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: The Oz - going troppo on TJ ...

The Australian today published a disturbing report on a management dispute at Sydney’s Sefton mosque, managed by an entity called the Bangladesh Islamic Centre.

The story is headlined “Terror Links in battle for mosque”. It claims that the Tabligh Jamaat (TJ) are trying to take over management of the mosque. Apparently the incumbent imam has been removed and has had an apprehended violence order taken out against him.

The authors of the story are senior reporter Natalie O’Brien and cadet journalist Sanna Trad. The story described the TJ as:

… a hardline religious movement that has been linked to the 2005 London bombings … under watch by Western intelligence agencies because of its suspected links to terrorism …

The Tablighi are influenced by a fundamentalist branch of Saudi Arabian-based Islam known as Wahabism. The sect has been linked to two July 7 London bombers, and failed shoe bomber Richard Reid is also known to have attended Tablighi meetings.

I almost fell off my chair when I read these descriptions. The TJ? Influenced by Wahhabism? How?

In fact the TJ are a Sufi Sunni missionary group founded in India in the 1920’s. The founder, Maulana Muhammad Illyas, was a mureed (disciple) of the famous Indian Sufi of the Chishtiyya order named Rasheed Ahmed Gangohi. The methodology of the TJ represents a combination of the practices of various Sufi orders, and the texts used by the TJ (authored by prominent Sufi Muhammad Zakariyya Kandhalwi) make heavy use of Sufi sources.

Saudi Wahhabist scholars and authorities have severely criticised the TJ, their methodology and their texts as being heterodox. As TJ expert Yoginder Sikand notes:

In fact, TJ missionary groups are actually prohibited from preaching in Saudi Arabia, presumably because the Saudi 'Wahhabis' do not believe that the TJ is really 'Islamic' enough. In fact, Saudi opposition to TJ ideology is so extreme that Tablighi books are not allowed to be imported into the
country.

A fatwa issued some years ago by the late Shaikh Bin Baz, chief official Saudi mufti (available online on the 'Wahhabi' website http://www.fatwa-online.com), bearing the revealing title 'The Final Fatwa of Shaykh Abdul Azeez ibn Baaz Warning Against the Jamaah at-Tableegh', clearly denounces the Tablighis as a 'deviant' group. Bin Baz warns his 'Wahhabi followers, that '[I]t is not permissible to go with them, except for a person who has knowledge and goes with them to disapprove of what they are upon'. This is because, he argues, the Tablighis are characterized by 'deviations, mistakes and lack of knowledge'. They represent 'falsehood' and are do not follow the Sunni path.

In other words, as this fatwa indicates, Bin Baz clearly regarded the TJ propagating 'un-Islamic' beliefs and seems not to have even regarded them as fellow Sunnis, and hence not as proper Muslims, because for the 'Wahhabis' only Sunnis are Muslims. In an even more strongly worded fatwa hosted on the same site, Bin Baz went far as to denounce the Tablighis as being destined to
perdition in Hell, alleging that they were 'opposed' to the Sunni path, and, hence, for all purposes, not Muslims at all.

One need only read Hanifa Deen’s Caravanserais to see how the TJ operate in Australia. Yes, they are ultra-orthodox. Yes, they do hold very conservative views on personal and social morality.

It may well be true that the shoe bomber and some of the 7/7 bombers had attended TJ meetings. But then, so have many others including former Pakistani PM Nawaz Sharif, deceased former Indian President Dr Zakir Hussein, a few Pakistani cricketers, Indonesian rock band Sheila on 7 (whose songs openly support TJ) and yours truly.

In fact, the TJ hold meetings and gatherings at just about every mosque in Sydney (except the Wahhabi ones), with these gatherings being timed to coincide with regular prayer services. That means potentially any and every person who has been to a mosque in Australia will have attended a TJ gathering.

Far from politicising Muslims, the TJ has been attacked for discouraging its members from political involvement. Prominent TJ elders have been publicly critical of Sheik Tajeddine Hilaly on a variety of issues, including his speaking on political matters in Friday sermons. It’s little wonder, therefore, that Hilaly and his translator Keysar Trad haven’t exactly been best buddies with the TJ.

(Though both Hilaly and Trad have sat in on TJ meetings and gatherings at the Imam Ali Mosque in Lakemba. Will The Oz now link both these gentlemen to terrorism?)

Coincidentally, among those cited for the story is “Islamic Friendship Association president Keysar Trad”. Trad tells the two reporters:

It is a disgrace to seek out an AVO against an imam unless he's made a major breach of religious teachings or the law.

With all due respect, Mr Trad, it is also a disgrace to suggest that resources devoted to enforcing Part XVA of the Crimes Act be diverted away from protecting actual and potential victims of violence and be used to enforce religious orthodoxy and observance of imams.

So what’s the crux of the Sefton mosque dispute? TJ opponents claim TJ members are staging ...

... an ethnic and religious-based takeover, wanting the mosque exclusively for Bangladeshi Muslims, particularly those who follow Tablighi, to the exclusion of other ethnic groups including Arabic Muslims.

So non-Bangladeshis could soon be banned from Sefton mosque. That includes Usama bin Ladin, Abubakar Bashir and Saudi wahhabi scholars. And we’re told this new mob is linked to transnational terrorists. Go figure.

UPDATE I: I sent the following letter today to the editor of The Australian ...

Your story on the Sefton Mosque management dispute alleges that one competing faction belongs to an organisation which is linked to terrorism and is influenced by Saudi-style Wahhabism. It also cites Keysar Trad on the dispute.

Is there any reason why the story doesn't disclose that one of its authors is in fact Keysar Trad's daughter?

What makes your slip-up even more serious is that Mr Trad is well known in Muslim circles for his criticism of the faction in question, as is his close friend Sheik Hilaly.

(Indeed, as am I. Though I regard any suggestion they are influenced by Saudi-style Islam as completely ridiculous.)

One might infer from this that your newspaper is being used to score intra-Muslim sectarian points.

Yours faithfully
I Yusuf

UPDATE II: That Keysar Trad may have a special interest in the affairs of Sefton Mosque could arise because (at least in October 2002) he resided with his family in Yagoona, a stone's throw away from Sefton. This in itself doesn't reflect on Trad, nor should it. However, it means that The Oz had even more reason to declare that a name appearing on the by-line of the story was in fact related to Mr Trad.

UPDATE III: Keysar confirms his personal interest in the Sefton mosque dispute and his knowledge of the mechanics of the story in this e-mail he sent to an individual and which was forwarded to a variety of e-mail groups ...

From: K Trad
Date: 7 Jan 2008 16:34
Subject: FW: No happy keysar
To: kaled el...

Wa'alaykumussalam

Dear Br. Kaled

1 – Sanna did her work on this two weeks ago as background and stopped. Natalie took over, the only reason that Sanna's name is on it is because of the early contact that the people from Sefton did.

2 – My involvement stems from contact by the Imam and others from the community, Sh. Abdul Karim is the imam there by the statements of several members of the committee and the trustees.

3 – It was one of the committee members who contacted Sanna Trad, this person kept calling her on a daily basis, I have learnt that one call was 11 pm at night.

4 – This is an issue that cannot be ignored. One of the committee members seems to have been trying to throw the imam out in the absence of the president who went on holiday to the US for an one month holiday.

5 – Sanna did not quote me, Natalie interviewed me in relation to this story.

6 – Sanna Trad did not raise the issue of Wahhabi or Tablighi. I checked with Natalie who was kind enough to explain, she has pointed out that the wahhabi influence is partly deduced from public articles that you can access at the following links:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1853800,00.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1816451.ece

http://www.meforum.org/article/686

http://www.uvm.edu/~envprog/madrassah/TablighiCritique.htm


7 – I maintain, if we have an issue with an Imam, let the community resolve it, I fear that this sets a nasty precedent, I am curious to see what the court hearing will produce in this matter. This issue is about more than an AVO, the Imam contacted me two weeks ago to tell me that this committee member brought the police to his home to evict him between 12:30 and 1 AM on Monday 17 December, the police came again after midnight two days later to see one of the neighbours at the behest of the same committee member, this committee member brought the police a third time on Friday morning when the Sefton mosque people were having their Eid and the police almost went inside to remove the Imam, it was one of the caretakers who explained to them that this committee member was not empowered to remove the Imam in such a manner. The police have been dragged into this issue over the past couple of weeks by the committee member who has been trying to oust the Imam. The neutral members of the committee seem to be waiting for the president to return before taking any form of action. The Imam was thrown out of his house without a court order or an eviction notice.

8 – It has been suggested by a "Muslim" blogger that Sh. Taj and I are known as critics of the Tablighis, this blogger, whom I might add has a history of attacking both Sh. Taj and myself has not produced any evidence for his claim. I would challenge him to find one quote anywhere of Sh. Taj criticising Tablighis. I personally did not comment on the Tablighis in this story nor did I criticise them, nor was there any intention of criticising them in my comment about the atrocious treatment of the Imam.

Keysar

Words © 2008 Irfan Yusuf