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.

EUROPEAN POLITICS: The two men at the centre of the bloodshed in Turkey

Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Fethullah Gulen's rivalry extends to Australia.

Turkey is going through a period of potentially divisive transition. Its political and religious identity is up for grabs. And its substantial diaspora communities — in Germany, North America and Australia, among other places — are not immune.

The coup has been blamed on followers Fethullah Gulen — a Pennsylvania-based imam and businessman who has for years rivalled Erdogan for influence over the style and shape of Turkey’s democratic Islamism. It’s a struggle that reaches well beyond Turkey’s shores, even to Australia, where the Turkish government provides imams to Turkish mosques.

In Australia, a large number of mosques are managed by Turkish communities. These include not only established metropolitan mosques across Sydney and Melbourne but also in regional NSW and Queensland.

The Diyanet (Turkish Ministry of Religion) provides imams to most of these mosques and pays their wages. This gives Turkish mosques a huge financial advantage over their cash-strapped equivalents from other ethnic groups. However, few Diyanet imams stay in Australia for any length of time beyond a few years.

But also having a strong presence in Turkish communities are the secular Gulen schools and university faculties. The Gulen movement (known as Hizmet or “social service”) is believed to have links with independent non-denominational schools in Sydney and Melbourne, which are popular with Turkish parents. In addition to this, the movement has entered into arrangements with universities in NSW and Victoria.

Gulen is a former state imam and Islamist. But he is also a committed democrat who rose to prominence through his sermons in state mosques. He fled to the United States in 1999 after being accused in Turkey of Islamic extremism. 

Gulen and Erdogan were, for a time, allies. But in recent years, their views on Turkish Islamism have become clashed. Three years ago, the leaking of documents exposing the Turkish government’s corruption was blamed on Gulen’s supporters. Since then, the government has taken over several media outlets and educational institutions linked to Gulen in Turkey. And yesterday, Turkey’s prime minister Binali Yildirim sent the United States a request to extradite Gulen, who Yildrim called a “terrorist chief”, over his suspected role in the coup.

Recep Tayyip Erdogan is very popular in Turkey — and his popularity has increased after the coup. A Istanbul-based political science academic and expert on Turkey’s diaspora, who asked Crikey not to name him given the increasingly dangerous situation for critics of Erdogan in Turkey, said the crowds supporting Erdogan over the weekend reflected

... all the colours in this alliance: Islamists, conservative nationalists, followers of various Sufi orders, extreme nationalists … all are now worshipping Erdogan.

The academic thinks from now on, criticising Erdogan will mean siding with the failed coup, and against the will of the people.

In Turkey’s diaspora, the divisions mirror those in Turkey. And tensions are rising. In Germany, supporters of Erdogan attacked a school associated with Gulen in the wake of the failed coup. And in Colorado, those in the local Gulen movement say they have also been made targeted by supporters of Erdogan.

In Australia, suspicions about Gulen’s influence have generally been limited to more paranoid sources. In the US, querying Gulen lobbying activities has been a much more mainstream affair.

Given the large, perhaps disproportional and largely ignored influence Turkish religious institutions have among Australian Muslim groups, relations between pro- and anti-Gulen forces will be something worth keeping an eye on.

First published in Crikey on 20 July 2016.

TURKEY: Handling of protests may make or break legacy

Thousands of protesters march through the streets of major cities of a European nation. They complain about the apparently autocratic style of their democratically elected leader who ignores their concerns. Police have used fairly brutal force to quell protests, including tear gas, water cannon and rubber-coated bullets.

Had this been Spain or Greece, it would almost certainly have been related to EU-imposed austerity measures. Europe's economic woes have provided plenty of fodder for protest. Spanish workers have been laid off by the thousands, and its unemployment is at record levels. A neo-Nazi party is attracting tens of thousands of disgruntled Greeks. In Cyprus (at least the non-Turkish part), people have had substantial portions of their savings shaved from bank accounts.
 
But in Turkey, scene of the mass protests that started in late May, protesters have few such fundamental worries. Instead, their worries began with the survival of Gezi Park in Istanbul, to be levelled in favour of a residential and shopping development.

Such environmental and heritage concerns are important. But one has to wonder what those in more economically depressed European nations must be thinking. "Oh, if only we had the luxury of protesting against the destruction of a park," and, "if only we had a few housing and shopping centre developments in our town".

And the majority of Turks who did not hit the streets of Istanbul, Ankara and other cities must be wondering why Western media have made such a fuss about what the ruling party (which gained over 50 per cent of the vote in the last elections) claims is a tiny handful of radicals. It doesn't help the protesters' cause domestically that they don't present as a united group, some having concerns limited to environmentalism and others seeking nothing short of regime change.

No doubt, Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan hasn't handled the crisis terribly well. Even people in his party, such as his President Abdullah Gul, have openly stated that a softer touch would have been preferable. "If they have objections, we need to hear them, enter into a dialogue. It is our duty to lend them an ear." The protests could have been limited to Istanbul instead of turning into a national phenomenon.

But some would have you believe that Turkey's current government wants to see the country become a full-fledged sharia state, with former criminals walking armless and perhaps even headless through the streets. A recent issue of the Economist showed a cartoon of Erdogan dressed in the outfit of an Ottoman Sultan, as if he was ready to lead a jihad and conquer Constantinople all over again.

Writing for CNN, Fadi Hakura complains of "the Government's recent enactment of tight restrictions on the sale and promotion of alcohol". He claims that "many secular Turks complain that the Islamist-rooted Government is intolerant of criticism and the diversity of lifestyles."

Such sentiments would seem laughable to other secular Turks who don't see secularism as the imposition of a militant nationalist religion built around the cult of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, founder of the Turkish Republic. Turkey's past leaders, in cahoots with the military, have inflicted the grossest and most ridiculous forms of intolerance on its people.

Erdogan has not sought to ban alcohol consumption completely. His government seeks to curtail it at certain times. Compare this to the attitude of previous Turkish governments to women's dress. Until 2010, women who chose to wear headscarves were barred from attending universities. In 2007, Emine Erdogan, the PM's wife, was barred from entering a military hospital for failing to remove her scarf.

Perhaps the most notorious example of secular extremism was seen in 1999 when an elected MP, Dr Merve Safa Kavakci, was prevented from taking her Parliamentary oath simply because of a traditional piece of clothing she wore on her head. In 2007, the European Court of Human Rights found her expulsion from Parliament was a violation of human rights.

Erdogan's tactics in relation to the recent protests have been heavy-handed. But one wonders what would have happened if this kind of protest had taken place under previous Turkish governments. Erdogan knows what it is like to be on the wrong side of a dictatorial regime. In 1997, he was jailed for merely reciting a poem during a speech.

This may be Erdogan's last term in office. But for the sake of his successor, his party and his nation, Erdogan needs to recognise that a small but influential and highly articulate mass of protesters could leave his legacy of electoral triumph, political reform, economic success and international respect in tatters. A devout Muslim like Erdogan should recognise the value of humility.

• Irfan Yusuf is author of Once Were Radicals. This column was first published in the NZ Herald on Friday 14 June 2013.

Words Copyright © 2013 Irfan Yusuf

COMMENT: Why isn't this man donating to Israel's bushfire effort?

Lots of countries are helping Israel out with its current bushfire predicament. Among them are Bulgaria, Greece and Spain. Also helping are Muslim-majority states such as Azerbaijan. According to the News AZ website:

The Azerbaijani Ministry for Emergencies sent today two helicopters of the aviation group to join the international crews helping Israel in the battle a huge forest fire.

MES’ two helicopters – "Ka-32A" and "Mi-17-1b" left for Israel from Baku International Airport.

Chief of the Aviation group of MES, Colonel Ashraf Gasimov reported to the journalists that according to Israeli government’s appeal, the Azerbaijani government would take part in fire extinguishing.

Also helping is Turkey. Remember that Israeli troops recently stormed a Turkish flotilla and killed Turkish citizens on board. Still, Turkey heeded the call of its old ally. Zaman reported on 4 December:

Turkey has put aside tensions in diplomatic relations with Israel, and under orders by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, has rushed to send fire fighting aircraft to assist in the battle against Israel’s biggest-ever fire that has already killed around 40 people.

The man some of Israel's most hawkish friends dub as a dangerous Islamist managed to earn thanks from Israeli PM Benyamin Netanyahu. According to Ynet News reporting on 3 December:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu thanked his Turkish counterpart, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, along with other world leaders for sending planes and firefighting equipment to Israel in order to assist the battle against the blaze consuming its northern region.

Netanyahu added that he spoke with his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan who "expressed his and his country's condolences to the families of the 41 casualties and Turkey's willingness to help."

"I told Erdogan that we appreciate the major efforts during this time and I am sure that this will be a gateway to improving relations between the two countries", the prime minister said noted.

But there's one American journalist who refuses to help. Jeffrey Goldberg, national correspondent for The Atlantic, has written a scathing attack on what he sees as the negligence of Israeli authorities in not doing more to protect their citizens from the elements.

Israel's per capita GDP is nearly $30,000. Israel is a rich country. The fact that it doesn't possess adequate firefighting equipment is its own fault. The fact that the leadership of its fire service is incompetent is its own fault ...

It's a compelling argument. Israel isn't accustomed to fighting fires on this scale. Indeed, it's more accustomed to starting fires in other people's backyards. Still, right now Israel needs help needs help. Just as it needs help with convincing itself not to set off the kinds of fires that kill children. Fires like the one shown below.



Or is it in poor taste to mention these children at this time?

Words © 2010 Irfan Yusuf

Bookmark this on Delicious

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


Bookmark this on Delicious

COMMENT: The tortured reality that clouds Obama's message ...

President Barack Obama has many messages to deliver to that nebulous blob called “the Muslim world”. He wanted to move relations between America and 1.2 billion Muslims beyond the kind of stereotypes that dogged his own campaign.

Obama’s recent address to Turkey’s National Assembly was really an address to the governments of Muslim-majority states. He acknowledged “there have been difficulties these last few years … that strain is shared in many places where the Muslim faith is practiced”. He also reminded them that “America's relationship with the Muslim community, the Muslim world, cannot, and will not, just be based upon opposition to terrorism”.

This all sounds lovely. There’s just one problem. America’s unpopular war on terror involved kidnapping and torturing Muslim terror suspects, with few charges laid against anyone. Much of this torture was outsourced to the very governments Obama was addressing in his remarks. Police and intelligence services of countries such as Pakistan, Egypt, Morocco and Syria tortured prisoners and sold their “evidence” to the United States. Governments of these countries allowed the CIA to conduct secret “black site” prisons.

A host of kings, emirs, generals and presidents-for-life of Muslim-majority states used America’s “war on terror” as a convenient excuse to stifle dissent and to suppress their own political opponents. These same governments use religious sentiment to stir up trouble over trivial issues (e.g. the Danish cartoons) to divert attention away from government excess and incompetence. In countries where substantial Muslim minorities existed (such as China, India and the Philippines), fighting “terrorism” was used as a cover to suppress minorities. And not only Muslims suffered. Fighting terrorism has been used as an excuse by the Sri Lankan army to commit atrocities against Tamil civilians.

And now CIA Director Leon Panetta is insisting that ...

... no one who took actions based on legal guidance from the Department of Justice at the time should be investigated, let alone punished.

Then again, a full investigation might just expose the dirty role played by the despots that rule the majority of Muslim countries. It might also expose the role of US allies such as Australia.

Words © 2009 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

VIDEO/POLITICS: President Obama addresses Turkish university students ...

Bookmark this on Delicious

ELECTIONS/HUMOUR: The great Auburn kebab konspiracy ...

Local government elections have just been concluded across New South Wales. There have been no clear winners, with the ALP obvious losers in most areas. Minor parties and independents have also done well. This was largely an election about local and state issues.

But according to one candidate for the Greens, this election was also about the leadership of his local mosque flouting secular traditions and allowing one candidate to address its congregation after Friday prayers.

Kuranda Seyfi Seyit, chair of an organisation calling itself the “Forum of Australia’s Islamic Relations”, has spat the dummy after he was out-polled by community independent Izzet Anmak in the elections for one of two wards in Auburn Council. Seyit has approached ABC and claimed that Anmak was endorsed by the executive committee of the Auburn Gallipoli Mosque to run as their candidate, allowing him the opportunity to speak at the mosque on the Friday before the elections.

Mr Seyit is quoted by ABC as alleging that Australian Turks have a proud secular tradition, the obvious implication being that the mosque and/or Anmak were part of a plot to introduce political Islam into local government.

This is a serious charge to make against a mainstream religious institution that has in the past allowed candidates of all major parties to visit the mosque and address parishioners during local, state and federal elections. Past speakers and visitors have included former Mayor Le Lam and State ALP Member Barbara Perry.

Mr Seyit was endorsed by the Greens, a party whose leaders have spoken out against stereotyping of Muslims and other racial and religious minorities. The Greens have supported the cause of asylum seekers and have opposed anti-terrorism laws on the basis that these have been passed in an environment of hysteria.

Now, one of their candidates is generating hysteria, accusing a Turkish religious institution of attempting to influence a council election.

The imbecilic nature of Mr Seyit’s allegations is obvious. On the one hand, he states that Australian Turks are proud of their secular nature. Turkish secularism places strong emphasis on separating mosque from state. If Aussie Turks shared this passion, surely one would have expected any attempt by the Gallipoli Mosque executive to support a candidate to backfire. Surely any attempt by the mosque to support Mr Anmak would have worked against him.

Mr Seyit’s outburst isn’t without its unintended humour. In a recent e-mail sent out to a Muslim yahoogroup, Mr Seyit stated the real reasons for his anger at the mosque executive.

Politics in the mosque should not be tolerated. Not because I am secular … The mosque cannot take sides. when the Mosque allowed Izzet to make a speech to the congregation it really hurt me as that mosque is something that my father worked towards building. My father was sent to Turkey in 1982 by the mosque building committee to raise funds. My father used to teach Quran courses there and we were all a part of the mosque's history. In fact my father was the first Turkish man in Australia to lead the Eid prayer in a small house in Redfern in 1970.

By his own admission, Mr Seyit is no great lover of secularism. His main concern is to benefit from mosque resources he believes he is entitled to because of his father’s efforts.

In the same e-mail, Mr Seyit makes this extraordinary claim:

Now we await the result and although prior to running I had done the calculations I knew that I would get in without difficulty. Instead, as it stands many of my votes went to Izzet and there is a very high chance that both of us will miss out. I was invited to run by former councillors and that is why I ran, I was assured of their support and knew that I would get the majority of the "Muslim" vote in ward one.

Yes, Mr Seyit clearly would have been Auburn Council’s answer to Saladdin, liberating Ward 1 from the nasty crusaders and leading the mythical Muslim voting bloc to political glory. Mr Seyit saw himself as becoming perhaps Auburn’s first Caliph.

Mr Seyit also argues in his e-mail that there was a kebab konspiracy involved, with kebab manufacturers plotting against him:

The owwner of the Ozlem Kebabs told me that they wanted to run their own man … and that is why they did not endorse me. They used the every trick in the book to get votes from the Turkish community, with a bottomless pit of money, they placed pressure on most of the kebab shops to vote for their man, they convinced the ALL the Turkish Newspapers to promote their man (because Ozlem and the kebabs are all big advertisers) , they ran large ads every week, and they worked on each every Turkish organisation and soccer club, first and foremost they had the support of the Gallipoli Mosque and the president campaigned hard for their man.

Clearly this was a foul-smelling kebab konspiracy, filled with extra garlic sauce. Both Mr Seyit’s ego and his political career seem to have died with a felafel in his hand.

UPDATE I: Writing to the same yahoogroup referred to above, a certain Gazza, who admits to being an ALP member and addict of non-alcoholic beer, has made the following important observations ...

I have read the to and fro of messages about Seyfi’s unfortunate loss in the Auburn council elections and am disappointed in the sniping and backbiting that has resulted. All this serves to demonstrate just how nasty politics can get ...

Lets all take a Valium and go to sleep till the next election.

My response to Gazza is this - I'll be happy to bring the Bavaria if you supply the valiums!




Words © 2008 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

OPINION: Stirring the plot with polygamy

I was catching up on the latest news of my ancestral sport when I noticed that India had just won a cricket match in the Asia Cup. I wasn't surprised by India winning, but I was surprised by who they were playing.

Hong Kong? Playing cricket? Surely this was a misprint. Since when did people in Hong Kong play cricket?

But why should I be surprised? After all, Hong Kong was once a British colony. And one would expect that at least some traces of British culture would remain even after Hong Kong was handed back to China.

Just as one would expect some Muslim men to marry more than one wife. Listeners to Triple J's Hack current-affairs program may have been similarly surprised to learn that some Muslims want the right for Muslim men to marry more than one wife.

President of the self-styled Islamic Friendship Association Keysar Trad even told a broadsheet newspaper that he had made serious attempts at it. He's a brave man to admit this to a national newspaper.

To its credit, The Australian reported the story quite fairly, as did the Fairfax papers. The News Limited tabloids, meanwhile, accompanied their stories with pictures of women in black burqas in various positions some kneeling in submission and others taking a stroll (presumably indoors). Is this a case of Rupert Murdoch's tabloid minions keeping a certain Saudi prince (who owns at least a 7 per cent stake in News Corporation) happy?

Lakemba Sheik Khalil Chami, who I understand doubles as Muslim chaplain for the Australian Federal Police, has called for Australia's marriage laws to be amended. His concern is that there are Muslim men who engage in polygamous marriages "off the record". They have their first marriage registered while any subsequent wives are the subject of purely religious ceremonies. Until the relevant time elapses, these women don't even have the protection of state and territory laws governing de facto relationships.

Chami says he has been approached by men asking him to perform second and third marriages. He has refused, and says many men seeking multiple marriage partners are inspired by less-than-altruistic motives.

But what happens if there are altruistic motives? What happens when a man is prepared to marry a woman to provide her with some much-needed support and in a socially respectable manner?

For many Australians, such notions of social justice may seem unusual. After all, if you're a man who wants to support another woman, why do you need to marry her?

But then, as Uncle Sam (the comedic character from SBS TV's new chat show Salam Cafe) would say, "Vye not?" Especially when we are talking about societies where reputation is everything and where women are almost always expected to hold to higher levels of sexual ethics than men.

I know of one case in Melbourne where a man entered into a polygamous marriage. The man's existing wife had a close friend who had converted to Islam and was in some difficulties with her family. The first wife permitted, indeed encouraged, her husband to marry the woman as a favour to her friend.

The polygamous marriage consisted purely of a marriage ceremony, though they had enormous trouble finding an imam to perform it. The marriage wasn't registered and sadly didn't last long. If it did, the second wife would have eventually gained the status of a de facto partner under Victorian law.

What surprised me was the response of Muslims in Melbourne. It was unequivocal and swift. The family was ostracised. Many of my male friends invited to the wedding, including some very observant Muslims, refused to attend for fear of offending their wives.

Turks were particularly scathing. Melbourne's Muslim community is largely dominated by Turks and Cypriots. Polygamy is banned in Turkey. Unlike the ban on women wearing hijabs to university, the polygamy ban is indicative of Turkish social attitudes.

The verses from the Koran dealing with polygamy have been interpreted in various ways. They don't provide absolute permission for men to marry more than one wife. The most generous reading would provide for conditional consent for a man to marry up to four wives if he could provide for them equally. Jurists of Islamic sacred law have applied this strictly to effectively mean that a man who builds a house for one wife is expected to build houses of identical cost and quality for his other wives. Little wonder polygamy is the exception rather than the rule in most Muslim societies.

The social justice considerations behind polygamous marriage do not exist in Australia. Our social-security safety nets provide at least some coverage to single-parent families in financial crisis.

Nor do we see much evidence of demand for changes to marriage laws from Muslims, Mormons or followers of other faiths often associated with polygamy. When not even observant Muslims are clamouring for polygamy, our marriage laws should remain as they are.

Irfan Yusuf is a lawyer and associate editor of AltMuslim.com. This article was first published in the Canberra Times on Friday 27 June 2008.

Words © 2007 Irfan Yusuf

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


Bookmark this on Delicious

CRIKEY: Talking Turkey, democracy and EU membership

Turks have just elected an Islamist government. But we aren't talking about HAMAS here. Turkey’s Islamists combine free market economics, recognition of Israel, pro-Western foreign policy and more zeal to join the EU than any of its more allegedly secular predecessors.

Still, many conservatives (both social and economic) oppose Turkey’s entry into the EU. I saw this in action back in October 2005 at the launch of the Australian edition of In Defence of Global Capital published by the CIS.

The author is an ex-greenie ex-socialist Swede, Johan Norberg, who converted to capitalism after researching ways to fight global poverty. He now believes globalised capitalism, removing trade barriers and liberalising international labour markets is essential to solving intractable economic, social, environmental and security problems.

Paul Kelly from The Oz and James Morrow (whose Investigate magazine’s Australian edition seems to have gone underground, if not under) introduced Norberg with all smiles and praise. One even praised him for his good looks!

Norberg lapped it up before telling us to open our borders to new goods, services, people and money. He attacked the EU’s rhetoric on globalisation and its hypocrisy in placing high tariff walls to stop imports from the third world.

I noticed a slight change in tone from Kelly, Morrow and the audience when Norberg said the West should liberalise their immigration policies and acknowledge that the greatest achievements and contributions in culture, business and politics often come from migrants and refugees.

I couldn’t help myself. In question time, I asked whether Norberg supported EU membership for Turkey. To the chagrin of his conservative Sydney audience, Norberg went on to explain why arguments EU conservatives use to oppose Turkey’s entry are in fact excellent reasons to support it:

1. Turkey is too big and will make up 15% of the EU’s population. True, but size represents opportunities, especially given Turkey’s growing economy.

2. Turkey is too poor. True, but many recent entrants are poorer and will prove a greater drain. Plus poor Europeans often do the jobs that rich Europeans refuse to do.

3. Turkey is too Muslim. Norberg said that not all Muslims are the same. Some of Europe’s more troublesome Muslim migrants are victims of overly generous welfare policies and inflexible and overly regulated labour markets. A fresh injection of Westernised Turkish Muslims will help the process of economic and social integration for (often less integrated) South Asian and North African ethnic Muslim groups.

Further, if the EU strings Turkey along with all these promises of membership if Turkey reforms its economy and polity, then dumps Turkey just for some historical and religious prejudice, it will damage the EU more than Turkey.

Norberg wasn’t exactly the most popular person in the room after all that. My notes show Paddy McGuinness almost choking on his wine, then arguing profusely about the hordes of German and French Muslims rioting, and Norberg responding by saying it was more complex than just culture and sect.

It seemed my Turkey-EU question let the kebab out of the bag. It was hilarious to see this allegedly conservative crowd push their free market economics out the window to make way for their pet sectarian prejudices.

First published in the Crikey daily alert on 25 July 2007.

Words © 2007 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

REFLECTION: Meeting Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a woman with a mission. The problem is that I’m not quite sure what her mission actually is. And to make matters more interesting, after reading at least 100 articles about her (not to mention reading her The Caged Virgin and sitting with her for 40 minutes), I’m not sure if she knows what it is either.

If her mission is to increase sales of her books (including her autobiography Infidel), she certainly is achieving her mission. She is without doubt the star of the show at this year’s Sydney Writers’ Festival, and her book was by far the biggest seller. But apart from dollars and euros, does she have any other goals?

I spoke with Ayaan Hirsi Ali this afternoon. Joining me during the interview was Jose Borghino, editor of the online magazine NewMatilda.com. I don’t wish to give too much away at this stage as I would otherwise be operating off my own recollections of the discussion. If you wish to know what transpired, you will have to subscribe to NewMatilda.com and part with A$77. It isn’t much for a yearly subscription of a superb publication.

I am, however, prepared to share some impressions.

Firstly, I know that many of Hirsi Ali’s allegedly conservative supporters such as Paul Sheehan are obsessed with her good looks. However, Hirsi Ali has a very strong mind and resents being treated as “just a pretty face”.

Secondly, Hirsi Ali is not an archetypal American conservative. In fact, she has views that would make many American conservatives reject her (and it seems many are starting to already).

For instance, when it comes to abortion, Hirsi Ali believes women shouldn’t be barred from access to abortion. She doesn’t believe it should be used as a contraceptive, but she does believe that women should have a choice.

Hirsi Ali is also deadly opposed to the teaching of Creation “science” in schools. In fact, she is opposed to the policies of Christian conservatives who want to bridge the separation or church and state.

She wants Muslims to adopt the values of the European enlightenment. Hirsi Ali hopes that Muslims can come up with an interpretation and understanding of their texts which is consistent with enlightenment values. She doesn’t believe one exists, but claims to have an open mind about the possibility.

Hirsi Ali seems to believe that there is little difference between the AK Party and al-Qaeda. She supports the maintenance of Kemalist secularism, and believes the AK Party wants to introduce sharia law by stealth. She also supports a military intervention to stop the AK Party, and suggests Muslims should be forced to adopt what she sees as secularism even if it is not popular.

The first translation of the Qur’an Hirsi Ali read was the one by Abdullah Yusuf Ali. The views she expressed to me about the Qur’an are certainly different to the ones she has expressed in other media appearances. Is she being misquoted?

Jose asked some absolute gem questions, but I’m afraid you will have to wait until you subscribe and the recording and our articles are placed on the NewMatilda.com site.

Words © 2007 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

REFLECTION: Cheers to our cultural diversity

AUSTRALIA Day is traditionally a day for the Australian patriot. Certainly we have much to be patriotic about. In a short time compared with other Western countries, we've become a wealthier and more cohesive bunch than most nations this side of the galaxy.

We also have a proud history. When many parts of Europe were burdened with collective anti-Semitism, our ancestors had little trouble appointing Sir Isaac Isaacs as the first Australian-born governor-general.

Within decades of getting walloped by the Turks at Gallipoli, we were good-natured enough to open our doors to Turkish workers. It's little wonder businessman John Ilhan, the nephew of Ottoman troops, can tell metropolitan tabloids:

I am the proud son of Turkish parents. I missed being born in Australia by a few years, but each day I thank my lucky stars that I came to this country I had relatives who fought against the Anzacs yet today, if there was another world war, I would fight for Australia without hesitation.

It hasn't always been a bed of roses. Few Muslims would disagree with Ilhan's assessment of some radical Muslim leaders in Australia, who pretend to speak for the faith, but instead promote intolerance and hatred.

During the Christmas break, my partner and I found ourselves driving through the federation town of Tenterfield, just south of the Queensland border. We visited the Tenterfield Federation Museum and saw relics of our federation fathers.

Here, on October 24, 1889, Sir Henry Parkes, then premier of NSW, made a speech said to mark the beginning of Australia's political journey towards federation. The tone was of inclusion, of ensuring that the interests of the peoples of all colonies be given appropriate measure.

The museum also displayed an uglier side to that era the racial riots directed at Chinese migrant workers. It didn't show the institutionalised disadvantage and discrimination against indigenous peoples. We saw its results at night when we found young indigenous children in varying states of inebriation on the lawns outside the town hall.

Perhaps a certain opposition leader inherited some of the anti-Chinese feeling when he said in August 1988 that it " would be in our immediate term interest and supportive of social cohesion if [Asian migration] were slowed down a little, so that the capacity of the community to absorb was greater." Why would someone say that after serving as treasurer in a conservative government that introduced a kind of muted multiculturalism a decade before?

Writing in the The Age on May 25, 2004, conservative columnist and former Howard staffer Gerard Henderson described the

... one significant blot on [Howard's] record in public life a certain lack of empathy in dealing with individuals with whom he does not identify at a personal level: for example, Asian Australians in the late 1980s and asylum-seekers in the early 21st century.

Australian multiculturalism has never been an end in itself. It's always been a means to an end, the end being the development of a uniquely Australian culture that recognises the reality that ours is a nation of migrants. Even when it wasn't a specific government policy, cultural diversity always existed on the ground as a social reality.

Decades ago, monocultural rhetoric focused on Asians (specifically Indo-Chinese). Today, it focuses on 360,000 Australians from more than 60 different countries who tick the word Muslim on their census forms.

On the eve of Australia Day, John Ilhan could write:

My Muslim faith qualifies me to strongly denounce any racist and inflammatory comments made by any Muslim leaders because they perpetuate a stereotype that is unhelpful and dangerous.

Ilhan showed a degree of self-critique common in his faith-community. Sadly, many monoculturalists could not engage in a similar degree of self-critique when it comes to the ugly actions of some people.

Allow me to inject some multimedia. Grab your laptops and go to the YouTube website. Type in "Cronulla riots" and view some of the videos appearing. You'll find ugly recordings glorifying the riots and the reprisal attacks. Some glorify the white-pride sentiments of the rioters, while others glorify the brutality of a small band of Lebanese thugs who engaged in reprisal attacks.

So who is responsible for these disgraceful anonymous videos? In the past few days, tabloid newspapers have been running hard on the trail of one set of videos linked to a Western Sydney high school. Before any firm conclusion had been reached, the Prime Minister had already made up his mind:

It's a reminder that there is undoubtedly within a section, a small section, of the Lebanese Muslim community, a group of people who are antagonistic to the values and the way of life in this country.

Why say that? Maybe the PM had information about those responsible for the video which even the NSW Police and the NSW Education Minister didn't have. Fair enough.

But why not issue similar condemnation of white supremacist and neo-Nazi websites which praised the Cronulla rioters? Then again, wasn't this the same Prime Minister who spoke of the rioters' "genuine grievances"?

One problem I have with our multiculturalism is that it's based on the myth that we are just a nation of migrants. Too often we have overlooked and ignored the history and culture of indigenous communities.

I'm no expert on New Zealand history, but I believe our cousins across the Tasman have been far more open to asylum-seekers because their nation was built on a treaty with their indigenous peoples. The historical and cultural tang of Waitangi has ensured even the most conservative New Zealand government couldn't take on monoculturalism as a long-term political strategy.

Anyway, enough pontificating. Have a wonderful Australia Day. Put a halal shrimp on the barbie. And have an extra beer on my behalf!

First published in the Canberra Times on Australia Day, Friday 26 January 2007.

Words © 2007 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

COMMENT: Turkey's PM sets foot in Australia & New Zealand

Over the next fortnight, Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan will be visiting Australia and New Zealand. His tour will be the first visit by a Turkish Prime Minister for at least 10 years.

Mr Erdogan represents a new generation of conservative Muslim leaders. In the past decade, Turkish politics has stepped in a more Islamist direction, especially as Muslim parties have enjoyed increased popularity after more secular parties have been wracked by corruption and scandal.

Mr Erdogan came to power as the leader of the conservative Islamist AK Party. The term “Ak” literally means “purified” and has been used by a number of Sufi groups as a pronoun to their various operations. A group of Islamist radio and TV stations in Turkey are called “AK-RA” and “AK-TV” respectively. But in reality, the AK Party is little more than a Muslim version of the Christian Democrat parties common in other European countries.

Indeed, even the most sceptical observers of Turkey agree that the present Turkish government is not turning its face totally eastward. Erdogan is a firm believer in liberal democracy, and he has proven to be the most active Prime Minister in terms of seeking Turkey’s entry into the European Union.

Turkey’s proposed entry to the EU is being opposed by some European leaders who see Turkey as too big, too poor and too Muslim. During a recent visit to the conservative Centre for Independent Studies, Swedish economist Johan Norberg suggested that Turkey’s entry to the EU should be supported for these very reasons.

In relation to Turkey’s Muslim culture, Norberg suggested that the influx of Turkish workers will force EU nations to free up their over-regulated labour markets and break down existing migrant ghettoes which are categorised by high unemployment and simmering resentment.

He also suggested that Turkish Islam is hardly the type which would reinforce existing pockets of extremism. If anything, Turkey’s more liberal Ottoman Sufi approach to Islam and its historical engagement with Europe will be an effective antidote to the threat of alleged radicalisation of European Muslims.

Norberg’s words are not the observations of a neo-capitalist idealist. His views are grounded in an understanding of Ottoman and modern Turkish trends of Islamic thought. The Ottoman Empire was a very European empire. It should be remembered that the Ottomans were already in Europe prior to the conquest of Constantinople, and indeed that conquest took Ottoman armies eastward and not westward. Further, Ottoman religious institutions tended to be dominated by European converts.

Modern Turkish Islam has a very strong foundation in the classical Sufism of universalist thinkers such as Rumi. Indeed, the city of Konya where Rumi is buried is regarded as Turkey’s Islamic heartland.

My own experience with Turkish Islamic scholars has been that they place enormous emphasis on this-worldly affairs, especially on business. Turkish Imams (who make up the majority of Imams in Australia) emphasise engagement with the mainstream in all areas of life. Their message is a far cry from the isolationist theology of some more radical Middle Eastern Imams.

Erdogan himself is a reflection of this thinking. Despite his impeccable Islamic credentials, he is also no stereotypical mullah. He is a father of four whose son is currently studying at Harvard. Erdogan refused to follow the lead of the newly elected Iranian president by calling for the destruction of Israel.

If anything, under the Erdogan government Turkey’s relations with Israel have improved. Turkey has sponsored talks between the foreign ministers of Israel and Pakistan, and Turkey maintains close diplomatic, military and cultural ties with Israel.

The current Turkish PM is also firmly opposed to all forms of Islamic extremism and terrorism. In this regard, Erdogan is following Turkish public opinion. During a recent terrorist attack on an Istanbul synagogue, Mr Erdogan vowed to pursue those responsible and bring them justice. By all indications, his calls resonated positively across all sectors of Turkish society. Further, as an active NATO member state, Turkey continues to support the war on terrorism.

Turkey’s engagement of European liberalism goes beyond merely winning the Eurovision song contest. In April 2004, the Turkish government led a campaign for Cypriot Turks to support the re-unification of Cyprus.

Greek Cypriots voted overwhelmingly against Cypriot unity. Ironically, despite their rejection of UN-sponsored reunification, the Greek section of Cyprus was granted EU membership.

Australia has a large and well-established Turkish community. Over 100,000 Turks and their descendants have had a presence in Australia since the 1950’s. Out of all Muslim ethnic groups, they are the most organised, the best integrated and have the greatest number of mosques. Australia needs to make greater use of its Turkish communities with a view to secure the substantial advantages flowing from closer economic ties with this growing economy.

Both Australia and New Zealand forged their first links with Turkey on the battlefields of the Gallipoli peninsula. Each year, our embassies and high commissions across the world hold ANZAC Day ceremonies, and we make a point of inviting Turkish diplomats to also attend.

Turkey’s economic and cultural ties with Australia and New Zealand have overcome the effects of that initial encounter. And with Prime Minister Erdogan’s visit, it is hoped these ties will grow stronger.

Words © 2005 Irfan Yusuf

POLITICS/COMMENT: Twin Nations Finally Start Talking

Pakistan and Israel were founded hardly a year apart. They were both nations carved out for a religious minority. The creation of both these states involved uprooting millions of indigenous peoples who had been living there for centuries. They both have had difficult relations with their neighbours.

Pakistan and Israel are both close allies of the United States, and have been so since their creation. The religions that inspired their creation could be regarded as near-identical twins. Add Jesus, John the Baptist, Mary and Muhammad to Jewish theological equation and you have Islam.

Pakistan if often described as an Islamic Israel. And Israel could just as easily be described as a Jewish Pakistan. So why has it taken so long for these two nations to start talking?

On 1 September, the foreign ministers of both nations met and talks in Istanbul. The Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom described the event as an “historic meeting”. Meanwhile, Pakistani Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri described his country’s willingness to “engage” with Israel, though stopping short at this stage of establishing full diplomatic ties with the Jewish state.

So what led to all this? Was Pakistan pushed? Did the United States lean on President Musharraf and threaten sanctions of talks did not commence?

In fact, none of these scenarios are realistic. What is realistic is a growing sense of realism in the Muslim world. With international media showing scenes of Israeli soldiers forcibly removing settlements from the Occupied territories, and with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon openly describing settlers as “Jewish terrorists”, Muslims are beginning to realise that Israel is prepared to make concessions.

It seems the Muslim world is going through a process one may describe as “Saladdinisation”. Saladdin, the Kurdish general who fought the Crusaders, fought to remove the Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem and liberate the city. Saladdin is regarded as a hero, a veritable warrior-saint in Muslim consciousness.

Yet Saladdin was no blind warrior. He was a wily politician who realised that the real battle was the one not involving loss of life. He was more concerned with political posturing than with killing infidels.

Saladdin fought the Christian kingdoms but had no hesitation in recognising them and holding dialogues and entering treaties with them. Yet perhaps more significantly, Saladdin did not see the fight against the Crusaders as a war on all Christians.

He actively recruited soldiers and advisers from Christian communities, and made a point to understand and address the ideological motivations of the Crusader warriors. He also exploited their weaknesses, the poverty of their soldiers and the tribal and ethnic rivalries between the various Crusader factions.

Saladdin won battles in the battlefield, but also won lasting respect off the battlefield. His military successes are well remembered, but his diplomatic successes were all the more remarkable.

Had Saladdin taken the rejectionist ad isolationist approach which so many of his junior officers advised he take, he would never have even come close to liberating Jerusalem and removing the Crusaders from the region. Yet it is this very approach which most Arab and Muslim nations continue to take.

The failure of Muslim nations to have friendly relations with a Jewish entity is an anomaly in Muslim history. Saladdin’s own personal physician and adviser was also a rabbi. In fact, he was perhaps the greatest medieval Jewish theologian, known to Muslims as Shaykh Musa bin Maymoun al-Qurtubi and to Jews as Moses Maimonides.

In the Indian sub-continent, Jews and Muslims have always had friendly relations. The Jewish communities in Bombay and Poona often use the word “namaz” to describe their prayer, a word generally used by Muslims to describe the 5 daily prayers.

The powerful Memon Muslim tribes in the Gujarat state of India have always traded with Jewish communities. Substantial Memon communities exist in South Africa, and they trade extensively Jewish South Africans of Lithuanian and Latvian ethnicity. Even in Australia, there are strong business and social links between South African Muslim and Jewish migrants.

It was, therefore, only a matter of time before Pakistan’s government would cave into pressure from its own influential Memon business sector and commence talks with Israel. Pakistan’s dialogue with Israel is probably more about rupees than any ideological shift.

Pakistan’s Islamist sector will attempt to hijack the discussions. But their efforts will be thwarted by the fact that these talks are being hosted by Turkey’s Islamist government. Perhaps Pakistani Islamists could learn some pragmatism from the sensible AK Party of Turkey.

Talks between Israel and Pakistan are a welcome step. One can only hope that these talks will be the beginning of a new era in Muslim-Jewish relations which will revive the historically strong ties between the two faiths.

COMMENT: Gallipoli - A Lasting Friendship Baptised In Blood

By the time this gets published, the ANZAC Day holiday will be a faint memory for most of us. I will remember sitting in a Panania backyard stuffing myself with barbecued kifte meat and drinking it down with Indian tea cooked on the smouldering coals. We will recall watching TV images of old veterans marching on the streets, of dawn services in Turkey and of the usual speeches by politicians seeking to generate political capital from the whole affair.

And although the phrase of ANZAC day is “Lest We Forget”, the sad reality is that most of us will have forgotten it all. Even if the traces of that amazing failure of British intelligence continue to live with us.

This year marks the 90th anniversary of the landing by allied forces on the coast of Gallipoli. Over 100,000 young men died in the entire campaign. Amongst them were Australians and New Zealanders.

But the largest number of dead came from the Ottoman side. These valiant fighters defended what was left of the frontier of the Ottoman Empire. They defeated the allies and saved Istanbul from foreign occupation, but not without enormous sacrifice.

Who was their commander? He was the young general of the 19th Division of the Ottoman Fifth Army. His parents had named him after their beloved Prophet Muhammad (peace & blessings of God be upon him). General Mustafa Kemal was without a doubt one of the heroes of Ottoman military folklore.

Ironically, Mustafa Kemal (today more commonly known by the title of Ataturk, father of the Turks) was the man who dealt the final political blow to the Ottoman caliphate. And for this, many Muslims refuse to recognise him as anything but a traitor.

Most Turks, on the other hand, love Ataturk. They also share with Australians a deep respect for the ANZAC’s. The largest Turkish congregation in Sydney has named their mosque the “Auburn Gallipoli Mosque”, largely in recognition of the deep friendship between Turkey and Australia. This friendship was baptised in the blood shed on the beaches and cliffs of Gallipoli.

The broader Muslim communities have every right to commemorate ANZAC Day. Among the dead on the allied side were Indian troops, a fair proportion of whom may have been Muslim. We also salute those fallen Ottoman troops led by one of the Ottoman Empire’s greatest military strategists.

But more importantly, we have every reason to commemorate the sacrifices of the tens of thousands of young Australian men who fell in battle. We are Australians also. And by all accounts, these Australian troops held no malice for the Turkish foe. When the allies finally evacuated, the Ottomans found letters and messages left by the Australian troops. One such letter said: “Johnny The Turk, goodbye. We left lots of food for you, enjoy them”.

Half-witted journalists might try to find Islamist conspiracies in Turkish road workers building a road over the Cannakale coast (at the request of the Australian government!). But most Australians, regardless of their ethnicity or faith, will maintain enormous goodwill toward Turkey. And Australian Turks, by their generally exemplary behaviour and continuing contributions to Australian life, will further that goodwill.

Next time you go to an AFL or ARL game and see “Crazy John” adverts across the ground, remember that Crazy John would not have existed if the ancestors of a young entrepreneur had not migrated from Turkey to Australia. I am sure the fallen diggers would have been happy to see a Young Turkish Muslim at the heart of Australian life.

Words © 2005 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious