Showing posts with label Saudi Arabia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Saudi Arabia. Show all posts

Monday, June 22, 2020

OPINION: To Trump, Khashoggi's Murder Is More Serious Than War Crimes


A Saudi dissident journalist who contributes to the Washington Post has apparently been murdered in the Saudi embassy in Ankara, Turkey.


Jamal Ahmed Khashoggi’s body was apparently cut into pieces. Turkish authorities claim to have video of the gruesome murder. US president Donald Trump has promised “severe punishment” if it turns out the Saudi government was responsible.

How do I know this? Because I was watching the news in a pub in Broken Hill. It was one of the first stories on Channel 7 news. No doubt the gruesome nature of the murder will spread the story far and wide, and will ensure that we will all forget certain facts.

Firstly, we will forget that Turkey is no friend of journalists. Last week in Melbourne I saw a documentary screened by a dissident religious group in Turkey (the Gulen movement) which the government blames for the recent coup attempt. The documentary showed how the government of Recep Tayyip Erdogan has created an environment of fear in which more than 180 news outlets have been shut down and at least 120 editors and reporters have been detained or forced to leave the country. Zaman, Turkey’s largest selling newspaper and linked to the Gulen movement, was taken over by the government in March 2016. The Australian edition of Zaman continues to be published.

Donald Trump is also no friend of journalists. In February 2017 he tweeted that some media outlets are enemies of the American people. He has publicly abused journalists and popularised the term “fake news”. He has also championed colourful conspiracy mongers such as Alex Jones.

It’s true that neither Erdogan nor Trump have murdered and dismembered journalists. But Trump’s remarks are perhaps the first time in living memory that a US President has threatened Saudi Arabia with anything resembling punishment. Despite near unanimous agreement by US lawmakers to remove sovereign immunity allowing victims to litigate against the Saudi government, US presidents have sought to place obstacles so as not to risk America’s relationship with its closest Middle East partner after Israel.

That partnership has involved the US providing a ready supply of weapons to enable the Saudis to prosecute a deadly war in Yemen. The deaths of thousands of civilians including children has barely raised a murmur from the White House.


The war in Yemen has been going on since March 2015 and has involved deliberate targeting of civilians through air strikes, bombardments and deprivation of medical and other supplies by aid agencies. Civilian homes, hospitals and schools have been attacked. Some three million people have been displaced from their homes.


Amnesty International has collated some horrendous figures as well as victim testimonies. One testimony, in particular, I found shocking. It was from a woman who somehow survived an airstrike that killed more 63 civilians:

“[It was like] something out of judgement day. Corpses and heads scattered, engulfed by fire and ashes.”

Such testimony has done little to stop Western countries such as the United States and the UK from selling weapons to Saudi Arabia, even as independent Saudi journalists like Jamal Khashoggi were urging an end to the war.

“The longer this cruel war lasts in Yemen, the more permanent the damage will be. The people of Yemen will be busy fighting poverty, cholera and water scarcity and rebuilding their country. The crown prince must bring an end to the violence and restore the dignity of the birthplace of Islam,” Khashoggi wrote.

Khashoggi would have been disgusted if he’d known his violent death was worth more than the brutal and violent deaths of Yemeni children from bombs, starvation and disease.​

First published in 10Daily on Wednesday 17 October 2018.

Friday, November 05, 2010

COMMENT: How things change at the Oz ...

Remember this alleged scandal about Griffith University becoming a Wahhabi terrorist camp after accepting a measly sum from the Saudi embassy?

Amazing how things change. Read this gushing profile of a Saudi prince. It gors on and on and on. The Prince's PR department couldn't have done a better job.

The Prince, of course, puts his money in all the right places.

The 19th richest man in the world only has "one house" in Saudi Arabia although it does have 420 rooms. But he also has 300 hotels to stay in whenever he travels, which is most of the year now that he is fast becoming the Middle East's most high-profile ambassador. The day starts at 10am and finishes at 4am. "I let myself have only four hours sleep. I am on a mission," says the 55-year-old, who is a shareholder in News Corporation, parent company of News Limited, publisher of The Australian.


And what of those nasty evil terroristic Wahhabi university faculties?

He doesn't shoot or ride, wear plus fours or jodhpurs. "But my family are very much embedded in the system here, we feel very at home with your traditions, cooked breakfasts, teas, we go on trips to the museums, we are going to Windsor Castle. I don't wear tweed or a kilt, but I have been to Scotland, I have funded two major Islamic centres in Edinburgh and Cambridge and another small centre in Exeter. We want to bridge the gap and inform the West about Islamic culture."


Not a single critical adjective, Is this the result of a strategic alliance?



Wednesday, July 01, 2009

REVIEW: Ambitious cultural journey loses its way ...


A Stranger to History: A Son's Journey Through Islamic Lands
By Aatish Taseer
Text Publishing, 323pp, $34.95


WE all inhabit the same planet, yet so often we hear phrases such as "the Muslim world" and "the Western world". Do such discrete entities indeed exist? Perhaps those best equipped to answer this question are those with one foot on either side of the divide.

Aatish Taseer, a 29-year-old freelance journalist and the son of an Indian Sikh mother and a Pakistani Muslim father, should have been such a person. That he isn't so is not entirely hisfault.

The two sides of Taseer's family share the culture and language of Punjab, a region in the northwest of the Indian subcontinent shared by India and Pakistan. Islam and Sikhism have inhabited Punjab's geographical and cultural space for centuries. Sikhism is indigenous to Punjab, while Punjabi Islam has adopted the cultural symbols of the land.

My background is a mixture of Indian and Pakistani. Having been reared in a small South Asian community in Sydney, I found it almost impossible to tell Muslims and Sikhs apart. To this day it is easy for me to confuse a mosque and gurudwara (Sikh temple) until the saffron flags of the latter become apparent.

But there is a huge difference between my upbringing and that of Taseer, whose parents' relationship was kept largely secret.

Taseer's father, Salmaan Taseer, became a senior figure in the Pakistan People's Party, at present the governing party of Pakistan. He is a businessman, media magnate and governor of Pakistan's Punjab province.

Aatish's parents met in India in 1980, where Salmaan Taseer was promoting a biography he'd written of his political mentor and former Pakistani prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Aatish's mother, respected Indian journalist Tavleen Singh, was then a young reporter.

At the time of his parents' brief affair, which lasted hardly a week, Salmaan Taseer was already married with three children.

After his parents' separation, Aatish was reared in his mother's Sikh household in Delhi, under the wing of his loving maternal grandfather. The grandfather had grown up in what is now Pakistan and still corresponded with his best friend from across the border.

Like other Sikhs, the Singhs had to flee their ancestral lands in what became Pakistan during the 1947 Partition, which still leaves some members of the family bitter and resentful towards Pakistan and Muslims in general. To his credit, the maternal grandfather wasn't affected by these sentiments.

'A human being,' my grandfather always asserted, when people asked whether I was being brought up as a Sikh or a Muslim. 'He's being brought up to be a human being.'

It wasn't until 1980, when he was 21, that the author met his father again. Taseer's interest in travelling through Muslim-majority states was sparked after he wrote a story on the July 7, 2005, London bombings for British magazine Prospect. Taseer's father wrote an angry letter ...

... accus[ing] me of prejudice, of lacking even 'superficial knowledge' of the Pakistani ethos. 'Do you really think you're doing the Taseer name a service by spreading this kind of invidious anti-Muslim propaganda?

Taseer was upset by his father's letter, an irreligious Pakistani politician who hardly embodied religious values.

Yet Taseer's language when describing his father is always restrained, consistent with the elegant and often hauntingly beautiful prose of the book, sadly spoiled by serious factual errors exhibiting not prejudice, which would have been understandable, but some elementary research.

In setting the stage for his travels, Taseer writes that the whole Islamic world ...

... stretched between my father [Lahore] and the place where I read his letter [London].

How does Taseer expect his reader to take his understanding of the Muslim world seriously when he excludes from it the world's largest Muslim majority state, Indonesia?

He claims his father's Pakistani Islam emphasises rejection of Hinduism. But this is hardly pan-Islam, as I discovered during a visit to the Javanese cultural capital of Yogyakarta in 2006.

There I saw Muslim artists perform the Hindu Ramayana ballet before Muslim audiences in one of Southeast Asia's oldest Hindu temples. Not all Muslims share the religious chauvinism of some Pakistanis.

Taseer's book covers his travels in Turkey, Syria, Saudi Arabia (including a visit to the pilgrimage centre of Mecca), Iran and Pakistan. In each country he provides us with tremendously detailed portraits of scenery, but when it comes to people our encounters are limited to the devout yet chauvinistic on the one hand or the irreligious and resentful on the other.

Are we to believe that only an insignificant unrepresentative minority exists between these two poles?

Most unfortunate for Taseer is that his paradigm for understanding pan-Islamic sentiment emerges largely from Hassan Butt, a young British man who for years claimed to have recruited British Muslims for al-Qa'ida.

Taseer brought Butt to prominence in the article that prompted his father's wrathful letter. Yet in December last year Butt admitted to a British court that he was a professional liar who had told journalists (including, presumably, Taseer) stories the media wanted to hear.

It's a shame such an elegant piece of writing is spoiled in a way that may make some dismiss it altogether.

Sadly for Taseer, this book, the product of months of travel and a lifetime of anguish, may vindicate at least some of his absent father's criticisms. It is not a vindication well-deserved.

Irfan Yusuf is author of Once Were Radicals: My Years as a Teenage Islamo-Fascist (Allen & Unwin). This review was first published in The Australian on 27 June 2009

Delicious
Bookmark this on Delicious

Digg!

Get Flocked

Sunday, March 01, 2009

VIDEO/AFGHANISTAN: Secret talks between Karzai government and Taliban ...

While Australian and NATO troops are engaged in fierce fighting against the Taliban, the US-backed Islamist government of Hamid Karzai is secretly negotiating to strike a deal with Taliban leaders. The secret talks have taken place in Saudi Arabia, London and Dubai. The US denies any direct involvement in the secret negotiations.

It seems the deal involves allowing leader of the Hizb-i-Islami jihadi faction, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, to be allowed to eventually return to Afghanistan with full immunity from prosecution. Hekmatyar led one of the larger jihad factions that fought against the Soviet Union during the 1980's, most of his support coming from the US and Saudi Arabia. Following Soviet withdrawal, Hekmatyar served as Prime Minister but was unable to resolve differences with his main jihadi rival, the late Ahmad Shah Masud of the Jamiat-i-Islami faction. The current Karzai government is dominated by Masud loyalists.

But after 9/11, Hekmatyar decuded to support the Taliban. Following the Taliban's defeat, Hekmatyar has been in hiding.

Will the talks succeed? Who knows ...

Words © 2009 Irfan Yusuf



Delicious
Bookmark this on Delicious

Digg!

Get Flocked

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

OPINION: Pigeon-holes weren't made for housing humans



People have layers of identity and a wide range of views, IRFAN YUSUF writes.

In June 1998, I was travelling west through the outer suburbs of Sao Paolo, South America's largest city. On one side of the highway, I saw the guards and high fences of the upper-class sector of Alphaville. On the other side, a huge valley of makeshift houses, yet another favella (shanty town) that housed perhaps 10 times as many Brazilians than its more exclusive neighbouring estate. My hosts told me the residents of the shanty town proudly named their district "Alphavella".

Some days earlier, my hosts collected me from the airport. I told them they would recognise me as being the dark-skinned one wearing an Akubra hat. Lucky for them, I walked through the airport's immigration section wearing the Akubra. My mixed Indian, Turkish and Mongolian ancestry gave me skin fairer than most citizens of the largest nation on the world's largest Catholic continent.

No Reformation took place in Latin America, and the only heathens American evangelists must contend with are those who direct their prayers to the Virgin Mary, often portrayed in devotional statuettes as a black woman. We don't often associate the dark skin, exotic culture and Third World poverty of Alphavella with Catholicism. Few Australian Catholics would recognise the popular beliefs and practices of their Latin American co-religionists.

The Catholic Church has had a major role in the political upheavals of Latin American and other Third World nations. Occasionally, this has involved being on the same side as those engaged in political violence. Yet it has always been taken for granted that the Church, or at least some officials, have supported the cause, not the violence. And it is also taken for granted that Catholics are not a monolith.

Other religious congregations haven't benefited from such understanding. Writing in The Australian on May 21, former Hawke government minister Barry Cohen argued that those who criticise the world's only Jewish state for its breaches of international law without criticising other states are in effect engaging in anti-Semitism.

He cites The New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman who argues:

Criticising Israel is not anti-Semitic and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction, out of all proportion to any other party in the Middle East, is anti-Semitic and not saying so is dishonest.
There's no doubt that support for Israel is strong in diaspora Jewish communities, especially in Australia whose Jewish community has the largest proportion of Holocaust survivors outside Israel. Yet support for Israel doesn't necessarily mean all Jews support each action of Israel.

There is only one Jewish state. There are more than 57 states that are members of the Organisation of Islamic Conference, spread over four continents. It describes itself as "second-largest inter-governmental organisation after the United Nations".

We don't ask ordinary Australian Jews to condemn or justify or even hold a position on each statement or action of an Israeli politician or a West Bank Jewish settler. So what kind of leap of irrationality leads even intelligent people to insist a second-generation Australian with some tenuous ancestral or cultural link to Islam to have a public position on, say, the treatment of Christians in Saudi Arabia?

This doesn't just happen in tabloids. A prominent religious broadcaster once lectured me about how "mainstream Australia" expected Muslims to be "screaming the roof down about the treatment of the Filipino Catholics in Saudi Arabia". He said that such a Muslim response "would represent a significant breakthrough for community relations in this country", and challenged me to write an op-ed piece in The Sydney Morning Herald about it.

Naturally, the SMH editors are at my beck and call, ready to publish anything I send them. But more importantly, why must I be held accountable for what happens in Saudi Arabia? After all, I'm not a Saudi. I don't have Saudi ancestry. I've never been to Saudi Arabia. I don't speak Arabic and don't have an Arabic-speaking background. I don't believe in (and indeed frequently criticise) Saudi-style wahhabi theology. I don't represent a Muslim religious body enjoying the benefits of Saudi generosity.

And must my concern for minority rights be solely motivated by good community relations? What if "screaming the roof down" did more harm than good for the minorities involved? I may win brownie points with some religious broadcasters who will go on interviewing nasty Muslim-phobes on their show regardless of what I say (funny how fostering community relations is always a one-way street).

But would the Saudi king stop and say, "Wow, someone with a Muslim-sounding name in Australia wrote something critical of how we treat minorities. Let's build a cathedral in Riyadh."

And would human-rights groups in these countries working on these issues necessarily regard my public outburst as counterproductive? Would I just be making their life harder?

All of us have layers of identity religion (frequently ethno-religion), language, ethnicity, profession or football team. Just because I support the Bulldogs doesn't mean I must publicly condemn hooligan Bulldog supporters. And who am I to assume Raiders' supporters all opposed WorkChoices?

Pigeon-holes weren't made to place humans in.

Irfan Yusuf is a Sydney lawyer. This article was first published in the Canberra Times on Wednesday 11 June 2008.

UPDATE I: Reader Bruce Arthurson responds ...

I have in the past been informed and mostly agreed with your columnist Irfan Yusuf. However his shocking admission (CT 11/06) that he is a Bulldogs supporter and his questioning of the political allegiances of Raiders fans is beyond the pale. I shall read him no more.
My apologies, Bruce. I certainly didn't support WorkChoices.

Words © 2008 Irfan Yusuf

Delicious
Bookmark this on Delicious

Digg!

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

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

Delicious
Bookmark this on Delicious

Digg!

Get Flocked

Monday, May 05, 2008

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