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: The Terror Laws We Had To Have

It appears the Howard Government has successfully negotiated laws ostensibly designed to protect Australians from terrorism. Of course, we know that these laws will effectively compromise the civil rights of Australia’s 350,000-plus Muslims.

Having had some involvement in an attempted campaign to stop these laws, and having tried to get Muslim Australians to agitate and lobby against the laws, I believe it is now possible for the Government to introduce any legislation adversely affecting anyone deemed to be Muslim.

The sheer apathy and lack of interest shown by Muslim Australians has been disgraceful and appalling. And believe me, this has been noticed by many non-Muslims active in the civil rights campaign.

I received the following e-mail from a libertarian in Perth:

On the subject of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, I find it incredible that they have had NOTHING to say about the federal government's latest power grab against our liberties, in the name of "fighting terror". AFIC seems to find the complete overthrow of habeus corpus quite unremarkable. What are they playing at?

Equally, my Muslim acquaintances in WA have been mostly unbothered by these laws, and are saying very little about how they might be affected should they be arrested and their parents be prevented from telling anyone where they are/if they are safe. Does this complete lack of concern apply over East as well?

Astonishingly, rather than actually stand up to these insane government policies, both the ALP
and AFIC have either been silent, or, worse, have actually called for extending the laws by imposing more expansive provisions against "incitement".

I don't know exactly what is going on, but it seems that every side of this "debate" is working towards the precise same goal of erecting a big government police state.

It appears non-Muslims are more concerned about justice and civil rights than Muslims who will be the main target of the laws.

My own experience with trying to get Muslims active in this area is also telling. Around 8 months ago, a few Muslim lawyers got together to form what we hoped would be a Muslim lawyers body. The body would hopefully expand upon the hard work that went into the formation of the Lawyers Committee of the Graduates’ Group set up by Albert Hadid and others.

Muslim lawyers, legal academics and law students were invited to take part and contribute. Sadly, despite a number of meetings, few seemed interested. Even when the full extent of the anti-terror laws became clear, it seemed most Muslim law students were more interested in the next iftar party than in helping to ensure fair and just security laws were enacted.

The apathy of the lawyers was duplicated by the imams. I have never seen such a useless bunch of religious leaders in my life. Most imams in Sydney had no idea about the terror laws. Then again, most imams cannot even speak English.

Muslim societies and state councils also did very little. With the exception of the ACT and Victoria, the state Islamic Councils completely failed to agitate effectively against the laws. The Islamic Council of NSW and its 2 competing equivalents were completely ineffectual. But what can one expect when the allegedly-volunteer media officer of the Council was holding media committee meetings at 10am on a Thursday morning.

The Muslim Women’s Association seemed more worried about some useless petition in support of hijab. It seems they had not kept up with the news. The hijab debate ended months ago. Why waste time on some futile exercise?

Surely a better way to use the “Step-Up” money to fight discrimination would be to fight and lobby against laws that represent the biggest assault on civil liberties since Federation.

There are exceptions to this story of pathetic apathy. AMCRAN did some sterling work. FAIR also agitated and spoke out on the issue. Individual members of what could (or rather, should) have been the Mevlana Lawyers Society sent out some e-mails and wrote some articles.

But in this debate, the real Jafar bin Abi Talib was ACT Chief Minister John Stanhope. When the Muslims went to Abyssinia as asylum seekers, they appointed the Prophet’s cousin Jafar to speak on their behalf. Why Jafar?

Because Jafar could speak the language of the Court. Because he understood how the Abyssinian monarch managed public policy and made decisions. Because Jafar was the best man for the job.

Jafar was able to package Muslim ideas as mainstream. Most Muslim organisational leaders, on the other hand, make Muslims look even more marginal than they are. But Muslims across the country to look to Jon Stanhope to speak for them.

I propose that at the next election of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, we elect Jon Stanhope to be President, Mufti and Chief Executive all in one. He may not regard himself as Muslim, but Mr Stanhope is more concerned with consulting with Muslims than any of the existing leaders.

In short, we are getting tough laws that will affect our civil liberties because we deserve them. We have done little to protect ourselves and our interests. And in the long term, we will be the big losers. Islam will survive. God will protect the Qur’an. But those of us who have failed Islam, the Qur’an and our nation will not be part of the process.

Words © 2005 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

Halal Snippets – 24/10/05

The PM is still insisting that the proposed anti-terror bill will become law by Christmas. And why shouldn’t he be so confident given that he has effective control of the Senate. Further, he has a compliant bunch of Muslim leaders who will do whatever he tells them to do.

Judas Iscariot is said to have betrayed Christ for a few pieces of gold or silver. The Uncle Letmesplaynyoo’s that rule Muslim peak bodies will happily sell out their community for a few extra government grants. They have refrained from criticising despotic Arab countries for years in return for grants. Do you really expect our migrant uncles to behave differently toward Mr Howard?

One of these Uncles was rewarded by some Young Turks last night. Mr Ali Roude, the school principal with no Higher School Certificate, was awarded the Affinity Intercultural Foundation’s “Muslim of the Year” award. Mr Roude was one of the PM’s favourite Muslims who attended the summit held earlier this year. He has also been an executive member of the near-defunct Islamic Council of NSW since … well … since the last Ice Age.

And the ICNSW are still living in the Ice Age. Their website hasn’t been updated for ages. If you don’t believe me, go to their media section. The ICNSW has a radio station whose management still haven’t realised that their plane has in fact left Beirut airport and arrived in Sydney. Their schedule of Arabic programs is chockas while they have no programs listed on their English schedule.

AMCRAN continue with their valiant efforts to inform and agitate against the anti-liberty laws being introduced for formerly liberal Prime Minister John Howard. But do you think AMCRAN are getting any assistance from the wealthy Muslims and their organisations? I think there would be a greater chance of Sophie Panopoulos wearing a hijab to Parliament than of middle-aged migrant Muslim men providing funds to useful campaigns.

The Muslim Community Reference Group (MCRG) has been established, though I can hardly hear a peep from them on the new laws. In fact, no one yet knows what they are doing. I checked AFIC’s website (AFIC Prez was chairman and official spokesman of the group and actively supports the anti-liberty laws), but I have seen no reference to the Reference Group.

It seems Mr Howard is happy to spend millions on educating us about our WorkChoices, but won’t tell us when he gives police further powers to detain and then shoot us.

© Irfan Yusuf 2005

Tax Fraud & Communal Stinginess

I have a friend who works in the Australian Taxation Office. His work involves investigation and prosecution of persons defrauding the Commonwealth of taxation revenue. The ATO recently had a big win with the successful prosecution of an Australian family of Israeli background who ran a series of fashion stores across Sydney.

The family was known for their generosity and philanthropy. Many Jewish community charities were beneficiaries of the largesse of the family. Yet they were eventually prosecuted and convicted.

I was sitting with another friend of mine one night. He and his wife live in the shadow of the Gallipoli Mosque in Auburn. Like many young Muslims, he has plenty of good ideas but few people to support him financially.

We sat up making a long list of projects urgently needed in the Muslim community. Our list included: media response teams, lobbying on law reform issues, training of imams locally, academic scholarships, organizing (in a similar sense to trade union organizing) and a range of other projects that will bring long term benefit to Muslims and other Australians across future generations.

This was just the tip of the iceberg. We could think of so many more projects. But the problem we face is money.

My friend struggles to pay rent and look after his small family. He has plenty of talent and energy. But community work doesn’t pay his bills or butter his bread.

I have my own legal practice. I do a little bit of freelance writing for which I get paid. But my health situation limits how much work I can do. Notwithstanding the large load of debts on my head and no limit of personal obligations, I still manage to do get some work done.

Then I look at the young couple and small group of volunteers that make up AMCRAN. This small bunch has produced work defending and protecting civil rights (indeed basic human rights) which will hopefully protect all Australians. AMCRAN’s work, especially their paper on the PM’s anti-terror proposals, placed the issue on the national agenda.

But who pays Waleed to do this work? Who puts butter on the bread of Agnes and her small group of volunteers?

We have enormous resources in our community. Since 1996, Muslims and other New South Welshmen have been benefiting from the sound economic management of the current governments, both Federal and State. We’ve had low interest rates, booming property prices, plenty of money to pay for our first homes, stamp duty exemptions and a generally booming economy.

Muslims have been making plenty of money. In 2001/02, I opened an office in Auburn. I saw with my own eyes Muslims paying deposits to real estate agents for houses using cash.

There is plenty of money in this community. Yet activists who are doing important work to protect our human rights and our welfare are struggling and working tirelessly despite strained personal circumstances.

Meanwhile, there are organizations which are not working effectively. These bodies obtain millions of dollars in government funds, and use the money to employ family members of their executive. No real or tangible benefit is often seen from such projects, which are often funded as a means of paying back loyal organizational heads for political and other favours.

I have acted for a number of these organizations in the past. I have been forced to reduce my fees in the name of “community spirit”. Meanwhile, those instructing me have enjoyed luxurious lifestyles and often earned higher salaries than myself.

I remember acting for one Muslim school in Sydney in an unfair dismissal matter. I was being asked to reduce my hourly rate to one third of the usual rate. The school principal from who I was obtaining instructions was earning perhaps the same yearly salary as myself. Yet it took that school some 18 months to pay my bill, despite the severe reduction in price.

Of course, there is no point mentioning the various royal families that make up the Islamic industry in Sydney. They know who they are, and so do we. What concerns me is the fact that there are plenty of Muslims living n the “ghetto” areas sitting on piles of gold and silver.

Much of their wealth has not been declared to the ATO. Many are siphoning money overseas, and are engaging in the same tricks which the Israeli-Australian family mentioned at the beginning was doing. The difference is that the Israeli family was actually proving useful members of their communities. Many prominent Jewish Australians came to court to testify as to the generosity of the family. Many saw their conviction as a tragedy to fall upon the Jewish community as a whole.

But when some of our own wealthy families are investigated and convicted, I doubt many prominent Muslim activists will be providing similar testimony. I certainly won’t be assisting in this regard, though I will be happy to provide professional services. For a fee, of course!

Our own wealthy Muslims do little. How else do we explain the fact that so many useful community projects are being undertaken by volunteers who struggle for their livelihood? Imagine if AMCRAN had a budget of $200,000 per year. How much more work could they do in relation to agitating for civil and human rights?

We really have no right to complain when the government wants to give police powers to shoot Muslim terror suspects. After all, the biggest source of terror for our community is our own failure to protect our own rights. Australia provides us with economic, political and other forms of freedom that we could only dream of if we were back in Turkey or Lebanon or Egypt or even Indonesia.

© Irfan Yusuf 2005

COMMENT: Stanhope for Emir

If for some crazy reason Muslims in Australia decided to form their own separate state, I know who would be my pick to lead them.

It would not be our non-English Speaking Mufti. It would not be the majority of Imams who refuse to learn English and who have no understanding of our culture, politics or values.

It would not be the incompetent Uncle Letmesplaynyoo’s that rule the roost of any Muslim peak bodies. It would not be the heads of any of the three pizza councils or Lebanese royal families that claim to represent Muslims across New South Wales.

My pick for Emir would be the Chief Minister of the ACT, Jon Stanhope. Why?

Well, for a start, Mr Stanhope actually believes in consulting ordinary Muslims. He has shown that all along in his dealings with the two major Islamic groups in Canberra – the Islamic Society of the ACT and the Canberra Islamic Centre.

Following a meeting with ordinary Canberra Muslims, Mr Stanhope took the unprecedented step of releasing on his website the draft Anti-Terrorism Bill 2005. Mr Stanhope wanted all Australians to know how their rights were being affected.

Mr Stanhope’s actions generated sufficient debate to force the Prime Minister and the “house nigger” ALP Premiers to agree to further debate on the laws. Prior to that, it appeared some of our state premiers were happy to throw out their ALP membership cards on issues pertaining to national security.

Compare Mr Stanhope’s preparedness to consult with people to Dr Ameer Ali and Mr Shafiq Rahman, the two Uncle Letmesplaynyoo’s of the community. Following a meeting of the Muslim Community Reference Group (MCRG), Uncle Ameer decided to endorse the PM’s proposed amendments without even having read them.

As for Uncle Shafiq, when he isn’t taking orders from the Royal Family, he is too busy inviting the Attorney General to dine at his house.

The pair penned a document dated 27 July 2005 condemning extremism and terror. The letter was addressed to a whole bunch of religious and organisational leaders and … wait for it … “Prominent Muslims”.

And who are the “prominent” among us? Who knows? Who cares? Uncle Ameer and his executive don’t. When the writer recently contacted him to ask some questions, he was told by Uncle that he was only accountable to members of the AFIC Federal Council.

And who is the Federal Council? It is the chairs of the various state councils. Three of these are dummy councils AFIC recently set up. The Muslim Council of NSW has an e-mail address of mcnsw@bigpond.com.com, and its phone number (Ph: (02) 9648 1070) always rings out without anyone answering.

Another good reason to have John Stanhope as our Emir is that he can actually speak English. Further, he knows something about legal, political and public policy matters. John also knows something about the media.

Compare this to AFIC. Their press release dated 2 October 2005 was a good lesson in how NOT to write a press release. The second paragraph commenced with …

“Conference being held at the Novotel Hotel in Darling Harbour …”

Now call me picky, but I honestly believe that correct grammar in press releases and correspondence is an important indicator of an organisation’s professionalism and their advocacy abilities.

Further, none of AFIC’s recent press releases have included any discussion of the serious issues surrounding the latest round of anti-terror laws. Nor have AFIC made public any meetings they have had with Backbenchers, Ministers or Shadow Ministers and the State Premiers and Territory Chief Ministers.

Further, we have absolutely no idea of what is going on at any of the meetings of the Reference Group. For all we know, they could have agreed for all Muslims to convert to Buddhism by Christmas. Apart from the website of the Minister for Citizenship, we have no idea what the MCRG are telling the government.

So there you have it. We have on the one side our middle-aged Sub-Continental and Arab first generation migrant men (and in the MCRG, a few token women) that dominate peak bodies. Men who cannot speak or write proper English. Men who refuse to consult with the people they claim to represent.

A final reason to have Jon Stanhope as our Emir is that he is properly resourced and has staff to assist him in research, speech writing, media and policy development. Mr Stanhope is always on top of the issues affecting his Territory and the nation.

On the other hand, unless you have experience in halal meat or are related to someone high up in the organisation, don’t expect to any of our peak bodies to employ you. Since K.S. Seyit’s departure, AFIC has not employed any media officer.

As for the Islamic Council of NSW, they have established a media committee of one. She holds meetings with herself on Thursday mornings at 10am in Lakemba. Perfect timing to attend a meeting if you don’t have a job or a life.

Basically our peak bodies are our worst advocates. In the past 2 weeks, I have published op-ed pieces in Brisbane, Canberra and New Zealand. I have also addressed the Australian Institute of International Affairs. AMCRAN has issued numerous press releases and a plain-English summary of the new Anti-Terrorism Bill. The Islamic Council of Victoria and FAIR have issued numerous press releases and appeared in the media.

As for the Indian and Arab Uncles’ Clubs, the AFIC and Councils and Societies, their sad attempts at advocacy (where they exist) have been about as effective as a hijab made of gladwrap.

Words © 2005 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

REFLECTION: Woman in Chains ,,,

Let’s be honest. Let’s not kid ourselves. Something is rotten in the state of Islam.

Over 50% of our 1.2 billion-strong faith-community are women. Yet the sad reality is that Muslim women are in chains.

Go to any Muslim-majority country. Go to any Muslim community anywhere across the world. You will see the Muslim woman in chains.

Some chains are made of metal. Some of culture. Some of prejudice and misogyny disguised as religion.

You don’t believe me? You think I am making this up? Then answer these questions.

When a family is shamed, why is she and not her male partner the one killed as part of some strategy to retain the family’s honour? Why do the village elders keep sentencing her and not him to be gang-raped? Why do they throw acid in her face when she dares work as a sex worker, but not in the faces of her clients?

Why is it ok for him to have girlfriends but fatal for her to have boyfriends? Why is she regarded as loose if she proposes to marry him and not vice versa? Why do they always forbid her from the mosque but never him?

Double-standards everywhere. And often expressed and enforced using violence.

Violence against women is endemic internationally. It is believed one in three women across the world experience physical or sexual violence at some stage of their lives. Almost all experience emotional violence.

But in the Muslim world and in Muslim communities, the figures are even higher. And the attitudes are indicative of the figures.

When a Sydney Sheik stood up and said women who dress a certain way were “eligible for rape”, many rushed to defend him. When the writer stuck his neck out and urged Muslims to condemn the sheik’s words in an op-ed piece in the Sydney Morning Herald, many condemned the writer as a traitor to his community.

Now, in Sydney, a lawyer defending three Muslim boys convicted of rape has asked the judge to take account “cultural factors” in considering the length of their jail sentence.

The sub-continental Muslim culture of the defendants, the lawyer argues, condones sexual violence against women.

That same culture makes a big deal about Sania Mirza’s tennis skirt, though ignores the tight cricket trousers of Irfan Pathan.

We are a faith-community suffering from multiple personality disorder. We apply one standard to the male side of our personality, and another to our female side. And we impose our double standards under the garb of tradition or sharia.

We speak of reviving the age of Muslim glory, when Muslims were the most civilised nation on earth. But what characterised that civilisation?

Firstly, women played an equal role in developing, teaching and transmitting religious sciences as men. Imam Shafei had some 40 teachers who were women. The Qarawiyin University in Morocco was founded by two women. Today, how many women scholars do you see writing about religious and cultural issues? How many Shaykhas and Maulanis are there?

Secondly, Muslims regarded the honour of a woman as sacred. There is the story of one Muslim woman who was kidnapped by the Byzantine empire. The Caliph in Baghdad wrote a letter threatening to send an army whose length stretched from Baghdad to Constantinople.

Today, Muslim Presidents and Kings and Generals do nothing to help women being mistreated and held in captivity in their own countries. Without international pressure, one wonders whether General Musharraf would have allowed Mukhtar Mai liberty within her own homeland.

Perhaps the most obvious example of our double standards is in our domestic relations. Many Muslim men regularly beat their wives. Unlike their non-Muslim brothers, Muslim men don’t require excessive alcohol or narcotics in their system to beat their wives.

There are few laws in Muslim countries protecting women from domestic violence. Worse still, those responsible for enforcing the law – police and the judiciary – are open to bribery by the usually wealthier male perpetrators.

Today, in 21st century Australia, Muslim women are subjected to domestic violence regularly. So often have I seen the names of the Prophet, his family members and companions listed as defendants in domestic violence cases in Local Courts across Sydney.

What makes the problem worse is that imams rarely mention the problem to their (mostly male) congregation. Muslim and ethnic language newspapers commonly read by Muslims rarely mention the issue. It is as if we are pretending the problem just doesn’t exist. Or worse still, it’s as if it isn’t even a problem.

Organisations like the Muslim Women’s Association are tackling the problem at the grassroots. Instead of being supported in their efforts, Muslim women’s groups struggle for community funding and survive on what little they can obtain from governments.

The Prophet Muhammad asked us to honour the wombs that carried us. On November 25, I’ll be celebrating my mother’s birthday. It will also be White Ribbon Day, the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. I will be joined by prominent men (including at least 2 Muslim men) as Ambassadors for White Ribbon Day. And what will we be campaigning about?
Violence against women is a men’s issue. Men need to take responsibility for the violence that men perpetrate on their mothers, wives, sisters and daughters. It is only when men take on the issue as a men’s issue that change can be effected.

This year, for the first time, Australian Muslim men are coming forward to take control of this issue. Muslim men are standing up and being counted. Muslim men are declaring that violence against women isn’t something we can be silent about any longer.

Because if we stay silent, we might as well be lending a hand to the perpetrators of violence.

Today it may be a stranger. Tomorrow, it could be our mother, our sister, our daughter. Paradise can be found under the feat of mothers. Yet millions of Muslim mothers and sisters and daughters are living in hell on this earth.

I urge all Muslim men, in Australia and across the world, to agitate, activate and educate on the issue of violence against women. We all must take a stand. Wearing a white Ribbon on November 25 is one small step. But unless we take the first step, we won’t reach the stage of perfection. And what is that stage?

It has been partially defined for us the following words of our Prophet. “The best of you is he who is best to his wife.”

The author is a Sydney lawyer and Ambassador for the 2005 White Ribbon Day.

Words © 2005 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

COMMENT: Adequate responses to the Anti-Terror Laws

Mr Howard is angry. He has every right to be. His Anti-Terror laws have been released earlier than expected. Further, his hand-picked Muslim leaders have not proven as loyal to his dictates as he would like.

Now is the time for all those committed to liberty and freedom in Australia to join hands and ensure that these laws cannot be passed without a huge stink. It is time for Muslim Australians, the ultimate targets of these laws, to join hands with other people of goodwill and struggle to defeat this illiberal legislation.

On this occasion, we cannot afford to show nepotism or incompetence or stupidity. We have to place our best foot forward. We need people to speak who are properly briefed and who understand the policy, legal, political and media environment.

That means that many of the usual suspects, many of the Uncle Letmesplaynyoo’s and leadership families will have to move aside. It is time for people in the ghetto to stay in the ghetto.

Sadly, up until now, we have had people speaking on our behalf who speak in thick accents (if they speak English at all) and who have little or no understanding of the policy and legal and political environment in which this debate is taking place. People who cannot articulate their concerns about this legislation without sounding like a bunch of communal whingers.

We need specialist voices in this debate, people who can attack the issue from all sides. We need lawyers, writers, journalists, academics, public servants, social scientists and other specialists. We need people in law enforcement, social policy and business. We need our best voices.

Inevitably, these are people on the fringe of the Muslim communities. They are people who spend most of their time interacting with the broader community. They are people who understand how broader Australia thinks and understands and feels.

Allegedly religious Muslims from the ghetto have to accept that their involvement in this debate may be a liability. People whose whole approach to society is based on reading Henry Ford’s “The International Jew”, whose minds are full of conspiracy theories or who are too busy setting up pamphlet caliphates should remain in their burrows.

Migrant Muslim leaders who have spent the best years of their life certifying halal meat or setting up secret bank accounts should stay out of this. People with links to tyrannical Arab Kingdoms should stay away, even if they do get to invite the Attorney-General to lunch.

Yes, these people can have a role. But it must be in the background. The front runners have to be people who can speak and understand and communicate and articulate to the broader community. Whether or not they are religiously observant.

Seriously, we just don’t have the luxury of stuffing up this one. I ask all those uncles who have at the back of their mind the possibility of returning home to have pity on us Muslims brought up in Australia.

You may be able to return to Tripoli or Karachi or Dhaka or Jakarta or Ankara or Ba. You may have only a few years left before you go six feet under the ground. But the majority of Aussie Muslims have nowhere to be sent back home. This is our home. And most of us are young and probably have many years ahead of us.

So be careful before you rush to open your mouths on our behalf. Because what you say has direct repercussions on us.

Yes, we need existing leaders involved. They can share with us their contacts and their knowledge. But they have proven time and again that they have little or no ability to articulate our views. The lacklustre response of these leaders to the London bombings is typical of the limitations of our organisational leadership.

Even more evidence could be seen at the most recent press conference of Mr Ruddock with the Muslim Reference Group. The irresponsible and negligent remarks of an AFIC President with woeful English language skills and no understanding of legal and public policy processes was clear for all to see. His subsequent back peddling on the anti-terror laws was an embarrassment to us all.

What these leaders need to do is stay in the background. They need to shut their mouths and consider stepping down from the Reference Group. Instead, they need to allow a proper and professional group to come forward, with representatives from each state.

That group or network should consist of people with the following types of expertise:

a. Media (print, radio and TV).
b. Public relations and public affairs.
c. Advertising and marketing.
d. Legal and law enforcement.
e. Academia, with an emphasis on politics, law and sociology.
f. Business, finance and banking.
g. Management and strategy.

Network members must be born or brought up in Australia, New Zealand or another Western English-speaking country. They should at least have a university degree and 5 years experience in industry, business and/or academia.

There are people across Australia in the Muslim community who have these skills. But don’t expect the royal families of Sydney or the Uncle Letmesplaynyoos to let these people take over. Instead, these people should come forward and network each other. They need to take the bull by the horns and take charge of the Aussie Muslim voice.

The campaign against these laws has to be led by people who are competent, experienced, articulate and able. They need to come together and network starting yesterday. They need to join with people of goodwill who do not label themselves as Muslim.

Muslim voices in Australia can no longer be hijacked by migrant voices with no respect for locally-born or brought-up Muslims. We Aussie Mossies need to take over. The migrant generation had their chance. Had they done the job properly, and had they left their irrelevant baggage at the airport, we would not be in the predicament we are in now.

Because if we don’t take over now, and if these laws are introduced, we might as well all move to New Zealand.

Yes, I know this sounds over-the-top. But if you read the draft Bill, you will realise our law-makers are even more over-the-top! And it is our liberties at stake. On this occasion, there are no second chances and no second prizes.

So if you feel you have the expertise in any of the areas listed and you know someone who thinks the same way as you, start working. Study the provisions of the Bill. Set up your networks. Agitate. Talk and write in a language ordinary Aussies can understand. Help defeat these laws.

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