CRIKEY: Should freedom of speech extend to God? A blasphemous debate

Federal Attorney-General George Brandis SC wants to amend section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act to make it harder for people to make a legal complaint about race hate speech. The provision was introduced in 1996 during the last days of Paul Keating and with the full support of then-opposition leader John Howard.

When in opposition and during a speech to the Sydney Institute on May 7, Brandis proclaimed: “Who defends freedom of speech in Australia today? Is it really to be left to a few conservative commentators like Andrew Bolt and Janet Albrechtsen; a couple of think tanks like the Sydney Institute and the Institute of Public Affairs; and the Liberal Party?”

But at an IQ2 debate in Sydney last night, St James Ethics Centre executive director Simon Longstaff reminded us of another area of free speech that needs protection: insulting and lampooning religion and religious figures is still a criminal offence in most Australian states and territories. Laws allowing prosecution for blasphemy still exist in 21st century Australia, though under the common law such laws only protect the sentiments of Christians.

True, like the laws used to prosecute Andrew Bolt, blasphemy laws are hardly ever used. You’d think that the mere possibility of blasphemy laws being enforceable would be something for Brandis to immediately address. But then that would take away the chance for Tony Abbott’s favourite priest to seek injunctions against art galleries.

Longstaff chaired a debate entitled “God and his prophets (or his prophets for the less devout) should be protected from insult”. Malaysian Opposition Leader and former deputy PM Anwar Ibrahim was supposed to speak in favour of the motion, but he had to pull out at the last minute after prosecutors decided to appeal the quashing of his conviction under Malaysia’s medieval sodomy laws.

Julian Burnside QC was a last-minute replacement for Anwar. Joining him on the affirmative team was Uthman Badar, a PhD student in economics from the University of Western Sydney and a man whose freedom of speech our erstwhile government wants to take away by banning Hizb ut-Tahrir (“the Party of Liberation”), the organisation Badar represents in Australia. On the negative side was engineer Yasmin Abdel Magied and the awesome Thomas Keneally.

Believe it or not, the affirmative were not arguing that blasphemy should be an offence. They weren’t interested in using the law. Their focus was on what should be socially acceptable. Badar argued the starting point of any discussion on this topic should not be free speech — which he claimed was not a universal value but rather an ideological fetish often used by Western pseudo-liberals to brandish those regarded as inferior. Instead, the starting point should be civility. Unless you are rude and depraved, you don’t go out of your way to insult others. All too often freedom of speech is not about freedom of expression but rather the freedom of the powerful to offend others and incite discord.

Badar argued that, in Australia, Jesus is fair game but not the Anzacs. When you insult someone by attacking things they hold dear, you aren’t just screwing social cohesion; you’re also making a fool of yourself by projecting your own insecurities. Rupert Murdoch must be paying Bolt top dollar to go through all that.

Badar’s argument appeared sound enough, but it missed the point. The topic was about protecting G/god and H/his P/prophets. Yasmin Abdel Maguid pounced on this weakness by asking how pathetic creatures like us could protect so mighty and perfect a creator. And she argued that how you respond to an insult is really up to you. Free speech and religion must never be seen as mutually exclusive. None of the prophets (including Muhammad) insisted on protection from insult.

Burnside cited one of his law lecturers: “Your freedom to swing your fist stops at my nose.” My humble criminal law lecturer at Macquarie Law School would have argued that punching someone in the nose was not just a matter of offence. Burnside also spoke about anonymous letters he received which offended him, even though they were directed at Muslims. The same letter writer would claim Muslim extremists supported the ALP.

In response, Keneally argued that one man’s criticism is another man’s insult. OK, I admit there was more to the arguments of both Burnside and Keneally than that. They both argued that Muslims and other minorities needed protection from collective insults. But I wondered whether they were both underestimating the ability of minorities to form alliances and take the fight to the bigots. Or maybe I’m being too optimistic.

Plus I have to wonder what is more offensive — a 12-minute amateurish YouTube clip, or Murdoch claiming Muslims have lower intelligence because they marry their cousins? And should I be offended? Or should I just laugh it off as the idiocy of one businessman and not reflective of the editorial line of his powerful newspapers?

Around 80% of the audience supported the negative argument. I’m not sure how God voted, but then I couldn’t see Him anywhere amongst the crowd.

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

OPINION: Rhetoric of religious right inflames zealots in East and West

There are certain similarities between recent political shootings in the US and Pakistan, IRFAN YUSUF writes

A bitter political debate is played out in the media and among politicians about the alleged danger posed by a tiny and extremely vulnerable minority. Populist and allegedly conservative politicians pass draconian legislation at the expense of this minority, thousands of whose members are then prosecuted. Rallies are held in support of the draconian laws and threats are made against those few politicians calling for law reform to protect the minority.

Then one of these politicians is shot in a broad daylight in a public area. Evidence shows the gunman is influenced by the inflammatory rhetoric of those conservative forces supporting the new law. The gunman believes the future of the nation is at stake and that the politician had to be killed.

I could be describing recent events on a main road in Islamabad in which a lone gunman murdered Governor Salmaan Taseer in Pakistan. Then again, I could just as easily be describing events at a shopping centre in Tucson, Arizona, in which another gunman shot and wounded Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. Also killed were a US district judge and at least four others.

Taseer’s assassin was his own bodyguard. Evidence suggests the man’s religious sentiments were offended by Taseer’s calls to amend, if not abolish, Pakistan’s blasphemy laws. Malik Mumtaz Qadri was said to be inspired by the fiery rhetoric of Pakistan’s religious groups, whose leaders had drawn thousands to rallies calling for the mandatory death penalty for blasphemy to remain. These leaders claimed that any watering-down of the law represented a direct threat to the Muslim heritage of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The fact that these laws were often used to harass Christian minorities was of little consequence.

Evidence suggests Jared Lee Lougner, the 22-year-old who shot the Democrat congresswoman in Arizona, was inspired by the fiery gun-toting rhetoric of Tea Party elements in the Republican Party. The New York Times has described this rhetoric as reinforcing

the dominant imagery of the moment — a portrayal of 21st-century Washington as being like 18th century Lexington and Concord, an occupied country on the verge of armed rebellion.

Some may believe that comparing the two incidents is like comparing apples and oranges. Allegedly conservative politicians and pundits in Australia and other Western countries may especially be offended by the comparison between anti-immigrant and strong border protection sentiments of the Tea Party movement and the extreme Islamist sentiments of Taseer’s killer.

It’s often said by allegedly conservative commentators that Islamists are in alliance with the left. They should travel to Pakistan and see if anyone takes their claims seriously.

Salman Taseer, the progressive (albeit super-wealthy) politician, belonged to a socialist (albeit of the champagne variety) party calling itself the Pakistan People’s Party. His assassin says he acted to defend traditional values. Not only religious party leaders but also conservative pundits and small business leaders are coming to his defence.

And what are conservative opposition politicians saying in condemnation of the assassin’s actions? Not much. And why should they? After all, they are the beneficiaries of this sentiment in the long run. Not only that, but mainstream conservative parties in Pakistan almost inevitably rule in coalition with religious parties such as the Jamiat Ulema-e-Pakistan, one of whose leaders stated on Pakistani national television that Salmaan Taseer’s death was God’s verdict and nobody who loves the prophet Muhammad could or should condemn the governor’s murder.

Some readers will object that our conservatives generally don’t go around assassinating people. True, but how many Pakistani conservatives are assassins? But in both east and west we see the religious right engaging in similarly hostile rhetoric and using the prejudices of ethnic and religious zealots for their own political ends. Meanwhile, mainstream conservatives are silent, refusing to directly condemn violence and so fanning the flames of the dogwhistlers and making minorities feel vulnerable.

In both the US and Pakistan, powerful, well-funded forces are using conservative, religiously inspired political rhetoric to hijack the agenda. This is not just left versus right. In Pakistan, the allegedly socialist Pakistan People’s Party has been just as willing to enter into coalitions with the religious right. Benazir Bhutto’s government happily joined with her coalition partners to ensure religiously inspired punishments for adultery were kept.

The violent incidents in Tucson and Islamabad may be seen as being consistent with a wider struggle within both countries. There are those happy to see religious and cultural diversity maintained. Then there are those wishing to impose a form of monocultural uniformity. In the Cold War era, the latter were seen as representative of communism. Today, alleged conservatives are behaving like communists.

There is one clear difference between the US and Pakistan. People on all sides of politics in the US have come together to condemn the actions of the gunman in Arizona and to express their sympathy for his victims. Even the county sheriff has lashed out at ...

... the vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day in and day out, from people in the radio business, and some people in the TV business’’ and says Arizona has ‘‘become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry.

In Pakistan, religious forces have effectively silenced any opposition to blasphemy laws. One group, the Sunni Tehreek, has gone so far as to say ...

We will provide legal and constitutional protection to Mumtaz Qadri.

Religious parties are threatening a more organised form of vigilantism than provided by the Governor’s bodyguard. Popular TV preacher and scholar Javed Ghamdi has been forced to move to Dubai after receiving death threats for speaking out against blasphemy laws.

Pakistan’s religious right has gone off the rails and is taking the rest of the country with it. America hasn’t quite gone down that path. At least, not yet.

Irfan Yusuf is a lawyer and author of Once Were Radicals. This piece was first published in the Canberra Times in Wednesday January 12 2011.


Bookmark this on Delicious

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

CRIKEY: Stuff the dirty dunnies, it’s the religious violence that could halt Delhi

Yes, many Indians are very embarrassed over the poor state of the dunnies at the athletes’ village in New Delhi. They’ve openly been writing about it, not ashamed to lash out at the government or even at themselves. One columnist wrote that the urban elite were deluding themselves:

Just when we were patting ourselves on the back for having become an economic dynamo and a growing ‘soft’ superpower represented by Bollywood and yoga, basmati rice and tikka masala ready to take over the world, the Commonwealth Games debacle has come as a slap across the national face.

And Western reporters faithfully reported this collective masochism while ignoring the story Indians were genuinely nervous about. Having dust on one’s dunny is something many Indians can live with. But would the Games be enough to stop some ordinary citizens transforming into religious warriors and slaughtering one another over a 16th century mosque demolished in 1992 to build a Hindu temple? How do you explain to Australian readers that the Cronulla riots were a Sunday picnic compared to the rioting and looting and murder that took place across India after the demolition?

Indians are now nervously praying riots aren’t repeated in response to the recent judgment in the Allahabad High Court in what has become known as the Babri Masjid case. The ancient mosque was built by Mughal Emperor Babar on the alleged birthplace of the Hindu god Rama at Ayodhya in northern India. The decision awards one third of the property to the Muslim religious trust and two thirds to two Hindu groups. Some argue the decision effectively reward the fanatics who tore the mosque down, and who subsequently went on a rampage of violence and looting.

That incident also transformed India’s political landscape. Mahatma Gandhi was murdered in 1948, shortly after independence, by Hindu fanatics who resented his efforts to maintain inter-communal peace and who wanted to implement a virtual theocracy inspired by a far-Right ideology called Hindutva. For years, the Hindutva mob were considered freaks by the political mainstream. The destruction of the Babri mosque and the alleged restoration of the birthplace of a god millions of Hindus revere enabled the Hindutva crowd to hijack the private devotion of followers of perhaps the world’s most tolerate religion.

Eventually the ragtag Hindutva groups aligned themselves with a political party called the BJP. The current BJP website has removed essays such as Semitic Monotheism: The Root of Intolerance in India. But how do these ideas translate on the ground?

Suketu Mehta, author of the 2004 book Maximum City: Bombay Lost and Found, describes meeting with Hindutva zealots who describe a typical scene from the 1992-93 riots as told to him by one “Sunil”:

“Those were not days for thought,” he continued. “We five people burnt one Mussulman. At four am after we heard of Radhabai Chawl, a mob assembled, the likes of which I have never seen. Ladies, gents. They picked up any weapon they could. Then we marched to the Muslim side. We met a pavwallah on the highway, on a bicycle. I knew him; he used to sell me bread every day.” Sunil held up a piece of bread from the pav bhaji he was eating. “I set him on fire. We poured petrol on him and set him on fire. All I thought was, ‘This is a Muslim’. He was shaking. He was crying, ‘I have children, I have children!’ I said, ‘When your Muslims were killing the Radhabai Chawl people, did you think of your children?’ That day we showed them what Hindu dharma is.”

The scene in Delhi was much the same. And it didn’t just happen in Delhi and Bombay immediately after 1992. It was repeated in the 2002 massacre in the state of Gujrat, where textbooks are being modified to glorify Hitler and downplay Gandhi.

And if you think Muslims have been the only victims, ask yourselves why our conservative Catholic commentariat ignored the story of the 2008 massacres of Catholics in Orissa?

This is the kind of stuff most Indians are scared of. The dust-sensitive backsides of foreign athletes don’t rate very highly when the prospect of communalist violence is very real.



First published in Crikey on 1 October 2010.

UPDATE I: An anonymous poet and former Christian Democratic Party official sent this lyrical response:

Imagine there's no nigg3rs
It's easy if you try
Blackheads in hell below us
Above it only whites
Imagine all white people
Living for today

Imagine no shit countries
filled with subhuman poo
Something to kill or die for
a subhuman zoo
Imagine all white people
Living life in peace

Words © 2010 Irfan Yusuf






Bookmark this on Delicious

COMMENT: Race and religion ...

A number of people have responded to my piece published in The Age today by claiming that I have confused race and religion. The confusion seems to largely arise out of the beginning paragraphs:

In the early '90s, I was in the final stages of my university studies and had too much time on my hands. I started teaching Muslim scripture to year 1 and 2 kids at a south-west Sydney school. On my first day, the principal took me around to various classes to pick out the Muslim children for my class. We entered a year 1 classroom. The principal asked: ''Hands up, kids, if you are Muslim.''

A small, blonde girl put her hand up. The principal looked at her and said, ''But Jasmina, you don't look Muslim!'' The poor little girl started to cry.

It turned out the little girl's parents were from Sarajevo. Given the high rate of inter-marriage in her homeland, it is quite possible only one parent was Muslim in a Bosnian sense.

But what does it mean to be Muslim in a Bosnian sense?

Indeed. What does it mean to be Muslim in Bosnia? Is it the same as being Muslim in Malaysia? Or Indonesia? Or Lebanon? And which of the Bosnian women below aren't Muslim?



Some responses to my article included this ...

Islam is a religion not a race. Being Muslim is a choice.

... and this ...

You do realise, Irfan Yusuf, that Muslim is not a race. Neither is Christian. Do your bloody homework.

... and this ...

"What does it mean to be Muslim in a Bosnian sense?"
I guess it means that you come from Bosnia and practice Islam.
Not such a profound question, really.

Actually it is a very profound question. In Bosnia, there are basically three "nationalities". You are Serb, or you are Croat or you are Muslim. If you are not Serb or Croat, you are generally classed as a Muslim. It has little or nothing to do with what religion, if any, you practise.

To make matters more complicated, Bosnia is a country with a high rate of inter-marriage. So if a Muslim woman marries a Serb man, what are the kids considered to be?

This proved to be a huge issue during the Bosnian war of the mid-90's.

Then there is Malaysia, where the constitution seems to mix up being Malay with being Muslim. Except that Indian Muslims often don't get the same privileges as Malay Muslims.

Ethnicity and religion is often mixed up. Religion often is treated as more of a racial characteristic. One doesn't always have a choice.

One does, however, have a choice to have a good laugh at Daily Telegraph opinion editor Tim Blair and the Tea Partying wingnut brigade who congregated around his Daily Telegraph bog (no, that was not a typo). Here is Tim's latest attempt at analysis. Interestingly there is no reference to my physique as is so often the case. Perhaps Tim is finally entering adulthood.

UPDATE I: Why does Rupert Murdoch keep the likes of Bolt & Blair on the payroll? Serial fruitloop Glenn Beck might have the answer ...



"How does Rupert Murdoch keep me on the air ..."

Words © 2010 Irfan Yusuf

Bookmark this on Delicious

SPORT: All-Indian Superstars

Irfan Yusuf watches his cricketing namesakes hit sectarian politics out of the park in Gujurat ...

Humility is one of my strengths. Indeed, I can confidently state that I’m the most humble person I know. To confirm this, over the weekend, I took the ultimate humility test. I sat down at my computer, from whence many an article for this magnificent website has emerged, and surfed my way to Google News. There, I typed the words "Irfan Yusuf" and clicked.

As my self-effacing nature expected, the first item was an article on WYD published under my name in the New Zealand Herald. But what followed was quite instructive: article upon article from newspapers, sports blogs, cricket blogs, TV websites and e-zines about two Indian cricketers. There’s no doubt that in the online Irfan Yusuf stakes, Irfan Pathan and Yusuf Pathan are hitting me for six!

Growing up with a name no one could pronounce wasn’t the nicest experience. Was it "Eefun"? Or "Urfun"? Or "Earphone"? And if that wasn’t bad enough, people constantly misspelt my surname. "No, it isn’t ‘Y’ ‘O’ ‘U’ double-’S’ etc". Get the drift? I doubt I’ll have any more problems with spelling or pronunciation on my next trip to India. Thanks to a pair of Gujarati cricketers, millions of Indians now know how to spell and pronounce my full name correctly.

The Pathan brothers are all-Indian superstars. They hail from the north-western Indian state of Gujarat, part of which borders Pakistan. Gujarat was also the hometown of the great lawyer Mohandas Gandhi, who spent some years in South Africa fighting apartheid and went on to become the spiritual leader of the Indian independence movement.

There is a spiritual side to the story of the Pathan brothers. Until recently, their father Mehboob Khan was the caretaker at the Jammi Masjid (congregational mosque) in Mandvi, a suburb of the Gujrati town of Varodara. He had inherited this role from his father and grandfather. The mosque is 400 years old, older than any mosque — or indeed any church — in Australia. With the exception of Indonesia, India has more Muslims than any other country on earth. Yet Indian Muslims make up only around 15 per cent of India’s population. Most are relatively poor.

After the 1947 Partition, people on the "wrong" side of the India-Pakistan border left everything behind to make it to the "right" side. The Pathan family were different. Sher Jaman Ibrahim Khan, the paternal grandfather of Irfan and Yusuf Pathan, migrated from the Manshera district of Pakistan to India a few months before Partition.

Although India is officially secular, it has seen a rise in pseudo-religious far-Right Hindu nationalist politics. It isn’t alone in this regard. Until the most recent elections, two Pakistani provinces were dominated by pseudo-religious Islamist parties.

I describe such politics as pseudo-religious because I believe that no religion teaches its followers to be intolerant toward the poor and the vulnerable. The situations of millions of Hindu, Sikh and Christian Pakistanis are made to feel even more precarious thanks to misdirected blasphemy laws promoted by Pakistani politicians who only use Islam as a divisive wedge. On the other side of the border, similar wedges — of the allegedly Hindu variety — are used by Indian politicians to make millions of Muslim and Christian Indians feel vulnerable.

The Pathan brothers may tour across the world scoring runs and taking wickets with millions back home cheering them on. However, their home town in Gujarat is frequently the scene of communal violence whipped up by extremists from the governing fundamentalist Bharatiya Janata Dal (BJP) party. Go to the BJP website and you’ll see that Gujarat and India’s proudest son, Mahatma Gandhi, barely rates a mention. You’ll also read essays blaming allegedly foreign "Semitic" faiths for India’s woes.

The BJP State Government of Gujarat led a massacre of religious minorities in 2002 that saw thousands of civilians murdered and hundreds of women raped by mobs armed with official records showing the residential and business addresses of Muslims and Christians. While the rest of India tossed out the BJP in the last national elections, Gujarat’s Chief Minister Narenda Modi remains the man who allegedly orchestrated much of the 2002 violence — or at the very least turned a blind eye to it.

This explosive environment even affects national heroes like Irfan and Yusuf Pathan. In May 2006, Indian journalists spent time in the Pathan family home. Don’t let the headline "Genius in the time of hatred and bloodshed" put you off reading the inspiring story of young Indian athletes who honed in their skills in an environment where their poverty-stricken families and communities were subjected to discrimination and even violence.

The religion that South Asians follow most fanatically - cricket - is, ironically enough, one which overrides sectarian exclusions. Pakistan’s national side has no shortage of Hindu and Christian players, and Muslim, Sikh and Christian players step up to the pitch for India. In both India and Pakistan, religious fundamentalism sits side by side with a blend of tolerance and pluralism that is often best displayed on sporting fields.

The good news is that the Pathan brothers were able to use cricket to rise above the sectarian bigotry. We often hear that sport - and religion - and politics shouldn’t mix. But sometimes spectator sport can become a powerful religious force in its own right allowing its practitioners and fans to overcome the obstacles set by sectarian politicians.

First published in NewMatilda on 17 July 2008.


Words © 2010 Irfan Yusuf

Bookmark this on Delicious

MEDIA: A short break from my break ...

I did say in my last post that I was taking a short break from writing and blogging. But now I think I'll take a short break from my break. Not much happens here in central Queensland (apart from work and the odd thunderstorm).

**********

African migrants seem to be getting the raw end of the police racism stick in Victoria. The Oz reports of the results of a study by a Community Legal Centre in Melbourne about complaints of racism by African migrants against Victorian police, many of which resulted in cover charges.

The same CLC has reported on police attacks on other new Australian communities such as Afghans.

Police behaviour reported to the legal centre includes assaults requiring hospitalization of victims, punitive beatings of handcuffed or otherwise restrained people, unlawful imprisonment, acts of torture and brutality within police stations, excessive use of force, unlawful searches, threats of sexual violence, unjustified use of capsicum spray, strip searches conducted after such threats are made, searches in unjustified and humiliating circumstances, racist and sexist comments, thefts of money and mobile phones, loss of vehicles, harassment, degrading and humiliating conduct and ill-treatment against racial and religious minorities. In some of the reports, children as young as 10 have been assaulted and mothers sprayed with capsicum spray.

This is disturbing stuff. Citizens should be treated as individuals in a liberall democracy, not lumped together and mistreated based on personal characteristics beyond their control. Allegations of police racism and brutality also undermine the rule of law which forms a bedrock of any civilised society.

**********

Miriam Cosic has written a terrific piece about the Athiest Convention recently held in Melbourne, the same city where the multi-million dollar Parliament of World Religions was recently held. Atheists of varying degrees of evangelical fervour were present, among them the Ayatollah of unbelievers Richard Dawkins. Here's a great few lines:

"I don't think we should go out of our way to insult Islam because it doesn't do any good to get your head cut off," he continued. "But we should always say that I may refrain from publishing a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed, but it's because I fear you. Don't for one moment think it's because I respect you."

Taslima Nasreen, Bangladesh's answer to Salman Rushdie, was also present along with 3 security guards (who were probably Muslim!). Among other things, she said:

"All religion, but particularly Islam, is for the interests and comfort of men," she said, "Why would women believe in any religion?"

She should pose that question to my mother. And be prepared for extra chilli in the biryani.

Nasreen also expressed these sentiments:

India, the country that likes to think of itself as the largest democracy in the world, she pointed out, placed the religious rights of its Muslim minority above her freedom of expression.

Perhaps a more nuanced approach to Nasreen's experiences in India can be found here. The fact that she jumped into bed with the Hindu far-Right that persecutes not just Muslims but also Catholics doesn't do wonders for her liberal credentials.

**********

Greg Sheridan, recipient of the Jerusalem Prize from a pro-Israel lobby group, thinks the Rudd government criticised Israel too much over the fake passports affair. He also thinks that building homes on other people's land isn't such a bad idea. No doubt he'll be donating both his passport and his backyard to the cause.

Words © 2010 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

CRIKEY: What would L Ron Hubbard do? Roll up for religion at $195 a pop ...

Ah, religion — such a wonderful force for good in an otherwise uncharitable world. So many great deeds of generosity and self-sacrifice are committed each day in the name of it. 

Over the weekend, I saw many such deeds on display at the Parliament of the World’s Religions, held at the Melbourne Convention Centre. My desired destination was the exhibition hall to purchase some incense or perhaps even a copy of my book on sale (at the Readings booth). 

But as I approached the gates of the heavenly pavilion, some rather unheavenly-looking angels stopped and insisted I could not enter without registering for the entire Parliament. 

I sidled up to the registration desk to inquire on how I could enter paradise and share in the joy, peace, love and crystals on offer. A helpful avatar seated behind the registration desk recited the following mantra:

For two sessions, it’s $100. For three sessions, it’s $150. Otherwise it’s $195 for the day.

Meanwhile, a member of the organising committee (let’s call him Dr God) approached me looking rather pleased to see me and even more pleased with himself. When I asked Dr God how much manna from Canberra the event had received, he quoted a figure of $4.5 million.

(A spokesman for the Parliament has confirmed to Crikey that these funds were sourced from the City of Melbourne, the Victorian government and the Commonwealth.)

A few minutes later, I saw a poor young earthling trying to register. He wasn’t as well-dressed as many of the international guests representing various faiths (and the way some dressed, various galaxies). Indeed, the peasant was probably dressed more like one of Jesus’ disciples or like one of the poor people Buddha first came across after he slipped out of his royal dad’s palace. 

This sincere seeker of truth pleaded with the staff member to allow him in. The man was unemployed and hence unable to afford the 30-plus pieces of silver required to enjoy the company of his teacher/guru/imam/whatever. I felt like taking out my chequebook and paying for his spot, but I’d left the wretched thing back at the guesthouse. 

I’m not sure what happened to the man. Perhaps he had gotten on a camel and entered the eye of a more affordable needle. 

Personally I wasn’t much bothered by the price. $195 a day is quite reasonable compared to the $500 I’m used to paying just to attend an all-day professional education seminar. But this Parliament of the Gods was no professional development for lawyers. 

And so it seems the money changers have turned the tables on the Messiah and taken over the temple. A poor man cannot be allowed to sit through one session and an overweight solicitor cannot even buy a copy of his own book without sacrificing much to enter so sacred an event. But it doesn’t end there. Most speakers had to pay just to appear. One volunteer who did not wish to be named told Crikey that even volunteers were charged $140 a day. 

What would Jesus have said of this? Then again, what would Buddha have said? Or Muhammad? Or Krishna? Or Guru Nanak? Or L Ron Hubbard? Words © 2009 Irfan Yusuf

 

POLITICS: The Dyga dialogues ...

The Sydney Morning Herald has reported on the exploits of the religious right of the NSW Liberal Party who appear to have declared an Opus Dei jihad on Phillip Ruddock and a number of other Federal MP's.

Among those named in the jihad is former Communications Director of the NSW Young Liberals and current staffer for Epping State MP Greg Smith, a certain Edwin Dyga. It's a name I'm familiar with, and I thought it might be appropriate to reproduce here some interesting observations Dyga has made over the years on a conservative e-mail list called OzLibs which I've moderated since 2001.

No doubt some will argue that I've been selective in my quotes. To them, my response is that reproduction of the full discussion only makes Mr Dyga look even more rabidly anti-secular and fanatical.

Read and enjoy.

The Crusaders were civilised compared to the more vocal members of The Religion of Peace in Sydney's suburbia circa 2006.
Monday April 17 2006

… a ghetto community's insular mentality, much like the inane "I'm an Australian too" mantra serves no purpose other than to (a) cover up that same communities stronger identification with a violent religious creed, and (b) confuse the befuddled mainstream into thinking that it's true.
Tuesday April 11 2006

… the Holy Crusaders (Peace Be Upon Them) were retaliating against your mob's raping, sacking, murdering and raping again, of Christian lands, from Spain, the French southern coast, and even Rome … You should be thankful the Holy Crusaders (Peace Be Upon Them) didn't continue down south and have fun with your metropolitan al wakf, Mecca.
Thursday 9 May 2006

John Howard, brilliant visionary. Thank God we have such a man at the helm. He will certainly go down in history as the most competent leader this country has had since Federation; he even surpasses Menzies.
21 Feb 2006

The only religious system that has been in the core of Australia's development as a nation has been Christianity. Since settlement, Australia has become secular - far too secular for my liking, but that's just my opinion.
12 Nov 2005

These are the sentiments of a senior staffer for the Shadow Attorney-General of NSW. Now doubt Greg Smith's many Muslim constituents will be impressed to learn that their local member's staffer would celebrate the destruction of their sacred sites. No doubt Smith's Jewish constituents would be impressed by the glorification of Crusaders who massacred the Jews of Jerusalem as they sought shelter in Jerusalem's synagogues. No doubt Smith's Greek Orthodox constituents would be impressed by the glorification of the Crusaders who sacked Constantineople and massacred Orthodox Christians on their way to and in Jerusalem.



I sure hope Mr Dyga has changed his views. Because if he hasn't, and if he starts saying this kind of stuff in public, Nathan Rees will feel all his prayers have been answered.

UPDATE I: Dyga's submission to the Senate Education Employment & Workplace Relations Committee Inquiry on Academic Freedom makes interesting reading.

OPINION: Repressive rule losing lustre in Iran?

It's not often the leader of the free world publicly acknowledges his country sabotaged the democracy of another country.

Yet this is exactly what United States President Barack Obama did during his speech in Cairo, billed as an address to the Arab and wider Muslim world.

And which country deserved this honourable mention? Why none other than Iran, referred to by Obama's predecessor George W. Bush as one of three nations making up the "Axis of Evil".

For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is indeed a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against US troops and civilians.

It's little wonder the self-styled Islamic Republic of Iran has defined itself by opposition to the United States.

As Obama states, the US played a key role in the royalist coup that overthrew Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq in August 1953.

US and British agents installed Iran's Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. The West resumed its near unfettered access to Iran's oil.

The Shah was at first an enlightened monarch who focused on education and economic development. However, he succumbed to more dictatorial instincts, his ruthless secret police unleashing a brutal crackdown on any opposition, whether from leftist parties or from religious scholars led by the late Ayatollah Khomeini.

Not even the full backing of the United States could keep the Shah in power and he fled Iran in January 1979. Since the establishment of the Islamic Republic, Iran and the US have fought each other using proxies.

America's main agent was former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, who began a decade-long war against Iran in September 1980.

I was a teenager in Sydney at the time. The internet was not widely available, and our access to news was limited to whatever we were fed by local media.

We were told it was Iran that had invaded Iraq, and Saddam Hussein was a moderate democrat fighting the good fight against Iranian theocratic extremism.

There were other myths. Iran was just one Islamic hotspot in the world. The other was Afghanistan, where theocratic-minded tribal warlords were battling the military might of the Soviet Union.

America and the West were opposing Islamic theocracy in Iran and yet were supporting it in Afghanistan.

In mosques and Islamic centres across the Western world, including New Zealand and Australia, young Muslims were taught that the Iranian-style Islam was evil and anti-Western.

Meanwhile the Islam of Saudi Arabia and the Afghan mujahideen was presented as good and pro-Western. Iran's main proxies have been various Islamist political movements and militias that have struck US interests both directly and indirectly in various parts of the Middle East.

These include Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in the Palestinian territories and more recently the dominant faction in the democratically elected Government of Iraq.

The great irony of the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime was the power vacuum was soon filled by America's sworn enemy.

American troops maintain security in a country effectively administered by Iranian proxies.

This year marks the 30th anniversary of Iran's Islamic revolution. Iran has become a regional superpower, one of the few Middle Eastern nations with some kind of functioning democracy.

Yet the battle for Iran's future wasn't won by the religious elite in 1979. This week, reformists will battle the eccentric conservative President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad.

The reformists want to see a return to the liberal days of former President Mohammad Khatami.

Most Iranians are under 30. They are an educated generation that knows only a repressive revolution whose Basij or morality police regulate their lives.

Iranian Muslim youth aren't the only ones disillusioned with theocratic politics. Many young Muslims in the West like myself, once attracted to political Islam, have now become disillusioned in it.

At the same time, we feel disenchanted with Western attempts to manipulate it, then demonise it when it suits. When politicians attempt to co-opt religion, both religion and politics lose in the end.

* Irfan Yusuf's book, Once Were Radicals: My Years As A Teenage Islamo-Fascist, was published last month by Allen & Unwin. This article was first published in the New Zealand Herald on 11 June 2009.

Words © 2009 Irfan Yusuf

PAKISTAN: More on the culture of religious pluralism in areas now held by the Taliban ...

There is a popularly-held notion in some Australian media sectors that the people in areas now ruled by the Taliban are somehow less cultured and more intolerant than people in other parts of the country. It's as if anyone who comes from the same ethnic background as the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban leadership - anyone from a Pushtu-speaking tribe - must share the Taliban's intolerance.

Yoginder Sikand is an Indian writer and commentator who has written extensively on South Asian Islam. He notes that North Indians, including those from Punjab and the from the Pushtun regions, share much of their religious heritage with non-Muslims. Sikand provides numerous instances of this shared heritage during his travels across Pakistan.

'Numerous Punjabi Sufi saints, whose works are still immensely popular, are known for their breath of vision, seeing God's light in every particle of the universe, in the mosque as well as the temple', says Saeeda Diep, my host in Lahore. She takes me to the shrine of Madho Lal Husain in downtown Lahore, a unique Sufi dargah that houses the graves of two male lovers, Madho, a Hindu, and Husain, a Muslim, who were so close that they are today remembered by a single name. She waxes eloquent about the unconventional love relationship between the two that angered the pundits and mullahs but won the hearts of the masses.

This is the folk religious culture of Pakistan, which borrows from various Indian faiths including Islam, Hinduism and Sikhism. The special role Sikhism plays to this day among Punjabi Muslims is well known, as Sikand discovers when he meets of Sufi Muslim.

In Lahore I also meet Pir Syed Chan Shah Qadri, the custodian of the shrine of the sixteenth century Sufi Hazrat Miyan Mir. The saint was the spiritual preceptor of Dara Shikoh, son of the Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan, a renowned mystic in his own right. Dara was the first to translate the Upanishads [ed: Hindu scriptures] into Persian and sought to draw parallels between Hindu and Islamic mysticism and thereby bring Hindus and Muslims closer together. Hazrat Miyan Mir was no less of an ecumenist, the Pir tells me. In recognition of his spiritual stature, he was invited by Guru Arjan Dev, the fifth Sikh guru, to lay the foundation stone of the Harminder Sahib or Golden Temple in Amritsar, the most holy shrine of the Sikhs. The Pir informs me that many Punjabi Muslims still look upon Guru Nanak, the first Sikh guru, as a great mystic in the Sufi tradition.

Pushtun (also known as Pathan) Muslims also have a special relationship with Sikhs which has strong historical roots in the Sikh faith and extends to times when Sikhs were persecuted by Indian Muslim kings.

In Syed Chan Shah's home I am introduced to Zahoor Ahmad Khan, seventh generation descendant of two Pathan brothers Ghani Khan and Nabi Khan. When Gobind Singh, the last guru of the Sikhs, was pursued by Aurangzeb's forces, he was sheltered by the brothers. They disguised him as a Muslim saint, the Pir of Ucch Sharif, and, carrying him in a palanquin, they slipped through the Mughal lines. In gratitude, Khan tells me, the Guru presented them with a letter written in his own hand, announcing that, as Khan says, 'Whoever among my followers loves and protects these two brothers loves me, too'. In recognition of the service rendered to the Guru by the brothers, Ranjit Singh, the founder of the Sikh kingdom in Punjab, granted their descendants a large estate in Mandara, a village in present-day Indian Punjab. The family resided in the estate till 1947, when, during the Partition riots, they fled to Pakistan. 'When the whole of Punjab was burning, when Hindus and Sikhs in western Punjab and Muslims in eastern Punjab were being massacred and driven out of their homes, the Sikhs of Mandara pleaded with my father and other relatives not to leave. But we had to, so terrible was the situation then', says Zahoor Khan, who was a young lad of fifteen when he came to Pakistan. Last year he went back to his village for the first time since he and his family had left it, at the invitation of a Sikh organization that seeks to revive and preserve the memory of the two Pathan friends of Guru Gobind Singh. 'I was given an enthusiastic welcome when I arrived in Mandara. The whole village came out to greet me', says Khan, his eyes brimming with tears.

In fact, many Muslims revere the Sikh gurus, amongst them the founder of Sikhism Guru Nanak.

Also present during our conversation is Naim Tahir, a middle-aged, soft-spoken man, who introduces himself as a descendant of Bhai Mardana, Guru Nanak's closest companion, a Muslim of the Mirasi caste. Tahir tells me about the relationship between his ancestor and Guru Nanak. Both Guru Nanak and Bhai Mardana were born in the village of Talwandi, and grew up together as friends. 'Bhai Mardana had a melodious voice and used to play the rabab', and 'when Guru Nanak began his spiritual mission of bringing Hindus and Muslims together in common worship of the one God and denouncing caste and social inequalities, Bhai Mardana joined him. Together they traveled together to various Hindu and Muslim holy places, including even Mecca and Medina. Guru Nanak would compose his mystical verses or shabad and Bhai Mardana would sing them while playing the rabab'.

Tahir tells me that his family tradition of singing the verses of Guru Nanak and other Sikh gurus has been carried down through the generations. 'Yes, we are Muslims,' he says, 'but there is nothing in the teachings of Guru Nanak that is incompatible with Islam. In fact there are many verses in the Guru Granth Sahib written by Muslim Sufis, including the well-known Chishti saint Baba Farid'. Tahir confesses to know little else about Bhai Mardana, other than the fact that after Guru Nanak died he traveled to Afghanistan and is buried somewhere there. 'You should speak to my father Ashiq Ali Bhai Lal about this', he advises. 'He has even sung shabads in the Golden Temple and is regularly invited to sing in gurudwaras and gurumandirs, Sindhi Hindu shrines dedicated to the Sikh gurus, in different places in Pakistan'.

This is the reality of religious coexistence on the ground in Pakistan and has been the case in this region of the sub-Continent for centuries. The Taliban represent an historical and theological aberration.

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

EVENT: Freebie!!!!!

Many years ago, the legendary Chrissie Amphlet sang about touching herself. It wasn't exactly the most religious song on the planet.

And Once Were Radicals isn't exactly the most religious book on the planet. Still, I won't be touching myself at the upcoming Sydney Writers Festival. If this photo is anything to go by ...



... I prefer punching myself.

Anyway, click here for some details about a lunchtime freebie. Or if you're too friggin lazy, here ae the details, along with some editorial adjustments.

Irfan Yusuf in Conversation
Event 238

What do you get when you mix Indian ancestry, Pakistani birth, Urdu language and culture, Muslim religion and a fair dinkum strayn accent? [Ed: certainly not Andrew Bolt!!] How does a middle-class kid from John Howard’s electorate became convinced he should die for the Muslim cause? [Ed: probably by reading Piers Akerman columns which are enough to make anyone slightly suicidal.] Who knew being a teenage Islamo-fascist could be so funny?

Irfan Yusuf shares his hilarious journey into and then out of political Islam.

When
Saturday, May 23 2009
13:00 - 14:00

Where
Sydney Philharmonia Choir Studio
Pier 4/5, Hickson Road
Walsh Bay

Cost
FREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So shuddup and turn up!!

PS: Enjoy ...

HATEWATCH: Yet even more great moments from Tim Blair's News Ltd blog ...

The Abu Hamza pseudo-controversy has provided the nazified imbeciles congregating around the News Limited blob ... woops ... blog of Tim Blair with further inspiration for laughably inane comment. Here are some excerpts. Try not to laugh too hard.

Barak Obama eating a hamburger (not a Sea Kitten, note) prepared by the wife of a Muslim cleric - in an unforgivable affront to the Jewish and Christian faiths! No! Just the Jewish one. Wait! Which one doesn’t eat ham again? Oh yeah, the Muslims.
bill of sydney
Fri 23 Jan 09 (05:28am)

What the ...? And for all you interfaith buffs, shove this up your halal/kosher ham sandwich!

dowp replied to bill
Fri 23 Jan 09 (06:59pm)

Er BIll. Jews don’t eat ham, bacon, pork or other pig-based ingredients. Not if they’re religious anyway.

Just ONE of the religious obligations MoHAMmed stole from the Jews to try to convert them to Islam.

Don’t you know anything?

But this isn't just about religion. It's also about colour. People with white skin clearly have more conscience ...

Speaking of contex, in the video of the audience there are many ‘non-Anglo’ faces. They all look expressionless as they listen to the hateful Imam - apparently drinking in the message obediently.
But there is one ‘Anglo’ and he has a smirk [of embarrassment?] on his face. He seems to be half looking to see how he should react to the teaching to beat his wife.
Which of these reactions shows assimilation to the Australian culture?
Barrie (Reply)
Fri 23 Jan 09 (08:33am)

Moving onto page 2, some people are wondering why conservatives aren't stupid enough to buy into this tabloid tripe ...

Where are our cultural commentators, Greer of the Long Face and John Pilchard, on this; and, more importantly, where is Malcolm Turnbull, every conservative think tank spokesman and people elected by half of Australian voters to speak stridently against those things that are inimical to our way of life?
Mick Gold Coast QLD of Gold Coast QLD (Reply)
Fri 23 Jan 09 (09:07am)

Even after someone pointed out that even Muslims have actively condemned any hint of condoning domestic violence, the usual cultural nuance and sophistication returns ...

John E replied to ann j
Fri 23 Jan 09 (01:33pm)

The mere fact that the video is 4-5 years old, and yet they still broadcasted it - knowing full well the filth that was contained on it, and the likely reaction by the public - means that the Muslims who produced it deserve every bit of the condemnation that rightly flows their way.

I’d like to think - and certainly hope - that this line of thinking is, in fact, limited to a bunch of fringe crazies within the Muslim religion, but there appears to be very little objective evidence that that is the case.

Meanwhile, it's time to bring in extraneous leftwing ideas like human rights ...

So according to this Muslim cleric it’s OK for Muslim men to beat their wives so long as they don’t draw blood or create bruises.

Then how come other Muslims complain that terrorist suspects were tortured at Guantanamo Bay ? Surely it’s not torture ? Surely it’s just a bit of harmless wife-beating ?

Men can hit there innocent wives but the US can’t interrogate terrorist suspects ?
Bruce Smith (Reply)
Fri 23 Jan 09 (01:37pm)

I look forward to comments from "Augustus", "tim blair" and the anonymous chap from Normanhurst to this post. Enjoy!

Words © 2009 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious