EGYPT: Irrational fear of the Muslim Brotherhood

Dr Mohamed Morsi, Egypt's first elected president since independence, was not perfect. He inherited a basket case economy dominated by family and friends of Egypt's top army brass, among them former dictator (and ally of both the United States and Israel) Hosni Mubarak.

Morsi tried and failed to unite various elements of Egypt's civil society, even failing to get other religious parties (such as Saudi Arabia's salafist allies) on board. Morsi wasn't the most polished performer overseas. At home, he was viciously lampooned by satirists on TV, radio and in print. In his clumsily fitting suit and poorly-trimmed beard, he looked more like Yogi Bear than a statesman.

Egypt has been longer a home of Christianity than Islam. Six decades of military rule haven't made Egyptian Christians feel safer, especially with allegedly secular military strongmen using their power to spread anti-Christian hatred to deflect attention and manufacture religious scapegoat. This isn't a peculiarly Muslim or Egyptian phenomenon. Billy Hughes and John Howard each had pieces of Gamal Abdel Nasser and Hosni Mubarak in them.

But to many of Morsi's opponents inside and outside Egypt, his biggest imperfection was his affiliation to the Egyptian branch of the pan-Arab social movement calling itself al-Ikhwan al-Muslimeen (the Muslim Brothers or MB). The exact extent of his affiliation isn't very clear. Was he as close to the MB spiritual leadership as, say, Tony Abbott was to Cardinal Pell or the late Bob Santamaria? Or was he just one of those leaders who liked rewarding his political allies with cushy jobs, again something hardly unknown to Australian readers.

Some may find such comparisons offensive. They will insist there is a huge difference between Islamic chalk and Christian cheese. Christians don't declare jihad on other countries, nor do they seek to impose their theocratic politics on others. The MB is an Islamist organisation, much like to other Islamist organisations such as al-Qaida and Hezbollah and the Indonesian JI. Islamists aren't really committed to democracy. Islamists are theocrats at heart.

It's little wonder that those insisting on such reasoning will have little sympathy for any group meeting their label of Islamist. Which leads me to wonder: on what basis do we label individuals or groups 'Islamist'? Or 'fundamentalist'? Or 'extremist'?

How many times need it be said that it is impossible to have a monolith amongst a set of congregations making up almost one quarter of the world's human population? Further, when will anti-'Islamists' recognise that the history and politics and economics of Muslims is just as complex and complicated as the variations of history and politics and economics of Catholic communities? Political Catholics (or Catholic politicians, whatever) in El Salvador has different priorities to those in Germany to those in East Timor to those in Australia.

So if we want to get an understanding of why we should all be concerned with events in Egypt, let's start by removing our sectarian blinkers. This applies not just to anti-'Islamists' but also to the many Shia Muslims that perhaps regard Morsi as a Sunni sectarian fanatic for his opposition to Iranian and Lebanese Shia forces supporting the Syrian government. It applies also to other sectarian and political groupings across the Muslim world who have been fervently critical of Morsi and his government.

It also applies to people like me, people who were once 'radicals' and who once supported 'Islamic' movements (of which MB was one) largely because we were taken in by the Afghan jihad against the Soviet Union. We then became disillusioned with MB-style politics after seeing movements becoming embroiled in the Afghan civil wars that erupted after the Soviets withdrew and the American cash dried up. 

In Egypt, many 'Islamists' also became disillusioned with and left the MB. But groups like MB never left their communities. Even when they ceased their political role, successive Egyptian dictators saw the MB as useful for providing social services – medical clinics, legal aid services, etc. The MB has been performing this role for decades. Its grass roots outreach is stronger than any purely political secular grouping in the country. Little wonder one of its allies won the presidential election.

When an elected government proves unpopular and incompetent, we only expect the army to intervene and a coup to take place if the country involved is Pakistan or Bangladesh or a central African nation. Indeed, these days it is rare even in Pakistan, Bangladesh and many parts of Africa. So why should our leaders speak almost approvingly of such a process taking place in Egypt?

It must seem hypocritical to the average person from a Muslim party, to the average cadre who would otherwise be volunteering in a health clinic or legal aid centre in downtown Cairo or Karachi or Jogjakarta. Or indeed Baghdad. The West can encourage democracy. It will even force-feed democracy (as in the Gulf War). It will jail hundreds of innocent people in Guantanamo Bay and in secret camps to protect what is left of its own democracy.

But woe betide any vaguely 'Islamist’ group which tries to democratise itself and its nation.

First published in Eureka Street on 20 August 2013.

POLITICS: Seated at the front

Edham Nureddin (or "Ed" for short) Husic, the Federal Labor member for the Western Sydney seat of Chifley, has moved to the front bench today. He is now the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for broadband.

It is a massive milestone for Husic and the nation. Husic is of Bosnian Muslim heritage.

Husic's political career has suffered some setbacks along the way. His road to Federal Parliament was rocky thanks to prejudice from certain pundits and political operatives who distributed a fake election brochure when he ran in the 2004 election in the seat of Greenway where he grew up.

You can read Husic's thoughts on the 2004 election and the broader issue of Muslims in politics here.

INDIA: Eleven sentenced to death as mass murderers remain in power

Eleven Indian Muslims have been sentenced to death by a court in Gujarat for setting fire in 2002 to a train carrying Hindu pilgrims, amongst them a contingent of supporters of a fundamentalist political party. Some 60 people were killed in that fire which led to communal rioting that saw over 2,000 civilians systematically massacred. Those orchestrating the massacre have managed to escape responsibility.

63 other accused were acquitted while some 20 were given life sentences. Here is a timeline of the case. All accused had been detained since 2002.

The sentence was awarded as Indian Muslims across the world commemorated the 9th anniversary of the Gijarat pogrom.

Here is an excerpt from an AlJazeera report:

Narendra Modi, Gujarat's chief minister and a prominent member of the BJP, was accused of failing to stop the riots, and even of encouraging them.

Gujarat officials have denied the claims.

Last month an Indian supreme court panel criticised Modi for his "partisan" handling of the unrest, but found no evidence to justify criminal prosecution of him.

A national enquiry into the fire concluded the fire was an accident, but other official investigations have differed in their findings.

One prominent civil rights lawyer, Prashant Bhushan, questioned the verdict and the evidence used.

It is a totally wrong verdict, based on wrong evidence ... Though the sentenced persons can go to the higher courts, what is needed is a re-investigation. The case is based on wrong premise that warrants a re-investigation ... On any account, the sentenced persons cannot be charged with murder and conspiracy. At the worst, they should be charged for arson.

One of those acquitted was one Muslim religious scholar, Maulana Husain Umarji, who has been demonised by the Gujarati media. Here is what a columnist from The Hindu has to say about Maulana Umarji.

... the 70-plus maulvi became the monster that he remains now in the eyes of most of those who lost family members on the Sabarmati Express. The acquittal of 63 accused in the train burning case has annoyed them, but it is for the Maulana that they reserve their anger, citing his “role” in inciting the mob — as reported by the media. The tragedy is that the role played by the Maulana was exactly the opposite. It was only he who, after the burning of the train, expressed regret on behalf of his community, repeatedly and publicly. Again, he alone restrained the young Ghanchi Muslims whose blood boiled at the sight of raped and battered Muslims pouring into the relief camps in Godhra during the massacres which followed the Godhra train-burning, and who itched to retaliate against the police for their continuous combing operations in Muslim localities after the incident.

Anil Dharker writing in the Hindustan Times also has some pertinent things to say about the verdict.

On the face of it, the judgement seems to contradict itself. As we now know, 31 people were convicted for criminal conspiracy, while 63 were acquitted. Significantly of the 63, there were two people, Maulvi Hussain Umarji and the then president of the municipality, Billal Hussain Kalota, who were accused to be the main conspirators. If your main conspirators are innocent, how can you have a conspiracy?

Can't argue with that.



Words © 2011 Irfan Yusuf

COMMENT: TreasoNamaz in Tennessee

Five times a day Muslims are supposed to perform a special kind of worship. In Arabic, it's called salaat. But to millions of Muslims in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Turkey, Albania, Bosnia etc, it's known as namaz.

It is performed in accordance with certain regulations concerning washing and physical postures. All of these are governed by a sacred law known as sharia.

And if a number of lawmakers in the poor state of Tennessee have their way, it will become an act of treason.

The Tennessean website reports on 23/02:

A proposed Tennessee law would make following the Islamic code known as Shariah law a felony, punishable by 15 years in jail.

Wow. That's more than what you might get for bashing your Christian wife. So who is behind this unusual piece of legislation?

State Sen. Bill Ketron, R-Murfreesboro, and state Rep. Judd Matheny, R-Tullahoma, introduced the same bill in the Senate and House last week. It calls Shariah law a danger to homeland security and gives the attorney general authority to investigate complaints and decide who's practicing it.

It exempts peaceful practice of Islam but labels any adherence to Shariah law — which includes religious practices such as feet washing and prayers — as treasonous. It claims Shariah adherents want to replace the Constitution with their religious law.

Believe it or not, similar bills have been moved in other US State legislatures. But the Tennessee one goes much further. It provides for criminal sanctions against anyone found to be involved in the practice of sharia.

And who drafted this bill?

The Tennessee bill goes further by proposing criminal penalties for following Shariah ... the bill was model legislation, given to him by the Tennessee Eagle Forum, a conservative advocacy group.

Bobbie Patray, state president of the Eagle Forum, confirmed that the law had been drafted by David Yerushalmi, a Chandler, Ariz.-based attorney. Yerushalmi runs the Society of Americans for National Existence, a nonprofit that says following Shariah is treasonous.

And so we see a bunch of alleged Christians attacking the liturgy of another monotheistic faith. The language is largely the same. The only difference is that the targets aren't Jews this time round.

And sadly some Jews are involved.

Words © 2011 Irfan Yusuf

Throw this treacherous sandnigger in jail for 15 years!!

Bookmark this on Delicious

COMMENT: Reading Quilliam ...

Over the next few weeks, I've set aside time to read the various papers produced by the Quilliam Foundation, a thinktank which was co-founded by Mohammed Mahbub ("Ed") Husain and Maajid Nawaaz. These two gentleman claim to have been senior members of Hizb ut-Tahrir in the UK.

Ed Husain authored a book called The Islamist. I use the word "authored" in its broadest possible sense. A reliable source close to his publishers has advised that in fact a ghost writer wrote most of the book. It isn't clear whether the ghost writer merely provided words or also contributed ideas. The ghost writer did seem to do a good job, and I gave the book a relatively positive review when it was first published in Australia.

The book was written before QF was founded and before it became the darling of cultural warriors and UK politicians hell-bent on marginalising certain minorities. QF has been criticised by many in the UK "islamic industry", and I am not so naive as to accept everything self-appointed leaders have to say on these matters. So I've decided to research the matter in detail for myself.

UPDATE: It also turns out Husain is a Senior Fellow at the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations. You can watch a video of him talking about Egypt here.


Words © 2011 Irfan Yusuf

Bookmark this on Delicious

OPINION: David Hicks finally gets to tell his story on his own terms

There are many good reasons to buy David Hicks’ long awaited memoir Guantanamo: My Journey. One is to find out what happened to this young man without any adverse filtering from nasty pundits who would have us believe Hicks is the anti-Christ.

Naturally not everyone is pleased with Hicks’ work. John Howard, the Prime Minister who left Hicks to rot at Guantanamo for years, recently said on the Q&A program that there was ...

... a lot of criticism of that book from sources unrelated to me and I’ve read some very severe criticisms of that book.

Writing in The Australian, Sally Neighbour claims that Hicks hasn’t been forthcoming and honest. She writes:

Hicks’s firsthand account was awaited with keen interest by historians, academics and journalists who have followed these events. It has also been anticipated by the thousands of Australians who joined the Fair Go for David campaign for Hicks’s release. Hicks describes the book as the first opportunity to tell his story. In fact he’s had many such opportunities, in the form of scores - probably hundreds - of interview requests, all of which he has declined, choosing instead to write his story himself, thereby avoiding the discomfort of having his version of events questioned.

Having gone through years of abuse and torture culminating in the kangaroo court officially referred to as the “military tribunal”, one can hardly blame Hicks for refusing to undergo a trial by media. Especially from journalists who don’t venture into international trouble spots without interpreters and whose knowledge of militant groups is limited to the latest offerings from socalled socalled terrorism “experts”.

It won’t surprise many Muslims to learn that Hicks’ first exposure to Islam was from some Tablighi Jamaat people in Adelaide. Some journalists would have you believe that the TJ are an extremist organisation with links to terrorist groups. I remember once receiving an angry phone call from a senior writer for The Oz about a posting on my blog in which I lampooned her characterisation of TJ as a “secretive group” with a hidden agenda. She claimed to have done thorough research on the TJ, yet did not know the six points of tabligh and was not even aware on which night and in which mosque the TJ met in Sydney.

Still, enough media-bashing. Time for some lawyer-bashing. In his book Torture Team: Deception, Cruelty and the Compromise of Law, international law professor Phillipe Sands, QC, exposes unethical Defence Department lawyers joining forces with neo-conservative politicians to produce the Acton Memo. This document, signed by Donald Rumsfeld on December 2, 2002, enabled interrogators at Guantanamo Bay (and later at Abu Ghraib) to lawfully commit acts of torture in violation of Article 3 of the Geneva Convention.

The Americans landed in Abu Ghraib partly because of “intelligence” provided by a CIA
prisoner. Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libbi, is said to have been subjected to waterboarding that proved so effective that he provided false evidence of a link between al-Qaeda and the former Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein which led to the 2003 invasion. Al-Libbi made these fabricated claims as he was terrified of further harsh treatment.

Still, that is all ancient history. President Obama is in power, embracing Muslims with open arms. The days of torture are gone. Or are they?

The Washington Post reported on February 1, 2009, that Obama issued executive orders allowing the CIA to carry on with renditions. He further allowed the CIA to detain suspects in facilities used only to hold people on a shortterm, transitory basis. America will effectively now outsource Guantanamo-type operations to the generals, sheikhs, colonels, dictators and presidents-for-life who will no doubt torture not just those deemed terror suspects by the US but also domestic political opponents.

Anyway, go out and by David Hicks’ book. Whether you believe him or not, his book makes riveting reading.

* Irfan Yusuf is a Melbourne based lawyer and author. He recently published his first book Once Were Radicals: My Years As A Teenage Islamo-fascist. This column was first published in Issue 25 of the Crescent Times in November 2010.

Words © 2010 Irfan Yusuf



Bookmark this on Delicious

OPINION: Column for the October edition of the Crescent Times ...

Irfan, shut the hell up, you right-wing fascist bull artist!!

Recently a colleague told me that I almost didn’t get my job when I applied for it. I found this rather disturbing and wanted to know the source of the reluctance.

“They googled you,” she said. I wondered why my writing against racism, prejudice and bigotry would land me in trouble with a community organisation. Wouldn’t it be an asset in the community sector to be someone who sticks his neck out and advocates for the marginalised?

“They read you were a former Liberal Party candidate.”

It is true. I was a Liberal Party candidate in 2001. By 2002, I was no longer a member of the Party. I haven’t rejoined. Since 2005, I have lambasted the Party and Australian conservatives generally.

I printed out for my colleague a copy of all the articles I had published which lambasted, ridiculed and attacked the Right (or rather, the wrong) side of Australian politics. It went into over 100 pages. She read it. Her response? “They don’t read all this. They just read
Wikipedia.”

I soon realised that even after all this time, many people will see me as a raving right wing nutcase. There isn’t much I can do about it. When you enter into the public arena, especially when you enter into politics, people will judge you by your
affiliation and by the words and deeds of those who share your affiliation. It sux, I know. But it’s life. Life sux and then you get cross examined by two angels.

I might poke fun at Kevin Andrews’ immigration policies. I might joke about John
Howard’s statements about Asians. I might describe Tony Abbott’s views on foreign policy as infantile. I might attack the Howard government for its disdain for two Australian citizens who languished at the Guantanamo gulag. I might be repeatedly attacked by right-wing pro-Liberal columnists and editorial writers.

But in the eyes of many, Irfan Yusuf is the guy who ran for the Liberals in 2001 which must mean I am anti-migrant, anti-union, anti-welfare, anti-Muslim etc. You name it, I’m anti it.

The same must happen to my friends who feel inclined to join the Labor Party or the Greens. These days if you run for the Greens, many will assume you are plotting to murder their sick granny or want their kids to be forcibly adopted by a couple of dikes on bikes.

As for the ALP, they only believe in ... um ... what do they believe in? Stabbing each other in the back? Mash’Allah, they have becoming Muslims! Julia Gillard for
AFIC President!!

In the last issue of this august publication, someone decided to have a go at a bloke who happens to be a member of the Greens. No doubt the poor brother’s marriage prospects have been affected. Then again, as we all learned from the article, Greens are anti-marriage.

If the article proved anything, it is just how little political sophistication exists in many devout Muslim circles. Heck, I wouldn’t stick my neck out and claim that the Prophet would have been a card-carrying member of the Liberal Party of
Arabia were he alive today. And despite the fact that green was one of his favourite colours, it is a bit much to argue that Bob Brown’s policies are more Islamic (whatever that means) than those of Julia Gillard or Tony Abbott.

At the same time, this is a newspaper read by people who share a common faith, even if they don’t share the same misunderstanding of the faith. And yes, there are some Green values that are arguably more Islamic in the same way that they are more Jewish or Christian or Hindu or Buddhist. Religions are about social justice and
preserving the environment. If someone from the Greens says this, why should this annoy anyone?

Let me end with two more remarks. Firstly, although I am listed as opinion editor, I had nothing to do with the commissioning or editing of either article. These days I have little to do with commissioning or editing any article (other than my own).

Secondly, the headline is a quote from a comment made to me by my fiancé during the
early days of our relationship. She will only allow me to use it here if I disclose that she stands by it to this minute.

Then again, she’s a Labor girl, which probably makes her a Feminist Communist Socialist Maoist Leninist Trotskyist Stalinist.

Talk about political sophistication!

Bookmark this on Delicious

OPINION: Fifteenth column in Crescent Times - Bloody politics of division in my birthplace ...

One of my relatives is visiting my birthplace of Karachi at the moment. She hopes to see siblings she hasn’t seen for years, in some cases, decades.

Visiting Karachi at this time is always a little risky. The city is an ethnic and sectarian melting pot. Ethnic Pathans (also known as Pushtuns) dominate the transport industry. Most other businesses are owned by so-called Muhajir - Muslims who migrated from various parts of India after the 1947 Partition. There are large Shia communities of various denominations, and the Sunnis are also fragmented in various ways. To give readers an idea of just how prevalent the sectarian divide is, the last time I was in Karachi during the mid-90’s, my cousin took me for Friday prayers one day. We had to walk past 3 mosques to get to the mosque. I asked my cousin what was wrong with the first three. “One is barelvi, the other is shia and the third are ahl-i-hadis.”

Back then, Karachi experienced a multilayered civil war. No one quite knew who fought who or why. There was conflict between rival factions of the Muhajir political party. Then there were Sunni and Shia groups fighting a proxy war on behalf of their respective Saudi and Iranian sponsors. One anti-Shia party called ASSP (which probably stood for the “Absurdly Silly Saudi Party”) fought pitch battles against the Shia TNFJ (which probably stood for “Totally Nuevo Funky Jihad”).

Exactly whose side you fought on depended on which conflict you were fighting. One day, you’d be in a trench with Ahmed shooting in the general direction of Javed and Ali from that nasty Muhajir splinter group. The next day, you and Javed were in the same trench shooting in the general Absurdly Silly direction of those nasty pro-Iranian TNFJ infidels Ahmed and Ali.

Now things have taken a definite turn for the worse. For my elderly relative to visit Karachi during Muharram took plenty of guts. Like many traditional Sunni families, we commemorate Muharram in certain ways. We fast on Ashura (the 10th day of Muharram when Imam Hussain was martyred along with most of his family at Karbala) and we also refrain from certain forms of entertainment.

Pakistan TV channels frequently have religious programs commemorating Muharram, which my parents in Sydney get to watch thanks to the dish on their roof. But this time Muharram in Karachi is bloodier than ever. Much blood is spilt during religious processions when men and boys perform rituals that many Shia religious authorities condemn as innovation. Still, these practices have entered South Asian Shia culture in much the same way as circling and prostrating to the graves of saints has entered South Asian sunni culture.

Thousands take part in these processions. Sometimes sectarian riots take place. But Pakistan right now has much bigger worries than sectarian rioting. When even traditionally anti-American religious party leaders are using phrases like “war on terror” in a serious fashion to describe the fight against the renegade Taliban, you know there’s an unusual level of strife.

According to one Pakistani politician, in thelast year Pakistan has now had more suicide attacks than Iraq and Afghanistan. One recent attack targeted the women’s section of the Sharia Faculty at the International Islamic University of Islamabad. Talk about the Taliban implementing sharia! More recently, the notoriously anti-Shia Taliban attacked a Muharram procession in Karachi, killing over 40 people. And the most recent episode was an attack on a volleyball game that killed over 80.

So will we have special security set up for mosques (especially Shia ones), educational institutions and volleyball grounds? No way. Don’t be surprised if Murdoch bloggers start suggesting it’s more important for our security that we perform cavity searches on non-white people for explosive underwear.

Pakistan’s terrorist attacks have received little coverage and have led to little reconsideration of our policy toward that troubled country. Pakistan is always blamed for terrorism in various parts of the world, and it’s as if Pakistanis dying from suicide attacks is treated as a case of “serves you right”.

Still, for my relative in Karachi, the inconvenience to her schedule has been most disturbing. She may not be able to see third cousins she hasn’t seen for 40 years, presuming she even knows they exist. Which hopefully means her kids can remain single until the next trip.

First published in the January 2010 edition of the Crescent Times.


Words © 2009 Irfan Yusuf



Bookmark this on Delicious

COMMENT: No time to whinge

This comment was published on the Aussie Mossie blog on Friday 24 February 2006 ...

My immediate response to the comments on Muslims and Australian values was shock, dismay and disgust. It made me sick in the stomach that 2 prominent political leaders could express such ignorance on fundamental Islamic concepts such as sharia and jihad.

Of course, we all know they are doing this as a diversion to other emerging issues and scandals. But I think Muslims need to also consider why they can get away with expressing such divisive views.

The fact is that probably most Australians agree with the views expressed by Messrs Howard and Costello. Aussie Muslims know that Costello’s remarks on sharia evidenced near-chronic ignorance on his part.

They also illustrate our near-chronic laziness and inability to communicate our values to the broader Australian community. If the broader community understood what sharia really is and what it means to Aussie Muslims, the Howards and Costellos of this world would never be able to use such issues as a successful diversion.

We know that Muslim mobs rioting and burning embassies were being manipulated by their leaders to divert attention away from more pressing issues. Costello and Howard are using the same device in Australia.

Or are they? When was the last time a group of Muslim Australians sat down and explained to Mr Howard what sharia actually means? When was the last time a Muslim group even bothered to invite Mr Costello to one of their functions?

Our disappointment with our political leaders is understandable. But what else can we expect when we allow our fellow Australians to be bombarded with only ignorant views about our faith and cultures?

The time has come for Muslims to come out of the spiritual closet and to be proactive about their religious responsibilities. Our primary religious responsibility in Australia is to inform people about who we are and what we believe.

The Arabic word “dawah” is often used to describe Muslim outreach and educational activities. We know dawah is a religious imperative upon all of us. It is now becoming an imperative for our national security and our social cohesion. We cannot afford to sit back and complain about the ignorance of wedge-creating politicians. Now is not the time to complain. Now is the time to talk and act.

Words © 2006-09 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

POLITICS: A liberal view of the Pan-Islamic Party of Malaysia ...

Keith Leong, an Associate at the Malaysia Think Tank, provides some interesting perspectives on PAS, a religious party that forms part of Malaysia's opposition.

As a young non-Muslim Malaysian with generally liberal leanings, I have always had mixed feelings about PAS. The party has been painted as the ultimate bogeyman by the establishment media and pundits to my demographic group, often with general success. Incidents like their periodic campaigns against alcohol consumption and teenybopper music only served to heighten my discontent towards the brand of politics that they practiced.

On the other hand, one cannot help but admire the dedication and perseverance that the PAS ranks have shown in their long, twilight struggle in Opposition. The high regard, even affection by which their leaders like Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat are accorded to, not only by Malaysian Muslims but their compatriots of other faiths as well suggest that there is more to PAS than what the powers-that-be would have us believe.

More importantly, however, is the small but growing number amongst them who realise, like their colleagues both in Pakatan Rakyat and Barisan Nasional that Malaysia can only be led effectively in a broad-based, inclusive manner. The politicians who realised this before and since the 8th of March 2008 have grown in stature, while those who have not or will not have only exacerbated the sectarian tensions that threaten to rend this country apart.

Malaysia may be a Muslim-majority country, but PAS cannot rely on Islam to gain anything even resembling an electoral majority. Religion and ethnicity are intertwined in Malaysian law and politics. If Malay nationalists worry non-Muslim minorities, imagine how they must feel about PAS.

... it seems many young leaders, regardless of their party, who want public life in Malaysia to be more than a zero-sum game dictated by archaic sectarian rivalries are being hounded into obscurity while the demagogues triumph.

The possibility of this happening in PAS is all the more sad because Malaysians have had, for the last couple of months the chance to see what the party could be like if it was led by moderates. The picture that that possibility presented was inspiring and promising.

MP for Shah Alam Khalid Samad visiting a Catholic Church (the construction of which had faced numerous bureaucratic obstacles) in his constituency and receiving rave reviews from the parishioners. Nik Abdul Aziz standing up for his fellow PKR and DAP leaders smeared by the reactionary press.

PAS has the ability to embrace a more pluralist approach that goes beyond pan-Islam and Malay chauvinism.

Words © 2009 Irfan Yusuf

INDONESIA: Reflections from a recent dinner ...

Well, not that recent. The Australia Indonesia Institute held its 20th anniversary dinner in Sydney on Thursday 19 February 2009. I was there armed with a notepad and a cheap ball-point pen. I typed out some of the points made in a number of speeches which I thought were of interest (at least to me).

Geraldine Doogue, a prominent ABC personality, was MC at the event. Among the speeches was that of AII Chairman Professor Tim Lindsay. Professor Lindsay spoke in fluent Bahasa Indonesia, albeit with a slight Aussie accent. Lindsay said that without the foundation of people to people links, little chance of proper diplomatic relations. He noted there is a declining Indonesian language capacity in Australia.

Katika Kari, an Indonesian journalist, then spoke. She described relations between Canberra and Jakarta as being similar to those between Tom and Jerry. They fight sometimes, criticise each other sometimes but remain good friends. Kevin Rudd has already visited Indonesia 3 times. She made special mention made of the victims of the Victorian bushfire and their families, and remined us that Indonesia sent a forensic team to assist with the bushfire investigation.

Sarah Malik, an alumnus of the 2007 Muslim Leaders Exchange Program, spoke as a first time traveller. She said our views of Indonesia were mediated by the media. Yet this was a country of 17,000 islands and dozens of ethnic groups which recognised the need to balance everyone’s sentiments. Multiculturalism here is not just a luxury but a necessity.

In the tropics of Indonesia, in its sights and sounds, a piece of me still wonders.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd gave an off-the-cuff speech with no speech notes whatsoever! Here is a summary of his speech in numbered paragraphs:

[01] In 2008, Rudd and SBY met 7 times. This in itself shows just how vital the relationship is to Australia. Indonesian government and people showed enormous generosity to Australia during the recent bushfires. Indonesians proved they wanted to be not just good neighbours but also good friends. The brutal power of nature affects both nations, and both came to each other’s help.

[02] In 1947, Australia declared that it would stand with Indonesia in seeking independence from the Dutch. This was very unusual for a Western country.

[03] Indonesia is a country of 230 million people spread across 17,000 islands. It’s an extraordinary nation building achievement. One can see the extreme diversity in Indonesia just after spending a few weeks or months. To build a nation out of such diversity is an extraordinary achievement.

[04] Indonesians have had to work and struggle hard to build and maintain their democracy.

[05] For the past 60 years, a major foreign policy preoccupation of leaders of both Indonesia and Australia has been how to manage relations with each other.

[06] Australia, a nation with a Christian heritage, works closely with the largest Muslim country on earth in a seamless fashion. Surely this must send a strong message to the world.

[07] We have embarked on the century of the Asia-Pacific.

[08] Australians need to do more to understand the complexities of Indonesian Islam. Australia needs to be the most Asia-literate country in the West. We need to regard the languages, cultures and religions of our region as familiar and not foreign.

[09] Australia and Indonesia will host a large conference on interfaith dialogue. Rudd and SBY have agreed that Australia and Indonesia must play a key role in the dialogue between Christianity and Islam.

[10] The prepared speech is on the internet in case anyone is interested!

More to follow.

Words © 2009 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

VIDEO: Shias in Bahrain ...

Video from Al-Jazeera English. Here is the text accompanying the video.

Tensions are simmering between Bahrain's Sunni rulers and the kingdom's Shia majority population.

The Shias, seeking greater representation in the country's political sphere, accuse the government of fanning sectarian divisions.

But as Al Jazeera's Hashem Ahelbarra reports from Manama, some Sunnis see the Shia-demand as an attempt to undermine the monarchy.

Bookmark this on Delicious

VIDEO: On attacking Ayaan Hirsi Magaan/Ali ...

Hirsi/Magaan wants to change how Muslims relate to God. Yet she doesn't believe in God. And she wants Muslims to take her seriously. Makes sense?

You can watch the full video by clicking here.

But are her Muslim critics also beyond question? What do her experiences say about Muslims themselves, especially those living in Western democratic countries?



Words © 2009 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

VIDEO: A debate on women's rights, hijab and honour killings in Turkey ...

Bookmark this on Delicious

COMMENT: On Mohammad Khatami ...

Well, it looks like Mohammad Khatami is visiting Australia as a guest of La Trobe University's Centre for Dialogue. The Anglican Archbishop of Melbourne will also have some hosting to do when Khatami arrives in Melbourne. I'm not sure if he will make it to other cities.

Certain Jewish organisational heads are becoming rather stroppy with Khatami's tour. They are shocked that someone like Khatami, former President of a country that allegedly wants to wipe Israel off the map, could be hosted by the Anglican Church.

These same organisational heads have been hosting visits by the likes of Raphael Israeli. No doubt they won't have much objection to a visit by Israel's new neo-fascist Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, a man who wants to deprive Israeli Arabs of even basic rights should they not swear absolute allegience to the Jewish state in the manner he deems appropriate.

(I somehow doubt Iranian Jews would be treated in this manner. The last public claims made about Iranian Jews were refuted by an Iranian Jewish MP!)

Here's what John Searle, President of the Jewish Community Council of Victoria (JCCV) had to say in a letter to the Centre for Dialogue and quoted in a report published in the Australian Jewish News:

I reiterate it is not possible for the Victorian Jewish community to participate in an organisation ostensibly committed to dialogue when it hosts Sayed Mohammad Khatami, former president of Iran, a man whose views on the State of Israel are clearly inimical to true dialogue and peace.

On that basis, I trust Searle will oppose any visit by Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu, the official position of whose Party is to oppose the establishment of a Palestinian state. Such views could hardly be deemed consistent with true dialogue and peace. And I trust that Searle would not even contemplate hosting Lieberman, a man who effectively wants to turn Israel into an apartheid state where only Jews are afforded basic rights.

Anyway, back to Khatami. He was elected to the Iranian Parliament in 1980. He speaks fluent German, English and Arabic (and of course Farsi). In May 1997, he was elected President in a landslide victory, gaining just under 70% of votes cast. He was then re-elected in 2001, increasing his margin to 78%.

Khatami was regarded as a reformer and liberaliser (if such a word exists). He allowed newspapers and magazines to flourish, including those critical of the government and the religious establishment. He also sought improved relations with other countries, even appearing on CNN in January 1998.

In September 1998, during an address to the UN General Assembly, Khatami proposed that 2001 be declared the year for Dialogue Among Civilisations". Al-Qaeda showed in September 2001 what they thought of the proposal.

Here's how BBC contrasts Khatami from his successor, Mahmud Ahmedinejad:

The moderate tone of his comments contrasted starkly with the strident talk of President Ahmadinejad.

There's an interesting profile of Khatami and his role in post-revolutionary Iran on the Tehran Bureau blog. I'm not too familiar with this blog or its biases, but its material seems to be well-written and nuanced. Here are some excerpts:

Mohammad first read about Mohammad Khatami when he was the Minister of Culture and Islamic Guidance. While there, Khatami had drawn the ire of Islamists by championing Iran’s new filmmakers then coming into prominence. Two former architect students were behind Iran’s new cinema wave, Mohammad explains as we sit to tea one evening. The pair enjoyed a close relationship with Mir Hossein Mousavi, prime minister of Iran during the 1980's, and a close confidante to Ayatollah Khomeini.

Khatami was one of Moosavi’s ministers. Through Khatami’s support, these two filmmakers were given some space to develop Iranian cinema in their own vision, said Mohammad. This appalled the conservatives. “The Hezbollahis didn’t like the bleak, abstract outlook of these art films,” Mohammad said. And at one point he read that Khatami had quit his post.

Mohammad never heard of Khatami again until his name was floated as a presidential candidate in the Iranian presidential elections of 1997.

So how did Khatami defeat his rival, Parliamentary Speaker and hardliner Nategh-Noori? Was it all about good looks and posters? Tehran Bureau continues:

Using his power base as speaker of the Parliament, Nateq-Noori was campaigning on promises to improve the economy, and to “keep away the United States and enforce stricter Islamic law,” the New York Times reported. Khatami “the leading underdog,” it said, was pledging “more personal freedoms, more jobs and no more male supremacy.”

“On television, they constantly broadcast pictures of Nategh-Noori going here and there, taking part in ceremonies,” Mohammad said. “It was basically screaming from every door and wall that we should vote for Nategh-Noori. And it got to a point where Ayatollah Khamanei came on TV and said everyone knows who the maslah—the better one—is. Everyone understood that to mean we were supposed to vote for Nategh-Noori.”

But to Iran’s suppressed youth, teeming with testosterone, armed with satellite TV and the internet, there was no competition between the two candidates. To Iran’s persecuted second-class citizens—women—the tremendous support of the conservatives for Nateq-Noori was the strongest reason to vote for any other candidate.

Though Nateq-Noori posters outnumbered Khatami’s by a ratio of 10 to 1, Mohammad said Khatami’s posters were superior. “Khatami had glasses on, the other one didn’t,” Mohammad said. “Khatami’s glasses were key. Later in the campaign, [Noori] also adopted glasses—fake prescription glasses—to appear attractive to women and students” ...

... Khatami, “he had a poster like this,” Mohammad said, posing with his chin resting on his hands. “Khatami had great photographers. His posters had a black background. He always had a smile, a big smile that showed off his teeth. Mullahs don’t show their teeth when they smile. At most, they manage something like this,” he said clasping his lips together and faintly turning curving the corners. “Nategh-Noori’s photos were boring—just like photos of the shahs.”

And what about polling, exit-polls etc? What happened at the ballot box and afterwards, when votes were counted?

According to Mohammad, the government conducts polls in secret, and based on those predictors during the 1997 campaign, the conservative camp sensed doom.

“There were a few polls out toward the end of the campaign—we didn’t know it then, we found out later—that showed Nategh-Noori losing. There are polls in Iran, but they’re confidential. Sometimes certain newspapers with close government sources will reveal something. But polls are generally taken in secret ...

On the morning of the election, Mohammad and a friend went to the polls near his house. “There were a lot of religious people there, a lot of young people, of course, and surprisingly a lot of chic women, too. All had turned out to vote for Khatami—all of them. This was such a great opportunity to say, ‘Mr. Khamanei, we desperately need a change.’ The vote was a message to Khamanei more than anything else ...

More to come.

Words © 2009 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

COMMENT: Tanveer Ahmed heads to the CIS ...

Now listen here! I will not tolerate any criticism of the Centre for Independent Studies. This magnificent crowd are bastions of research excellence. Some of the best minds in the country work at this fine institution.

And now they have added another leading light to their gallaxy of stars. Psychiatric registrar Tanveer Ahmed has joined the CIS as a research fellow. And his first research task? Health administration reform? Specialist accreditation overhaul? The state of hospital funding?

Nope. Dr Ahmed will be writing about a subject he knows everything in the world about - Indo-Pakistan relations.

Tanveer has had decades of experience, having worked extensively in both India and Pakistan. I know for a fact that he speaks, reads and writes fluent Urdu, Hindi, Punjabi and Pushtu.

Yes, I know the CIS could have had access to experts on international relations like Owen Harries. But Owen is just a tad too critical of the Bush Administration's foreign policy for the CIS's comfort. Then again, so is Barack Obama, but you know what they say about him. And as for conservative and free market thinktanks in both India and Pakistan, well what would they know about Indo-Pakistani relations?

The CIS know exactly what they are doing. In the past, they've had Dr Muhammad Fajrul Falaakh from the Nahdhatul Ulama of Indonesia to talk about Islam and democracy in Indonesia. He was the okay, except that he ... well ... um ... he was a native. It's far better to get genuine experts, completely unbiased people. People like Daniel "Barack-Obama-was-a-Muslim-because-he-wore-a-sarong" Pipes, Mark Steyn and Ayaan "I-lied-to-get-a-visa" Hirsi Ali. Or better still, how about this chap?



But don't shake your heads just yet. If this is the expertise needed to work for the CIS, I might make my own pitch. I'm sure I could write a report about the virtues of parallel importation of books. And what expertise do I have in this field? Have I worked for a major publishing house? or for the Australian Society of Authors? Or for the Australian Publishers' Association? Or for a host of major booksellers?

No. But I am having a book published. And I'm not exactly a leftist.

Words © 2009 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

COMMENT: Hassan Butt turns out to be a Claytons jihadi ...

Many years ago, a famous Australian actor (I think it was Jack Thompson) appeared in an advertisement for a drink called Claytons. I'm not sure if it was a non-alcoholic drink, but the slogan of the advertisement was "Claytons - the drink you're having when you're not having a drink".

Since then, Australians have been referring to half-baked or fraudulent things using the adjective "Claytons". In this sense, if recent media reports are correct, it seems that Hassan Butt, darling of the UK tabloid media and ex-jihadi pinup boy, has turned out to be a complete fraud, a Claytons jihadi.

The Guardian and Reuters report that Hassan Butt was all along speaking out of his backside to various media outlets and journos about his alleged exploits in al-Qaeda. Here's what the Guardian says:

Hassan Butt received significant media attention for his claims to have helped send scores of Britons to terrorist training camps overseas and to have met Mohammad Sidique Khan, the ringleader of the 7 July 2005 attacks on London.

Butt was the former spokesman for the extremist group al-Muhajiroun and was invited to meet a government minister to discuss ways to combat terrorism, as well as featuring heavily in BBC News, national newspaper and US television reports on al-Qaida.

However at a trial of another man accused of terrorist offences, Butt said he had told journalists stories "the media wanted to hear", admitting that he was "a professional liar". He also admitted faking his own injuries to make it appear that he had been attacked by extremist Muslims.

Butt was arrested in 2008 over his planned autobiography Leaving Al Qaeda: Inside The Life And Mind of a British Jihadist, in which he was planning to claim involvement in the US consulate attack in Karachi, Pakistan, in June 2002, which killed 12 people.

The book was being co-authored by freelance journalist Shiv Malik, who became a media cause celebre after counter terrorism officers demanded he hand over his notes.

But in court Butt agreed he had taken Malik for a "right patsy"

Here is how Reuters reported it:

He made the confession in December during the trial of a former friend, Habib Ahmed, who was subsequently convicted of belonging to al Qaeda. Restrictions on the reporting of the case have only now been lifted following the conclusion of another trial involving Butt's wife.

"At no point have I ever been training, have I ever been a jihadi," Butt told the court, according to a transcript of the proceedings.

Questioning Butt about his past, prosecutor Andrew Edis asked: "So, you were a professional liar then?"

Butt replied: "I would make money, yes." He had, he said, told stories that "the media wanted to hear".

The confession will come as a surprise to many as Butt was for years regarded as a leading Islamist who had subsequently turned himself into a proponent for "de-radicalising" young men in order to combat extremism.

He has been widely profiled in newspapers, magazines and in television documentaries, and even met members of the government to discuss his plans for combating radicalism.

What a bullsh*t artist this guy is. Seriously. God knows just how many people have been arrested or detained or subject to various restraining or control orders thanks to his evidence.

I wonder who will be caught out spinning crap next. Will the UK government now investigate some of the crazy claims of other alleged ex-jihadis and ex-"Islamists"? Will Ed Husain cut the nonsense and admit that so many of his claims about his HT involvement are about as real as Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy?

Hassan Butt ran this imbecilic line that all jihadis had the same "Islamic theology" which inspired them all to commit acts of terror. Butt, speaking out of his surname-sake, told Muslim-phobic tabloid morons exactly what they wanted to hear - that the problem wasn't with violence or terror but with religion itself. But with Butt's cover blown, fruitloops like Robert Spencer and Mad Mel Phillips won't have many native informants to assist in their misinformation campaigns.

Writing in the Daily Mail under the headline I was a fanatic...I know their thinking, says former radical Islamist, Butt writes:

The attempts to cause mass destruction in London and Glasgow are so reminiscent of other recent British Islamic extremist plots that they are likely to have been carried out by my former peers.

Which peers were they, Mr Butt? Were these the non-existent peers you told 60 Minutes about in 2007?

Butt's nonsense has been published by an impressive list of media outlets including Commentary Magazine based in the United States, The Times of London, NPR and BBC. Check out this interesting summary of Hassan Butt's butt-headed nonsense and his numerous supporters here. For more blog commentary, check out UmmahPulse and Indigo Jo.

I feel rather strange now. I've just finished the manuscript of my own memoir of my own teenage and young adult flirtation with Jamaat-i-Islami and Iranian literature during the years of the Afghan jihad of the 1980's. After finishing it, I wondered whether anyone would find it slightly entertaining or enlightening given the more exciting memoirs of people like Hassan Butt and Ed Husain. Well, all I can say now is that my memoir might be a little less dramatic, but at least it is honest.

Words © 2009 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious