, both Judaism and Islam are similar. They both regard religious life as being governed not merely by prayer and minimal liturgy but also by a sacred law revealed by God that explains to us how we should live, both as individuals and as communities.

But apart from this sense, I'm not sure in what way the sacred law of Islam is unChristian. Then again, I'm not entirely sure which version of Christianity Ariel follows.

I don't want to waste too much of my time on Ariel's rant. It seems to me he isn't too fond of non-white and non-Christian migrants in general. But what intrigues me is the headline to his article.

Of course, it is quite likely that Ariel did not actually choose this headline. It may have been chosen by the sub-editors of the website.

Yet regardless of who picked the headline, the fact is that the term "Allah" is a title give to God by Arabic-speakers of all faiths. Arab Christians across the Middle East (indeed, across the world) use the word "Allah" when addressing God in prayer. In that respect, if the next Pope were to be Palestinian or Lebanese, One could safely say he would be the "Pope of Allah".

So the term "Allah" is not one limited to any particular faith. Indeed, many Muslims don't use the term "Allah". In Farsi and Urdu, other words and phrases are used e.g. "Khuda" and "Parvar Digaar".

© Irfan Yusuf 2008