VIDEO/COMEDY: Arab-Muslim pick-up lines ...

Bookmark this on Delicious

COMMENT: On Mohammad Khatami ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More to come.

Words © 2009 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

CRIKEY: Pell cannot see the log in his own eye ...

Sydney’s Cardinal Pell has accused "modern liberalism" as being intolerant to Christians wishing to speak and act freely and in accordance with their conscience and their religious values.

Space doesn't permit a detailed treatment of Pell's entire speech. I'd probably need at least 8 pages to do that. But for what it's worth, here are a few paragraphs.

His eight page speech focuses on "two tales of intolerance". The first involves the story of activists from various Christian (and no doubt a fair few non-Christian) denominations in the United States who campaigned in support for proposed state constitutional amendments that enshrine marriage as between a man and a woman only.

Pell claims these activists were subjected to intimidation and even death threats. Churches were ...

... the focus for demonstrations, often attended by violence, vandalism and intimidation.

Some blogs even called for certain churches to be burned down, while businesses supporting the amendments were boycotted.

I wouldn't be surprised if this actually happened. But I cannot help wondering who Pell’s main sources were. And so I checked the footnotes to his speech.

Pell's footnotes twice refer to blogger and news commentator Michelle Malkin whose record of tolerance included encouraging the boycott of Dunkin’ Donuts. Did she do so on health grounds and to highlight growing American obesity rates? No. Malkin objected to a Dunkin’ Donuts advertisement showing Rachel Ray wearing a fashion accessory that resembled the traditional Palestinian scarf, known as a keffiyeh. Malkin described the keffiyeh as ...

... the traditional scarf of Arab men that has come to symbolize murderous Palestinian jihad ...

... and ...

... a regular adornment of Muslim terrorists appearing in beheading and hostage-taking videos.

Palestinian Catholics, including the parish priest of Bethlehem, won't be impressed.

Pell’s second example of intolerance was a handful of unsuccessful attempts by certain Muslims to seek orders against Christians who engaged in "criticism" of Islam "religiously, sociologically [and] philosophically". Yet the strange thing is that the very individuals he tries to defend have themselves engaged in the kind of intolerance he accuses proponents of “modern liberalism” of engaging in against Christian groups.

Among those Pell defends is Danny Nalliah from Catch The Fire Ministries. Nalliah is on record as calling on his congregation to pray that mosques, Hindu and Buddhist temples and even Masonic temples be torn down.

Pell then claims that "many in the West have grown used to practising self-censorship when it comes to Islam". That may be the case with certain non-Muslim Westerners, but there have been plenty of Muslims quite happy to openly criticise and question and even lampoon their faith, leaders and communities.

In all these instances, Pell sees Christians’ liberty being compromised by an aggressive form of secular liberalism. Yet Pell was quite happy to see special regulations introduced to stop people from causing "annoyance or inconvenience" to World Youth Day participants.

There's much more I could say about Pell's speech. Indeed there's quite a bit about his speech that I agree with. But I might suggest to the good Cardinal that before his next polemical foray, he might ponder over words Christ once used:

Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?

An edited version of this piece was first published in the Crikey daily alert on Friday 13 March 2009.

Words © 2009 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

COMMENT: Tanveer Ahmed heads to the CIS ...

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

Words © 2009 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

BLOGS: Racist, xenophobic and homophobic blog comments on News Ltd blogs ...

There are a small minority of bloggers for News Limited who regularly allow racist, xenophobic, homophobic, sectarian and other offensive comments onto their blogs. More often then not, these comments directly controvene State and Federal human rights legislation that proscribe homosexual, transgender, racial and ethno-religious vilification and discrimination.

If you want to read more about these comments and how News Ltd is dealing with them, feel free to visit the Media Mullah blog.

I don't regularly check the Fairfax blogs, and would be happy for anyone who comes across similar comments there to alert me to them at my e-mail address irfsol@yahoo.com.au.

Words © 2009 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

BLOG: LGF wackos attack JihadWatch wacko for being a wacko ...

It's always fun to watch wackos fighting each other. Especially when they are from the far-Right.

After spending years citing Robert Spencer with approval, the Little Green Footballs website has decided to 'expose' Spencer as a slightly different kind of wacko.

When Spencer was merely a wacko who lumped 1.2 billion Muslims together, or when he wrote stuff alleging that the religious traditions of all these peope were represented by al-Qaeda (a bit like saying that all 1.6 billion Christians were represented by the KKK or the Lord's Resistance Army), he was okay.

But now Robert Spencer has joined what LGF describes as ...

... white nationalists who advocate conquering Turkey and expelling/slaughtering the entire Muslim population—150 million people.

... then Spencer has become evil.

Don't expect to read about this development on Australian far-Right websites, including those of certain News Limited bloggers from Sydney and Melbourne.

Words © 2009 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

COMMENT: Abuse of women continues in Saudi Arabia ...

A disturbing report has been published in the Arab News about child marriage in Saudi Arabia ...

Mother calls for law against child marriage
Walaa Hawari | Arab News

RIYADH: Despite continuous efforts by private and government bodies to eliminate marriages involving minors, such marriages do take place every so often. In a recent case, two sisters from Al-Jouf, aged 13 and 14, were married off by their father to two elderly men.

“Their father held their hands as they signed their marriage contracts. They did not know what they were signing,” said the mother of the two girls, Nowayer. “When I was informed, I rushed to their father’s house and confronted the marriage contractor asking him whether he heard the girls consent to the marriages, and whether he had seen results of their premarital tests. He replied it was the father’s prerogative to marry them,” she added.

All this is being done in the name of enforcing sharia law. Sad.

The father of the children is in fact the mother's ex-husband. The wife complains he hasn't been paying any child maintenance, but was happy to get his young daughters married off.

... her ex-husband totally ignored her children for 18 months before their marriages. “One day, last month, he called asking the older girls, who are 13 and 14, to dress up as he would be picking them up and taking them to a family occasion,” she said.

It was only when she received a phone call from her sister that she realized what was going on. “I rushed to his house barefoot to find that the marriage contractor had begun my little children’s marriages,” she said.

The mother contacted Saudi Arabia's allegedly Islamic government. Here's how they rushed to her assistance ...

Nowayer sent a telegram to the minister of justice and the minister of health asking them to interfere, but received no response. “I even informed the Social Services Department in Riyadh who promised to interfere but as soon as the issue reached the Al-Jouf province, where I live and where my ex-husband has many connections because of his line of work, things got stalled,” she said.

Nowayer had no choice but to contact human rights organizations to try and reverse the marriages or postpone consummation for at least three years until the girls grow older.

Ms Nowayer did receive some assistance from the Human Rights Commission. The HRC have had a few cases like this, and see their mission as follows:

It’s our mission to introduce human rights into society and create awareness about them.

So people in an allegedly Islamic country and society need to awareness of human rights created in them? Aren't human rights an essential part of the faith? Which religion are people in the Kingdom following?

Saudi Arabia doesn't seem to have laws setting out the minimum age of marriage ...

Al-Harithy said the HRC and the ministries of Justice and Health share common interests. The Ministry of Health recently issued a report on the physical and emotional problems women endure as a result of early marriage.

The report was subsequently sent to the minister of justice, along with recommendations to set a minimum marriage age.

So in theory, a 60 year old Saudi bloke could marry a 5 year old Saudi girl. And they call this legal system "Islamic"?

Meanwhile, King Abdullah has decided to appoint a woman to his ministry. Here's how the Guardian reports the news:

Nora bint Abdullah al-Fayez, a US-educated former teacher, was made deputy education minister in charge of a new department for female students, a significant breakthrough in a country where women are not allowed to drive.

"This is an honour not only for me but for all Saudi women. In the presence of a comprehensive operational team, I believe I'll be able to face challenges and create positive change," she told Arab News. Fayez said she would study the state of girls' education in Saudi Arabia before commenting on the task before her.

The King also removed his nation's Chief Justice, Sheikh Salih Ibn al-Luhaydan. Among Sheikh Luhaydan's more memorable judgments was this ...

Luhaydan ruled last year that it was permissible to kill owners of satellite television channels broadcasting "immoral" programmes.

Charming.

(Thanks to BC)

Words © 2009 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

CRIKEY: Shakira Hussein dispatches forest jihad theories for six ...

Canberra writer and academic Shakira Hussein gives the forest jihad rumour a good scrubbing in Crikey this afternoon ...
______________________

Every so often, I have a naïve moment in which I think that an overwhelming disaster will prompt people to lay aside their differences and come together to face of a common tragedy.

But apparently not. Even as the search for bodies continues in the Victorian firezone, some people are searching for the "us and them" angle. Muslims have come to expect that they will be stigamised for any crime commited by any Muslim anywhere. But this week's speculation by some media and internet "commentators" about "forest jihad" has reached a new low.

This speculation is based on reports last year that an extremist Islamic website had called for "forest jihad". The fascist British National Party poses the "question" "Australian Death Fire: was it jihad?". The media finger-pointing has been less direct, more "might-have-done-it, will-be-getting-ideas-from-it, who-knows-but-I-wouldn’t-trust-them-with-a-match".

Fox News quoted various "experts" as saying that Islamic extremists would be "watching" the fires carefully, and getting ideas. "Expert" Steve Emerson said that militants "could" light wildfires, just as they "could" poison food supplies.

As Islamophobiawatch points out, this is the same Steve Emerson who said that the 1995 Oklahoma bombing showed a "Middle Eastern trait" because it aimed to kill a lot of people - an aim that the hypothetical "Middle Easterners" turned out to share with Timothy McVeigh.

And (as reported in Crikey), Piers Akerman proved yet again that there is no dog-whistle so filthy that he won't raise it to his lips. His column describing arson as terrorism did not go so far as to blame Muslims for the tragedy in Victoria, but the comments on his blog show that his readers (both admirers and critics) certainly heard the whistle.

On this occasion, Andrew Bolt showed greater civic responsibilty than Akerman (or, in the words of blogger Sheik Yermani, Bolt "chickened out"), telling readers of his blog that he would not post any comments that pointed the finger at Muslims. So maybe the disaster, and the subsequent finger-pointing, is bringing people together after all. It isn't often that I have a kind word to say about Andrew Bolt.

Police Superintendent Ross McNeill was categorical in dismissing the "forest jihad" theory, telling AFP "None whatsoever, absolutely nothing, zero. We usually rank possibilities on a scale of zero to ten -- this would be on a negative scale."

That would be "no", then.