MEDIA: Media, violence and imams

Some readers will remember the 2006 media assault on Shaykh Hilaly over his infamous "catmeat" comments. Many of you would rather forget it. I guess it's all rather academic now.

It was hard to get a nuanced word in back in those days, with politicians and shockjocks and columnists baying for blood. And they weren't just after Hilaly's blood either.

AAP ran a story which was published on the Sydney Morning Herald website under the headline Lawyer attacks cleric media coverage. Here are the first few paragrasphs.

A Muslim human rights lawyer has attacked the media over its coverage of Sheik Taj Aldin Alhilali during a women's rights function.
Alhilali's explosive comments comparing women who don't wear the Islamic headscarf to "uncovered meat" were also condemned at Australia's launch of the White Ribbon Day campaign in Sydney.

Er, the two functions were one and the same.

White Ribbon Day was created by 14 Canadian men in 1991 to denounce violence against women. The United Nations declared it an international day of activism the same year.
More than 200 politicians, sports stars, health professionals and cultural representatives will promote the worldwide campaign as "ambassadors" during the lead-up to White Ribbon Day on November 25.
One of the ambassadors at the launch, in the rocks, human rights lawyer and columnist Irfan Yusuf, condemned Sheik Alhilali's comments as "nonsense".
:If it weren't nonsense, then how do we explain the fact that women wearing head scarves sitting at home often get attacked as well?" he asked.

Fair enough. But what about the media? Is it the entire media? Or just select newspapers?

Then Mr Yusuf hit back at the media over the extent of the coverage of the sheik's sermon and its aftermath, calling responses by politicians and "allegedly conservative" columnists "sectarian-wedge politics".
The sheik's controversial remarks, condemned by Muslims and non-Muslims alike, received media coverage worldwide.
"I found it amazing that one particular newspaper spent eight pages on the issue of Sheik (Alhilali) and his comments," he said.
"You would have thought Sheik (Alhilali) just delivered the budget, or he just won his third election in a row."

Actually much more was said. But then you can't control how your words are reported and then interpreted. Or vice versa.  Still, it's all academic.

CRIKEY: Sheik Hilaly fights for his life in Lakemba ...

On Tuesday afternoon, I was forwarded a copy of an anonymous email from three Muslim sources. This in itself is nothing special -- Muslims are recipients of sh-tsheets as much as members of even the most mildly political group. But what made this email strange is that it concerned an upcoming election at the Lebanese Moslems Association (LMA) which manages the Imam Ali ben Abi Taleb mosque in Lakemba and employs Sheik Hilaly and other imams.

The LMA's constitution contains a provision that only adult males entitled to a Lebanese passport are eligible to have full membership and voting rights. Which raises the question -- why was the same email sent to my three sources, two of whom are women and one of whom is an Anglo-Australian man and all three of whom live nowhere within 300km of Lakemba?

The email referred to Sheik Hilaly calling up "the Anti-terrorist unit ... on Tuesday; They (Hilali and his mob) are accusing the 'young boys' at the Mosque of being extremists and potential terrorists". The email also referred to Sheik Hilaly's sermon last Friday when he allegedly described a group of young Muslim men as "Taleban in Lakemba". The email claims Hilaly used terrorism fears to play LMA politics.

These are our children he is talking about, our husbands, and our brothers. How can a Shiek [sic.] make such FALSE accusations. These people he is accusing are innocent -- his accusations can lead to long term jail sentences for these innocent people who have families to support.

So why was the email distributed so widely? An election was coming up. LMA elections are always hotly contested affairs, especially given the large amounts of real estate and other assets the LMA owns. Though time and again, the LMA has shown a complete unwillingness to deal with PR issues. Go to the LMA website and try clicking the box marked "MEDIA PRESS RELEASE".

Hilaly is again in hot water, this time over kicking down a door inside the mosque and then allegedly accusing another person of causing damage to the door. His explanation wasn't too convincing, and all he has in his favour is that the report was from A Current Affair, a program with not much of a reputation when it comes to accuracy.

Hilaly's antics could be seen as him resisting generational change in the LMA. Certainly during his catmeat fiasco, LMA executive members (all of whom were 2nd and 3rd generation Lebanese Aussies) distanced themselves from Hilaly and openly expressed a wish to be done with him. LMA elders opposed these young men.

Hilaly is also accused of using Machiavellian LMA politics to protect his position. As an employee of the LMA, Hilaly should be above politics. Yet Hilaly isn't the first imam to play politics. Imams are in a precarious position, often with no written employment contract and no job description, and expected to juggle conflicting instructions from an executive frequently in a state of civil war.

Hilaly's catmeat speech was more than likely leaked to The Oz by a sectarian opponent from a rival mosque. Such an opponent could not have had access to the mosques video. When members of the executive are leaking videos to the media and sending out sh-tsheets across Australia, it seems likely that Hilaly's days as senior imam at Lakemba are numbered.

Words © 2009 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

MEDIA: Natalie O'Brien verbals Sheik Hilaly?

When I read The Oz’s reporting on local Muslim matters, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. The serious ignorance of recent reports by Dicky Kerbaj and Natalie O’Brien make me feel like laughing. But it makes me cry to think that, when reporting on some issues, the national broadsheet can produce hysterical reports more fit for a cheap tabloid.

Under the heading “Christians ‘should wear veil’”, O’Brien claimed on Saturday that Lakemba imam, Sheik Hilaly,

... says the Bible "mandates" the wearing of the veil by Christian women.

Now lets examine the actual words of Hilaly that O'Brien quotes in her story:

Through this I hope to raise awareness and understanding and eliminate apprehensions and misunderstandings about the veil ...

The veil upholds the modesty and protects the dignity of women, whether Muslim or non-Muslim ...

Wearing the veil creates the most realistic similarity with the Virgin Mary, the mother of Christ ...

The Muslim has no right to impose the rules of his religion on others. My religious duty is to advise the Muslim woman to be modest and to wear the Islamic dress. It is her choice whether to comply or not ...

Through these words I wanted to protect women from rapists who have lost their humanity, lost their minds and religion.

Whilst I believe that the rapists are responsible for their crimes, I wanted to protect my daughters by encouraging them to adopt all available lawful means of protection ...

I did not mean this analogy to denigrate immodestly dressed women; rather I meant to denigrate those men who set aside their humanity and turn into predators.

Now could someone please show me where in these words Hilaly has said that the Bible mandates women to wear veils? Indeed, the closest thing to this in O’Brien’s quotation of Hilaly was a claim that “the Virgin Mary is often depicted with a veil covering her head”. Naturally, the Pope will be rebutting this scurrilous suggestion during his address to the crowds at World Youth Day.

This is a classic case of O'Brien almost verballing Hilaly. At the very least, she seems to be deriving a meaning from his words that simply isn't there. This is the work of someone who is allegedly a senior reporter for the national broadsheet.

UPDATE I: Ms O'Brien telephoned me on the morning of 30 April 2008. She advised me that the headline to the article was not written by her. It is definitely true that she doesn't write headlines. However, the sub-editor who prepared the headline did so after reading her words. The headline reflects the sub-editor's understanding of Ms O'Brien's article, an understanding that is confirmed in this letter to the editor ...

Hilali: voice of unreason

TAJ Din al-Halili, once again proving himself to be incapable of rational insight or epistemic humility, now presumes to interpret the Bible for Christian women ("Hilali tells Christian women to wear veils”, 26-27/4).

If Halili had any understanding of the Bible, he would know that Christianity is fundamentally about regenerating the state of our hearts rather than conforming to a mode of dress: “Man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart” (1 Samuel 16:7). There is no obligation for women to wear a veil in the Christian faith. Nor should there be. Halili’s insistence on this matter is just another outworking of his desire to oppress and denigrate women.
Andrew Hastie
Larrakeyah, NT

Ms O'Brien further said that Hilaly had used the term "mandates" in his book which was written by the Sheik in English and not translated. And where does she say this? She refers me to the first paragraph of her story:

OUTSPOKEN Muslim cleric Taj Din al-Hilali says the Bible "mandates" the wearing of the veil by Christian women.

The word "mandates" appears in inverted commas and therefore represents a quote. Yep, a one-word quote. The sentence in which the word is quoted isn't reproduced in full. Just one word. Very convincing.

Ms O'Brien claims that my alleging that she verballed Sheik Hilaly was defamatory, threatening to "refer the matter to the lawyers". With these threats in mind, I have amended the original entry somewhat.

It is possible that the term "verballed" may be a little over-the-top. Perhaps a better phrase may have been "put words into his mouth" or "provide a rather novel interpretation of his actual words". I stand by my claim that nothing in the sentences of Hilaly she reproduces suggests that non-Muslim women are required to wear the veil.

Then again, Ms O'Brien claims she has read the relevant chapter of the book. She tells me that the Sheik wrote the book in English, and that what she read was not a translation.

If that is the case, she might ask her editor if the newspaper (or its website) can find room to reproduce the entire chapter where Hilaly uses the term "mandate", as opposed to allowing her only enough room to quote the actual word without much context. If, after reading the entire chapter, it becomes clear that Ms O'Brien was not quoting Hilaly out of context, I would be happy to unreservedly apologise. Until then, I can only comment on what she reports.

Finally, I managed to ask Ms O'Brien about the extent of her knowledge on the Tabligh Jamaat. She advised me that she spoke to them with some regularity and had also referred to a PhD thesis on the subject (I presume she means Dr Jan Ali's thesis, which she has referred to in previous articles). However, she claims that she cannot go to their gatherings as women are not allowed. She was, however, aware that they meet regularly at Sefton and Lakemba mosques.

I asked her basic questions about their theology and methodology - What were the six guiding principles of tabligh? What is the TJ textbook called and who wrote it? Basic questions. Kindergarten stuff. Ms O'Brien had no answers. She also didn't seem to know about the TJ gathering in Bangladesh where some 3 million people gather each year.

Despite not knowing even the basics of TJ's methodology and theology, Ms O'Brien is prepared to cite reports claiming this completely apolitical group which forbids all discussion of politics at its gatherings is linked to al-Qaida or is a recruiting ground for al-Qaida. The question thus arises: Is it appropriate for someone with little direct knowledge or experience with an organisation (beyond reading a PhD thesis and talking to some of its members on the phone) to be citing reports containing serious allegations?

UPDATE II: A source close to Sheik Hilaly has told me that Hilaly did not write his book on women in English. Rather, the book was written in Arabic and then translated into English by a translator arranged by Hilaly's Egyptian publishers. In other words, what Ms O'Brien has quoted is an English translation. The source also advised that Sheik Hilaly had cited over 20 verses from the Old and New Testaments (including the first letter of Paul to the Corinthians), his intention being to show non-Muslim readers that the hijab should not be seen as something alien as it is also part of their religious tradition.

Words © 2008 Irfan Yusuf

MEDIA: Natalie O’Brien on Rabbi Hilaly?

I’ve written elsewhere about how Natalie O’Brien, a senior reporter for The Australian, has suggested that Sheik Hilaly is somehow linked to Usama bin-Ladin. It seems that, according to O'Brien, if you find yourself on the same side of an argument as bin-Ladin, you are somehow linked to him.

But now, having re-read the same article, it also seems that O’Brien is suggesting that Sheik Hilaly delivers his Friday sermons on Saturdays. Do we apply O'Brien's convoluted logic and presume Hilaly is also linked to the Beth Din?

Read these paragraphs and wonder …

At his sermon at Australia's biggest mosque, in the southwest Sydney suburb of Lakemba, Sheik Hilali said the cartoons, published in a Danish newspaper in 2005 - and republished last month - showed the "hatred and envy" felt by the West against Islam.

He said today's sermon at the mosque would be followed by a march to a nearby park to protest against the cartoons …

At his sermon today, Sheik Hilali is expected to … He will make an appeal to …

In his sermon, Sheik Hilali will also …

He will say … He will express his grief at …

Um, is she talking about two separate sermons? Or is the same sermon being delivered in two instalments? Or is Sheik Hilaly delivering his Friday sermon on a Saturday?

© Irfan Yusuf 2008

COMMENT: AFIC must act now on Hilaly

In late October last year, I was in Canberra for a multicultural festival marking the end of Ramadan. I was helping a friend tape kids’ posters to a wall for the festival poster competition when we were approached by Ikebal Patel.

At the time, the Hilaly scandal was at its peak. Mr Patel took the opportunity to criticise some pieces [URL: ] I’d written in the newspapers.

Irfan, I heard his entire speech. All he said was that women should wear the hijab [head scarf]. You know that the media are out to get us with this. We should be supporting the Sheik, not rushing to the media.

Or something to that effect. My friend was angered by what she heard and walked off in disgust.

It’s therefore interesting that Patel has now been elected to the presidency of Australia’s peak Muslim body, the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils (AFIC). It was AFIC which created the position of Mufti of Australia and then appointed Hilaly to that position.

Patel has promised that AFIC will now enter “a new chapter of inclusiveness”. It’s pleasing that the AFIC executive consists of persons from numerous ethnic and linguistic groups and includes at least one female.

But it’s concerning that Mr Patel doesn’t wish to deal with the urgent issue of the ongoing Hilaly crisis. Patel has suggested the matter be left to the National Board of Imams which doesn’t meet until April.

Patel must understand that this is an election year (twice for NSW voters). If the performance of Kevin Rudd and/or Maxine McHugh starts to worry the PM, or should there be an upward adjustment in the reported national security threat level, there’s every possibility Howard and other ministers will raise the Muslim bogeyman and hold all responsible for AFIC's failure to act. Espcially if Hilaly is caught out having made another disastrous comment. Howard has done this in the past, and there’s little to stop him doing it again.

For that reason, Patel needs to act fast. He doesn’t need to wait for an Imams’ Board that didn’t exist when AFIC first created the mufti position. Patel’s executive has the power to act. They must act now so that a key conservative wedge is removed and mufti day is brought to an end once and for all.

Words © 2007 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

OPINION: Why Sheik Hilaly Has To Go

Over the weekend, I joined people from a range of backgrounds and faiths in the heart of Canberra for the annual Eid Mela festival — which celebrates the end of the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan. This year, the festivals of Eid and Divali (the Hindu ‘Festival of Lights’) took place within days of each other, and the Hindi word ‘mela’ (Hindi/Urdu for “festival”) was used to provide a peculiarly sub-Continental flavour to the event.

In Canberra , Muslims gathered to celebrate the multicultural, multilingual and multi-confessional nature of our great capital city. Two Sikh gentlemen started the day, entertaining guests with a gorgeous rendition of traditional sitar music. This was followed by prayers and songs by performers of Sri Lankan, Chinese and Spanish origins — without forgetting a group of young children singing the Australian national anthem.

Representatives from Jewish, Catholic, Hindu and other faiths spoke of how pleased they were to attend such an event. Dr Anita Shroot, a respected member of the ACT Hebrew congregation [check word], greeted the crowd with ‘Salamu alaykum. Shalom aleichem’ and spoke approvingly of celebrating with her ‘Muslim cousins’ — the weekend also coinciding with a Jewish festival as well.

And why shouldn’t she and the other faith leaders be pleased? Ordinary Canberrans are happy to celebrate multiculturalism, as were Sydney-siders attending the Multicultural Eid Festival & Fair at the Fairfield Showgrounds.

It seems the only people unpleased with Australia ’s multicultural reality are a minority of pseudo-conservative politicians and commentators determined to impose their own version of a mono-cultural revolution on Australia . Unfortunately, the words of Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali in an address given in Sydney ’s Lakemba Mosque some weeks back have provided them with plenty of fuel.

Sheik Hilali’s remarks were first reported in The Australian — a newspaper which many Muslims regard as conducting a vendetta against their community. It is impossible to make sweeping generalisations about any newspaper — The Oz has provided space for commentators such as John Stone and Janet Albrechtsen to sprout their conspiracy theories about the alleged threats posed by Muslim migrants and their children, but similar theories are published in the Fairfax Press by the likes of Paul Sheehan and Miranda Devine.

For its Muslim critics, what makes The Oz different, however, is the frequency with which such views are published. Many Muslims see this in the context of reported comments made some months back by Rupert Murdoch when he suggested that Muslims weren’t to be trusted as they always put faith over loyalty to the nation.

In relation to Sheik Hilali’s comments, the Friday 27 October 2006 edition of The Oz carried a full 8 pages of broadsheet material on the issue. Yes, you read it correctly. Eight pages! You’d think the Sheik had just completed 10 years as Prime Minister or delivered his 10th budget!

John Howard, in particular, has shown a startling level of hypocrisy and double standards in his comments on the Hilali case.

He has placed the onus on Muslims to deal with Hilali. Ultimately, the only bodies that can control Sheik Hilali are the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils (AFIC) and the Lebanese Moslems Association (LMA). AFIC created the position of ‘Mufti of Australia’ and immediately appointed Hilali to fill it. Howard is aware that AFIC is currently under administration. I doubt any court-appointed administrator would be prepared to take so sensitive a decision as to sack the nation’s most senior Islamic religious jurist, notwithstanding the outrageous nature of his remarks.

That leaves the LMA, which owns and manages the Imam Ali ben Abi Taleb Mosque in Lakemba, where Hilali generally preaches. Hilali is not employed by the LMA as an official resident religious scholar (or ‘Imam’). Indeed, one former LMA Vice President has advised me that Hilali has never been on the payroll. Even before he was appointed Mufti, his wages were paid from a combination of sources — the Libyan Islamic Call Society and private individuals.

A few years ago, Howard clearly showed his views on sexual assault victims in his response to comments made by a former Governor-General of Australia. Readers will well remember this saga, and I do not wish to repeat details which could cause further distress to the parties directly affected. The point is that on that occasion, Howard could have pressured (and maybe even forced) the Governor-General to stand down. He chose not to.

Indeed, Howard’s cheer-squad from the allegedly conservative commentariat claimed at the time that the entire campaign against the Governor-General was a huge conspiracy by republicans to discredit the Vice-Regal office — just as today, Hilali’s supporters claim the attack on the Sheik is a conspiracy by News Limited and elements within the Sydney Lebanese community.

Conservative politicians and commentators critical of Hilali should recall their own refusal to deal with the gross offence caused to all victims of child sexual assault. That offence and hurt was compounded by the refusal of the conservative establishment to act on the matter. Indeed, far from acting, conservatives ignored loud protests from across the Australian community for the then Governor-General to resign.

Today, the LMA and many Sydney Lebanese Muslims seem to be playing the same game of strident defence that the PM and his allies did. In this sense, the LMA’s approach is perfectly in accord with the PM’s precedent and hence with the his vision of ‘Australian values.’ The PM has no right to criticise those who effectively follow his example.

Of course, the Governor-General on that occasion showed more decency than his conservative supporters. Notwithstanding the shield he received from their moral and political support, he resigned.

Contrary to claims from some media quarters, Hilali is not being shielded by the majority of (largely non-Lebanese) Muslims he claims to lead. Across Australia and New Zealand , Muslim leaders and community members are up in arms over the Sheik’s comments. Muslim women have expressed particular disgust. Even members of the PM’s Muslim Reference Group have expressed outrage.

Sheik Hilali should follow the example of our former Governor-General and resign of his own accord. But this seems unlikely. His followers are already planning a rally to show their support this Saturday. Their antics are orchestrated by a small minority of die-hards who rely on Hilali’s status as Mufti to gain some notoriety of their own. These people wish Mufti-day would never end, regardless of how much damage it causes to the image of Muslims or the person of Sheik Hilali himself.

Hilali was handed the mantle of Mufti-hood to suit the politics of then Acting Prime Minister Paul Keating, who felt nervous that his backyard was turning Liberal after the NSW State seat of East Hills was lost to the Liberals in 1986 following a by-election swing of 17.5%. It was a short-term decision with long-term consequences.

What the broader community knows about the Sheik are his frequent gaffes and his refusal to learn English. But many in his Lebanese Muslim congregation love him dearly. Even his Muslim critics have had no hesitation in acknowledging the good that Sheik Hilali has done over the years.

The Sheik has made himself available to people of all ages and ethnic groups and at all hours of the day and night. In most Muslim-majority countries, people holding the title of Mufti live like Governors-General, residing in palatial homes and attended to by servants. Their relationship with law-making is certainly similar to those holding Vice-Regal address. Often the Mufti has his fatwas (or religious decrees) written for him by government officials, and he merely rubber-stamps it.

To his credit, Hilali has not been owned by any government. He has been critical of all Arab governments, and he has steered his large congregation away from the nefarious influence of Middle Eastern governments that are ever-ready to provide short-term funding in return for long-term influence.

(It’s interesting to note that the man Hilali replaced as Imam of the Lakemba Mosque went onto form his own splinter group and established the Markaz Saddam Hussein Islami — The Saddam Hussein Islamic Office!)

And if Hilali goes, who will take his place? For many Muslims living outside the Lebanese ethno-religious ‘ghetto’ of southwest Sydney , the position of Mufti means nothing. But if there is going to be a Mufti, they believe they would be better off having someone who will not do such damage to the image of Muslims in Australia.

(First published in New Matilda on 1 November 2006.)

Words © 2006 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

COMMENT: Qualified and Unqualified Lunar-tics

If you believe what you read in The Australian newspaper, you’d think all Muslim Australians are part of some huge conspiracy to destroy liberal democracy. Allegedly, we are all following thick-Sheik Omran and are ready to strap ourselves with bombs and head up to Byron Bay in time to cause maximum casualties at schoolies week.

But if you have ever employed Muslims from more than 3 nationalities, you will know this is all crap. Why?

Well, for a start, the buggers can’t even agree on when Ramadan begins and ends. Each worker wants to take a separate day off for Eid or Bayram or Hari Raya (you could be forgiven for thinking these are 3 separate holidays!).

Not only that, Muslims don’t have any set hierarchy for religious scholarship. It seems anyone can get online and start spurting out fatwa after fatwa and claim qualifications and credentials.

In an earlier piece, I raised the prospect of being shown qualifications from a dude who heads up a “Centre for Islamic Sciences and Human Development” from a garage in Bankstown (actually, now it's from his wife’s clinic in Lakemba).

I have been asking the chap for proof of his qualifications since April 2005, if not earlier.

Now let’s re-visit some of his claims.

a. Mr Ali claims to have a degree in Islamic law from the Islamic University of Madeena, the same institution from where thick-Sheiks Omran and Zoud studied.
b. Mr Ali claims to have studied with Professor Abdullah Saeed of Melbourne University at Madeena.
c. Mr Ali claims to have ijaza’s from a number of scholars including Habib Ali and a range of other respected and eminent Yemeni shuyukh (plural of “shaykh”).
d. Mr Ali claims that Shaykh Nuh Keller has authorised his students to study hanafi law under Mr Ali.
e. Mr Ali runs a course in usool al-fiqh (principles of Islamic jurisprudence and legal methodology) which has been advertised as providing a diploma recognised by various institutions (depending on which day you ask him, it could be the Zaytuna Institute or al-Azhar).
f. Mr Ali claims to display his ijaza certificates and degree at the Park Road Mosque in Auburn where his classes are held.

Mr Ali has entered the fray with his views on moon-sighting. I think he has every right to express a view. So does my mum, my 9-year-old nephew and my 30-year-old Hindu cousin.

Each year, Mr Ali and his students head down to Ashbury to site the moon. It is an excellent initiative, and represents a revival of a tradition which is still followed in many Muslim countries.

By the method of moon-sighting with the naked eye, the festival of Bayram/Eid/Hari Raya should have been on Friday. But the majority of mosques (and Muslims) celebrated Eid one day earlier. Why?

A large group of Imams joined together with the AFIC-appointed Mufti Sheik Hilaly and decided to pray Eid with the rest of the world. They did not insist on localised moon-sighting.

That is their opinion. They are imams. They have qualifications. They have credentials. Mr Ali doesn’t. Or at least he hasn’t shown any.

One aspect of Islamic scholarship is its ability to inculcate humility. The following example of Mr Ali’s humility is taken from the Muslim Village Forums …

“We have the appropriate knowledge and expertise and will involve only knowledgeable people from our contacts to discuss this matter.”

Now before I go any further, allow me to disclose my own bias. I actually agree with Mr Ali’s views on moon-sighting. I agree with the position taken by those scholars insisting the moon has to be sighted with the naked eye.

But I agree with them because they are scholars. They actually have credentials and qualifications which are published. They don’t hide their qualifications. They don’t make excuses or delay displaying their qualifications. Nor do they insult other qualified scholars just because they hold different views.

So let me make the point clear. Mr Ali has promised me that he has qualifications and that he will show them to me after Ramadan. I request that he do so under the following conditions:

1. That the following Imams and elders be present at the time: Imam Tajeddine Hilali, Imam Abdurrahman Asaroglu, Imam Salih Mujalla, Imam Nazeerul Hasan Thanwi, Dr Shabbir Ahmed, Shaykh Abdul Muiz and Dr Muhsin Labban;
2. That the display be held at the Auburn Gallipoli Mosque or the Imam Ali ben Abi Taleb Mosque;
3. That all qualifications and ijaza certificates be produced; and
4. That all Imams also provide evidence of their qualifications (heck, you have to be fair); and finally
5. That I bring my lawyer’s practising certificate so I can certify the copies.

I think it is an open secret that I am of the opinion that Afroz Ali does not have the qualifications he claims to have. If that be the case, it means those learning specialist disciplines from him (such as usul al-fiqh) are doing so at their own risk. If they are happy to pay money for such knowledge, then I will be happy to travel upto Byron Bay to obtain therapy from a billygoat in a bikini.

On the other hand, if it turns out that Afroz Ali does have the qualifications he claims to have, and if the senior shuyukh listed above can testify that these are valid qualifications, I will happily eat humble pie and make a $500 donation to the al-Ghazali Centre.

Words © 2005 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

COMMENT: Hiding qualifications ...

Tonight I had a discussion with a colourful and lively Muslim activist based in South-Western Sydney. The gentleman, who runs a Centre devoted to “Islamic Sciences and Human Development” has claimed to have an undergraduate degree from the Islamic University of Madeena in Saudi Arabia.

He also claims to have ijaza (authorisation) to teach in particular areas of Islamic studies. These authorisations were allegedly obtained from a number of prominent Sunni scholars in Yemen and elsewhere.

On a number of occasions, I have asked the gentleman to show me his qualifications and to make them public. I have been doing this since as far back as April 2005, if not earlier.

What has especially concerned me about the gentleman is that he has been holding classes on specialist disciplines in Islamic law and jurisprudence. He has been charging money for holding these courses. However, his manner of speech and the content of what he teaches and writes (including on Muslim Village forums of the website islamicsydney.com) lead me to have serious doubts about his claimed scholarly credentials.

I have expressed my doubts on numerous occasions. I first doubted the gentleman when he made the almost laughable claim that my recognition or otherwise of Shaykh Tajeddine Hilaly as Mufti of Australia was a matter which affected my aqida (meaning more or less the orthodoxy of my expression of the articles of faith). H suggested that my refusal to recognise the appointment of Shaykh Hilaly as Mufti made my faith defective.

Tonight, the gentleman offered to show me his qualifications and his ijaza certificates. He would also obtain NAATI-accredited translations of the documents. However, he advised that he would prefer to do this at some stage after Ramadan.

The gentleman also made a few other claims, and he has permitted me to have these stated on the public record.

Firstly, he rejected the notion that traditional Islam requires a person asked to show his ijaza to do so. The gentleman’s position was that this is in fact not the case. He suggested that he should only show his students. Further, he said he reserved the right not to show someone whom he felt was discrediting or undermining him. He claimed that Imam Muhammad Idris ash-Shafei had refused to show his certificates of ijaza to five persons who were allegedly undermining the Imam.

Secondly, he claimed that he had studied with Professor Abdullah Saeed at the Islamic University of Madeena. He said Professor Abdullah Saeed was aware of this and had confirmed this to be the case.

Thirdly, the gentleman claimed that he is opposed to persons studying Islamic studies at mainstream universities in order to learn traditional Islamic sciences.

Fourthly, he claimed that the American scholar Shaykh Nuh Ha Mim Keller had viewed the certificates of ijaza and the university degree of the gentleman and had permitted students in Shaykh Nuh’s circle to study fiqh (personal law and jurisprudence) with the gentleman.

Fifth, he stated that the Crescent Project cooking and feeding of the homeless was a separate project of his Centre and was not being done under the auspices of Just Enough Faith. Rather, the Centre was merely using JEF’s facilities.

I am of the view that the gentleman must make his qualifications public. It is not good enough that he just shows his students or even me. And I would make the same requirement for all shaykhs and imams, including and especially those who claim to be advising on sensitive matters (such as whether a particular financial product complies with sharia).

The Khalid Yasin fiasco has shown how important it is that we take such matters seriously. It is not good enough that we accept people at face value anymore. Those claiming the mantle of scholarship and claiming to be qualified to teach should be prepared to make their qualifications public.

30 years ago, when we were a small community, it was OK to get any old person to lead the prayers, give religious advice and deliver sermons. But in the present age, with scholars and imams under the microscope, it is essential that we insist on people being up front on the nature and extent of their qualifications.

Further, as more and more younger Muslims return to traditional Islam, it is essential that those espousing traditional Islam are honest and transparent about their ijaza and be prepared to show it.

Words © 2005 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

COMMENT: Now Is Not The Time ...

Imagine your brother or son working as an engineer in Iraq has been kidnapped by insurgents. Imagine you have been told by your elected officials that they will not negotiate with his captors.

Then imagine if you know that an Australian Muslim leader may be able to help. What will you do? Will you refuse to take a chance because of anti-Semitic remarks he made about Jewish people over a decade ago? Will you not approach him because of recent remarks he made in Lebanon during some Friday sermons?

Of course not. You would do anything to save your loved one.

The Howard government sent thousands of young Australian servicemen and women to Iraq. Many of these young Australians are still there, risking their lives to keep (or rather, create) the peace. Yet the Howard government has said that it will not negotiate with those holding an Australian citizen captive.

I am sure Ministers will be wishing there was some way they could save Mr Wood without giving terrorists the legitimacy that they simply do not deserve. And revelations in the Sun-Herald on May 15 of a gentleman’s agreement between Mr Ruddock, Keysar Trad and Imam Hilaly are proof that the Government is trying to do what it can.

Yet two issues arising from this whole affair are of particular concern.

Firstly, the attitude of neo-Conservative pro-Government commentators is cause for concern. At least 3 major columnists have made vicious attacks on Imam Hilaly, raising decade-old allegations of anti-Semitic remarks. These commentators express their distaste with Imam Hilaly being used as a go-between and a negotiator. Some have virtually accused him of using the Wood family’s grief to gain publicity for himself.

I am not the world’s biggest fan of Imam Hilaly. I have criticised him publicly in various Muslim and wider community forums (online and otherwise). But on this occasion, I simply cannot find fault with what he is doing.

Hilaly is an old man with a serious heart condition. His personal life is not the best, and his office is in turmoil after his translator and adviser of many years was removed. Hilaly is caught in the cross-fire of 3 feuding Islamic councils vying for hegemony over the affairs of the Muslims of NSW.

Yet at the drop of a turban, the Imam has rushed to a war-zone, risking his life to save the life of a fellow-Australian. Whatever Hilaly may have said about Jews over 16 years ago, I am sure Australians of Jewish faith (and indeed of all other faiths and no faith) will be hoping and wishing that Imam Hilaly’s mission is successful.

Now is not the time for allegedly conservative columnists to attack the Shaykh. Let him do his job. Iraqis (including the terrorists) will not take the Shaykh’s mission seriously if they go to the web and read respected columnists in major Australian media outlets attacking the Shaykh. Criticising the Shaykh at this time, apart from causing enormous distress to the Wood family, will effectively undermine efforts to free Douglas Wood.

But apart from the irresponsible comments made by commentators (tabloid and otherwise), there is a matter of greater concern. It seems that our foreign affairs apparatchiks in Canberra may not have the extensive knowledge and contacts in the Arab world needed to deal with such situation should it arise in the future.

That a country with such a large, diverse and educated Arabic-speaking community does not have more such people in our intelligence and foreign affairs agencies is cause for concern. How can we fight ‘Islamist terror’ when we do not have the people who can speak the language and understand the culture of many terrorist groups?

One important lesson our government can learn is that it cannot afford to ignore the potential for Arab and Muslim Australians to contribute to our national security and our diplomatic efforts. Muslims are not just good for securing IOC delegates’ votes for the 2000 Sydney Games, or for opening up export markets in halal meat.

If major Australian financial institutions, telecommunications companies and large commercial law firms are happy to involve persons of Arab and/or Muslim backgrounds in sensitive leadership roles, why can’t our government, intelligence and diplomatic agencies?

I am not suggesting that our government agencies activeky discourage the involvement of persons of a particular background. Nor do they discriminate. And nor am i suggesting that private sector personalities positively discriminate. And I certainly am not suggesting that positive discrimination on the basis of ethnicity or religion is the solution.

What I am saying is that, in the current environment, even the most Aussie of Mossies are not exactly the social flavour of the month. Years of bad press, especially since September 11, are taking their toll. And as the Wood saga shows, it is not just Aussie Mossies who are suffering as a result.

But it works both ways. Muslim Australians need to come out of the closet. They cannot allow the Islamophobic tendencies of ignorant shock jocks and infantile columnists to dictate the extent of their contribution to this wonderful country we all call our home. It is their duty to God that they show their service to Australia with greater gusto.

Australians need and deserve to be reassured. Aussie Muslims need to find voices that communicate in a language all Australians can understand and appreciate. Even if some claiming greater loyalty to Australia oppose them.