COMMENT: D'Souza on Christianity as "the only way" ...

Dinesh D'Souza poses this question: Is Christianity the Only Way? It's a legitimate question to be asked by someone living in a country as religious as the United States, where (according to Pew Research) some 92% of people believe in God. It's also legitimate considering the the United States has a strong and officially secular political system where holding a particular religious affiliation isn't a condition of holding any (including the highest) public office in the land.

At the same time, religious pluralism is very strong. Many Americans don't regard their own faith as being the only source of absolute truth or as the only comprehensive road to paradise.

What got the most attention, however, was Pew's discovery that a majority of religious Americans believe that other religions make valid claims about God and can lead to heaven. Around 80 percent of Catholics, Protestants and Jews, as well as 55 percent of Muslims, reject the idea that their religion is the only way.

D'Souza makes a very important point about how the monotheistic faiths view each other, yet how little this view is even known to many Americans.

... many people don't realize that just as Christianity sees itself as succeeding and incorporating Judaism, so Islam sees itself as coming after and incorporating both Judaism and Christianity. Consequently I'm not surprised that most Muslims view Jews and Christians as fellow monotheists rather than hell-bound infidels.

I was a bit confused by D'Souza's claim that ...

... Christianity is the only religion to hold another religion to be wholly true. That religion is Judaism.

Does that mean that Christians accept that Judaism's insistence on belief in a unitarian God is "wholly true"? What about Judaism's rejection of the belief that Jesus was the Messiah?

Followers of all faiths and none are welcome to comment.

Words © 2007 Irfan Yusuf

COMMENT: Canadian Human Rights Commission decision on Steyn and CIC handed down ...

The Canadian Human Rights Commission has just handed down its decision in the complaint brought by the Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC) against Canadian news magazine Macleans and theatre critic Mark Steyn. The subject of the complaint was an article Steyn wrote entitled The future belongs to Islam. The offending article was an excerpt from Steyn’s book America Alone.
The article was published in October 2006. It probably would have been forgotten by November 2006, if not earlier. Steyn was a virtual nobody in Canada. Now, with all the fuss over these legal proceedings, Steyn has become a huge somebody.

The CIC should have thought this one through and obtained proper advice before going ahead. They might have consulted with other Muslim groups in similar circumstances (such as the Islamic Council of Victoria).

On the other hand, CIC took steps within the law, using remedies that the law made available to them. Whilst their actions could be presented as an assault on freedom of speech, they certainly weren’t offending the Rule of Law. Certainly arguing rationally before tribunals and commissions is preferable to burning embassies or issuing death threats.

The problem now is that the CIC have made themselves (and Canadian Muslims) look like they are against freedom of speech and freedom of the press. In the minds of many of their countrymen and women, Canadian Muslims will be seen as a group that considers themselves above criticism or offence.

Perhaps Dr Hesham Hassaballa should have written these wise words much earlier ...

While I understand the feeling that may have led to the lawsuit against Maclean's, the action was truly misplaced. It sends the message that Muslims are not proponents of free speech and the free exchange of ideas. While I agree that speech which incites violence and bloodshed against Muslims or any other group of people should never be tolerated, the Maclean's article by Mark Steyn- as writer Ali Eteraz said best - "could never, ever, never ever, rise to 'incitement'" under U.S. case law.

The CIC has much work to do in improving its relations with the popular media. I understand that engaging with some editors and columnists is just pointless. But Canada is a big place, and there are plenty of news magazines and publications that will give minority communities a fair go.

Of course, there's no substitute for having more and more young people engaging with media. This means studying mass communications or journalism and making media a genuine career path.

Words © 2007 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

COMMENT: The Oz and Tanya

The Australian today provides a lengthy piece about an Australian woman who converted to Islam (presumably in Australia) before joining some Australian Muslims to study religion in Yemen. It’s hard to believe I’m writing this, but by printing stories like this, The Oz is doing Muslims an enormous favour. Here's an excerpt ...

In December 2006, Ms Smith, from Winston Hills in Sydney's northwest, posted a note on an Australian newspaper's website explaining why she had converted to Islam. "To share and enjoy the life and love of a relationship that is not managed by fear and abuse, especially not abuse that is cloaked in the name of any religion," she wrote. "As a Muslim woman I am free from any abuse because of my religion - Islam. It is because of my Islam that I don't live infear of a husband that comes back every night to bash me untilI'm black and blue, and then rape me."

The posting went on to blame alcohol - banned in Islam - for most domestic violence. "It is because of Islam that I am empowered as a woman and not sexually exploited by man, I dress for God and not for man," she went on. Islam did not permit women to be used and abused to sell alcohol and bubblegum, she wrote. "That's why I am one of many converts to Islam and that's why Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world amongst women."

Ms Smith defended her religion on the newspaper website. "Islam liberated women 1500 years ago," she wrote. "We have enjoyed the freedoms and rights of keeping our last names as we are not the property of our husbands, we have had the right to vote before the women's liberation movement in the last century, the right to keep our own money, choose who I want to marry, have the right to inheritance, run a business, the right to be protected and maintained by our husbands regardless of how rich I am."

It all began a few years ago. Ms Smith first arrived in Yemen in October 2006, and quickly settled into a community of pious Islamic Australians studying Islam and Arabic in Sana'a. Among the expatriates were Mohammed bin Ayub and Abdullah bin Ayub, the sons of the alleged former leader of Jemaah Islamiah in Australia, Abdul Rahim Ayub. The two men were arrested along with a third Australian, Marek Samulski, as part of a broad anti-terror sweep by Yemeni and British authorities.

The trio was held for more than two weeks, but were later released without charge and asked to leave Yemen with their families. Samulski is living in South Africa with his wife, while the Ayubs and their families are believed to have travelled to Dar-es-Salam and then to Lebanon.

Ms Smith's Palestinian in-laws say she converted to Islam four years ago, and she was awarded a certificate of Islam from the Yemeni Government last year.

Regardless of her travails in Gaza, Ms Smith has apparently remained committed to Islam since returning to Australia, and she has consulted a fundamentalist Salafi imam.

I’m sure some Muslims will read this story and ask: “Why do they always print the simpler and less controversial convert stories? Why do they focus on the ones full of complications and controversy?” To some extent, I agree with that. But after reading the story of Tanya Louise Smith, I couldn’t help but ask myself why leaders of peak Muslim religious organisations spend so much money fighting each other in courts and so little providing basic support services to converts.

I also couldn’t help asking why so many mosques in Sydney and Melbourne are managed by first generation migrants who want to reproduce the Pakistan or Lebanon or Turkey they left behind in the 1960’s or ‘70’s. And why they insist on employing imams who cannot communicate Muslim orthodoxy in the English language and in a culturally appropriate manner.

Most of all, I wondered why so many young Muslim Australians find themselves going overseas to study just the basics of their faith, basics which kids in Indonesia and other Muslim-majority states master in primary school.

The day our ethnic and language-based religious organisations started helping new Muslims instead of shutting them out or using them as political fodder is the day we will start reading less of such stories.

Or maybe I blame peak bodies and mosque committees too much. Maybe the fault lies with ordinary Muslims. After all, our leaders reflect who we are. Perhaps we should have a situation where ordinary Muslims "adopt" a new Muslim and provide her or him with some kind of moral or spiritual support.

In fact, it seems Tanya may have received more support from her in-laws in Gaza than from Muslims in her home town.

Still, it may all just be a complete beat-up. Either way, the story should really get us thinking.

UPDATE I: My purpose in writing about this was not to in anyway denegrate Tanya, her family or her experience of her faith. Rather, it is to get Muslim and other concerned readers to consider what we are doing and what more we could be doing to provide more support services to new Muslims. It was for similar reasons that I wrote this piece.

Words © 2007 Irfan Yusuf

COMMENT: Polygamous ponderings ...

It seems Keysar Trad just can't get enough of polygamy. Just when Aussie Muslims were enjoying the calm of a Howard-free existence, with no Ministers breathing down their allegedly non-integrating throats, Keysar managed to manufacture a completely unnecessary controversy and make us all look stupid in the process. You can read Keysar attempting to undo the damage (only to make things worse) here. The nerve of him to write these lines ...

From my perspective as a Muslim, I really do not wish to rock the boat. I am happy not to talk about the issue and not to disturb the status quo ...

It's true. Keysar doesn't wish to rock the boat. He'd much rather sink it.

A more nuanced and sensible approach to the topic comes from Melbourne researcher Rachel Woodlock. Writing in The Age, Wooklock acknowledges (and asks her readers to perhaps grudgingly acknowledge) that there may be grounds for polygamous marriage. She then tells about her own experiences and those of the people she knows ...

... since embracing Islam I have become friends with about half-a-dozen different women who are co-wives (none of them with each other). Tellingly, all the relationships involved include at least one convert, which means that polygamy is not merely the preserve of refugees who can barely speak a lick of English and who know nothing of our culture or way of life.

Whether or not we like to admit it, polygamy is part of the diverse fabric of family life in 21st century Australia, although admittedly a minority practice. This is partly because although Australian multiculturalism requires assent to the law of the land, many groups (for example, Jews, Catholics, Baha'is and Aborigines) also operate under community-imposed religio-legal codes, particularly when it comes to family relationships.

Religio-legal codes. I like it. Though I prefer to use the term "sacred law". But do all Muslims insist on the right to polygamous marriage? Or rather, how many Muslims want polygamous marriages recognised in Australia under the Marriage Act?

When news started filtering around the Australian Muslim grapevine of lobbying for polygamy to be recognised, reactions ranged from outrage to ambivalence to cautious approval. If ever there was evidence that Muslims do not speak with a single, homogeneous voice, this is it.

Muslims come from many different cultures, some of which historically viewed polygamy with great disapproval and imbued it with social stigma, and others that considered polygamy perfectly normal, although it seems the practice is becoming less popular even in many traditionally polygamous countries.

Woodlock even claims a possible feminist argument in favour of polygamy. You'll have to read the article yourself if you want to learn more.

Now for those who, like me, prefer to laugh than engage in serious discussion, Lisa Pryor's column in the Sydney Morning Herald is essential reading. She begins her article with this profound observation:

Keysar Trad, you cheeky old fox.

Her summary of current marriage practices is a gem:

Australia has been well served by the Judaeo-Christian interpretation of marriage, in which two people fall in love, commit themselves to each other for life, pop out some sprogs, get divorced, shack up with someone younger and bitch about child support.

Priceless!


Words © 2007 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

MEDIA: Giving credit where credit is due ...

Regular readers (all 2 of you) will know that I have used this blog and other forums to bag the reporting of certain journalists and columnists reporting and writing about issues relating to Islamic faith, Muslim cultures and Muslim societies. One journalist who has occasionally come up for criticism has been Natalie O'Brien from The Australian.

When the polygamy issue was raised on Triple-J's Hack program and then reported widely in the press, I expected The Oz to lead the charge with vicious editorials and columns over the past 24 hours or so. And as I write these lines (at ~11:20pm on 26 June 2008), it is quite possible that some rather nasty articles may appear.

However, I must congratulate Ms O'Brien and her colleague Sian Powell for putting together two thoughtful articles on this issue. Their articles can be found here and here.

I personally do not believe it was appropriate for Keysar Trad and Khalil Chami to raise this issue at this very point in time or indeed at all. Still, this is a free country and they are entitled to express their views.

On the other hand, as we have increased migration from parts of the world where polygamy is widely practised (and not just by Muslims), this issue was bound to come up sooner or later. Further, it needs to be recognised that some communities among the first Australians also traditionally practised various forms of polygamy.

I've praised the two articles appearing in The Australian on this issue elsewhere. The Herald-Sun in particular ran a rather silly headline on its website today - "Muslim polygamy ruled out" - although Mark Dunn's article was quite fair.

The headlines of today's articles in The Oz didn't make Muslims or their faith the issue. They acknowledged that polygamy is practised by non-Islamic faiths and communities including certain African Christian communities and breakaway sections of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. A wide range of views, including those of researchers and experts in various fields, were canvassed.

I guess we'll have to see how the next 24 hours pans out. Most likely, media will be focussing more on issues that families of all faiths and backgrounds will be concerned with - the increasing child abuse and neglect amongst largely non-indigenous Australians. Perhaps it's time for an intervention ...

Words © 2007 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

COMMENT: Ali Sina's medical madness ...

Centuries ago, the great Iranian Muslim philosopher and physician Hussein ibn Ali Sina (known as Avicenna in the West and shown above) wrote a 14-volume treatise on medicine called al-Qanun (the Canon). He is believed to have been barely 19 years old at the time.

Now, a modern-day Iranian Ali Sina tells the Jerusalem Post that the faith of Avicenna is the result of a mental illness which allegedly afflicted the Prophet Muhammad (s.).

... his latest book, Understanding Muhammad: A Psychobiography of Allah's Prophet ... Sina suggests that Islam's central figure suffered from a series of mental disorders, including narcissistic personality disorder, temporal lobe epilepsy and obsessive compulsive disorder.
"These disorders," he says via telephone, "can explain the phenomenon known as Islam... which is nothing but one man's insanity."

He then says that Muslims have inherited ab "original hatred" in a manner comparable to the Christian doctrine of original sin.

"In Islam, it's not the community that is bad, but the religion. Islam has nothing like 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.' Islam is full of hatred, and the hatred is in Muhammad himself. I argue in my book that Muhammad was insane - and that Muslims, by emulating him and by emulating his ways, his insanity is bequeathed to them."

Sina then provides this prediction:

Sina knows that his blunt, outspoken approach can be "problematic." But he is confident nonetheless that the force of his arguments will ultimately prevail.
"I am sure that, with time, I will convince millions and millions of Muslims, and the foundations of Islam will collapse," he says.

The foundations of Islam will collapse and 1.2 billion people will see the light thanks to Sina's blog and a few books. Methinks, Mr Sina, that you should be worrying about your own mental health.

Words © 2008 Irfan Yusuf

REFLECTION: Flippant thoughts on Comrade Steyn

I’m watching Mark Steyn being interviewed by a Canadian journalist (at least I think he is Canadian – it’s hard for us poor sods down under to tell the difference!) Steve Paikin about the thesis in his book America Alone. You can watch the interview by clicking here and following the prompts or by clicking here.

Here is this pompous theatre critic who doesn't know the first thing about about demography talking about the demographic history and future of Europe. This sanctimonious windbag wondering why no one in Europe wants to breed.

And this chap claims to be a conservative! He is pontificating about a topic he knows absolutely zilch about, and expects us to treat him as an authority just because he writes lots of columns for newspapers many Americans use to wrap fish with.

Real conservatives don’t talk about topics in a critical manner without first learning about the subject. This kind of ignorant critique is what the Left are known for. It’s the sort of stuff I was taught to do by my McGill-inspired Marxist law lecturers at Macquarie University back in the days when you enrolled in the law school to get a degree in sociology (or rather, socialist-ology). Mark Steyn should just cut the crap and produce his Communist Party membership now.

The most hilarious bit of the interview is where Steyn is asked about whether Muslim migrants to Europe might actually Westernise and therefore not pose as big a demographic or cultural "threat" as Steyn makes out. Steyn knew that Paikan had nailed his argument by this one simple question, and then proceeded to talk about some e-mail fired off from his end to the producers of Paikan's show.

This is the sort of third-rate mass-debate Steyn often engages in. And he is so easy to intellectually punch in the guts, as I discovered when Steyn came here as a guest of the Centre for Independent Studies some years back. You can read about it here. As one scribe wrote to me after hearing the podcast on Radio National ...

i finally heard your question to mark steyn at that cis function the other day (it was on this morning's background briefing on abc radio). you clearly scored a direct hit, which left him winded, so much so it took him an inordinate amount of time to get back on top of his pitch arguing the inevitable that islam has a problem with its silent majority (which group doesn't) before he lost his cool with the zion protocols rubbish. well done!

I wish I could understand why the folks at Canadian Islamic Congress are wasting their time and resources on this chap. What they should be doing is focussing their time and resources on innoculating ordinary Canadians against the disease of collective responsibility Steyn and his ilk represent.

If his appearance on the Steve Paikin show is any indication, Steyn might best be described as a fruitloop. I used to eat fruitloops when I was young. Now that I’m older and more mature, I prefer cornflakes or muesli.

What the CIC should be doing is providing the facts. And not just doing it on their own. There are plenty of intelligent smart demographers, ethnographers, sociologists, anthropologists, historians and other social science gurus on both sides of the Atlantic who can do to Steyn’s 'ideas' what that character played by John Travolta accidentally did to that guy who was sitting in the back seat and had his brains splattered all over the car.

(Naturally, even a nominal Muslim like me has no idea about the joys of Western popular culture!)

Steyn is the last person who should be made into a martyr of free speech. Thanks to Steve Paikin for the interview. At least now I don’t have to waste my $2 buying Steyn’s book when it makes its way to Basement Books or some other remaindering factory.



Words © 2008 Irfan Yusuf

Shirin Ebadi facts continued ...

[06] Recently the conservative speaker of the Iranian parliament wrote a dissertation on the philosophy of Kant which was published in a supplement to a mainstream newspaper.

[07] In some areas of mathematics and physics, Iranian research is amongst the best in the world. But the question is: why isn't this new cultural and academic energy being translated into pro-democracy political energy?

[08] Democracy has increased but has also been manipulated by the regime in Iran. In 1997, Mohammad Khatami (a reformist Shia imam) won a landslide victory in the presidential election. He even defeated a conservative candidate backed by the supreme spiritual leader Ali Khamanei. Khatami won with a 70% majority. His election rhetoric was about the rule of law, the status of women and the need for "dialogue among civilisations".

[09] Iran has comparably more real democracy than other Middle Eastern or Arab states. Two heads of state have stepped down after completing their set constitutional terms and are now living peacefully in their homes. This kind of stability is almost unheard-of in the Arab world.

[10] Since the fall of the Shah, there have been 9 presidential elections and 7 parliamentary elections. Unfortunately, there is still serious vetting of candidates by the ulama.

[11] An entire generation of Iranians has grown up with ballots and promises from politicians. The democratic groundwork is there.

[12] The minimum voting age under Iranian law is 15.

[13] "The Iranian constitution vests sovereignty in God, but Iranian politicians look to the people for their mandate ... The problem is not with the embrace of democratic practices but with their full and effective enshrinement in politics."

[14] The "Tehran Spring" - by 1998, 740 newspapers were in circulation.

[15] Khatami didn't live upto the expectations of many reformists. His emphasis on the rule of law without constitutional reforms merely allowed unelected 'clerical' rulers to tighten their grip. During his 8 years in office, the Guardian Council blocked one third of Khatami's legislative agenda.

[16] 30% of Iran's population is between 15 and 29 years. Unemployment is close to 20%. Income per capita is a quarter of what it was in 1979.

Words © 2008 Irfan Yusuf