COMMENT: Border Insecurity ...

The letters section of the Daily Telegraph of Friday 24 April 2009 has two typical examples of uninformed hysteria concerning the issue of "border security" and asylum seekers. I'm in no way suggesting the Tele shouldn'y be publishing these letters. Everyone's voice should be heard, and it's useful to know just what some people are thinking about such sensitive issues.

The first letter is from one P Cummins. It starts like this ...

The reason we now have a swag of boat people trying to get into Australia is because the Rudd Government last year loosened our border security laws ...

This might possibly be true in the case of Afghan and Iraqi asylum seekers, but the fact is that the conflict in Sri Lanka has only recently escalated to the extent that many Tamil civilians are fleeing directly from Sri Lanka as opposed to via Indonesia.

They need to be tightened for the protection of the citizens of this country, an obligation the Government has to its people.

So Australian citizens need to be protected from weak malnourished asylum seekers fleeing persecution. And what will these poor people bring with them? WMD? Nuclear weapons?

One has to ask why all of these asylum seekers come down to Australia? There are dozens of Muslim countries near Iraq and Afghanistan that are wealthy and not at war, where other Muslims and their families would fit right in and be comfortable.

There are hundreds of thousands of Iraqis living in Syria, which is struggling to accommodate them. Syria is itself not a terribly wealthy nation. Hazara Afghans fleeing the Taliban would hardly want to stick around in Pakistan where elements of the same Taliban have taken over large areas of the country. And using your reasoning, I'm not sure which Muslim-majority country Tamil Sri Lankans will go to given that they're a mixture of Hindu and Christian. In any event, it isn't just about religion. People's identities are not limited to religion. If our identity was solely determined by religion, we should have seen Kevin Rudd and/or Malcolm Turnbull and not John Safran being nailed to a cross in the Philippines. After all, the Philippines is a Catholic country, and both Rudd and Turnbull are Catholic.

So why come many thousands of miles down to Australia, a basically British culture and a Christian country? These are the questions we should be asking.

In that case, I'm sure quite a few of these people would happily convert to Christianity if it meant they and their families would be safe. After all, quite a few asylum seekers such as Kashmiri Peter Qasim converted to Christianity. However, that didn't stop him from being kept in detention by the Howard government even though it drove him into severe depression. And I guess we shouldn't have any problem accepting Tamil Christian asylum seekers. As for being British, I don't think indogenous Aussies were eating with knives and forks 40,000 years ago. Then again, neither were the Poms for that matter.

But why should we be asking such questions? After all, our immigration system does not discriminate on the basis of religion. And anyway, how can we really tell what religion a person subscribes to? Or is it someone we determine based on their racial background? So we assume that an Iraqi must be Muslim because he is Iraqi and has an Arabic-sounding name, even if he could well be a Chaldean or Yazidi or Assyrian Orthodox?

Then there is a letter from one Lynne Cole whose arguments make a similar degree of (non)sense.

The recent boatload of asylum seekers were all male, presumably some of them are or were married, perhaps with children. So they left family behind to cope with the Taliban on their own.

Your point being? That these men just callously left their families behind and left without so much as a goodbye? That their families had no say in the matter? That their family members don't wish to see even one person flee to safety? Or are you saying that their families are all in Afghanistan or Pakistan and not in Indonesia? That the Taliban have made it to Jakarta?

How will the families of the five dead survive?

Are you suggesting you're really concerned about their welfare and would support their migrating to Australia?

Why aren't these brave men standing shoulder-to-shoulder with our young soldiers who are in Afghanistan trying to improve the lot of the Afghan people?

Maybe for the same reason the vast majority of young Australian men and women aren't there - they're not professional soldiers. And maybe because it isn't nice staying in a place where you could be kicked out of your property and/or be murdered at anytime and where you've already seen family members slaughtered. And from a strategic perspective, the last thing Coalition forces and the Afghan National Army needs is severely traumatised people fighting on their side.

Our young men are killed or injured while these people choose to try for an easy life in Australia.

It's so easy being away from one's family and only hearing their voices on the other end of a phone (presuming you can even contact them). It's a piece of cake surviving in a new country where you aren't allowed to work and cannot access any social security and are forced to rely on charity to make some kind of a living. And on top of that, having to deal with the trauma of having just survived life in a warzone and mourning alone over your dead relatives, presuming that you even know that they are dead.

Those we have already admitted no doubt tell those back home that what a soft touch we are.

Pfft. Are you suggesting, Lynne, that we start behaving like al-Qaeda and Taliban and LTTE and the Sri Lankan Army just so that you feel protected from nasty dark-skinned refugees? I'm glad we are a soft touch. If you want to experience a not-so-soft touch, feel free to go join our brave men and women fighting in Afghanistan.

LETTER: Open letter to the editor of the Daily Telegraph ...

Dear Mr Linnell,

One of your columnists, Piers Akerman, decided to publish a comment on his blog which said the following:

Reality check people.

In the pirates we are dealing with illiterate stone-age savages who come from a racial group whose average IQ is in the 60s (retarded). There is a reason why Africans did not invent the wheel, writing, or any system of government above the tribal level.

There is only one way to deal with these pirates that will make an impression on their dull minds: freaking kill them and the horse that they rode in on.

Warships should prowl the area with orders to engage and kill (notice I said kill, not capture) all pirates on sight. Armed drones should prowl the sky with the same intent.

Merchantmen should carry a contingent of marines during their passage through this area, who would have orders to kill all pirates on sight.

If or when any pirates were taken alive, interrogate (aka torture) them until they reveal their home village or town.

Then . . . use either a fuel air weapon or a daisy cutter (depending upon the size of the target) to turn that village or town and all its inhabitants into a smoking hole in the ground. Nothing less is going to get through to these people.

Anything else will be viewed as weakness and they will continue to laugh at the foolish and weak white man . . . and they will be correct to do so.

CarlT of Gold Coast (Reply)
Mon 13 Apr 09 (07:59pm)

An excerpt from a further comment is as follows:

If they or their wives are fat in Somalia they are crooks and pirates. Hang or chop the hands off all the fat ones. Leave the Skinny’s.Sink any Somali vessel with a motor. Sails only ...

john allen of Southport Qld (Reply)
Mon 13 Apr 09 (09:13pm)

I was wondering if you could advise me how your newspaper's publication of this comment does not breach NSW and Commonwealth laws proscribing racial vilification.

If this question is too difficult for you to answer, perhaps you could refer the matter to someone from your legal division.

Regards
I Yusuf

PS: I noticed an advertisement on your website from Tourism NSW. I thought I would send this letter to their person in charge of "News and Trade Media". No doubt Tourism NSW would be most impressed to see their funds going toward the publication of racist and xenophobic commentary on your newspaper's website. I'm sure Sydney would be able to attract lots of overseas visitors would would be pleased to see a major Sydney newspaper that prints violently xenophobic material. Oh, and I also thought ABC Media Watch might be interested.

UPDATE I: Feel free to send your own e-mail of complaint to the following:

Garry Linnell - linnellg@dailytelegraph.com.au
Margaret Rayner - raynerm@dailytelegraph.com.au
Isabella Kennedy - kennedyi@dailytelegraph.com.au
Danial Creech - creechd@dailytelegraph.com.au

UPDATE II: I received the following e-mail from Mr Akerman on 15 April 2009:

Thank you for your note, you will see that I responded several days ago to another respondee. Posting remarks in no way signifies agreement with the sentiment contained.

My response to Mr Akerman of same date was as follows:

Posting such comments does signify that the moderator and the newspaper regard themselves as not being subject to State and Federal laws applying to other businesses. It also signifies that the newspaper does not really follow its own publication guidelines.

The fact that comments calling for genocide are seen as within the bounds of lawful discourse on a blog necessarily reflects on the author of the blogpost and on the newspaper.

UPDATE III: Daily Telegraph blogger and opinion editor Tim Blair frequently cites material from one Sheik Yer'Mami. The Sheik has some interesting observations to make about my correspondence with the Daily Telegraph. You can read them here. Some of Yer'Mami's commenters are as bad as Akerman's. Check this out:

kaw April 15, 2009 at 7:46 am
Having read Irfans blog, with an entry in the comment section that he has put in himself, I would say that every person should write to the editors listed, and to the state government complaining about Irfan. He found a published comment objectionable, so rather than reply to the comment, he tries to sue the newspaper for publishing it!!! ... The sooner this islamist piece of shiite is shut down the better.

And how about this?

kaw April 15, 2009 at 7:54 am
... My IQ, incidentally is rather high. I am also quite literate. I read “War and Peace” by Tolstoy when I was eight years old, and I actually have no problems in taking you on in, well, almost anything really. Now you have a nice day beating your head against the wall!

And what delightful discourse we have here.

Thomas H. April 15, 2009 at 11:32 am
... Obama is a lying, treacherous, puffed up, arrogant, ignorant, dishonest, sleazy hot-air bag, who bows deep to a mohammedan piece of excrement the ruler of both Mecca and Qaqa.

Now is it really so strange that a “man” exhibiting all these typically mohammedan traits is assumed to be a mohammedan? OK, the chance he is something else is, of course, there, but so is the chance of a lottery win. Statistics, dear dumn, statistics.

Besides, dear dumn, his middle name is Hussein and his demented daddy was a 100% muhammedan

Of course, Yer'Mami and his extremely literate friends are free to say whatever they like. The Daily Telegraph bloggers such as Blair and Akerman are also free to source information from whichever source they like. And we are free to reach whatever conclusions we wish about the integrity or otherwise of this newspaper.

Words © 2009 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

LETTERS/CRIKEY: Exchange of correspondence on Afghanistan and Charlie Wilson's war ...

Some readers might recall a piece I wrote for Crikey last December (reproduced here) about the continuing conflict in Afghanistan and its historical context.

One Crikey reader, Niall Clugston, responded to that piece on 5 January 2009 as follows:

Re: Charlie Wilson's Afghan f*ck-up (19 December). Irfan Yusuf seems to admire Charlie Wilson's War but doesn't seem to recognise the movie as a masterpiece of unconscious irony, including an uncanny prediction of the Bhutto assassination. Bizarrely enough, the movie proceeds as if September 11 never happened and never mentions Osama bin Laden. And, no, I don't think the result of scrupulous historical accuracy by Hollywood! Yusuf approvingly quotes the movie's conclusion. Never mind that it asserts that the "crazies" only arrived after the well-meaning Americans left. Why can't we just be told the truth?

My response to Niall's letter, published in Crikey on 6 January 2008, is as follows:

Niall Clugston "Comments" claims that Congressman Charlie Wilson suggested that the crazies "only arrived after the well-meaning Americans left". I'm not so sure about that. And even if he did claim this, the fact is that the Afghan mujahideen and their supporters consisted of some pretty crazy people. I suggest he might consult Peter Bergen's oral history of Osama bin Laden, especially the sections where Bergen deals with bin-Laden's Arab faction and his dealings with Dr Ayman al-Zawahiri. He might also do some research on the inter-factional wars that took place after the Soviets withdrew and before the Taleban took charge. Some of these crazies occupy seats in the current Afghanistan Parliament and are even ministers in the Karzai government. There are no clear goodies and badies in this war -- just lots of crazies.

LETTERS: Yet more tendentious responses to tendentious articles ...

It seems my tendentious writing is continuing unabated, despite requests from some quarters for respectable media to cease publishing my work. A chap named Steve from the gorgeous city of Christchurch sent me this e-mail in relation to this article published in the NZ Herald ...

Dear Mr Yusuf,

I happened to read your column published in the New Zealand Herald, published Monday 22nd September, highlighting the ongoing horrifying persecution of Christians by Hindus in India.

I would like to take this opportunity as an Indian Christian to thank you for this article, and that you had taken an initiative to highlight this.

I myself have been helped in the past and looked after by Muslim friends when I faced the problem of persecution from Hindus.

In a nation like India, that is diverse, Christians and Muslims are living like brothers, a complete antipodes of what you find in most other nations where certain groups are trying to bring divide between the two religions of Abraham.

In a nation like India, where multitude of gods are worshiped, where the 10 commandments are alien, Christians and Muslims stand by each other\'s side, hand in hand against injustice.

I have always stood by my Muslim brothers and their sufferings in India. In 1992 and 2002, when 3000 Muslims were massacred by VHP and RSS gangs in Gujarat, I was present and witnessed the anti Muslim hate.

When I moved to western nations, I faced the same prejudice of looking "middle eastern" by many in the general public. I have spend many years trying to convince people that Most Muslims are peace loving and have stood and protected Christians in India.

We have one God, one set of prophets, and under the name of the God of Abraham, I call you brother, being an evangelical Christian convert myself, I call Muslims as my brothers. I stand by their pain and suffering in India , just as they stood by us , cared us, fed us, strengthened us, in light of tremendous persecution at hands of idol worshipers.

Many Christians here see Muslims with unjustified suspicion, but I as a believing Christian, consider Muslims as a fellow religion, and work towards ending misunderstandings that some vested groups are attempting to create.

Fundamentalism and hatred has become a major problem in all societies, it divides brothers, it destroys families, it breaks down trust.

What is happening in India is massacre of Christians, 50,000 Christians alone in the state of orissa have fled.

Many lower caste Hindu to Christian converts, and to Islam are finding refuge in these religions by escaping the horrifying Hindu caste system.

There is also considerable support for VHP and RSS even by the Indian diaspora that is settled in western nations. These organizations collect funds from western countries and promote this hatred against Muslims and Christians in India.

I hope that the Lord God of Abraham, Moses, and Elijah will bless you for your courageous article in New Zealand Herald.

My only response is that the purpose of my article was not to criticise or attack Hinduism as a faith or its adherents. I'm sure most Hindus would find the actions of RSS thugs to be abhorrent just as their non-Hindu countrymen and women do. Among those at the forefront of fighting Hindutva neo-Nazism are genuine Hindu believers, many at great risk to themselves and their livelihood.

It's interesting that Steve mentions suffering discrimination when he moved to Western countries based on his having a Middle Eastern appearance. Ignorance and prejudice rarely make much logical sense.


Speaking of ignorance and prejudice, poor Daniel Lewis is having a hard time convincing people not to publish my stuff. On 19 September 2008, Lewis had this letter published in Crikey ...

It is interesting that Irfan Yusuf has had the time to write an article for Crikey. He apparently hasn't found the time to update his blog to note he was forced to apologise to Daniel Pipes for libelling him with a disgusting smear. Nor, as JF Beck notes, has Irfan retracted the offensive remarks from his website. As Pipes said: "His having embarrassed the Canberra Times should send a signal to responsible media everywhere to decline his tendentious writings". This means you, Crikey!

The folk at Crikey seem to be ignoring Daniel's requests, having already published two pieces from me since his letter was published.

Poor Danny.

LETTERS: Some tendentious feedback ...

A reader named Jim and located in Japan sent this e-mail to the wonderful folk at that magnificent website Online Opinion, who then kindly forwarded it to me ...

I can't find (being mostly computer illiterate) how to directly contact the blog sites.

Brilliant, funny, very human - an amazing talent that makes me happy to be able to think of myself as Australian - even though I'd prefer to think I am a citizen of our world. Nevertheless it is my Australian Passport which permits me to travel to the world! I am concerned that there is too much us and them in the world and I think that Irfan's huge talent is to make us smile at the absurdities of bigotry and prejudice - to know how very human we all are despite cultural (including religious) upbringings! Bravo, mate!

I was born in Sydney - ancestry is from England and Scotland - but uncles, aunts and cousins to the nth degree bring in most parts of the known world and a wide range of complexions and perspectives - including those I find difficult to understand. It pleases me that I have German, Chinese, Thai, French, Indigenmous Australian, NZ Maori, Japanese, et al links - but it may not necessarily please all of them... that seems to be the way of it all. I've lived nearly half of my adult life outside of Australia and can truly state that I have been treated with amazing kindness and generosity. My mother, who has never been outside of eastern Australia could tell you the same thing but of her neighbours - from the Philippines, from the Netherlands, of Indigenous and English and Scottish and Chinese ethnicities as well as Catholic and Protestant and agnostic backgrounds...

It is a great world - and Irfan helps us see that - while pricking the pomposities of those ethno-centric souls who wish to look down upon others.

A hero of mine from mid-19th century Japan, YOSHIDA Shoin (1830-1859) believed in equality of peoples, was opposed to the rigid class system of the time, advocated education for women, took up the cudgels, as it were, on behalf of the untouchables of that time - stressed co-operative learning arrangements, encouraged his students by writing private letters, gave no tests, in fact, in his school! Yet his students went on to lead the modernisation of the country - some a little too much influenced by their foreign mentors I might contend - nevertheless two became Prime inisters, one the first Foreign Minister, another the father of Japan Rail, another the father of Japanese technical education, leading diplomats and bureaucrats! Go abroad. Learn about the world and come back were the kinds of things he advocated.

It seems Irfan is playing something of a similar role for Australia! Again, Bravo, I say!

My response? Jim, mate, thank you for your kind words. And the cheque's in the mail!



UPDATE I: Some anonymous comment seems to suggest that I defended the role of Japan in the Second World War. S/he obviously hasn't read what I've written here or here or even here.

Words © 2008 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

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

COMMENT: So much for civil rights ...

A letter from Manny Waks, Executive Officer of the B'nai B'rith Anti-Defamation Commission, has been published on the Commision's website. The full letter can fe read here.

I found it interesting that Mr Waks uses his letter to justify the vilification of those deemed Muslim. I found it disturbing that such justification could be published on the website of an organisation that claims to fight for civil rights and to oppose racism and prejudice.

Particularly disturbing were these provocative references ...

... the anti-Muslim rhetoric is much more complex. For example, most, if not all, current terrorist attacks are being perpetrated by Muslims in the name of Islam.

Is Mr Waks seriously suggesting that "most, if not all current terrorist attacks are being perpetrated by Muslims in the name of Islam"? How, then, does he explain the fact that the vast majority of victims of terrorist attacks are Muslims? Does Islam teach its followers to kill each other? Does it teach its followers to kill themselves?

If a group of lunatics decides they wish to blow themselves up or fly jet airplanes into skyscrapers in the name of Islam, are we to accept thart their suicidal and homicidal tendencies represent orthodox or mainstream theology? Do we take for granted that the perpetrators of such violence represent genuine mainstream Islam?

And does Mr Waks suggest, since most terrorist attacks are carried out in the name of Islam, that therefore innocent people deemed Muslim and with no relationship to the attacks should just accept and live with anti-Muslim rhetoric and actions? What kind of civil rights does Mr Waks and his organisation advocate?

Mr Waks then efectively includes himself among those "serious commentators" who engage in anti-Muslim rhetoric.

... serious commentators do not simply poke fun at Muslim dietary laws or cite verses from the Koran. Many of us have genuine concerns regarding Islamic terrorism and the level of support this generates among ordinary Muslims.

Many of "us". Who is "us"? Does Mr Waks include himself in this "us"? Does he include his organisation? Does he include Jews in general?

And what evidence does he have to suggest that a large proportion of ordinary Muslims in Australia or indeed elsewhere support "Islamic terrorism"? And what is it about the terrorism that makes it "Islamic"? is it the fact that the overwhelming majority of victims are themselves Muslim? If this is the case, why would Muslims wish to support such violence?

Mr Waks really need to consider whether making such provocative pronouncements really furthers the cause of Jewish-Muslim dialogue. Either that, or he should reconsider whether he really is committed to fighting prejudice or whether his commitment is only selective.

Words © 2007 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

LETTERS: Prejudicial responses ...

Yesterday's The Age carried this article from yours truly.

Alan Freedman responds in today's Letters ...

... unlike radical Islamists, Jews have never perpetrated violence in an attempt to advance a political ideology based on their religion.

I guess the Stern Gang was all a figment of our imagination. I guess the King David Hotel self-detonated, as did the village of Deir Yassin. And those nasty Sikh separatists were obviously the ones who laid siege to the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem.

Alan then volunteers this advive ...

If Muslimphobia is an emerging trend, perhaps Muslims should review the behaviour of those extremists in their own communities in an attempt to define its cause.

And how do you propose we do that? Do we set up our own intelligence and law enforcement network? How will we know who the extremists are? Are we all linked up to some huge international Islamic intranet moderated by Usama bin Ladin?

What control can we exercise over who speaks for us? Or more to the point, who journos and politicians claim speak for us?

Why should 300,000-odd people who tick the 'Muslim' box on their census forms be held responsible for the actions of a handful of people they have never met in their life?

David Goldberg writes ...

Yusuf undermines his argument by making an unsubstantiated statement that many prominent Jewish voices are haters of Islam.

Obviously Raphael Israeli, Melanie Phillips, Daniel Pipes etc all have Brahmin Hindu heritage. But I do acknowledge that many people of different faiths (including Judaism) have been at the forefront of exposing Muslimphobes. In this regard, The Jewish News played a prominent role in exposing the hatred of Raphael Israeli.

Goldberg then repeats the mantras of allegedly conservative politicians ...

Perhaps Yusuf should start looking to his fellow Muslims to become prominent in promoting the Australian way of life.

Perhaps Goldberg should tell this to this chap. And then to him. And then to her. And let's not forget this bloke.

Words © 2007 Irfan Yusuf