Some Questions for Australian Muslim Leaders

We have a number of peak Muslim bodies operating in Australia. Each state and territory has an umbrella body consisting of various local mosque management societies and other bodies. At federal level, these state and territory councils come together to form a national Australian Federation of Islamic Councils (AFIC).

In the wake of the London bombing and increasing backlash against Muslim Australians, the focus is now on Muslim organisational leaders and imams of mosques. Muslim Australians are looking to their leaders for direction and for adequate response to the many questions thrown at Muslim communities from hostile and/or frightened elements in the broader community.

Recently, some fringe elements have attempted to hijack Australian Muslim discourse. The results have been disastrous. Some months back, a young salafist imam in Sydney suggested that women who dress a certain way are eligible for rape. He later fine-tuned his remarks by effectively saying that he felt such treatment should be reserved for Muslim women.

And now, a salafist imam from Melbourne has sparked outrage by defending Usama bin Ladin and doubting bin Ladin’s involvement in September 11.

But is it merely fringe imams who put their feet in it? What about the Muslim mainstream? And who are the Muslim mainstream in any case?

Does Sheik Hilali, the man appointed by AFIC to act as mufti of Australia, represent mainstream Muslim opinion? Is it possible for an imam with an interpreter at his side at all times to represent largely English-speaking Muslim communities?

Sheik Hilali is no stranger to controversy. He is still haunted by his comments made 20 years ago concerning Jewish Australians. At the time, his expulsion from Australia seemed imminent. It was only with the intervention of the then acting Prime Minister Paul Keating that Hilali was allowed to stay.

To secure Hilali’s immigration status, AFIC created a new position of mufti. Yet no one on the AFIC executive at the time had any idea what the new mufti’s role would be. Was he to act as Senior Counsel, giving legal advice on curly issues of Islamic law? Was he to act as official community spokesman? Was he to be the official representative of all Australian Muslims?

Muslim Australians were never consulted in any formal or structured way about the decision to make Hilali mufti. But then, AFIC rarely bothers to consult Muslims on anything. Instead, its decision making processes are similar to those of certain dictatorial regimes of Muslim countries.

Indeed, AFIC has not even made any serious effort to understand the communities it claims to represent. AFIC has never conducted any survey or study of the composition, needs and sentiments of Muslim Australians.

And so Muslim Australians are represented by an irrelevant national body and a non-English speaking mufti. And Anglicans thought things were bad in the Sydney diocese.

Increasingly Muslim Australians are finding their leadership ill-equipped to handle delicate issues. For instance, the attempts by some leaders and imams to link the London bombings to Iraq have made Muslim Australians sound like something out of the Green Left Weekly.

And now all Australians (Muslims and otherwise) are openly asking certain questions. What will Muslim leaders and imams say if Australia is targeted? What message will Hilali and the chairmans of the 3 NSW Islamic councils give to re-assure Australians that they should continue to tolerate Muslim presence? What steps will Muslim leaders take to moderate Australian Muslim discourse?

And most important of all. Given that most Australian Muslims are never consulted by their leaders on key issues (including the appointment of a mufti), to what extent to organisations like AFIC and individuals like Hilali and Omran really represent the views and aspirations of mainstream Muslim Australians?

(The author is a Sydney industrial lawyer who has represented various Muslim peak bodies and school in industrial matters.)

© Irfan Yusuf 2005

Australian Muslims must reign in irresponsible spokesmen

Al Jazeera gets plenty of flack from some quarters. It is seen as the voice of extremism. Some western news agencies are offended by the presence of this new player in the media market.

But even Al Jazeera disagrees with claims made by a fringe Melbourne imam. Mohammed Omran doubts bin Ladin and al-Qaida had any involvement in the September 11 attacks. Most disagree with Omran, including Attorney General Phillip Ruddock and Islamic Council of Victoria spokesman Waleed Aly.

And including me.

Last December, I finished reading Yosri Fouda’s book “Masterminds Of Terror”. Mr Fouda was a senior investigative reporter with Al Jazeera. His book is based on contacts and meetings with senior al-Qaida operatives.

Fouda risked his life by spending 48 hours with Ramzi bin al-Shibh and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the two al-Qaida masterminds behind the 9/11 attacks that killed thousands of people from all ethnic and religious backgrounds. At least 30% of the victims were of Muslim background, many of them New York fire fighters struggling to assist the rescue effort.

Fouda has no doubts about who was behind the September 11 attacks. His book, co-authored with Scottish journalist Nick Fielding, lays the blame firmly on Osama bin Ladin and his group. And his claims are backed up by official press releases and multimedia materials produced by al-Qaida themselves, not to mention his interviews with the al-Qaida leaders.

Fouda’s work represents mainstream Muslim Australian consensus. Mohammed Omran’s claims are on the fringe.

Fouda includes in his book official al-Qaida documents used to religiously justify the attacks using select verses from the Quran usually quoted out of context. Again, mainstream Muslim opinion was against al-Qaida. Religious scholars from across the Arab world dissected and criticised the documents as being based on infantile reasoning and flagrantly contradicting 1,400 years of scholarly consensus.

It isn’t just Islamic scholars from the Arab world who are saying this. Recently, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf from New York delivered the same message to audiences at the Adelaide Festival of Ideas. His words have been echoed by imams in the UK, United States, Canada, New Zealand, France, Switzerland and Australia.

Mr Omran would do well to study the words of one prominent Swiss Islamic scholar. On July 9, Dr Tariq Ramadan wrote in the Guardian:

“Muslims must speak out, explain who they are, what they believe in, what they stand for, what is the meaning of their life. They must also have the courage to denounce what is said and done by certain Muslims in the name of their religion.”

And with that in mind, I have to express my condemnation of all terrorist attacks, whether carried out in London, Istanbul, Baghdad or New York. I must condemn, not excuse, those who carry out thee attacks. All available evidence points to the involvement of bin Ladin and his network in the 9/11 attacks. Even a senior investigative journalist from al-Jazeera confirms this. Who is Omran to deny this?

But as Dr Ramadan says, condemnation is not enough. Muslim migrant communities have to carefully think about what they say and how they behave. People are openly questioning the merits of multiculturalism. Instead of calling those people racist, Muslim leaders need to consider how their actions can be made to speak louder than the words of minority voices such as those of Mr Omran.

We are living in times of uncertainty and fear, when passions can easily become inflamed. Community leaders, even on the fringe groups such as Mr Omran, must think before they speak. It is easy to speak boldly, but speaking with wisdom requires some skill. Those like myself who find speaking troublesome should communicate through other means.

Muslim leaders must understand that the literal meanings of newspaper columns and of infantile questions of shock-jocks are not what count. Rather, what counts is the emotion behind these messages. Muslim Australians share those emotions, and they are increasingly becoming frustrated with the inability of their leaders to articulate and address these emotions.

As people of all faiths and ethnicities mourn their dead in London, Muslim Australians should combine their mourning with some hard thinking. Our fellow Australians are looking to us for reassurance. They know we would never agree with minority extremists. But they want to be sure. If we stay silent, loud minority voices will continue to hijack our faith and our liberty. We have to pull our leaders into line.

(Irfan Yusuf is a Sydney industrial lawyer. He holds no leadership position in any religious community organisation, but has acted as legal adviser to a fair few.)

© Irfan Yusuf 2005.

Islam On Trial - Part 1

ATTENDANT: All rise. This court is now in session.

JUDGE: Yes, thank you. There is only one matter on today’s list. It is the trial of a mere 1.2 billion people. We have our jury present. I will start with opening submissions. Mr Prosecutor?

PROSECUTOR: Ladies and gentleman of the neo-Conservative jury. Today you are being asked to judge on the guilt of the scourge of humanity. 1.2 billion people from over 60 different countries, speaking over 500 languages and dialects, following different cultures and with different sectarian and political leanings.

And all with one thing in common.

The prosecution will establish beyond reasonable doubt that all Muslims are part of a huge conspiracy to destroy our western civilisation, institutions and way of life. We will establish that each and every Muslim is a partner to this grand conspiracy.

Our evidence will consist of a number of experts. Amongst them is former director of the National Crime Authority, Peter Faris QC. Mr Faris is a respected barrister and radio announcer …

DEFENCE COUNSEL: Objection, your honour. Mr Faris is in fact a shock jock.

JUDGE: Yes, I will allow that objection. Mr Prosecutor, kindly use correct terminology in future.

PROSECUTOR: As the court pleases. Mr Faris has stated on his blog that in his expert opinion …

DEFENCE COUNSEL: Objection again. Mr Faris’ evidence must be discounted because he has not proven his expertise.

PROSECUTOR: Mr Faris is a respected barrister. As former head of the National Crime Authority, he is an expert on criminal law, forensic investigation and law enforcement. He …

DFENCE COUNSEL: Yes, but with respect to my friend. Your Honour, Mr Faris has not established any serious expertise in Muslim cultures or Islamic theology.

PROSECUTOR: Why should knowledge of Islam or Muslims be a requisite for proving their guilt?

JUDGE: Come now, Mr Prosecutor. How can you condemn a man without understanding his motives? Or without delving into his psyche? Even if 1.2 billion Muslims were guilty, how can I sentence them properly without taking into account these factors? At some stage, you will need to consider this.

PROSECUTOR: As the court pleases. I will therefore move onto the real experts whom Mr Faris and even the governments rely upon. DR Daniel Pipes is a respected author and writer. He holds a PhD from Harvard and has written extensively on Islamist extremism. He has also delivered lectures and has a popular website where his editorials are published. He speaks fluent Arabic and and …

JUDGE: Look, he sounds impressive. I need not hear anymore, unless the Defence Counsel has something to say.

DEFENCE COUNSEL: Your honour, Dr Pipes’ credentials are impressive. Yes, he does speak Arabic. But most modern Islamist ideological texts have been written in Urdu and Farsi by non-Arabs. The most prominent Islamist scholars include Syed Maududi from Pakistan and Ayatollah Khomeini from Iran. These writers rarely wrote in Arabic.

PROSECUTOR: That may be so, but my friend still needs to address Dr Pipes’ PhD from Harvard.

DEFENCE COUNSEL: Dr Pipes claims to be an expert on 20th century Islamist political polemic. His PhD is actually in Medieval European History. The closest he will have studied to modern Islamist rhetoric would have been the Seljuk and early Ottoman period prior to the 1600’s. Or perhaps he will be able to tell us about the expulsion of Jews and Muslims from Spain and the subsequent Inquisition. My friend has also not informed the Court as to what knowledge Dr Pipes gained in his other studies and what results he obtained. Also, Your …

PROSECUTOR: That may be true, Your Honour, but Dr Pipes has lectured widely in the area and …

DEFENCE COUNSEL: Your honour, apart from practising law, I too have lectured widely to both students and professionals. I have prepared and delivered materials on Criminal Law and Procedure. But that does not necessarily qualify me to condemn a certain class of people as criminals.

JUDGE: Mr Defence Counsel, this trial is not about you.

DEFENCE COUNSEL: With respect, Your Honour. This trial is about me. It is about condemning my Muslim neighbours. It is about condemning my instructing solicitors of Muslim background, not to mention the Prosecutor’s instructing solicitors. It is about condemning my family doctor, my accountant, my bank manager, the Dean of the Law School where I studied, my colleagues at the Bar and other good and decent people making contributions to society.

JUDGE: That may be so, but all these good people you speak about are silent about terror. They must speak out.

DEFENCE COUNSEL: Your honour, in our criminal justice system, every man woman and child has the right to remain silent upon arrest. We need to ask ourselves why they are silent …

PROSECUTOR: Your honour, I note the time.

JUDGE: Yes, thank you Mr Prosecutor. I will take the morning adjournment.

ATTENDANT: All rise. This court is temporarily adjourned.

© Irfan Yusuf, 2005

To London Muslims - Speak Out Or Be Condemned For Your Silence

The last 24 hours will have been an emotional roller coaster ride for the people of London. Following the elation of winning the right to hold the 2012 Olympic Games, at least 7 deadly explosions have brought death and tears to this ancient city.

The Olympic win promised to be an enormous boost to the East End, home to many impoverished groups including sub-continental Muslim migrants. Now these same migrants and their brethren in communities across the Western World will once again be asked to explain and prove their loyalty.

And how should we Western Muslims respond? Should we cry discrimination? Should we remind our fellow citizens that we are just as English or American or French or Australian as they are?

Or should we appreciate their fears and uncertainties? Should we empathise with their feelings of vulnerability as they feel besieged by what appears to be yet another attack by extremists using our faith as an ideological weapon?

When western citizens are kidnapped by extremists with Muslim-sounding names, the reputation of Islam is hijacked. When western citizens are murdered and executed, Islam is also being murdered and executed. When western citizens are the target of injustice, Islam is treated unjustly.

Islam is a word that means ‘peace’. How can peace be established with bombs and suicide attacks and kidnappings? How can peace be spread through killing peaceful civilians?

Islam is a word that also means ‘surrender to God’. Our Lord never taught us to kill and maim civilians. Our God never taught us to harm people who do not harm us.

The English people recently delivered a severe blow to their government over its involvement in the Iraq invasion and occupation. Even before the war, some of the largest protest crowds marched through English cities including London. The hearts of English men and women are on the side of the victims, of innocent Iraqi children and women and men who die each day in Iraq and elsewhere across the Muslim world.

England has provided sanctuary to hundreds of Muslim refugees and dissidents fleeing repressive Muslim regimes. For over a decade, London was home to the late Abdul Majid Khoei, one of Iraq’s most senior religious figures. Muslim dissidents and activists speak their minds more freely in London than perhaps anywhere else in the world.

The time has come for these English Muslim dissidents and activists to raise their voices and condemn the attacks on the city that has provided them with freedom and sanctuary.

One of the best remembered incidents from early Islamic history is the story of repressed Muslim refugees fleeing from Mecca to Abyssinia at the orders of the Prophet Muhammad. This small band of Muslims sought protection and refuge from a Christian King, known in Islamic tradition as Najashi.

Notwithstanding strong submissions from the Meccan authorities and support from his advisers, Najashi granted the Muslims a fair hearing and natural justice. Following an impassioned speech by the Prophet’s cousin, Jafar, Najashi orders that the refugees be granted sanctuary for as long as they wished to remain in his kingdom.

The Christian kingdom of Abyssinia proved a safer place for Islam than the Arabian peninsular. While the Prophet and his remaining disciples faced famine, exile and war, his cousin and some 70 other Muslims enjoyed peace and security under the auspices of a Christian king.

London has been to many Muslims what Abyssinia was to the early Muslims who fled to its Christian government seeking sanctuary and protection from their oppressors. And just as the King of Abyssinia granted the early Muslims a fair hearing, natural justice and security, so has London done the same.

The Mayor of London has been a prominent supporter of human rights for Muslims, particularly for Muslim women struggling against discrimination based on dress. The English Parliament has welcomed Muslims into its hallowed halls. Muslims are free to participate at all levels of English society.

The nation that cheered for its cricket team even when captained by one Nasser Hussein deserves to feel secure in the knowledge that its Muslim citizens openly and publicly condemn the perpetrators of these attacks. Muslim Englishmen and women must echo the condemnation of terrorist acts and ideologies already expressed by prominent English Muslim scholars such as Tim Winter and the late Martin Lings.

The time to speak is now. Muslims must speak out now. Or else they will be condemned by their silence. And at a time of terror-induced pain and tears coming so soon after Olympic elation, English Muslim silence will speak louder than any detractors’ words.

© Irfan Yusuf 2005

MEDIA: Tabloid manipulations ...

Many of us will have heard of Fleet Street, the name given to the trashy English tabloid papers responsible for destroying many a reputation and flinging mud at the rich and famous. These unusual journalistic entities are not exactly known to practise integrity or to bind themselves by a code of ethics.

In Australia, most people get their news from tabloid. In Sydney, thankfully, we have only one tabloid newspaper. In Brisbane, they only have one major paper, and that is a tabloid!

The Daily Telegraph is not your typical tabloid. It has serious news and opinion sections. It is perhaps the best source of sporting news. It even has a business and finance section. It is, without question, the biggest selling paper in Sydney.

The Telegraph has been accused in the past of being a trashy paper and of deliberately misrepresenting individuals and communities. I personally have been defamed in the Telegraph by its senior columnist Piers Akerman. On that occasion, he could not even get the spelling of my name right as he proceeded to argue why I was unfit to be the Liberal candidate for the seat of Auburn in the by-election that took place in 2001.

I was then shocked when I read a Telegraph reporter defame one of my former clients. This poor fellow had not seem his children for over 3 years. He had been to hell and back, and was struggling to improve himself. The young man was arrested for having pipe bombs in his house.

The Tele reported the story on 20 December 2002, a few months after the Bali bombings. The Tele reporter joined what appeared to be a chorus of tabloid journalists seeking a “muslim terrorist” story. A summary of the story is reproduced:

"Sydney Bomb Factory" (The Daily Telegraph, 2002/12/21)"Police were interrogating a South African-born Muslim man last night after 14 bombs and Islamic literature were found in a dramatic raid on his western Sydney home. Police revealed the devices were packed with ammonium nitrate, nails and metal and had enormous lethal power. Ammonium nitrate is the same chemical used in the Oklahoma city bombing. The terror scare, which centred on the house of Gill Daniels – described by neighbours as a committed Muslim – occurred only by chance. Daniels, 36, now an Australian citizen, had not paid rent on his apartment in Nagle St, Liverpool, for two months and sheriffs arrived yesterday morning to evict him. Daniels was absent and, when sheriffs forced their way into the apartment, they found the bombs, Islamic literature and a blackboard covered in Arab characters."

The Tele attempted to show that my former client was a terrorist because he had Qur’ans in his house and was taking Arabic lessons. He also had other items of Arabic language in his house. The paper also tried to find a link between the Oklahoma bombing and the pipe bombs in Liverpool. It reported that the materials used for the pipe bombs were allegedly the same as those used in the Oklahoma Federal Government building bombing that killed hundreds of innocent Americans.

Words © 2005 Irfan Yusuf

Saladdin's Wisdom & Recognition of Israel

In 1948, Israel declared its existence as an independent state. Thousands of Palestinians were made homeless and refugees in a land where they had lived for centuries. Foreign Jewish refugees built homes on the ruins of Palestinian villages.

Many Muslim and Christian countries were understandably upset at the treatment being meted out to Palestinian Muslims and Christians. Their frustration was made worse by the frequent stereotyping of the Palestinians as a nation of terrorists.

For years, Muslim countries (with a few exceptions such as Turkey and Egypt) refused to recognise Israel’s existence. They clung to the views of Jewish thinkers who felt that the creation of a Jewish state before the coming of the Messiah was blasphemous. Among these Jewish thinkers was our very own Sir Isaac Isaacs, Australia’s first Australian-born Governor-General.

Palestinians had almost become accustomed to living in exile and in denial. But wiser heads prevailed, and the golden handshake between Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin secured at least some form of self-rule for Palestinians. Had the handshake on the White House lawn not taken place, one could safely speculate that the Palestinian cause would not have gained the international respectability and goodwill it now enjoys.

And so we see Palestine recognising Israel’s right to exist. When will Muslim nations follow suit? And should they?

Much Muslim rhetoric on Israel focuses on the Crusades and the liberation wars led by the Kurdish general Salah ad-Din Ayyubi, known in the West as Saladdin. It was Saladdin who won back Jerusalem. It was also Saladdin who made important compromises and who attempted to reach a negotiated settlement at all stages of the conflict.

Saladdin’s pragmatism was perhaps his best feat. The movie Kingdom of Heaven accurately portrays Saladdin as a tolerant and politically astute figure, an embodiment of the famous saying of the Prophet Muhammad: “War is strategy and little else”.

There was no question in Saladdin’s mind about questioning the moral right of the Crusader kingdom of Jerusalem to exist. Saladdin sent emissaries regularly to Jerusalem as part of his negotiations. Other Muslim kingdoms entered into alliances with Jerusalem. Virtually all sent ambassadors.

The Lebanese writer Amin Maalouf, in his masterpiece The Crusades Through Arab Eyes, speaks about the confidence of these diplomats who looked down upon the European residents of Jerusalem as barbaric and superstitious.

At one point Maalouf mentions an incident when a Muslim diplomat is spending time with European Christian friends. The time for prayer comes, and the diplomat asks for the direction to Mecca. When the Europeans cannot tell him, the diplomat scolds them for being so uncouth as to not know the direction of prayer. To pray five times a day was, in those days, regarded as the act of civilised and cultured people.

Saladdin was also famous for offering the Jerusalem king his medical team. Saladdin had a team of surgeons and physicians led by the famous Andalusian Shaykh Musa bin Maymoun al-Qurtubu. Saladdin met Shaykh Musa in Cairo where the Shaykh was a prominent religious figure. Saladdin was impressed with Shaykh Musa’s erudition and his reputation as a leading physician in the Islamic world. Shaykh Musa unhesitatingly accepted Saladdin’s invitation to lead his medical team.

And who was Shaykh Musa? He was the chief rabbi of Cairo’s Jewish community. He is regarded as the greatest Jewish religious figure after the Prophet Moses himself. Saladdin was happy to appoint Moses Maimonides as his chief physician notwithstanding the fact that Maimonides was the author of a famous book declaring Judaism to be superior to Islam.

What does all this have to do with Muslim recognition of Israel? Muslim leaders have to convince their people that the struggle for Palestine is not a struggle against all Jews. Just as Saladdin’s struggle to liberate Jerusalem was not a war against all Christians.

Muslim nations also need to accept that their continued non-recognition of Israel is pointless. Why refuse to recognise Israel when the biggest losers in its creation, the Palestinians, have recognised Israel?

To keep harping on about Israel not having a moral right to exist is pointless. Israel exists, whether Muslims accept it or not. Muslims have to come to terms with the fact that they cannot destroy Israel. Just as some of Israel’s supporters need to understand that they will never win the war on terror if they perceive it as a war on Islam.

A civilisational war between Jews and Muslims may be the goal of extremists on both sides. But neither side would win, although losses on both sides would be enormous. If Muslim countries wish to support their Palestinian brethren, they should give serious consideration to at least formally recognising Israel’s existence.

Some Muslims will object to dealing with Ariel Sharon due to his hardline views and his involvement in war crimes in Lebanon. But Pakistan was still prepared to talk to India even when it was ruled by the Hindu-chauvinist BJP government of Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Pakistan gained important concessions from India on behalf of Kashmiris who were reunited with families across the Line of Control.

There is no benefit for Palestinians by Muslim countries continuing to reject Israel’s moral right to exist. It is as futile as refusing to accept Spain’s right to exist because of the Inquisition and expulsion of millions of Andalusian Muslims. Recognition of Israel has to be put on the Muslim agenda. The sooner this is done, the better.

(The author is a Sydney lawyer.)

© Irfan Yusuf, 2005.

REFLECTION: From The Fringes of Ramadhan

(I wrote this piece in November 2004 (at least I think that's when it was) after visiting a friend who works behind a bar. I often used to visit her a work. When she is not serving beer and spirits to my mates and other customers, we would chat and listen and crack jokes and gas-bag like the 2 old men in the Muppet Show. Sometimes we would lose track of time, engrossed in conversation as we'd chat face-to-face with our chins resting on our hands and our elbows resting on some coasters, a bit like a scene from the British comedy duo Smith & Jones.

In those days, I felt so awful about not being able to fast. I told her as much, and she told me of her own frustration with knowing so little about her late father's heritage. It was then that I told her a few things about Ramadhan, about the Night of Power, about the significance of fasting and its spiritual aspect.

I had the feeling my words were getting through to her, but I had no idea to what extent. After that visit, I went home and penned this article for the MuslimWakeUp.com Ramadhan Diary section. It got published. I showed it to Jane a few days later but asked her not to read it until she finished work.

At 2am the next morning, I received the following text message on my mobile phone:

"Your story made of [me - she was using autotext] feel closer and included in a place I thought had died with my father Yet again you’ve made my reality a better one to exist in **Jane"

After receiving that text message, I could really feel the spirit of Ramadan. It was as if I could see the devils being chained before my very eyes.

Sometimes one can only appreciate spiritual life whilst standing on its fringe. Imam Hamza Yusuf Hansonn once quoted of friend of his as saying: "A religious person is someone who does not want to go to hell. A spiritual person is someone who has already been to hell and doesn't want to go back!")

______________________

This Ramadhan, I am happy and sad to announce that I will not be fasting. Yes, I know it is bad manners to make this public. After all, we are meant to be hiding our sins.

My failure to fast, however, is not a sin. In fact, for me to fast would be a virtual act of suicide. Now that’s what I call a sin!

Like many millions of Muslims out there, I have to take medication. So my announcement that I will not be fasting brings me mixed feelings.

I am happy because I will continue my successful management of a health condition that has plagued me big-time since February 2002. It was during one day of that month and year that I virtually collapsed. After numerous tests, it was discovered that my thyroid was not the best. The result was my having to take some 14 months off work.

I am sad because my health conditions and my need for medication at strictly appointed times result in my having to miss out on fasting. I feel like I am on the fringe of Ramadan.

Tonight I met up with a friend from New Zealand. Jane’s father was a Malay Muslim, though she never met him. When Jane’s mother was pregnant, the parents split up. Dad stayed in Malaysia and mum went to New Zealand. Jane knew about her father but never actually met him. Some 12 months after he passed away, Jane got a chance to visit Malaysia and meet her half-brothers and step mother who showed her the grave of her father.

For Jane, Ramadan is a distant yet important part of her life that always seemed to be missing and absent like her father. So when she asked me about Ramadan tonight, I felt embarrassed to tell her that I was not fasting. She found it hard to relate to my embarrassment.

I then explained to her that fasting is to Ramadan what Bethlehem and Jesus are to Christmas. I grew up with fasting during Ramadan. I can still remember the first time I fasted. I was some 6 years old, a rather chubby lad with long hair and big ears. And an even bigger stomach. I don’t think I had ever eaten so many ‘pakoras’ (deep-fried Indian potato cakes) as I did when breaking my fast on that day.

Jane could not help but compare Ramadan to the Christmas and Easter of her mild-Hispanic Catholic upbringing. She knew it was somehow related to visiting friends and family. She knew it lasted one month. She knew there were times when extra blessings were in store. She even had heard that people who died during this month were able to avoid hell (perhaps she confused this with typical hajj stories).

So here I was, trying to make Ramadan real for someone who loved it but had never seen it (much the same way as she had loved her father but never seen him). Even my half-hearted attempts at explaining the timings of fasting, the tarawih prayers and the significance of the Laylat al-Qadr and the last ten nights during which the search is on for this powerful night, seemed to captivate Jane’s attention.

Perhaps someone could convince Michael Wolfe to write a book on Ramadan in Morocco (or at least cut out the first half of his book on the Hadj and publish it separately) so I could give a copy to the Jane’s of this world. That way we could both feel a little less like Ramadan fringe-dwellers.
And so that the Irfan’s of this world could speak to them with greater conviction. Because moving onto my third Ramadan without fasting has made me feel a little bit rusty. I know I do not have to fast. But you don’t know what you’ve got until medication takes it away. I guess I will have to make-do with the spiritual burst of the super-fast turbo-charged tarawih at the local Turkish mosque. Speaking of which …

Words © 2005 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

A Sheik and Two Pastors

In September 1988, Sheik Tajeddine Hilali made some of the most irresponsible and offensive remarks of perhaps any Muslim religious figure in the history of Australian Islam. He delivered a speech in Arabic during a seminar on the Palestinian Intifadah held at the University of Sydney. A simultaneous translation appeared on the overhead projector. Yet that translation was only a partial one.

Despite the presence of no visible cameras at the seminar, a secret video recording of the speech was made. Within 6 months, the Sheik’s anti-Semitic remarks were broadcast for all to see. It is said he accused Jewish people of trying "to control the world through sex, then sexual perversion, then the promotion of espionage, treason and economic hoarding".

The Sheik is alleged to have said in a public lecture to a Muslim audience that Jews use sex, pornography, wealth and other means to control the world. I say “alleged” because although I attended the lecture, I could not understand most of his speech. Yet organisers of the seminar acknowledged to me later that he did make the remarks as alleged.

Sheik Hilali’s comments almost led to his deportation. He was condemned by political leaders from all major parties. It was only through direct intervention of then Acting Prime Minister Paul Keating that the Sheik was allowed to stay permanently.

The comments have haunted the Sheik. As late as March 9 2004, Dr Gerard Henderson made reference to the Sheik’s “manifestly anti-Semitic speech” after listing a litany of the Sheik’s verbal sins.

Tabloid columnists continued raising the Sheik’s 1988 comments even when he was part of Team Australia seeking the release of Douglas Wood. By lambasting the Sheik, these columnists were undermining his credibility. And when such writings appear on the internet, they surely must have left the kidnappers wondering about the Sheik’s bona fides. I would hate to have been a member of the Wood family reading the tabloid columns.

The Sheik was condemned. And rightly so. Yet many of his critics are today rushing to the defence of 2 pastors from the fringe “Catch The Fire Ministries” case argued before the Victorian Civil & Administrative Tribunal. Reasons for decision in the case were given by VCAT Vice President, Judge Higgins, on 22 June 2005.

The case arose from comments made by Pastors Daniel Nalliah and Daniel Scot at a seminar held on 9 March 2002 before an audience of around 250 people. This was virtually the same number that attended the seminar addressed by Sheik Hilali in 1998.

When one reads the findings made by Judge Higgins, one cannot help but find comparisons between what Sheik Hilali said in 1988 and what the 2 pastors were found to have said 15 years later. Amongst the comments made by the pastors were: That Muslims use deception and lies to hide their allegedly true relationship with terror groups, that Muslims follow a Prophet who was a paedophile, that Muslims are trying to infiltrate all aspects of Australian life, that Muslims are spying in Australia for terrorist groups and Muslims follow a religion that encourages them to kill and enslave non-Muslims.

Muslims were accused to using deception, bribery and infiltration to take over Australia.

The hypocrisy and double standards of some columnists defending the two pastors is shown in the writings of perhaps Australia’s most anti-Muslim columnist, Andrew Bolt. I do not believe it would be an exaggeration to state that Mr Bolt’s columns have frequently contained remarks of similar venom to those of the 2 pastors whose “freedom of speech” he defends.

In his column in the Herald-Sun of 11 May 2005, Mr Bolt again makes reference to the Sheik’s 1988 comments in which, in Bolt’s words, “the Egyptian-born radical called Jews "the underlying cause of all wars", using "sex and abominable acts of buggery, espionage, treason and economic hoarding to control the world".

Just over 6 weeks later, Bolt speaks of the 2 offending pastors. He quotes none of their speeches or pamphlets, describing them as being “punished … after criticising the Koran”.

Bolt’s sad attempt at whitewashing the Pastors’ offensive remarks are about as believable as claiming that Sheik Hilali was merely criticising Zionism in his 1988 lecture. As far as Bolt is concerned, anti-Semitism becomes acceptable when used against Muslims.

There is a genuine debate in the community about the need for religious vilification laws. The recent VCAT decision forms an excellent basis for further discussion. However, we must not allow this debate to be hijacked by tabloid journalists with their own religious agendas and with an awful propensity for double standards.

(The author is a Sydney industrial lawyer and a former legal adviser to the Islamic Council of NSW. iyusuf@sydneylawyers.com.au)