CRIKEY: Give us a break, the fake sheik’s not worth the effort ...

You’ve heard of tabloid media going after thick sheiks. Now some are even using fake sheiks.

At about 2pm yesterday my office received a message to call someone from Radio 2GB, home to such leading lights of quality journalism as Alan Jones. I called back and spoke to a female who worked with Jason Morrison. She wondered if I knew much about a certain Sheik Haron who had apparently been charged by Federal Police after sending abusive letters to the families of Australian soldiers killed in action in Afghanistan. She wanted to know if I’d be prepared to speak to Morrison on his afternoon Drive Show. I agreed.

Silly me. Morrison seemed less interested in Haron and more interested in why a group of people he described as “Moozlems” didn’t step forward to condemn the man. He wanted to know why he was having so much difficulty getting “Moozlems” to condemn this man on his program (I did remind him that many don’t listen to 2GB). Still he pressed the point about the alleged Muslim conspiracy of silence over Haron.

I said Haron hadn’t been given a huge amount of airplay or coverage (and I wasn’t just talking about the allegedly left-wing trendy “multi-culty”, the Fairfax press and ABC either). Maybe your average Aussie who ticked the Muslim box on his or her census form didn’t see the need to comment on some sheik who, by all accounts (including those of Richard Kerbaj in The Australian in January last year), was little more than a fake.

Here's an excerpt from Kerbaj's report ...

FEDERAL agents have been urged by the nation's senior Shia leader, Kamal Mousselmani, to investigate an Iranian man purporting to be a prominent Islamic
cleric.

Sheik Mousselmani told The Australian yesterday the mystery cleric - who has been identified as Ayatollah Manteghi Boroujerdi on his website after appearing under the name Sheik Haron - was not a genuine Shia spiritual leader.

He said there were no ayatollahs - supreme Shia scholars - in Australia and none of his fellow spiritual leaders knew who Ayatollah Boroujerdi or Sheik Haron was.

"We don't know him and we have got nothing to do with him," Sheik Mousselmani said. "The federal police should investigate who he is. It should be their responsibility."

Sheik Haron, who insulted the family of an Australian soldier killed in Afghanistan in November, was accused by Muslim leaders of being a fake cleric deliberately stirring anti-Islamic sentiment.

Sheik Mousselmani, head of the Supreme Islamic Shia Council of Australia, which represents the nation's 30,000 Shi'ites, said Sheik Haron's website - Sheik Haron Web - gave him away as an amateur who knew little about Shia Islam.

"From the way he writes his (fatwas or religious edicts), I don't think he is Shia Muslim," Sheik Mousselmani said. "And there are no ayatollahs in Australia.

"We don't follow, we don't support and we don't stand with anyone we don't know. He's not one of us" ...

The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils president Ikebal Patel said yesterday the body's investigation into the cleric last month could not find any information on who Sheik Haron is.

"I know the community very well, and this just doesn't make sense," he said. "We couldn't find anything on the man."

Even Jeremy Jones, of the Australia-Israel Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC), was quoted in one Jewish blog as saying that Haron “works alone and has no support”.

And yet somehow fake-sheik Haron was an issue that one journalist described to Kevin Rudd at a press conference yesterday as “the question that’s dominating talkback radio today”. Rudd ended his response to the journalist’s question with: “You know, when you pick up the front page of the Tele today, I think people, I think their stomachs turn.”

The journalist asked Rudd whether he would consider changing Australia’s citizenship laws to allow “someone like that” (like what? Fake-sheik? Iranian? Crazy dude in a turban? Migrant?) to have their citizenship stripped of them and be deported. Rudd was non-committal.

It’s one thing for media outlets to use the rants of a thick sheik to cook up a divisive broth of dog whistles. But why use the imbecilic correspondence of a fake sheik to cast aspersions on 360,000 people, most of whom (including their religious leaders) have never heard of?

After my interview with Morrison, I telephoned his researcher and asked whether the show had any trouble finding a Muslim to talk on the show. She confirmed that she hadn’t called an Islamic council, an imam, a board of imams or the Community Relations Commission. She did say that Morrison may have tried calling other people about the matter.

He may have. But I somehow doubt it.

An edited version of this article was first published in Crikey on 23 October 2009.

Words © 2009 Irfan Yusuf



Bookmark this on Delicious

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/MEDIA: The Times of London recycles Kerbaj?

Richard Kerbaj, formerly of The Australian and author of numerous articles displaying his Lebanese-and-Arabic-speaking skills, has now moved to London to take up a post at The Times. Both The Australian and The Times are owned by Rupert "Muslims-marry-their-cousins" Murdoch.

You can check out Kerbaj's skills at reporting on radical thick-Sheiks by clicking here. Also interesting is correspondence sent by ABC's Media Watch here. You can also read Imam Sheik Ayatollah Hujjat al-Islam Khoury Sayyid Michael Stutchbury's response clarifying Kerbaj's Arabic-language skills here.

[UK readers will be amused by Kerbaj's colleagues at the Melbourne Herald-Sun confusing Abu Hamza with Abu Hamza.]

Kerbaj's latest piece in The Times actually isn't so bad. He discusses plans to purge "Muslim spiritual leaders" who turn a blind eye to violence against women. In theory, it might well be a good idea. Lay persons shouldn't get away with turning a blind eye to violence against women. Why should religious leaders?

[Though given Kerbaj's past performance with labelling, one wonders whether in this particular article, by the term "spiritual leader", he means an imam. Or does he mean a pir? Or a murshid? Or how about a hoca? Or a maulana? Or even a molvi? Or how about a sidi? And why has he stopped using the term "Muslim cleric" as he often did in Australia?]

I'm not sure if Kerbaj will focuss much of his time at The Times focussing on UK Muslim issues. But just how qualified is he for this task? Does Kerbaj have any clue who leads the liturgy and educational needs of Britain's various Muslim sects and cultural groups? Can Kerbaj identify one maslaq from another? Does he understand the differences between various shades of Deobandi, Barelwi and Ahl-i-Hadith? Does Kerbaj speak Urdu or Bangla?

These questions are pertinent. After all, in Australia so much of Kerbaj's information came from various Lebanese groups whose political nuances he had little understanding of, despite his own Lebanese heritage.

Much of Kerbaj's information on Aussie Muslim management issues came from followers of Abdullah Hareri and the al-Ahbash sect. One wonders whether in London, Kerbaj's sources come from the equal and opposite of al-Ahbash i.e. the followers of Nazim al-Qubrussi (attacked on an al-Ahbash website here) and and his student Hisham Kabbani?

One of Kerbaj's main sources in his recent story is Irfan al-Alawi from the UK branch of the Centre for Islamic Pluralism. Al-Alawi claims to be a follower of a Yemeni Sufi master who has close associations with Imam Hamza Yusuf Hanson of the Zaytuna Institute.

[The Executive Director of that Centre's head office in the United States, Mr Stephen Suleyman Schwartz, whose profile you can read on that wonderful blog Jewcy where you'll also find a fascinating post on why he sees Islam as "Judaism for the Whole World". Amir Butler claims here that Schwartz is a follower of Hisham Kabbani, though Schwartz doesn't mention Kabbani at all in this interview with National Review Online. Schwartz claims to be a proponent of traditional Islam and Sufism, though his repeated personal attacks on Imam Hamza Yusuf Hanson (a prominent proponent of traditional Islam) borders on obsessive.]

Australian readers will be familiar with Kerbaj's usual mantra that Wahhabi Islam is virtually a unitary phenomenon espoused by Usama bin Ladin. He repeats this mantra for the consumption of UK readers in his latest piece ...

During its investigation the organisation - the British arm of a longestablished US think-tank - received a number of complaints about imams who had turned a blind eye to cases of domestic violence, many of whom are followers of Wahabbism, a puritanical interpretation of the Koran espoused by Osama bin Laden.

Some readers may wonder why a White Ribbon Day Ambassador like me should object to a report the publication of which is clearly in the public interest. Surely religious leaders of any congregation turning a blind eye to domestic violence must be exposed and shamed. Why should Muslims be any exception?

Muslim spiritual leaders could be denounced publicly by their own community as part of a campaign to expose imams whose silence on domestic abuse is leading to women being burnt, lashed and raped in the name of Islam.

Muslim scholars are to present the Government with the names of imams who are alleged by members of their own communities to have refused to help abused women. Imams are also accused of refusing to speak out against domestic abuse in their sermons because they fear losing their clerical salaries and being sacked for broaching a “taboo” subject.

Some of Britain's most prominent moderate imams and female Muslim leaders have backed the campaign, urging the Home Office to vet more carefully Islamic spiritual leaders coming to Britain to weed out hardliners. A four-month inquiry by the Centre for Islamic Pluralism into domestic abuse has uncovered harrowing tales of women being raped, burnt by cigarettes and lashed with belts by their husbands, who believe it is their religious right to mistreat them.

At least 40 female Muslim victims and many social workers from northern England - including Bradford, Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham - were interviewed as part of the inquiry, which is expected to be published next month.

And why should someone like yours truly, who has a history of criticising a young Sydney imam and a former Australian Mufti for their ignorant and dangerous comments on sexual assault victims, have a problem with Kerbaj doing the same?

The problem is that Kerbaj might be accused of using domestic violence as an excuse to play a game of journalistic sectarian wedge-politics. The last thing we should be doing is believing that the only imams who justify or turn a blind eye to domestic violence are Wahhabis and the Tabligh Jamaat, whom Kerbaj claims is ... wait for it ...

... accused of radicalising young British Muslims with its orthodox teachings.

[One wonders how some of Kerbaj's sources, who claim to be more true to Islamic orthodoxy than the TJ, would respond to Kerbaj's claim that orthodox Islam radicalises young British Muslims.]

But my real objection to Kerbaj's article (at least based on my own reading of it) is the same as my objection to any attempt to focus on one group of domestic violence perpetrators whilst ignoring another group. Or my objections to scribes, pundits and politicians behaving like defenders of sexual violence victims when it suits their prejudices.

Here's an excerpt of what I wrote about this topic in the Australian Jesuit publication Eureka Street ...

This isn't just another case of inconsistency inspired by sectarian prejudice, of what's good for the Muslim goose being not good for the non-Muslim gander. The clear message is that misogynistic or insensitive remarks about sexual assault victims are only worthy of universal condemnation if those making the remarks belong to the 'wrong' religious, ethnic and/or cultural background ...

When sexual assault becomes a cultural or sectarian wedge, it demeans and insults the suffering of all victims and their families. It also opens to question our society's commitment to unconditionally ending violence against women.

On the other hand, Kerbaj might argue that he wasn't expressing any opinion. He was merely reporting the facts. However, consider these points ...

a. Is the CIP the first and/or only UK Muslim group to tackle community attitudes toward domestic violence?

b. What standing does CIP have in mainstream British Muslim circles? I'm not just talking about religious circles but also cultural (e.g. South Asian) and language (e.g. Hindi/Urdu, Punjabi and Bangla) circles.

There are other factors to consider. Perhaps Kerbaj would have factored all these points in if he'd been provided with a more generous word length. And as I've already said above, Kerbaj's article isn't as bad as his past work, some of which does little more than perpetuate a Team America take on Muslims. When it comes to identifying Islamic sectarian nuances, at times Kerbaj has tripped over even the most basic kindergarten stuff.

UK readers of this blog should keep a close eye on Kerbaj's work. At the same time, we should all remember that it often isn't easy for journalists to report on such issues.

(Thanks to PK and BC for the tip-off.)

UPDATE I: Another article (in fact a case study of one victim ignored by her local imams) by Richard Kerbaj is well worth reading. This is really disturbing stuff. We can bag reporters like Kerbaj all we like. But who is going to protect women like 'Aliya'?

UPDATE II: I've written about Kerbaj at some length in various Crikey pieces, some of which can be found here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

Words © 2008 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

CRIKEY: Kevin Andrews' immigration crusade

Since the end of the White Australia Policy, there has been bipartisan support for a non-discriminatory immigration policy. But with the Howard government so intent on sucking up to sectarian groups, it was only a matter of time before someone discovered evidence of it trying to co-opt Fred Nile’s agenda before the last election in much the same way as it did Pauline Hanson’s before the 2001 poll.

Richard Kerbaj reported in The Weekend Australian of a proposal by former Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews to increase Christian migration from the Middle East.

FORMER immigration minister Kevin Andrews instructed his department to lift the intake of Christian refugees from the Middle East in response to what he saw as a pro-Muslim bias created by corrupt local case officers.

Mr Andrews was so concerned about the extent of corruption in Middle Eastern posts - despite the allegations being investigated and dismissed by his own department - that he wrote to then prime minister John Howard advocating a $200 million plan to replace local employees with Australian staff in 10 "sensitive" countries, including Jordan, Iran and Egypt ...

A Department of Immigration spokesman said there were no substantiated cases of anti-Christian discrimination in Australian embassies and no plans to replace "Islamic locally engaged staff" with Australian officials.

An investigation by The Weekend Australian has discovered Mr Andrews was petitioned by the Australian Christian Lobby to address alleged religious discrimination against Iraqis. Before losing office in the November 2007 election, he ordered the number of Christian Iraqi refugees to be increased by 1400 for 2007-08, almost doubling the previous year's Iraqi total of 1639.

"Put it this way, it was made very clear to the immigration department that more Christian refugees were wanted," a Howard government source said ...

In his letter to Mr Howard in August last year, Mr Andrews, a devout Catholic, proposed significant changes to the refugee selection process.

In the letter, seen by The Weekend Australian, Mr Andrews accused the case workers in Australian embassies of fraud and bribery when processing migration applications.Such posts are predominantly staffed by local workers.

He said this raised "considerable security risks".

"The other significant reason for changing the staffing composition of overseas posts is to prevent discrimination at the 'front office' of the posts," Mr Andrews wrote.

"Since becoming Minister, I have received a large number of representations from people alleging systematic and co-ordinated discrimination against particular persons based on race and religion at certain sensitive posts. In particular, this allegedly involves the active blocking and impediment of the lodgement of applications at the front office.

"At worst, potential applicants are simply being told not to lodge an application. The majority of such claims have been made in respect to posts in the Middle East and Central Asia. For these reasons, I think it would be timely to revise the staffing arrangements for immigration posts that can be classified as 'sensitive' and to staff these posts exclusively with Australian departmental
officers."

Mr Andrews names 10 countries - Pakistan, India, United Arab Emirates, China, Iran, Lebanon, Jordan, Kenya, Russia and Egypt - in which the posts should be staffed exclusively with Australian departmental officers ...

There is no provision within Australian immigration laws to select refugees on the basis of religion. A former Howard government source said Mr Andrews wanted to save Christian Iraqis from persecution by Shia and Sunni Muslims throughout the Middle East.

"With the intake from the Middle East the department was told that we want to focus on Iraqi Christians," the source said. "The department basically said they couldn't do that because that would be discriminating on race and religion."

The official explanation given last August by Mr Andrews for boosting Iraqi refugees numbers was that the altered intake was in response to an international conference run by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees four months earlier seeking to help Iraqis forced out of their country.

The Howard government was at the forefront of extending humanitarian support for African (mostly Christian) refugees. But in response to the senseless murder of 18-year-old Sudanese man Liep Gony, Kevin Andrews declared Africans were just not integrating and committing too much crime.

But if The Oz report is correct, Muslims working in the immigration sections of some Australian embassies are behaving corruptly, giving Muslim applicants special treatment. Andrews was lobbied by the Australian Christian Lobby about discrimination against Christians in Iraq. The Oz doesn’t mention whether the ACL representatives' claims alleging nasty pro-Muslim conspirators were responsible for reducing the number of refugee places awarded to Iraqi Christians.

DIAC-heads had already investigated and dismissed these allegations, but Andrews still wrote to Howard suggesting $200 million of taxpayers’ funds be used to send Aussies to our overseas posts to make sure discrimination against Christian applicants is replaced by discrimination against Muslim ones. Or something like that.

There’s no doubt Iraqi Christians face a perilous situation in Iraq. Many are considered too close to Saddam’s aggressively secular regime. Chaldean Christians are particularly vulnerable given Saddam’s number 2, Tariq Aziz, was Chaldean Catholic. It hasn’t helped that Baghdad’s Chaldean Christian Patriarch called for Aziz’s release from prison last Christmas. The Patriarch's remarks were clearly designed not to inflame sectarian agendas but rather as a humanitarian gesture, though many of Saddam's victims will not see it that way.

Saddam was the master of sectarian wedge politics, playing one congregation off against another. His murderous legacy continues even after his death, with angry Sunni Arab community members attacking Shias and Kurds while angry Shias and Kurds attack Arab Sunnis and Chaldean Christians. Entire groups are being held responsible for the actions of powerful individual group members like Aziz.

However, Middle Eastern Christian migrants shouldn’t take Andrews’ support for granted. If any of their sons are fatally bashed during the term of a future Coalition government, there’s some chance the Immigration Minister will claim it’s their fault for not integrating properly.

A version of this piece was first published in the Crikey daily alert for Monday 21 July 2008.



Words © 2008 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

CRIKEY: How The Oz proved Rupert Murdoch's al-Qaida link ...

My old buddy Sheik Dicky Kerbaj continues his series on the nefarious Saudi influence on Muslim institutions. Writing in The Australian today, Kerbaj claims to have revealed "for the first time" the identity of six imams paid by Saudi Arabia.

That's right. Six.

Sydney has some 100 mosques. Melbourne perhaps more. Maybe 20 in Brisbane. All have at least one full-time paid imam. Among the gang-of-six is imam at the Omar Mosque at Auburn. Had Kerbaj visited the mosque, he'd have seen a plaque there clearly stating the mosque is fully owned by the Australian Islamic Cultural Centre, an organisation run by Australia's Saudi religious financier Shafiq Khan.

As far back as September 2005, the Sydney Morning Herald profiled Khan's extensive links to both Saudi royalty and the Howard government. Why would Khan use Saudi money to manage his mosque but not the imam's wages? Some scoop, Dicky.

Kerbaj then makes the extraordinary claim that the six Saudi-paid imams ...

... are leaders of the Islamic community in the country.

Leaders? In what sense? Is he suggesting that these six imams manage all community affairs of Aussie Muslims? Why hasn't anyone told these imams? Why haven't the 360,000-odd people tempted to tick the "Muslim" box on their census forms?

So why should we give a hoot about all this? Because, according to Kerbaj, the Saudis are involved in a huge international plot ...

... to propagate Wahhabism, the puritanical brand of Islam espoused by al-Qa'ida.

Kerbaj continues to peddle this notion, using the phrase in numerous articles including this one from October 2007. Kerbaj is perhaps not aware of ambiguous relationship between al-Qa'ida and Wahhabism.

Of course, if we were to take Kerbaj's logic to its furthest conclusion, we would effectively hold that Wahhabis (especially Saudis) are all potentially linked to al-Qa'ida. As Crikey reported earlier this month, a Saudi prince owns at least a 7% stake in News Corporation. Further, this Prince has been known to directly influence FoxNews reporting on Muslims, even ringing Kerbaj's employer Rupert Murdoch.

Is Kerbaj suggesting that Sheik Rupert bin Murdoch is linked to al-Qa'ida?

Is The Oz becoming a mouthpiece for Usama bin Ladin?

Is Chris Mitchell a closet Wahhabi?

Now that's what I call a scoop!

First published in the Crikey daily alert for 19 May 2005.

Words © 2008 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

CRIKEY: Stop Press!! Rupert Murdoch exposed as hard-core Muslim!!!!

Page 19 of The Weekend Australian carried the headline "Saudis’ secret agenda". Co-authored by my old buddy Sheik Dicky Kerbaj, the article discusses how: "The Saudi Government - largely through its embassy - is believed to have funnelled at least $120 million into Australia since the 1970s to propagate hardline Islam..."

And the evidence for this claim? Kerbaj commences his article with the example of the Imam Ali ben Abi Taleb Mosque at Lakemba after receiving a donation for $360,000 some 35 years ago:

It was a donation, a gift, a part payment to subsidise the construction of ... Lakemba mosque. More than 35 years after Sydney cleric Khalil Shami received the cheque, he insists it came with no strings attached. But while the cheque had no tangible conditions in the form of written instructions or binding contracts, the cleric received a message from his donors several months after depositing it.

"They said: 'Please, can you mention the tragedy of the Palestinian people and what's happened to them in your sermon?'" Shami tells Inquirer.

"Which is really a very noble cause, a very noble cause, I couldn't see a negative in their request."

There you have it. Talking about "the tragedy of the Palestinians and what’s happened to them" is clearly an example of "hardline Islam". If you don’t want to be seen to be a follower of "hardline Islam", you basically have to deny any Palestinian suffering, to believe Palestinians are living in utopia, free to practice their high-jumping skills on that "security barrier" built through their farms, villages and towns.

If you even express sympathy for Palestinians, you’re obviously receiving Saudi petro-dollars. Either that, or you are a hardline Wahhabi, a threat to Australian security, deserving of being declared so on the pages of our national broadsheet.

So what does Kerbaj say about non-Muslim Aussies expressing sympathy for Palestinians? Will Kerbaj claim that former Coalition MP’s Tim Fischer, Ross Cameron and Bruce Baird, all of whom chaired the Parliamentary Friends of Palestine, are also hard-core Muslims? Or how about NSW State MP’s Chris Hartcher and Paul Lynch of the NSW Parliamentary Friends of Palestine? Are they also Saudi-funded hard-core Muslims?

And perhaps Kerbaj should investigate allegations made against FoxNews after Saudi Prince al-Waleed bin Talal purchased a large stake in News Corporation. These include allegations that Prince al-Waleed actually contacted Rupert Murdoch and insisted FoxNews change the headline on one of its banners concerning rioting of French Arab youths.

Or has Rupert Murdoch also become a hardcore Muslim?



Words © 2008 Irfan Yusuf

OPINION: Griffith IRU controversy ...

Al-Qaeda's latest recruits showing off their camouflage and weapons ...







Attempts to whip up hysteria over Islamic issues

It's good to see The Chaser boys let off the hook. Their silly APEC Summit prank illustrated just how ineffective expensive security-related hysteria can be. Despite costly and thorough security precautions, Chas Licciardello (dressed up as Osama bin Laden sitting in a limousine sporting the Canadian flag guarded by a few blokes sporting badges printed with insecurity) came within metres of President Bush's hotel.

One newspaper that has turned security-related hysteria into an art form is The Australian. In recent times, reporters Richard Kerbaj and Natalie O'Brien from The Australian have made use of the Anna Coren-style segue to link all kinds of people to international terrorist organisations. The result has been material which will generate a few laughs down at the Canberra Islamic Centre, even if it makes non-Muslim readers feel like reaching for their National Security Hotline fridge magnets.

In one recent article headlined "Christians should wear veil", O'Brien claimed former Mufti Sheik Tajeddin Hilaly says the Bible mandates the wearing of the veil by Christian women.

Whilst this is an improvement on his "catmeat" remarks, I couldn't find anywhere in O'Brien's article where Hilaly actually spoke of Christians being told to wear veils. The only vaguely suggestive comment from Hilaly O'Brien could quote was him saying the Virgin Mary is often depicted with a veil covering her head.

This is a scurrilous suggestion! I trust O'Brien and her editor will insist the Pope refutes all suggestions of Mary being depicted with a covered head during his World Youth Day address.

The Australian also reports that Griffith University in Queensland is in the process of becoming a Saudi-style madrassa, where female students will be forced to wear veils over their heads and faces and where the grand international al-Qaeda jihad will be launched to transform Australia into a sharia state.

OK, that's a slight exaggeration. The actual story is that Griffith University accepted an injection of $100,000 from the Saudi embassy for its Griffith Islamic Research Unit, a postgraduate research facility.

In January 2007, a consortium consisting of GIRU, Melbourne University and the University of Western Sydney won approval from the Commonwealth to form the National Centre for Excellence in Islamic Studies. The Australian Government's initial investment into the NCEIS (which presumably will also benefit Griffith University) is $8 million.

So will Griffith accepting 1.25 per cent of this amount from the Saudi embassy mean the university will be pressured to adopt the rather unsavoury theological line of an unsavoury regime with a human rights record that makes it fit to host the next Olympics?

Of course, Griffith isn't the only university to be the subject of media controversy over accepting cash from foreign governments. As Griffith Vice-Chancellor Professor Ian O'Connor points out, the Saudi Government has entered into similar arrangements with Oxford, Harvard and Georgetown Universities, the latter being a private Catholic university.

O'Connor's arguments, made in an op-ed published in The Australian, have been attacked by that newspaper for being partially plagiarised from Wikipedia. Interestingly, the same newspaper had no hesitation in defending one of its own columnists who in 2002 not only plagiarised but also distorted the writings of European academics to suit her race-based agenda. I guess what's good for the gander isn't good for the goose.

So should Griffith Uni have taken the money? I'm no fan of the Saudi Government or of its official creed. But I wonder whether the Saudis have gotten value for money.

None of the research topics of PhD candidates of the centre display any strong inkling of Wahhabism. One candidate is studying the prevalence of domestic violence in Muslim communities. Malaysia's de facto opposition leader, Anwar Ibrahim, is researching Asian Renaissance, hardly a topic of interest to Saudi religious police enforcing the country's strict veiling laws.

Then again, I could be accused of bias. After all, Griffith Uni did pay for my airfare and accommodation to attend and speak at their recent conference. Naturally someone like me, who has used just about every public forum in Australia and New Zealand I could get my hands on to lambast Saudi-style Wahhabism, is clearly someone the Saudi ambassador would be delighted to share a conference program with.

Back to The Chaser crew. It's always a joy to see them poke fun at Channel 7 Today Tonight host Anna Coren manufacturing segues out of two unrelated topics. Richard Kerbaj, a reporter for The Australian, has also put segues to good use.

Griffith's centre is headed by Dr Mohamad Abdalla. Kerbaj claims Abdalla is a leader of an allegedly shadowy group called the Tablighi Jamaat, an international Sufi reform movement with tens of millions of followers worldwide. Kerbaj tells us that the TJ are linked to al-Qaeda and the London bombings. How so?

Because al-Qaeda shoe-bomber Richard Reid and at least two of the London bombers attended TJ gatherings. I doubt even Anna Coren could come up with such an outrageous segue.

South Asian readers will confirm that current and former TJ members include former Indian President Dr Zakir Hussein and former Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. The International Herald Tribune reported that at one TJ gathering in Tongi in Bangladesh, some three million Muslims attended.

Twenty-20 cricket fans will be pleased to note that champion batsman Shahid Afridi, who plays for the Deccan Chargers in the Indian Premier League, is also a TJ member.

Applying Kerbaj's logic, that means the Indian Government, Pakistani Muslim League Party, at least three million Bengalis and the Deccan Chargers (including perhaps Adam Gilchrist and Andrew Symonds) are all linked to al-Qaeda. Go figure.

Al-Qaeda's new logo ...

Irfan Yusuf is a Sydney lawyer and writer. This article was first published in The Canberra Times on 1 May 2008. May Day, May Day!!

MEDIA: Kerbaj's GIRU witch-hunt Mark IV

What is wrong with Dicky Kerbaj? Doesn’t he do any research before writing his articles? Or does he just make a few phone calls, send out a few e-mails and cobble something together?

Kerbaj is supposed to be a journalist. His job is to report. His job is not to engage in a crusade or a jihad. Yet his stories concerning Griffith University and its Islamic Research Unit (GIRU) are generally little more than the presentation of one side of a debate. Clearly Kerbaj is taking sides.

Those who have followed Kerbaj’s reporting on these issues will note that he has never quoted from myself on any of these issues. I’m saying this not to big-note myself. However, it is the case that, since April 2005, I have had some involvement in public discussion on these topics. Yet I refuse to go on the record when asked to do so by Richard Kerbaj. I simply have no confidence in his ability to understand or even accurately report what I tell him. That I must say this about the reporter of our national broadsheet is quite disturbing.

Kerbaj must understand that his role is to report. It isn’t to take sides. If he wishes to write opinion pieces, his opinion editor is just a phone call or an e-mail (or perhaps even a few desks) away.

The strangest thing about so much of Kerbaj’s reporting is that he claims to have some kind of expertise in Muslim affairs. He presents himself as an expert due to his untested Arabic language skills. But when asked about where he studied Arabic or what degree of proficiency he has, Kerbaj is rather coy.

I have no objections to Kerbaj reporting what he sees or heard or reads. Whether it is embarrassing to Muslims or Arabs or Lebanese or Sudanese or anyone else is really immaterial to his role. But when he begins to enter the realm of opinion, often citing anonymous sources in the same manner as his cousins at FoxNews, Kerbaj opens himself up for criticism.

Kerbaj’s repeated errors on even the most basic Islamic theological matters show that so many of the sectarian, ethnic, linguistic and other nuances are way out of Kerbaj’s league. The results can often be embarrassing.

For instance, in his report yesterday, Kerbaj claimed that Dr Mohamad Abdalla, the convenor of GIRU, is a follower of the Tabligh Jamaat (TJ). At the same time, Kerbaj has been attempting to show that a measly $100,000 donation from the Saudi embassy shows that Saudis will expect the promotion of Saudi-style wahhabism. Yet if that was the Saudi’s goal, why would they make their donation to a man whom (as Kerbaj suggests) is associated with a group that Saudi religious authorities regard as deviated and even promoters of idolatry?

In today’s piece, Kerbaj again displays his ignorance of religious doctrine, this time of Christian doctrine. He cites Stephen Crittenden as suggesting that, by using the term “Unitarianism” as a translation of Tawheed, the Vice Chancellor of Griffith was associating Wahhabism with the Unitarian movement that arose in England and the United States.

Professor O'Connor faced further criticism yesterday from a trio of long-time ABC religion journalists and commentators - Rachael Kohn, John Cleary and Stephen Crittenden - who said he had confused the Christian doctrine of Unitarianism with the Islamic sects of Wahhabism and Salafism in an opinion article published in The Australian. Professor O'Connor wrote: "Unitarianism is also known by its critics as Salafism or Wahhabism, after an 18th-century Islamic scholar Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab."

The ABC commentators responded by saying: "Ian O'Connor's equation of Wahhabism and Salafism with Unitarianism is utter nonsense.

"Unitarianism emerged as a liberal Christian movement and gained ground in the early years of American democracy."

Had Kerbaj any basic knowledge of comparative theology, he would have seen the absurdity of this alleged claim by Crittenden. Kerbaj also attributes this claim to another ABC religion presenter, Rachel Kohn. I find it impossible to believe that Dr Kohn would subscribe to such nonsense.

Indeed, to even describe Unitarianism as a Christian doctrine is sheer madness. Orthodox Christianity (and by that term, I don’t just mean Eastern Orthodox, but include Catholic and Protestant churches) is a strictly Trinitarian affair. The Unitarianism of the medieval theologian Arius or of latter day Unitarians such as Isaac Newton or Joseph Priestley bears little resemblance to the Athanasian Creed.

Tawheed is a basic Islamic doctrine which argues that God is One. Wahhabi/Salafi doctrine takes this concept further in some respects than mainstream Sunni and Shia doctrine. Yet essentially Tawheed is a doctrine replicated in Judaism and in Unitarian forms of Christian belief which mainstream Christianity regards as heresy.

All this should be obvious to anyone with even elementary knowledge of the doctrines of the Abrahamic faiths. I doubt religious affairs reporters like Linda Morris or Barney Zwartz would make mistakes on this kind of stuff, even if it involves quoting a Radio National presenter. I think what has happened is the Kerbaj has tried to make a mountain out of a mole hill of split hairs. He has more than likely misunderstood something he’s been told by Crittenden et al and has reported his misunderstanding in an attempt to find something contradicting the Griffith VC’s op-ed.

So what is the real issue? Is it whether the Griffith VC understands the difference between Wahhabism and a form of nominally Christian belief that virtually all Christians regard as heresy? Is it whether Dr Abdalla is associated with an Indian Sufi missionary movement? Is whether human rights in Riyadh will form part of the curriculum?

Let’s put this in perspective. We are talking about $100,000. Compare this to the amount invested by the Australian government in the Centre for Excellence in Islamic Studies, of which GIRU forms a part.

At the end of the day, we are talking about a postgraduate research unit. It is a place where people go to pursue their doctorates. They already have a particular topic in mind which is somehow linked to Islam or Muslims. GIRU provides them with an environment where they can pursue their research interest.

Until Kerbaj is able to show examples of students being hampered whilst pursuing ...

*topics critical of the Saudi government; or
*topics critical of wahhabism

... his continued pursuit of this issue will be deemed little more than another witch-hunt.

Perhaps a good note to end off this piece would be with a letter to the editor published in today's Australian which addresses the heart of the issue.

YOUR front-page reports attacking Griffith University over partial funding of an Islamic Research Unit smacks of McCarthyism. Open-ended funding of research positions is not a form of payola: how many chairs are endowed by businesses without strings attached? It’s more than possible for a diplomatic arm of a nation with which we and the US have strategic and diplomatic ties to give such funding.

Saudi Arabia, for all its flaws, just happens to be home to the key spiritual sites of Sunni Islam. Will your newspaper condemn the ethics of academics working in Catholic universities, as if they were answerable only to the Vatican? Will you support full, independent public funding of research, or will you continue to encourage universities to rely on private funding but foment scandal when the funding comes from politically incorrect sources?

Graeme Orr
Associate professor,
TC Beirne School of Law
University of Queensland

Words © 2008 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

CRIKEY: Ignorance of Kerbajian proportions exposed ...

Dicky Kerbaj makes it a hat-trick, today managing to extract his third article on Griffith University’s Islamic Research Unit (GIRU).

This time his article in The Australian cites various people from Griffith Uni (including its Vice Chancellor) who have defended the measley $100,000 donated by one of the wealthiest royal families on the planet.

The university authorities also refer to similar arrangements Saudi royalty have made with universities as controversial as Harvard, Oxford and Georgetown (a private Catholic university in Washington).

I’d love to see His Honour Judge Wall (again quoted today by Kerbaj) suggest the Catholic Church established educational institutions akin to extremist Pakistani madressas.

Kerbaj finally shows his own lack of expertise on what he describes as "the secretive Muslim group Tablighi Jamaat". In doing so, he shoots his own argument in the foot even more.

The TJ’s operations are extremely limited in the Saudi kingdom. TJ textbooks are banned from the country as they allegedly contain "deviant" Sufi teachings. Hard-line Saudi Wahhabi religious authorities have severely criticised TJ’s methodology and teachings.

Anyone with even a kindergarten understanding of Muslim sectarianism knows of the fatwa issued by the former Mufti of Saudi Arabia attacking the TJ and forbidding Wahhabis from spending time with them unless it is for the purpose of correcting them.

Kerbaj’s silly attack on GIRU head Dr Mohamad Abdalla reflects more on Kerbaj’s poor research skills than on Dr Abdalla.

To its credit, The Oz did run an opinion piece today by Griffith University Vice Chancellor Ian O’Connor. Professor O’Connor reveals that the university had received 10 times the amount of the Saudi donation from a Singaporean Buddhist elder. He also gave Crikey a plug. Grouse.

(First published in the Crikey daily alert for Thursday 24 April 2008.)

UPDATE I: Check out the unedited version of the Griffith Uni VC's article published by the marvellous folk at ABC Unleashed here.

Words © 2008 Irfan Yusuf

MEDIA/SATIRE: It's time to expose the extremists at Griffith University ...

The Australian continues with its witchhunt of the Griffith Islamic Research Unit (GIRU), this time with both an article and editorial claiming GIRU will actively promote Wahhabism after receiving a measley $100,000. This time The Oz has pulled out its biggest expert gun yet - a Queensland District Court Judge.

His Honour Judge Clive Wall QC has found GIRU guilty of acting as ...

... an agent to promote their [i.e. Saudi] bigoted brand of Islam.

Really? Where is Wahhabi bigotry to be found in the seven criteria listed here?

Objectives

*To encourage research between Griffith University and the wider Australian Muslim community.

*To promote scholarly co-operation between Muslim and other religious scholars on issues high on the agenda.

*To provide commentary on issues related to Islam and Muslims in Australia.

*To conduct research, organise seminars, lectures, conferences and meetings on Islamic issues, with emphasis on issues that pertain to Australian Muslims as a minority group.

*To organise, participate and assist in educational activities that seek to bridge the gap between Islam and the West.

*To publish on issues pertaining to Islam and the Muslims in Australia.

*To provide scholarships for research aimed at examining the condition of Islam and Muslims in Australia; research that strives for understanding in order to bring positive and lasting change in our communities.

A brief perusal of GIRU’s website shows its real role: to provide a venue where postgraduate students can conduct academic research toward their PhD’s. The last time I checked, most Aussie PhD students prefer to seek approval for their topic from their university faculty, not from the embassy of an overseas country.

But let’s take for granted The Oz’s claims. Let’s look at one al-Qaeda sympathiser resident at GIRU - Dr George Saliba, formerly of that notorious Wahhabi institution known as Columbia University. Pictued below are some of the radical Taliban fanatics who attend this den of anti-Western hatred ...


Clearly these non-integrated youth are ready to strap bombs to themselves. They have been brainwashed by Saliba's teachings on such radical subjects as the history of science and medieval Arab astronomy.

But it gets worse. One rather nasty anti-democratic fundamentalist doing his PhD at GIRU is Anwar Ibrahim, a former Distinguished Visiting Professor at that nasty Saudi-funded madressa known as Georgetown University. Georgetown is part of an international network of Islamic extremists led by this man.


I trust our immigration authorities act quickly before this man is allowed anywhere near our country.

Returning to Anwar, this fellow is conducting highly dangerous anti-Western research on the “Asian renaissance”. No doubt this research will increase the rate of suicide bombings in downtown Lakemba and Coburg .

Anwar, of course, is busy promoting extremism and radicalism in our region through his role as Malaysia ’s de facto opposition leader. In the past, he has lectured on such favourite topics of Usama bin Ladin as the works of William Shakespeare and Muslim democracy. His friends include radical cleric Ayatollah Greg Sheridan and terrorist financier Mufti Paul Wolfowitz.


Radical wahhabi cleric, Ayatollah Greg Sheridan, sporting a sharia-compliant beard.


Terrorist financier, Mufti Paul Wolfowitz, removing his shoes before entering a radical maddressah.

Some readers may also recall Anwar was also jailed for opposing an extremely moderate Muslim leader. He was certainly given the sort of royal treatment usually reserved for opponents of the Royal Family in Saudi prisons.

Without doubt, we must take heed of warnings given by The Oz on this nefarious research unit and its den of Wahhabist extremists. I just wish someone in Mr Rudd’s office listened and not have invited GIRU head, Dr Mohammad Abdalla, to the 2020 Summit.

Either that, or Mr Rudd prefers not to take his cue from American newspapers ...

Words © 2008 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

COMMENT: Muslim criticism of Hilaly continues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Words © 2006 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious