Notes from Anwar Ibrahim’s last visit – part I

Anwar Ibrahim, Malaysia’s former Deputy Prime Minister, is back in Australia to deliver lectures in Canberra, Melbourne and other Australian cities.

I was fortunate enough to see him speak during a visit in early 2005. My thoughts on that visit can be found here.

Since that time, I’ve had the benefit of visiting Malaysia as part of a delegation sponsored by the Australia-Malaysia Institute. Our delegation met with people across the cultural and political spectrum. Many continue to speak warmly of Anwar, while others (generally UMNO activists) tow the party line.

Hopefully, I’ll get a chance in the coming weeks to share with readers notes I took during meetings with both Anwar supporters and detractors. Suffice it to say that Anwar still seems to exercise considerable support from young educated Malays and from members of Malaysia’s minority communities (particularly Indian Muslims).

In the meantime, Anwar’s current visit provides me with a good excuse to provide some highlights from his previous visit.

On one occasion, I was fortunate enough to attend a dinner hosted by Dr Abdul Rahim Ghouse, the current CEO of the Muslim Community Co-Operative (Australia) Limited (MCCA), a close friend and former campaign manager for Anwar.

In introducing his old friend, Dr Ghouse highlighted Anwar’s ability of bringing otherwise opposite sides together. He described how Anwar’s release saw a rare discussion between the ambassadors to Australia of both Iran and the United States to share thoughts on what this might mean for relations between the West and the Muslim world.

Dr Ghouse mentioned that Professor John Esposito, a prominent American author, commentator and expert on Muslim affairs, listed Anwar as one of the top 9 makers of contemporary Islam, both as an activist and an intellectual.

Anwar spoke at some length during the dinner. The notes I took of his speech at the time can be summarised as follows:

[01] Anwar was first arrested on 20 September 2998. At the time, the Malaysian government tried to send a message to the world that Malaysians had all but forgotten about Anwar, that he was deemed irrelevant to the Malaysian political scene. But Anwar and his family soon learnt that people of goodwill from the outside world, both Malays and non-Malays, didn’t want to forget him.

[02] Anwar quoted from historian Arnold Toynbee about the past achievements of the Islamic world. He said that this was history, and that the Muslims’ present was hardly something worth boasting about. Anwar said that the Muslim world at the moment was at the lowest ebb of its history. Its political and economic position has never been so low.

[03] In facing and addressing the rot in the Muslim world, Anwar said that Muslims shouldn’t blame Europe or the United States. Instead, Muslims need to act to place their own house in order.

[04] Anwar noted that Muslims have a tendency to blame governments for their predicament. Yet the sad reality is that governments can get away with murder in the Muslim world because the institutions of civil society are so weak and so poorly managed. Even the smallest groups within Muslim communities are characterised by disunity and unprofessionalism.

[05] Anwar noted a common feature of Muslim societies - the Rule of Law is almost absent. People can be detained for months and years on end without charge and without facing any trial. Fundamental principles of democracy and liberty are sacrificed.

[06] Anwar expressed his particular concern about similar trends in Western countries. He had read about the then-proposed Anti-Terrorism laws designed to give ASIO broader powers of arrest and detention. Citizens of all faiths and no faith in particular need to speak out about the danger of such laws being misused as has happened in Malaysia with the Internal Security Act.

[07] Anwar said it was absurd for Muslim countries to complain about the West when Muslim governments are allowed to get away with fleecing billions of dollars from the state exchequer. On what basis could Muslims criticise others when they find themselves unable to improve their own lot?

[08] Anwar gave the example of Abu Ghraib. He said it was admirable that Arab media are free to expose the American abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib in Iraq. But he asked why those same media outlets are not free to expose the many Abu Ghraibs that are run by Arab governments and that are used to detain and torture political prisoners across the Arab world.

[09] Anwar said that Muslims keep asking and expecting tolerance, yet are often content to live inside their own cultural cocoons. Muslim ethnic and sectarian groups find it hard to tolerate each other, let alone tolerate non-Muslims.

[10] If anything good has come out of September 11, it has been an increased sense of social maturity among Muslim minorities and from Muslims in general. Muslims now seem much more comfortable about engaging in dialogue. Muslims are learning that, in order to be understood, Muslims need to understand others. Parts of the Muslim community which used to insist on isolation are now opening themselves to other influences and to other people.

[11] Anwar reminded us that the Qur’an tells Muslims that God created human beings in tribes and nations so that they could recognise and understand each other. God did not create us in this way so that we could merely tolerate each other. Tolerance isn’t the goal of our interaction. We want to understand and be understood.

© Irfan Yusuf 2006

Judging by appearances ...

The Newcastle Herald has a circulation of around 52,600 in the Newcastle region, some 2 hours drive north of Sydney. It is published by Fairfax.

Someone sent me a copy of an opinion piece authored by one Jeff Corbett titled: “If the descriptor fits …”

The piece concerns a report in the Sydney Morning Herald about a ministerial meeting in New Zealand of national, state and territory ministers of immigration and multicultural affairs.

At that meeting, a number of ministers raised the issue of whether using the descriptor of “Middle Eastern appearance” to identify crime suspects is all that useful.

Why is this so? Is it because there is this nasty and powerful Middle Eastern lobby stacking branches of the ALP (and, after last night’s 4 Corners program, the Libs) to ensure “Middle Eastern thugs” (as Peter Debnam and Carl Scully love calling them) free reign to terrorise our streets?

Jeff Corbett seems to think so. He regards such arguments as “garbage”. His column runs into some 11 sensible paragraphs in which he argues that the whole purpose of a descriptor is to give the best possible available information, not to cast racial aspersions on people.

Corbett’s article would make 100% perfect logical sense if he didn’t follow up these 11 sensible paragraphs with outright racist stupidity of his own.

He commences by suggesting that the Cronulla riots were little more than “young men of Middle Eastern appearance and young men of Caucasian appearance clash[ing] violently over racist insults.”

If he was referring to the riots at various places (both the Cronulla rioting and the reprisal attacks in the Eastern Suburbs), I would agree with him. The problem is that he doesn’t. He just refers to the riots at Cronulla.

Those riots consisted of drunken and stoned white-skinned rioters egged on by neo-Nazis attacking people of various backgrounds including two overseas students from Bangladesh and an Aussie of Afghan parentage.

But given Corbett probably doesn’t know Sydney all that well, we might be prepared to forgive him. However, it is what he says later that really makes Corbett look like a completely conspiratorial goof.

The Middle Eastern lobby wants people of Middle Eastern appearance to be
described simply as “other” … They want NSW to give them that special sporting
advantage over police and the public.

Let’s examine some of the elements of Corbett’s grand Middle Eastern conspiracy:

a. There is such a thing as a Middle Eastern lobby.
b. This lobby engages in criminal activity or represents people engaged in criminal activity.
c. This lobby wants to have a head start on the police and the public so that it can commit its crimes.

Let’s examine the reality of the so-called Middle Eastern lobby. The Australian government has very close relations with Israel. A fair proportion of people from Middle Eastern background (if not a majority) would not be favourably inclined to Israel. These people outnumber Australia’s Jewish community (most of whom are not Middle Eastern and are likely to be much more supportive of Israel) by a ratio of at least 3:1.

Notwithstanding this, Australia continues to have strong and friendly relations with Israel. These relations would remain strong notwithstanding the fact that some 25,000 Australian citizens are currently in Lebanon and are facing grave danger. Israel’s refusal to enable a ceasefire to allow Australians to leave Lebanon would be unlikely to affect that strong relationship.

So this so-called lobby is so ineffectual that it cannot even change Australia’s foreign policy even one iota, even when Australian lives are at risk.

Then there is the suggestion that this lobby is involved in criminal activity and/or covers for people involved in criminal activity. Really? What sort of criminal activity? Do tell.

The typical example frequently cited by the usual suspects is gang-rape. When the Skaf brothers were being tried, the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics released figures that showed Maitland to have a much higher level of gang rape than south western Sydney.

As far as I am aware (and I’m sure Mr Corbett could confirm this), Maitland doesn’t have a substantial Lebanese or Middle Eastern community. But can I therefore suggest that Anglo-Irish Australians are habitual sex offenders?

The final paragraph contains some classics.

Regardless of where they come from, people of Middle Eastern appearance look
like Middle Eastern appearance.

Is this a truism? Or has Corbett suddenly changed his tune from his first 11 paragraphs? Or isn’t he aware of an incident in London which showed that persons of South American and those of Middle Eastern appearances can be easily confused?

The real problem is that some of these people seem to believe they have more
rights than people of other appearances.

No, Jeff, the problem is that you haven’t realised that Australia isn’t a milky-bar coloured country anymore. You need to travel beyond Newcastle and visit Lakemba or Bankstown. Then you can meet people with your red-coloured hair and blue/green eyes who will great you with “marhaba” or “asslamau alaykum”.

If describing a suspect as being of “Middle Eastern” appearance assists in catching a criminal, well and good. The reality is that this descriptor actually creates more problems than it solves. It also quite possibly enables more (and not less) crooks of Middle Eastern background to get away.

Corbett has tried to argue in favour of keeping the Middle East descriptor. His argument could have worked had he not descended into paranoia and conspiracy-theorising. If this is the best proponents of comprehensive racial profiling can come up with, is it any wonder that police forces across Australia and New Zealand don’t use it.

© Irfan Yusuf 2006

Halal Snippets - 15/07/06

A few years ago, I was driving to work in the northern Sydney suburb of Hornsby. I had Sydney talkback radio station 2UE on. Steve Price was talking about people of Lebanese appearance, using demeaning and racist terms.

I couldn’t help myself. I telephoned the 2UE line at 8:30am during the “free-for-all” phone-in. I managed to get on the air. I told Steve that there are plenty of Lebanese and other Arabic-speakers with red hair and green eyes. I even told him of a young Sheik of Palestinian background who preaches to kids at the Imam Ali ben Abi Taleb Mosque at Lakemba and who has red hair and green eyes.

Steve thought I was joking. When I pressed the point, he shut me off and invited John Laws into the studio. They both scoffed at the idea, continuing their derogatory and racist remarks about people of Lebanese background.

Well, Sydney’s talkback gurus may live in their own social cocoons. But State and Federal Ministers for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs meeting with their Kiwi counterparts in New Zealand yesterday supported a review of the use of various terms including “middle eastern” to describe the appearance of crime suspects.

Sadly, there seems to be some resistance from NSW police. They and their political masters from both sides of the fence have used “middle eastern” as a divisive term to play dog whistle politics since the Cronulla riots.

And so, it seems the descriptor will probably be used in NSW for the next few years. Which might allow red-headed and green-eyed Lebanese-Aussie criminal suspects to get away with communal murder!

**********

As Indian authorities hunt for clues and suspects in the aftermath of the July 11 bombings in Mumbai, the head of the Hindu neo-Nazi movement Shiv Sena is again stirring the communal pot.

Bal Thackeray (pictured) was reported in Mumbai’s Economic Times as accusing the current Maharashtra State Government of appeasing Muslim minorities. Mumbai is located in the State. The Times report included the following chilling remarks by Thackeray ...

“This government is not capable of protecting Maharashtra because those whose politics is based on appeasing minorities, cannot defeat terrorists,” the Sena chief, who is the editor of party mouthpiece Saamna, said in an editorial in the Thursday issue. “The roots of the blasts may be in Pakistan and Bangladesh, but the hands which feed these terrorists are in Mumbai,” he said.

Thackeray’s movement ruled the Maharashtra State Assembly for five years until October 1999. He was responsible for inciting communal riots which rocked Mumbai and other cities in the state in which thousands of Muslims and other minority groups were murdered in cold blood.

The Shiv Sena are a powerful force in Indian politics, and formed part of the BJP Coalition which ruled India until it was defeated at the last Indian general election. For years, Bal Thackeray was regarded as the uncrowned king of Maharashtra.

**********

July 11 this year marks the 11th anniversary of the Srebrenica massacre, the worst atrocity in Europe since the end of the second world war. Some 8,000 Muslims were massacred. Mass graves continue to be unearthed.

The perpetrators of the massacre – former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic and military strongman Ratko Mladic - continue to evade detection. Slowly Srebrenica’s Muslims are returning to their home city as tensions between Bosnia’s Muslim and Orthodox Christian communities are settled.

A photo-gallery on Srebrenica produced by the international aid agency Islamic Relief can be found here.

© Irfan Yusuf 2006

Thoughts on the first anniversary of 7/7

Today marks the 1st anniversary of the London terrorist attacks that claimed at least 50 lives. Among those injured were Australians traveling and working in London. The victims included at least 5 people of nominally Muslim background.

The bombing was believed to be the work of home-grown terrorists, young English boys from Pakistani and Jamaican backgrounds disillusioned and depressed. According to official UK government and police reports, it is unclear whether the boys were directly linked to an overseas terrorist outfit. What is clear is that at least some of the boys were influenced by Islamist pan-nationalist literature and lecturers.

The London bombing led to a complete re-think of security and anti-terrorism policies. No longer was terrorism just something that happened when overseas extremists were sent on a mission to a Western country. Rather, terrorism could be home-grown.

The boys involved in the London attacks were part of what Peter Costello accurately described in his February speech to the Sydney Institute as living “in a twilight zone where the values of their parents old country have been lost but the values of the new country not fully embraced.”

At least 40% of Aussie Muslims were born and/or brought up in Australia. They are as Australian as former English cricketing captain Nasser Hussein is English. Or as international French soccer player Zinedin Zidane is French.

Most of us handle swinging between competing cultural pendulums quite well. Our experience is little different to that of children of migrants from other ethnic and religious groups. We all have layers of identity, and not all of us regard our religious faith as the primary source of our identity.

Which makes many Muslims shake their heads and wonder when they read of the Cultural Revolution currently being promoted in the pages of Quadrant and The Australian.

As someone who regards himself as a conservative, I find it disturbing that other conservatives would attempt to overturn over 3 decades of political and social consensus expressed in the term “multiculturalism”.

The Oz, in particular, has been promoting pseudo-conservative monocultural policy, with its editorials and many of its regular and occasional contributors lobbying for the overturn of Australia’s multicultural status quo.

Like most revolutions, this monocultural revolution manufactures an enemy by attributing mythologically monolithic characteristics to an otherwise disparate group. 7/7 provided the pseudo-conservatives with a convenient enemy to manufacture – Muslim minorities, particularly home-grown Muslim youth.

The constantly recurring myth in much pseudo-conservative writing is the existence of a monolithic Muslim “culture”. In the UK, where the overwhelming majority of Muslim migrants are from the Indian sub-continent, it might be legitimate to speak of a singular culture dominating the British Muslim landscape.

When applied to Australia, the true extent of the myth becomes apparent to all but the most jaundiced and/or senile commentators. Aussie Muslims migrated to Australia from over 60 different countries (many from countries without Muslim majorities) and speak over 200 languages.

I can say with great confidence that, culturally speaking, my Delhi-born parents have more in common with a Hindu or Sikh from India than with a Muslim from Albania. My South African Muslim friends have more in common with South African Jews than with Muslims from Malaysia.

Culture is a complex phenomenon. Islam, like Christianity, is an international religious movement. I doubt there is a major city in the world which does not have a single Muslim resident. To speak of Muslim culture is as meaningless as speaking about Catholic culture.

Rupert Murdoch and the editors of The Oz should know this to be the case. Indeed, Richard Kerbaj (a journalist of Lebanese Druze roots) regularly reports on the various ethnic and linguistic feuds within Muslim peak bodies in Australia. Most Australian mosques are divided along ethnic, linguistic and/or sectarian lines. To speak about a monolithic Muslim culture is sheer nonsense.

Yet some people make lots of money by promoting this mythology. In August, the Centre for Independent Studies hosts journalist Mark Steyn as part of its “Big Ideas Forum”. Steyn’s biggest idea has been cited with approval by Sharon Lapkin, a writer for the Australia-Israel Review. In a piece she authored for FrontPageMag.com immediately after the Cronulla riots, Lapkin remarks:

“Everywhere in the world, Muslims are in conflict with their neighbours. And as Mark Steyn recently said, every conflict appears to have originated by someone with the name of Mohammed.”

The national chairman of the Australia-Israel Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) is respected Melbourne lawyer Mark Leibler. Mr Leibler is also co-chair of Reconciliation Australia. He rightly condemned comments made by alleged conservatives about Aboriginal culture during a speech to the Sydney Institute on 29 May 2006.

On that occasion, he remarked:

“To suggest that rape and pedophilia are part of Aboriginal culture is defamation. Whether it‘s used as an excuse by perpetrators or a cop-out by non-Indigenous Australians who find this explanation easier than facing up to their own responsibilities, it is slanderous and it is wrong.”

Mr Leibler’s remarks would be just as applicable. I would like to think Mr Leibler would find Ms Lapkin’s remarks as equally slanderous and wrong.

Yet such slanders appear regularly in the op-ed pages of major newspapers, especially those owned by the American ex-Australian Rupert Murdoch. They are repeated by media moguls and allegedly conservative politicians.

Fear and hysteria about the alien monolithic Muslim “other” might sell newspapers and win votes in the short term. But to use the myths underlying such fear are used as excuses to overturn over 3 decades of multicultural consensus is the height of folly.

And when such myths are used to marginalize an entire faith-community, it gives good grounds for the likes of Usama bin Ladin and Abu Bakar Basyir to claim the war on terror is really a war on Muslims.

© Irfan Yusuf 2006

Sheik Yahiya Howard?

So that Indonesian Sheik who shares his surname with the New South Wales Governor has invited John Howard to become a Muslim. Sounds pretty halal to me. But there might be a few hitches.

For a start, Mr Howard might be expected to change his name. Some Muslims seem to think that converting to Islam means having to de-Anglicise your name.

My old mate Gazza, a member of the Socialist Left of the ALP, tells me that he had to de-Anglicise his name. So he changed from Gary to Adam.

Huh? Why Adam? Gazza relates that he first converted to please his somewhat feisty Fiji-Indian wife. He would have remained a lapsed Anglo-Catholic (i.e. a left-wing atheist) except that she had led him astray. Hence he named himself after the first man to be led astray by a woman.

Gazza now finds himself pissing off even more Muslims (and no doubt a fair few Christians also) with his public claims that Creationism and Intelligent Design is a load of bollocks.

Speaking of which, many Muslims expect male converts to undergo some Sharia-compliant surgery.

In this respect, Gazza is quite lucky. His Catholic dad and Anglican mum decided to have him circumcised back in the early 1950’s when he was a wee-toddler. Though I doubt they did so with a view to his conversion to the ways of those heathen “Moslems”.

Another convert mate of mine, Mahmud, also married a Fiji-Indian woman. He converted from Soccerism (he is Italian) to Islam. His parents didn’t have as much foresight and allowed his foreskin to remain. His wife wasn’t as tolerant.

Conveniently, Mahmud had to get his haemorrhoids operated on. His Jewish surgeon offered a complementary cut of the excess foreskin. Mahmud happily went under the knife.

Now Mahmud had given his wife strict instructions not to tell anyone about the surgeon’s offer. My folks tell me about visiting poor Mahmud in hospital. He was clearly in excruciating pain. His wife just couldn’t keep a secret. The conversation went something like this …

DAD: So how is Mahmud feeling?

MAHMUD: Can’t talk much. Too much pain.

MRS MAHMUD: What can I say? Mahmud can’t lay on his back or his stomach!

So if John Howard decides to take up Sheik Bashir’s offer, he can look forward to a possible change in name. “John” is easy. We just call him “Yahiya” (the Koranic name for John the Baptist). But what about “Winston” and “Howard”? Perhaps we might just name him “Yahiya bin Bush”.

A bigger (and indeed more painful) obstacle will be the Sharia-compliant surgery referred to earlier. Now we all know that Peter Costello wants to see Sharia banned in Australia. Perhaps the Treasurer could allow an exemption to be granted to the new Muslim convert Yahiya bin Bush, especially if it means Sheik Yahiya vacating Kirribilli House.

Who knows? Maybe Sheik Yahiya might decide to give up Kirribilli for the less salubrious surrounds of the Imam Ali Mosque in Lakemba. (Then again, given Mr Howard’s love for being seen with the diggers, he’ll probably prefer staying at the Gallipoli Mosque.)

But was Sheik Bashir merely seeking to have Mr Howard’s frontal bits compromised? My mate Gazza reckons a more thorough circumcision was what Bashir had in mind.

“Maybe he wanted Howard to be circumcised from the neck up. Politically speaking, of curse”, Gazza remarked as he stroked his ALP membership card.

I wonder how Mr Howard’s ministers and Parliamentary colleagues would react to his conversion. Mrs Howard would need to put up with competition from three more child-bearing wives needed for our good Sheik Yahiya to lead by example and ensure Australia reaches Danna Vale’s target of becoming an Islamic State within 50 years.

Bronwyn Bishop once complained that Muslim men refuse to shake her hands. She also described the writer once in Federal Parliament as a “Muslim activist known for his abusive attitudes to women”. Perhaps with Mr Howard’s conversion, she would now have her own Prime Minister refusing to shake her hand. Then again, Howard and Bishop were never known to be good buddies.

Perhaps the most interesting reaction (or lack thereof) would come from Attorney General Phillip Ruddock. It wouldn’t surprise me if early one morning ASIO raided Kirribilli House to pounce on the latest terror suspect as he was getting ready for his early morning walk around Sydney Harbour dressed in long white robes.

I can just see Mr Ruddock at the press conference announcing the arrest of Sheik Yahiya Howard: “The suspect is believed to have made numerous trips to training camps in Iraq”.

No doubt, Defence Minister Brendan Nelson would be asking Mr Howard to subscribe to the values of the English illegal immigrant Simpson (of donkey fame) or to just “clear off”.

The local Islamic community will, no doubt, welcome having an Islamic Prime Minister. Mufti Taj Hilaly would no doubt give a statement that none of us would understand. The Presidents of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils would probably criticise him for not wearing a burqa.

And what would my old mate Gazza do? “Me? Sharing a religion with John Howard? Forget it! I might just have to see if Cardinal Pell and Dr Jensen will take me back!”

(The author is a Sydney lawyer and former Liberal Candidate for the seat of Reid in the 2001 Federal election.)

© Irfan Yusuf 2006

Understanding Iran through its bloggers

Iran is a rogue state. It is ruled by mullahs who support and sponsor terrorism and who are not to be trusted. Iran represents a threat to the West. If Iran does not agree to perfectly reasonable demands concerning its nuclear program, the rest of the world should punish it. That punishment should start with economic sanctions and perhaps even include all-out war and regime change.

This is what we in the West have been taught to believe. This is also what neo-Conservative propagandists want us to know. This is also the accepted wisdom as propagated by the foreign affairs establishment and by newspapers owned by News Limited.

But how much of this picture of clichés tell us about the real Iran? What do we know about Iranian society? What do we know about the everyday lives of real Iranians?

One way to learn about Iran is through its bloggers. Conventional journalists may frown on blogging as the journalistic sport for amateurs. But blogging is one of the few means open and available to people to project their genuine sentiments on cyberspace.

We Are Iran is a book published in the UK and authored by Iranian expatriate Nasrin Alavi. The book is a frank look at Iranian politics and society through the eyes of its bloggers.

And why should Iranian bloggers matter? Well, for a start, we need to understand something about Iran’s population. 70% of Iranians are aged under 30. Literacy is over 90%. The majority of Iranians attending tertiary institutions are women. Adult and computer literacy in Iran are higher than in any other Middle Eastern country and than in many European states.

Farsi is the language of Iran. It is also the 4th most frequently used language for keeping blogs. There are more Farsi blogs than blogs in Spanish, German, Italian, Chinese or Russian. And there are more Iranians able to access blogs than other people in the region. 2001 data from the World Bank shows that Iran has more personal computers per 1,000 people than the regional average.

As at the time Alavi’s book was written (2005), there are hardly 50 known blogs identifying their authors as Iraqis. Compare this to more than 64,000 Farsi blogs.

For many Iranians, blogs provide a means of communicating views deemed too subversive by the powers-that-be. Iran has been described by “Reporters Without Borders” as the biggest prison for journalists in the Middle East. In the last 6 years, some 41 newspapers have been closed by the regime. Many more magazines have been closed.

Alavi’s book is useful because it provides a peep inside the Iran which neo-Con commentators rarely allow. Iranian bloggers portray the youthfulness of ordinary Iranians, their irreverence to religious authority and their feelings about a political process they feel has failed to reflect their wishes.

Iran is a country whose population is dominated by people who came of age after the 1979 revolution which swept Ayatollah Khomeini to power. They are not necessarily loyal to the Islamic Republicanism of the current Iranian government.

At the same time, Iranians are also resentful of some political currents in the United States which seek war and conflict with Iran at all costs. Iranians are not overly religious, but they love their country and faith enough to resent attempts to demonise all Iranians and all Muslims.

Nasrin Alavi’s book is well worth reading. It provides a look into Iran’s future. If the Farsi bloggers are any indication, the West and the rest of the world have little to fear from ordinary Iranians.

© Irfan Yusuf 2006

On Cardinal Pell’s Islam Sources

Neo-Conservatives and their fellow travellers will tell you that terrorism and violence is an inherently Islamic phenomenon, one that finds its basis in the religious texts and laws of the faith of 1.2 billion Muslims.

The May 2006 edition of the allegedly conservative magazine Quadrant includes three articles on “The Challenge of Islam”. One is the text of Cardinal Pell’s address to a group of Catholic businessmen in the United States in February.

Pell claims that his “sixty or seventy pages” of reading the Qur’an led him to an unidentified number of “invocations to violence”. He doesn’t advise if he read the Qur’an in its original Arabic or whether he used a translation. Presuming the latter to be the case, Pell also doesn’t advise on which translation he uses.

Perhaps more troubling is the fact that this prominent Catholic theologian is satisfied with reliance upon the most rudimentary research which represents an insult to both his congregation and to his own obvious mastery of theology. Despite having access to numerous works on Islamic theology and history authored by prominent Christian scholars (such as Karen Armstrong), Pell chooses to use the works of journalists and propagandists such as Paul Stenhouse and Daniel Pipes.

Stenhouse has himself authored a piece in the March 2006 edition of Quadrant. He claimed that Islam only sees the world in a bipolar fashion, divided along the lines of Dar al-Harb (the abode of war) and Dar al-Islam (the abode of Islam). His entire article is based on the work of one Maliki jurist (as quoted by Bernard Lewis) and 2 20th century journalists (Abul A'la Maududi and Syed Qutb).

Stenhouse was called to appear for the controversial Catch The Fire Ministries Inc and Pastors Daniel Nalliah and Daniel Scott in the prosecution brought by the Islamic Council of Victoria pursuant to the Racial & Religious Tolerance Act 2001 (Vic). . He was to appear as an expert witness for the Ministries. His qualifications and alleged expertise were subject to the usual examination by the Court. According to supporters of the defendants, Justice Higgins ruled that Dr Stenhouse's evidence "would not be allowed".

Cardinal Pell also uses the work of Bat Ye'or, especially Ye'or's concept of "dhimmitude" used to describe the status of non-Muslims under a theoretical Islamic state. Ye-or is also author of the "Eurabia" thesis, according to which Europe and the Arab world are involved in creating an anti-American alliance that will lead to Europe eventually being transformed into an "Islamic state".

Ye'or is a close colleague of Robert Spencer, the author of the Jihad Watch website and hardly a site one would refer to if seeking to make an earnest inquiry about Muslim opinion and Islamic theology.

Spencer explains the purpose of the site as being: “Because the West is facing a concerted effort by Islamic jihadists, the motives and goals of whom are largely ignored by the Western media, to destroy the West and bring it forcibly into the Islamic world - and to commit violence to that end even while their overall goal remains out of reach. That effort goes under the general rubric of jihad.”

Spencer’s vision involves imposing the most fringe ane extreme views on mainstream Muslims. He projects an image of Islam as being inherently against the West and its allegedly Judeo-Christian roots. His site gives the following assessment of the role of violence in Islam:

“Violent jihad is a constant of Islamic history … a major element of the motivation of jihad warriors worldwide today. No major Muslim group has ever repudiated the doctrines of armed jihad. The theology of jihad, with all its assumptions about unbelievers‚ lack of human rights and dignity, is available today as a justification for anyone with the will and the means to bring it to life.”

For Spencer, this reality of “violent jihad” in the theology of 1.2 billion Muslims represents “the true nature of the present global conflict”. It is a phenomenon that affects how all Muslims behave in their approach to non-Muslims.

The titles of Spencer’s books say it all. One is entitled Onward Muslim Soldiers – How Jihad Still Threatens America and the West. Another is The Myth of Islamic Tolerance. A third is entitled The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades). Its cover provides themes hardly conducive to constructive dialogue:

“Islam teaches that Muslims must wage war to impose Islamic law on non-Muslim states.”

“American Muslim groups are engaged in a huge cover-up of Islamic doctrines and history.”

“Muslim persecution of Christians has continued for 13 centuries and still goes on.”

Two of Spencer’s monologues are entitled The Islamic Disinformation Lobby and Islam vs. Christianity.

This conspiratorial nature of Spencer’s message is clear. Muslims are not to be trusted when speaking about themselves, their faith and their culture. Muslims are inherently violent, psychopathic and dangerous. Islam is at war with the West. Islam is the enemy.

Spencer’s work represents the worst excesses of conspiracy propaganda. His message echoes the messages used by German writers (including German Catholic writers) to describe Judaism and the Jews during the 1920’s and 30’s.

Cardinal Pell claims that his recent remarks represent an attempt to genuinely understand the role of violence and terrorism (if any) in Muslim cultures. But by relying on the works of amateurs with axes to grind, Cardinal Pell is exposing himself and the Catholic Church to ridicule.

Any serious theologian would at least seek to understand the sources of the faith s/he studies. Cardinal Pell clearly hasn’t done this. His failure reflects more on what might be described as chronic intellectual laziness than on the faith of 1.2 billion people.

© Irfan Yusuf 2006

The Man returns to footy?

It seems Anthony Mundine isn’t just handy with the boxing gloves. The man who prefers to be called “The Man” has now re-entered the rugby league arena.

The Rear Window column of the Australian Financial Review (on 5 June 2006) reports Mundine is preparing to inject some badly-needed cash into a regional rugby league club near Griffith in the Riverina.

The Three Ways United Club is a largely Aboriginal team captained by Robbie Simpson who used to play with Mr Man at the St George club in south western Sydney during the late 1990’s. Simpson is also a big supporter of Mundine’s boxing exploits, and AFR reports Simpson as being in Mundine’s corner during his recent victory over Danny Green.

AFR quotes one source as suggesting Mundine might cough up as much as $20,000. Mundine and his family are active in indigenous issues, including health and sports. One of Mundine’s aunts is known to be a prominent administrator in Aboriginal health issues, and has worked with ATSIC, at least 2 state governments and 1 territory government. His uncle is National President of the Australian Labor Party and a fellow ambassador for the White Ribbon Day campaign.

The Man’s rise as a premier Australian athlete has even earned him praise from unusual and unexpected quarters. Not exactly known for her great love of Muslim cultures, even allegedly conservative Fairfax columnist Miranda Devine praised the “teetotal, non-smoking Aboriginal Muslim-convert” Mundine for being an excellent example to all Australian youth.

© Irfan Yusuf 2006