Terror, Response and Responsibility

Former UK Police Commissioner Lord Stevenson is partially correct. Writing in the News of the World, he remarked:

“When will the Muslim community in this country accept an absolute, undeniable,
total truth: that Islamic terrorism is THEIR problem?”

His comments echo those of former National Crime Commission head Peter Faris and others who argue that, while all Muslims aren’t terrorists, all terrorists are Muslims. Faris has even argued that special ID cards should be introduced which identify a person’s religion.

Yes, terrorism is a Muslim problem, but not (and in some cases, not just) for the reasons polemicists and Muslim-haters suggest. Rather (or in addition), it is a problem because Muslims are victims of terror.

In fact, more Muslims than non-Muslims have died in terrorist attacks in Indonesia, Pakistan, Iraq, Tunisia, Egypt, Turkey and other Muslim-majority states. Almost each day, the same number of people die in Iraq as died in London on 7/7.

So how does characterising terror as essentially Islamic assist in the fight against terrorism? Apart from upsetting Muslims, who are just as much victims as anyone else, what does it achieve?

Indeed, it isn’t just a tiny minority of Muslims seeking to kill and maim people or seeking to finance such operations.

In recent years, UK and Australian police have also conducted raids on members of Tamil expatriate communities, believing some Tamil migrants are financing the Tamil Tigers, an organisation again actively pursuing terrorism in Sri Lanka.

Tamil Tigers have turned suicide bombing into an art form. Their antics have killed and injured civilians not just in Sri Lanka but across the Indian sub-Continent including a former Indian Prime Minister. And they aren’t the only fanatics killing in the name of some ethno-religious identity.

Some fringe American Indian organisations are known to be supporting and bankrolling the Hindu extremist Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). Pro-RSS programs are regularly played on Sydney community radio stations. Scottish writer William Dalrymple has documented the RSS’s record in orchestrating the killing of literally thousands of members of religious minority communities in India, including Australian Catholic missionaries.

In 2002, RSS activists systematically slaughtered over 3,000 people in Gujarat. That’s more than the combined toll in the total civilian toll in Lebanon and Israel over the past month of shelling and bombardment.

But in what sense do the activities of the Tamil Tigers and the RSS reflect on Hinduism and Hindus? Are we hearing calls for Hindus to fight extremism from among their ranks?

But as the saying goes, never let the facts get in the way of a good story. Some people want to believe that all terrorism is committed by Muslims. And that all forms of Islamic teaching support chauvinism and terror and violence.

There are those like Canadian theatre critic Mark Steyn for whom the world is a stage effectively divided into two camps – Muslims and the civilised West. In an article for London’s Daily Telegraph, Steyn once remarked that violent trouble-makers always seem to have the name Muhammad.

Of course, Muhammad is also a name shared by some extraordinary people. Including American boxing legend Muhammad Ali and famous sufi poet Muhammad Jelal ad-Din Rumi.

In fact, Muhammad is the world’s most common male name. So if certain terrorists are named Muhammad, what does that prove?

Of course, Steyn is no intellectual, nor is he a law enforcement expert. Steyn is a polemicist trying to be funny. But the issues he pokes fun at aren’t so humorous. By giving terrorism the label of “Islamic” and by marginalising Muslims, Steyn effectively becomes a polemicist for real terrorists who want the world to believe their acts are genuinely Islamic.

In effect, Steyn is providing free propaganda services for groups like al-Qaida.

Terrorists are killing people. They are killing more people in Iraq and Pakistan and other Muslim countries, even more than they are killing people in Western and European cities like London and New York and Madrid and Istanbul.

But returning to Lord Stevenson. All this talk of Muslims needing to loudly shout and scream and dance and sing and pierce their nipples and tattoo their buttocks with anti-terror messages is just plain nonsensical and counter-productive. I mean, how many times do we need to condemn terrorism when we always seem to be its primary victims?

Those who claim Muslims don’t condemn terror enough obviously cannot be helped by myself. The best advice I can give them is to visit an ENT specialist and get their hearing checked.

In fact, rather than focussing all their resources on loudly condemning terror, Muslims need to keep doing what they have always done - to be vigilant, to report any unusual behaviour they notice, to always be on the lookout.

At the same time, Muslims need to work with their countrymen and women who are committed to fighting those forces working against social cohesion. They need to fight the likes of Mark Steyn, Pauline Hanson and other members of the “white trash brigade” (no, these aren’t my words) who use people’s legitimate fears about terrorism to spread conspiracy theories in the manner similar theories were spread by supporters of National Socialism against Jews in the first half of the 20th century.

Most importantly, Muslims need to continue supporting Australian values. We need to be truly conservative, to support our multicultural status quo. We need to resist the monocultural revolution currently supported by some of the near-senile fruitloops and Joh-for-PM enthusiasts that congregate from time to time on op-ed pages.

At the same time, Muslims need to take on board that miniscule 2% of Steyn’s white-trash message perhaps worth considering. When Mark Steyn says that Muslims need to recognise terrorists from amongst their ranks, we should agree and do something about it.

And that means opposing those forces within our community that foster extremism. We need to recognise our own Mark Steyns – the thick-Sheiks, the mad Mullahs and those preaching an isolationist form of religion that breeds resentment and hatred.

Muslim communities need to start looking inward. For too long, we have been focussing on just being ordinary Aussies lie everyone else. Meanwhile, our mosques and institutions are being dominated by non-English-speaking muftis and middle-aged men who treat Islam as a foreign cultural artefact.

We also need to protect our most vulnerable ones – young people and Muslim converts – from the nefarious influence of religious nutcases seeking to preach a fringe suicidal ideology. The best means of inoculating young and new Muslims is to expose them to mainstream theology.

Muslims also need to assist governments, law enforcement and intelligence officials by providing them with information (and not just apologetics) about the nature of politicised Islamist ideologies and their influence in Australia. We need to provide real information to ensure that officials don't just hear and believe the tripe that emerges from the xenophobic lunatic-fringe.

To some extent, Lord Stevenson and Mark Steyn are right. Muslims desperately need to expose and deal with their own Mark Steyns. Muslims also need to provide real facts and information about themselves.

© Irfan Yusuf 2006

Inspirational film about the struggles of a Sydney independent school …

The Howard government prides itself on its commitment to educational choice for parents. It is been a long-standing Liberal policy to support the establishment of independent schools, including religious-based schools.

But often such schools are faced with a barrage of pressures from media and the broader community. One such school is Noor al-Houda Islamic College, one of Sydney’s most respected independent Islamic schools. The school was founded by Silma Ihram, an Anglo-Australian woman and a pioneer of Islamic independent school education in Australia.

Last year, I managed to see a superb production entitled Silma’s School. This documentary profiled the struggles of Silma Ihram in taking on the Federal Airports Corporation for the survival of the College established initially on the Bankstown Airport site in Condell Park.

That screening took place at the Sydney Film Festival to a packed audience, many of whom were visibly moved and some in tears. The movie received a standing ovation, as did Silma Ihram who came on stage at the conclusion of the production.

The film was also shown in London where its screenings were consistently sold out. The film was reviewed in one English publication as a touchstone for some of the big domestic and international issues of our times. It was also a finalist at the New York Festivals’ International Television Award in the Community Portraits category.

The film has been described as “a moving, suspenseful and sometimes funny story provides a microcosm for many of the issues facing young Muslims growing up in the West - without the political rhetoric, stereotypes and firebrand mullahs which have characterised so much recent media scrutiny”.

The makers of that movie, Firefly Productions Pty Limited, will be holding a special screening of the movie at the NSW Parliament House Theatrette on Wednesday 9 August 2006. The screening commences at 2pm.

The screening is held in conjunction with SAVE Australia Inc, a Sydney-based charity. Following the screening will be a number of speakers including the film director, Jane Jeffes and journalist Tagred Chandab.

Seats are limited, and this is a film not to be missed. Future screenings are also planned for September, so watch this space for details.

For further details, please call the representative of SAVE Australia Inc on 0422 085 222.

© Irfan Yusuf 2006

On Hanson, Israel & The Reference Group

If the Federal Government's response to the Muslim Community Reference Group's proposal to revisit Hezbollah’s status as a terrorist organisation proves anything, it is that the Howard government will allow only limited involvement from Muslim communities on decision-making on foreign policy issues.

When the Group was first set up, its apparent purpose was to provide some kind of formal two-way consultation mechanism for the Federal Government and representatives of Muslim communities across Australia to address issues of national security in the wake of the London bombings.

Muslim representatives were to provide advice on how security threats from within the local Muslim community were to be best addressed.

Such threats are often said to arise from young Aussie Muslims feeling isolated and alienated from the broader community.

However, such threats also arise due to the government’s foreign policy agenda. The Muslim communities are entitled to express their views on such issues. They are also entitled to be heard by John Howard who is apparently the Prime Minister of all Australians (including Muslims).

Yet when Muslim representatives wanted to bring up the issue of the impact of the war in Iraq, the PM and other relevant Ministers refused to discuss the issue.

Pauline Hanson once said that she doesn’t represent Aboriginals in her electorate. By refusing to engage Muslims, the PM and the Federal Government are effectively sending the same message to Muslims.

It is true that the Chairman of the Reference Group (chosen by the PM himself) didn’t exactly express himself on the issue using precise language. His analysis was hardly the stuff public policy discourse is made of. But Dr Ameer Ali’s lack of sophistry shouldn’t be used as an excuse to dismiss his call.

The Government’s classification of the armed wing of Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation is a problematic issue. The classification criteria used could just as easily apply to a number of groups and states with whom Australia has friendly relations.

The criteria could easily be applied to Israel. In other words, according to the criteria set by the Federal Government, Australians choosing to fight in Lebanon for the Israeli army could well be classified as terrorists.

The waters could become even muddier should Hezbollah decide to merge its armed wing with the mainstream Lebanese army. Alternatively, Hezbollah might instruct its fighters to fight under the command of the Lebanese Defence Ministry.

If this happens, would this change the status of Hezbollah’s armed wing?

The classification of the armed wing of Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation also has implications for Australians donating to charities working in South Lebanon. With Hezbollah now part of the government and holding a number of Senior Ministries, it means that moneys donated even to mainstream charities such as Red Cross/Crescent may end up somehow getting to organisations linked to Hezbollah.

This raises the dangerous prospect of Australian donors falling foul of anti-terror laws and liable to prosecution and jail.

Australian Jews are free to donate to any number of Israeli causes and charities, including extremist groups such as YESHA which openly support ethnic cleansing and the destruction of churches in Israel. At least one Australian businessman of Jewish background is known to bankroll a number of Jewish extremist groups.

Further, Australians are free to join the Israeli army and engage in activities which could well be classed as war crimes.

If the Australian Government refuses to engage with Lebanese and/or Muslims on foreign policy and security issues, it will effectively be confirming the suspicion held by many Arab and Muslim Australians that it favours pro-Israel opinion over the opinions of those criticsl of Israel.

Alexander Downer frequently speaks with Jewish media and community leaders on foreign policy issues. This in itself is not a problem, and nor should it be seen as one. What is a problem us that he rarely allows his doors to be open to Arab, Muslim or other community media or representatives.

This government claims it does not wish Muslim youth to be alienated and marginalised. Yet on key issues of Australia’s security and foreign policy, it is seen to be actively marginalising even the most moderate Muslim opinion, whilst allowing the most hawkish pro-Israel opinions open access and a direct line.

If the government has no intention of allowing Muslims genuine involvement in foreign policy issues, it may as well disband the Reference Group. If the only purpose Muslims serve to the government is to address security issues on the government’s terms, it means the Reference Group has reached its “used-by” date.

On the other hand, if Reference Group members are not prepared to consult more widely and act with greater sophistication, they should allow more articulate voices to raise such issues with the government.

© Irfan Yusuf 2006

Sydney synagogue attack must be condemned

The recent attack on the Parramatta & District Synagogue was a cowardly act inspired by the worst form of prejudice and calculated to intimidate an entire community for the actions of others.

The Jewish congregation of Parramatta are not responsible for the Israeli incursion and the massacre of innocent women and children anymore than the Muslim congregation of Dee Why or Auburn are responsible for Israeli deaths caused by Hezbollah rockets.

The Qur’an has strictly forbidden attacks on houses of worship, making particular mention of protecting churches, monasteries and synagogues. At the time of writing, no charges have been laid. In the event those responsible are from Muslim background, they can be rest assured that Muslim scriptures and religious law provide them with no cover for their actions.

The attacks should spur all faith communities to express and practise solidarity in the same manner as happened following the September 11 and Bali terror attacks when Christians and Muslims helped secure each others places of worship.

I hope Muslim leaders in Parramatta and surrounding areas take active steps to show solidarity with their Jewish brethren. Perhaps officials from the nearby Auburn Gallipoli Mosque could pay a visit to synagogue officials to offer their assistance.

© Irfan Yusuf 2006

Imam Yahya Hendi

He speaks fluent Hebrew, is completing his PhD in Judaism, and each Saturday finds himself addressing a synagogue congregation. And he’s visiting Australia on a lecture tour.

Are we talking about a visiting Israeli rabbi? Nope. He’s a Palestinian-born Washington Imam.

The US Government is sponsoring Imam Yahya (Arabic for “John”) Hendi to tour Australia. Hendi’s message is important for Australians of all faiths and no faith in particular to hear.

If only some neo-Cons in Washington listened to him carefully. Especially given the Imam is based at Georgetown University in Washington. The Jesuit-run private University employs him as full-time Muslim chaplain.

Most scribes haven’t picked up Hendi’s visit. The Canberra Times’ Helen Musa reported on 25/07 concerning his Monday press conference at the US Office of Public Affairs in Canberra.

Presently Hendi is in Sydney. Readers have missed a lecture he gave at Macquarie University’s Centre for Middle East & North African Studies today. He’ll also be touring Melbourne and Perth.

The last imam to visit on a government-sponsored tour was NY-based Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf . His tour was sponsored by the NSW and South Australian governments. At the time, some local imams felt the government was trying to show them up.

Already some local Muslim “leaders” and imams aren’t happy. Perhaps he shows up their complete irrelevance too much. Especially given his insistence that an imam living in an English-speaking country who doesn't speal fluent English is virtually wasted space.

Hendi’s visit coincides with ongoing debate within Muslim circles over imam accreditation. The NSW Islamic Council (the original one, not the subsequent 2 set up by the national body AFIC) have set up a Board of Imams and have invited applicants to submit their credentials. Some imams and teachers have expressed reluctance to disclose their credentials.

US Muslims don’t have non-English-speaking Muftis looking after their religious matters. Instead they have a national council of jurists known as the Fiqh Council of North America (where “Fiqh” means Islamic jurisprudence). Hendi is council spokesman.

Hendi says Western imams must speak local languages and understand local social and political trends. He controversially claimed the US was the most Islamic nation on earth, pointing to its (albeit limited) government welfare services. He even said 17,000 Muslims served in US defence forces including in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sadly, I haven’t yet had a chance to ask him about James Yee, former chaplain at Guantanamo Bay.

Canberra officials are watching and listening intently to Hendi’s pragmatic message. I noticed one official (involved in distributing $35M as part of a National Action Plan to stamp out extremism) present at both his Canberra events.

In future posts, I will examine some of the themes from Imam Hendi’s addresses in Sydney and Canberra. Many of these themes are familiar for those who have attended talks by Anwar Ibrahim and Feisal Abdul Rauf. All three talk about the need for Muslims to emerge from their cultural cocoons and to engage with the broader community.

Sadly, it is a message few imams of Australia’s ethnic-based mosques can understand, let alone implement.

© Irfan Yusuf 2006

Disturbing Correspondence

I was quite disturbed by a letter to the editor which appeared in The Australian on July 21 2006. The full text of the letter as published follows …

CERTAIN of your correspondents (Letters, 20/7) have expressed concern
that Israel has not discontinued its response to Hezbollah's terrorism to
facilitate the departure of Australian nationals from
Lebanon.

Israel does not wish to harm innocent people. However, its
first priority, as is every country's, is its own citizens. If Australia was
engaged in a life-and-death struggle – and make no mistake, Hezbollah is totally
committed to Israel's extinction – I suggest all Australians would find it
unacceptable were our government to lay down its arms before the matter was
resolved.

And as an aside, why aren't your correspondents also
worried about visitors to Israel who equally find themselves in a war zone?

Geoffrey Zygier
Executive directorExecutive Council of Australian Jewry

The Executive Council of Australian Jewry is a national umbrella organisation representing Jewish congregations across the country.

Not all Jewish congregations have identical attitudes to Israel and political Zionism. Indeed, there is a separate national body (the Zionist Federation of Australia) which represents Zionist opinion.

Israel itself has an embassy in Canberra with staff quite capable of defending Israel’s interests in any dispute. Indeed, I have seen at least one letter from a staff member at the Israeli embassy published in the Australian Financial Review.

Mr Zygier is entitled to write letters to the editor of any newspaper on behalf of the congregations represented by his organisation. I am also entitled to comment on my own behalf (and not on behalf of any community) on the appropriateness or otherwise of Mr Zygier’s views.

Mr Zygier’s letter seeks to address concerns by some letter writers that “Israel has not discontinued its response to Hezbollah's terrorism to facilitate the departure of Australian nationals from Lebanon”.

He then goes onto make comments and claims defending Israel’s official position. The fact that this position potentially places Australian lives at risk doesn’t seem to concern Mr Zygier.

Australian Jews are entitled to support a particular side in this conflict between Israel and Hezbollah. Whilst many have been critical of Israel, I am not aware of any Lebanese and/or Muslim organisation in Australia which has publicly defended Hezbollah’s position in the conflict.

Mr Zygier’s position is that Israel is in “a life-and-death struggle”. On what basis can he argue this proposition? The only basis is one of semantics – the fact that “Hezbollah is totally committed to Israel's extinction”.

So? Hezbollah can be committed to many things. And there are other groups also committed to Israel’s existence and/or refuse to recognise Israel.

What matters isn’t the policy position of any side. What matters is the reality on the battlefield.

Israel is the only nuclear power in the Middle East, and the sixth largest nuclear power in the world. Israel has enough nuclear weapons to blow Australia off the world map.

Israel also has access to the most sophisticated weapons in the world. It would be no exaggeration to claim that Israel’s defence forces are better equipped than those of Australia.

It is true that Hezbollah have sprung some surprises upon Israel. Its rockets have fired into Northern Israeli towns and cities including Haifa. But what realistic threat does Hezbollah pose to Israel’s existence?

Is Mr Zygier suggesting that Hezbollah has a nuclear arsenal of equal size as that of Israel? Is he suggesting Hezbollah could mount a massive air and sea invasion of northern Israel?

Already, there are reports of Australian citizens injured in southern Lebanon. Israel’s attacks on Lebanon have claimed more than 300 lives, most of them women and children. Whole families have been incinerated in Israeli air attacks.

Israelis have also been killed in missile attacks. I refuse to subscribe to the theory that the lives of one country’s civilians are more precious than the lives of another country’s civilians.

In entering Israeli territory, killing 2 IDF soldiers and kidnapping 8 others, Hezbollah has breached international law and compromised Israel’s sovereign right to protect its borders. But in what sense do Hezbollah’s actions constitute a serious threat to Israel’s existence?

If leaders of the peak bodies of Australian Jewish congregations have any influence over Israel, would it not be appropriate that they use this influence to save the lives of their fellow Australian citizens?

I’m not aware of any members of Australia’s Lebanese Shia Muslim community who have ties to Hezbollah. However, I would like to think that any Australian Muslims with any such links would use their influence to impress upon Hezbollah commanders to cease rocket firing for a set time to enable Australian citizens in Israel to be evacuated.

Mr Zygier asks readers to imagine Australia in a life-and-death struggle. Australia has faced such struggles in its short history as a federation. Australians held back the Japanese on the Kokoda trail during the Second World War. The Japanese were better armed and had superior numbers. Japan had the ability to occupy Australia.

Israel is no Australia. Hezbollah is no Japan.

Finally, Mr Zygier wonders why there is little or no concern for Australian Israeli’s seemingly trapped in Israel’s north. I am not aware of any Australian citizen in Israel who has sought to be evacuated. Further, I doubt whether Hezbollah has the ability to jeopardise any proposed evacuation should Australian citizens in Israel seek it.

However, in the event that Hezbollah could attack Israel to the extent of threatening the evacuation of Australian citizens, I would have no hesitation in ringing and writing to just about every ambassador of every Muslim-majority state asking them to pressure Hezbollah to agree to a ceasefire. I’m sure other Muslim Australians would take this and other steps to save Australian lives.

The life of an Australian Israeli (Jew or Arab) is just as precious as the life of an Australian (Lebanese or Palestinian). Australians should be more concerned about Australian lives than about justifying the military actions of overseas countries that threaten those very lives.

© Irfan Yusuf 2006

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