The Chaser and Sheik Taj

It’s not everyday that one can find lessons in religious and community leadership in an episode of The Chaser’s War On Everything. But the response of Sheik Hilaly to a good-humoured 1.5 minute skit entitled “Sheik Gaffe Tape” hardly warranted the response he gave.

The show was broadcast on Wednesday 16 May 2007. Lawyer and comedian Julian Morrow approached the Sheik to see if he’d prepare to wear gaffe tape on his way overseas, in accordance with a previous offer he’d made last November. The Sheik’s response spoke volumes. He told Morrow:

Your tongue has no manners. I’ll punch you in the face to teach you some manners. You are stupid. Your tongue’s getting you into trouble. You’re racist.

At one stage, Sheik Hilaly even lifted his arm as if to assault Morrow.

The Chaser is the most popular comic team on Australian TV. It has in the past used sharp humour to take the piss out on our attitudes toward national security, terrorism, Arabs and Muslims. So many young Muslims I know love raving on and getting themselves into hysterics over superb Chaser skits – Chas Licciardello dressed as bin-Ladin crashing Jack Thomas’ house after the control order, differing responses to tourists dressed as Americans and those dressed as Arabs visiting Lucas Heights, and the hilarious “World’s Biggest Muslim”.

Over 50% of Muslims are aged under 30. The ratio of Muslims born in Australia to those born in Lebanon is at least 3:1. This is a very young community, many of whom are quite frustrated with media and politicians bagging them out. The Sheik should know all this. Had he been aware of what kinds of shows many young Australians (including Muslims) watch, he should have been able to recognise Morrow straight away. He could have played along quite easily and had a few laughs on Morrow. He should have known that Morrow’s intention was satire, not insult.

Instead, a very ugly side of the Sheik was shown. The audience picked this up immediately. The Sheik’s inability to lighten up when faced with a comic situation shows to me he simply isn’t in tune with how young people entertain themselves. And so a bunch of comics provide yet more evidence that Sheik Hilaly should consider retiring and writing his memoirs.

© Irfan Yusuf 2007

OPINION: Flippant thoughts on the Canberra Mosque fiasco

You can always tell when Prime Minister John Howard's policy backflips aren't helping him in the polls. He'll always look for a diversion or a cultural punching bag. It's so typical for John Howard.

Last week, Howard defended a special budgetary allocation of $461,000, saying it was to help Muslims assimilate. There's every reason to try to assimilate and I unapologetically use that word assimilate a section of the community, a tiny minority of whose members have caused concern.

So while it's sufficient for most migrants to integrate, Muslim migrants must go further and assimilate. The reason that religion is used as a descriptor is it's a small category of radical Muslims that have adopted attitudes we think are bad for the country and the most sensible thing to do is try to change those attitudes.

True. Just as a small category of radical Christians refuses to teach its children computing or allow them to eat with people outside their church or allow them to mix with parents who leave the church. This might explain why the Howard Government loves providing concessions and money to the Exclusive Brethren.

Sadly, so many Muslim religious leaders insist on confirming the worst fears of the broader community. One popular perception is that Muslims hold extreme views and are prone to violence. The various factions involved in the Canberra Mosque dispute have proven just that.

Of course, Canberra isn't the same as Sydney. Most Canberrans know that Muslims are just as human as people of any other or no faith. Canberrans are quite happy to share their city with Muslim diplomats, public servants, academics and students. They're also quite happy to munch on halal kebabs from Ali Baba after some Saturday night fever down at the King O'Malley's pub.

(Then again, that's probably because the nearby McDonalds shuts so damned early!)

It's little wonder the closest thing you'd find to a Cronulla-style anti-Muslim riot is inside the mosque itself. The argument started some months back when a faction of worshippers decided they didn't like the imam any more. They decided to tell a Melbourne reporter the imam's supporters were extremists.

To understand this mentality requires some historical background. A medieval Syrian philosopher, Abul Hasan al-Maarri, made the following remark on the eve of his city being overrun by the Crusaders:

In this world, there are only two types of people: those with lots of intelligence and little religion, and those with little intelligence and plenty of religion.

Eight hundred years later, Australia's Muslim religious leaders are proving Sheik Maarri correct. In July 2005, Brian Toohey reported in the Australian Financial Review of an ASIO budget blow-out for Muslim informants. How so? Muslim leaders were taking taxpayers' cash in return for dobbing in factional enemies.

Now, one Canberra Mosque faction is using similar tactics, accusing their opponents of extremism, perhaps taking advantage of people's fears over nasty Muslim extremists hiding under our beds. One of their number, clearly a political moderate, started his own political party called The Best Party of Allah, with sensible policies like zero interest rates and tax breaks for not eating pork. I'm sure my friends at the National Jewish Centre in Forrest would have been as impressed as I was.

The opposing faction had the good sense to rebut the presumption of extremism and violence in the most effective manner possible by allegedly punching the living daylights out of the party founder and mosque secretary. Smart thinking, chaps. (I say chaps deliberately. I doubt Muslim or indeed any other women would be nutty enough to put on such a spectacle.)

When it comes to mosque management in Canberra, Howard's assimilation thesis might actually have a point. Mosque administrators need to assimilate into their own community. Most Muslims are quite sensible people. Many have ordinary jobs, families, a mortgage and aspirations of an overseas holiday. Others are completing their degrees or writing their theses. That might explain why hardly any get involved in the affairs of the mosque.

However, it will take more than $461,000 to get Australia's mosque tycoons, many of whom are used to receiving larger sums from Saudi and other governments, to assimilate.

Yes, many Muslims attend Friday prayers. Yarralumla is convenient for ANU students or for those working in or near Civic. However, their attendance is inspired by a desire to obey God and perhaps meet up with some friends afterwards. Love for either mosque executive faction is rarely a consideration.

In fact, in many Muslim ethnic cultures, mosque management is regarded as a pastime for no-hopers, people with not much going for them in life. An Indian imam was asked why so many imams talk so much nonsense. The imam answered with a question: If you had two sons, one smart and the other not-so-smart, which one would you send to ANU and which would you send to me? Or something like that.

Jokes aside, the antics at Canberra Mosque are a reflection of the general malaise of ordinary Muslims who take too little interest in religious affairs. Then again, is this a malaise restricted to Muslims?

An Anglican friend once complained about the Sydney diocese being taken over by a minority of what he described as fundamentalists. I asked him if most Sydney Anglicans were fundamentalist. His response? Of course not. They're just too lazy to do anything about the ones that are.

Irfan Yusuf is a Sydney lawyer and associate editor of AltMuslim.com. A version of this article appeared in the Canberra Times on 16 May 2007.

© Irfan Yusuf 2007

"Where are all those so-called moderate Muslims?"

When terrorists strike, we often hear skeptics ask questions like "Where are all the so-called moderate Muslims?"

In Iraq, one possible answer is that they are too busy burying their dead. But outside Iraq, the question continues to be posed. It's as if ordinary people who just happen to be Muslim are expected to stop whatever it is they are doing and engage in a few hours of very public righteous indignation.

North American journalist Paul Barrett believes the reason this question is raised so often may have something to do with the fact that many Muslim religious leaders always add qualifications and caveats to their condemnations. Many say: "Yes, terrorism is bad but then so is ..."

Specifically, until recently, Muslim leaders often added caveats to their condemnations that robbed them of real force.

In a 1 March essay for Slate, Barrett cites the responses of one prominent American, UCLA Law Professor Khaled Abou El Fadl, to this apparent Muslim equivocation regarding the September 11 2001 attacks. Here's what he says about UCLA Law Professor Khaled Abou El Fadl ...

Non-Muslims who insist they haven't heard from moderate Muslims on the topic of terrorism simply haven't paid attention to outspoken figures like Khaled Abou El Fadl. A scholar of Egyptian descent who teaches Islamic law at UCLA, Abou El Fadl takes an unambiguous stand opposing religiously motivated violence against innocents, no matter what the alleged justification.

After 9/11, Abou El Fadl appeared frequently in the national media. He emphasized the restrictions the Quran placed on stealth attacks, rebellion and harm to noncombatants. He told the CBS Evening News in October 2003: "You cannot kill a woman, you cannot kill a child, you cannot kill a senior individual, you cannot kill a hermit, you cannot kill a member of the clergy, you cannot even kill peasants who are not fighters." He emphasized that in modern terms, these prohibitions translate into a ban on all terrorism.

While he rejects the idea that moderate Muslims have been mute on terrorism, Abou El Fadl has argued that Muslim leaders in the U.S. have failed "to convince the American public of the outrage felt by most Muslims over the tragedy of September 11." Abou El Fadl has proposed a huge Muslim demonstration of mourning at the World Trade Center site: something truly dramatic and designed to attract television coverage, so the world would have to take notice.

Barrett almost suggests this kind of unequivocal position is rare among US Muslim community leaders. Of course, Abou El Fadl could hardly be regarded as a community leader in that he doesn't (as far as I am aware) hold any elected position in any grassroots community organisation. Rather, he is an academic whose views are his own, even if they are influential.

In terms of the Australian experience, it is true that a number of Muslim community leaders have engaged in equivocation. But is it really equivocal to link terrorist acts to underlying causes? After all, many alleged conservatives make excuses for the Cronulla rioters by referring to "underlying causes" (lack of police presence, years of alleged Lebanese abuse of Anglo-Australian females etc). Even John Howard referred to the underlying causes of the Cronulla rioters.

In fact, Mr Howard refused to condemn the rioters at all. One could argue that Muslim leaders are at least condemning terrorism, calling a spade a spade. It's one thing to equivocate. It's another to refuse to even acknowledge that a wrong has been done.

What do readers think?

© Irfan Yusuf 2007

COMMENT: Sheik Swaiti and job security for imams ...

Canberra ’s Sunday Times (i.e. the Sunday edition of the Canberra Times) beat my old chum Dicky Kerbaj from The Oz to report the fracas at the Abu Bakr Mosque (named after the first Sunni caliph, not after the Indonesian JI leader) in salubrious Yarralumla, home to numerous embassies (the land reserved for a new Iranian embassy is across the road from the mosque) and lots of Canberra’s filthy-rich.

The mosque is managed by the Islamic Society of ACT, one of numerous Muslim religious organisations serving Canberra ’s well-heeled Muslims. The society’s secretary, who years ago tried to set up the clumsily-named Best Party of Allah, was assaulted in the disturbance and had to be hospitalised.

Dicky last month suggested the sacked Imam Swaiti was “a hardline cleric”. Why? Because he “praised mujahideen (Muslim holy warriors) in his sermon”.

Being an Islamic liturgy expert, Dicky would know that prayers for God to assist “mujahideen” is frequently part of the compulsory Arabic part of the Friday sermon which non-Arabs (who’d are the majority of Canberra ’s Muslim congregation) wouldn’t understand. For Muslims, the term “mujahideen” refers to anyone who is fighting in a just war (or “jihad” in Arabic).

This isn’t necessarily the same as inciting violence and anti-Western hatred. During my teens, Friday sermons included prayers for the Western-backed Afghan “mujahideen”. Then, during the 1990’s, we prayed for the “mujahideen” in Bosnia . No one seemed to care that the “mujahideen” meant the multi-ethnic and multi-religious Bosnian army, many of whom were Orthodox and Catholic Christians.

Still, I can’t say for certain which “mujahideen” Imam Swaiti referred to in his sermons. What I do know from Canberra sources is that his replacement is a lovely chap who studied in the ancient Turkish city of Konya where the great Sufi poet and jurist Mevlana Jelal ad-Din Rumi is buried. He's also known to have made nasty remarks about sexual minorities in public gatherings. Then again, how many clerics of any faith say nice things about gays and lesbians?

This episode shows just how precarious is the employment status of imams in Australian mosques. Despite serving the mosque for 13 years, it took hardly a month for the mosque executive to dismiss Swaiti. He isn’t the first imam to be treated so shabbily. Muslim congregations don’t exactly place imams on pedestals. A distraught imam once told me:

When I graduated from Darul Uloom (Islamic university), my professor advised I take any job except being imam at a mosque. If only I’d listened. No one respects imams.

Words © 2007 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

COMMENT: Ayaan Hirsi Ali on Jewish fundamentalism ...

Muslims often attack Ayaan Hirsi Ali for her criticisms of the Islamic faith and Muslim cultures. Anti-Muslims adore her for these very reasons, using Hirsi Ali's (often legitimate) critiques of Muslim culture as an excuse to attack all Muslims.

Now, Hirsi Ali's attacks on religion have extended to overly religious and fundamentalist Israeli Jews. The result is that she is beginning to lose favour with her old supporters, many of whom come from the Jewish circles she criticises.

In August last year, the Jerusalem Post newspaper published Hirsi Ali's views on Jewish fundamentalism ...

From my superficial impression, the country ... has a problem with fundamentalists ... The ultra-Orthodox will cause a demographic problem because these fanatics have more children than the secular and the regular Orthodox.

As a result of these comments, one far-Right Jewish blog has described Hirsi Ali as an ...

... intellectually challenged anti semite ...

So there you have it. When Hirsi Ali criticises Muslim extremism, she is applauded. But when she attacks the Israeli equivalent, she is hounded. Still, at least she is consistent, unlike so many of her (now increasingly former) supporters.

Words © 2007 Irfan Yusuf

Roman Muslims?

Tony Abbott is one of the few Federal Ministers to speak about Aussie Muslims in a respectful tone. He does raise serious questions about Muslims and their integration in mainstream Australia, but he doesn’t pretend to know all the answers and asks his Muslim audience to pardon his ignorance. This compares favourably with the arrogance often displayed by Peter Costello, Brendan Nelson and a number of backbenchers whose names escape me and are rather forgettable in any event.

One important point Abbott frequently makes is that the current experience of Muslims today is comparable to the treatment of Roman Catholics for over a century. Further, the rhetoric used about Muslims “outbreeding” everyone and having allegiances outside Australia also has been used to describe Catholicism.

Perhaps, then, Muslims can learn something from the Catholic experience. Sadly, we don’t have lots of Muslims doing research into the experiences of Catholics, Jews and other faith communities who overcame the challenges we now face.

Then again, organisations that claim to represent Muslims in Australia have never bothered to spend money on researching the composition and characteristics of those they claim to represent. Clearly Muslim leaders have little interest in spending time and resources in finding out who Muslims are and what they think on various issues.

In today’s Herald, Peter Manning explores Tony Abbott’s argument about the shared experiences of Muslims and Catholics. The result is a well-considered op-ed piece that concludes in the same manner that my piece did yesterday.

Here’s a sample …

In Federal Parliament last year, Senator John Faulkner argued there was once a minority religion in Australia that threatened the fabric of our society, whose members bred faster than the rest of "us" and whose poor and uneducated were taught weird beliefs in their own schools. They were called Catholics ...

... in Sydney there's a religion which has a set of religious laws for its faithful, running parallel to state law, and encourages its young to do civil and military service in a Middle Eastern country. It's called Judaism.

Many of the things thrown at Australian Muslims in the past five years - bundled together as "un-Australian" - are features of other religions in our multicultural society: they're breeding "us" out; their women are oppressed; the imams speak in Arabic; their sharia law is weird; their links are to Middle Eastern lands ...

What would an Australian Islam look like? A way of getting an answer might be to look at how Catholicism in Australia has become Australian. From a religion under siege, it has melded into Australian culture, both defining the culture and being defined by it.

Australian Catholicism now is not Irish, Roman, South American or American Catholicism. It is the pragmatic, unevangelical version that Sydney's Cardinal George Pell hates so much ...

The key principles of Islam, so similar to the other Abrahamic religions Judaism and Christianity, will not change. But cultural influences - and geography - will demand significant changes at the edges ...

The quicker a recognisably Australian Islam - with Australian-born and Australian-trained imams with broad Aussie accents - comes into being the better for everyone.

Welcome inside the tent.

Manning is no enemy of the Muslim communities. He has stuck his neck out on numerous occasions to ensure balanced coverage of issues directly related to Muslims or which many Muslims feel sensitive about. Manning is also an experienced player in all forms of media. He is therefore not someone to be ignored.

And in case some Muslims wish to ignore Manning, they shouldn't ignore Muslim scholars taught in the classical tradition. Scholars like Dr Umar Faruq Abd-Allah whom I quoted yesterday as saying ...

For centuries, Islamic civilisation harmonised indigenous forms of cultural expression with the universal norms of its sacred law.

In China, Islam looked Chinese; in Mali, it looked African. Sustained cultural relevance to distinct peoples, diverse places and different times underlay Islam's long success as a global civilisation.

We ignore these messages at our peril. If we continue to behave like a set of tribal entities, we will be abandoning the cultural and theological consensus of 14 centuries of Muslim migration experience.

© Irfan Yusuf 2007

CRIKEY: Some terrorists are more muslim than others

George Orwell wrote in Animal Farm that all animals were equal but some were more equal than others. The muted journalistic responses to the arrest of two Melbourne Tamil Tiger terror suspects suggests the same principle applies to terrorism.

Absent from yesterday’s tabloids were frontpage headlines like, 'The faces of hate in our suburbs'. Salivating columnists didn’t tell us how Hinduism and/or Tamil nationalism were serious threats to freedom and democracy, how these terror suspects were part of a broader Tamil conspiracy to destroy our values and way of life.

We don’t see the PM pleading for Tamils to do more to expose terrorists, adopt Australian values, teach about Poms and donkeys in schools etc.

The Herald-Sun reported on 2 May 2007 that the Tamil Tigers

... have conducted dozens of suicide bombings.

Huh? Dozens? I’d love to see the response Aussie journos would get if they tried to publish this sanitized tripe in an Indian newspaper.

Indians and Sri Lankans (including most Tamils) know the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) are bad news, conducting more suicide terror attacks than any other terror outfit. Their scalps include numerous Sri Lankan government ministers and even former Indian PM Rajiv Gandhi.

American terrorism expert Robert Pape writes that

... the world leader in suicide terrorism is … the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka ... the Palestinians got the idea of the suicide vest from the Tamil Tigers.

The Age, whose reporting was similarly sanitised, reminds us that the “Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam are not a proscribed terrorist organisation in Australia”.

So Phil Ruddock reckons only groups like Hamas that borrow widely used forms of suicide terrorism, not those that invented these forms and implement them more than anyone else, are real terrorists. It’s as if Ruddock believes only Muslims can be terrorists.

I’m not advocating we go all hysterical at Australians who just happen to have Tamil and/or Hindu background. Entire groups shouldn’t be held accountable for the actions of an extreme few. But just imagine the hue and cry had the arrested pair been Muslim, not Tamil, leaders. Imagine if Indonesian Muslims were caught raising funds for JI under the cover of tsunami relief. Perhaps the double standard’s reason can be found in these words from The Oz’s report yesterday:

The pair are the first non-Muslims to be charged under Australian terror laws. (emphasis mine)

Politicians and news editors should consider whether their apparently favourable treatment of certain forms of terror serves the cause of national security. Perhaps they should listen to Mick Keelty and ask themselves whether fostering a generation filled with Muslim-haters and alienated Muslims makes us any safer.

First published in the Crikey daily alert on Thursday 3 May 2007.

© Irfan Yusuf 2007

COMMENT: On practising certificates and degrees ...

Recently, the Sydney Morning Herald did an excellent series of articles on Islam in Australia. Among them was one by Deborah Snow on the work of the al-Ghazali Centre based in Sydney.

Ms Snow made the following observation ...

Ali's standing as a religious teacher is not fully accepted in some parts of Sydney's Islamic community. Some question his knowledge of Arabic, and the nature of the religious training he has received abroad.

I am among those who have expressed reservations. Some days ago, I received a lengthy comment on a previous entry of this blog from an anonymous person. I reproduce that comment below ...

Assalamu Alaikum,

I hope this doesn't get wiped out...

As a student of Al-Ghazzali centre and advocate of Sidi Afroz Ali, I am deeply offended by the claims of Irfan Yusuf. I will begin with the facts... Sidi Afroz has been studying Islam since the age of 7. He was a qualified Imam in Fiji in 1984. I've seen the certificate. The reason I've seen the certificate is because I approached him directly and didn't make my first port of call a public forum. Show a little humility and respect for those who are somewhat more knowledgeable than ourselves. I've also seen his Ijaza to teach Hanafi Fiqh. The purpose of an Ijaza is not to have it hanging on a wall in an office, it is not a law degree in a lawyers office or doctors practicing certificate. A teacher should not have to justify his position to his students rather the Ijaza serves the purpose of being proof to another teacher that one is qualified to study at the next level. For example you cannot attend university unless you have completed your Higher School Certificate. Similarly, you can only further your religious knowledge with another teacher if you have an Ijaza noting your completion or mastery of the preceding level of that particular subject, be it fiqh, aqeedah etc.. As a result of this, his other two Ijaza's in Shafii fiqh and aqeedah are kept Zaytuna Institute where they will be required as evidence from him by from his future teaches.

Sidi Afroz openly says that he STUDIED in Medina at the Medina University. He does NOT say that he has any degree from that institution, nor does he rely on the knowledge gained there. He mentions his time there so as not to be accused of hiding anything. This is why he can't show documentation saying that he completed his studies there, simply because he did not. If you require proof, ask Professor Abdul Saeed of Melbourne University and stop slandering. He has studied in Pakistan, Mauritania and later this year inshallah, at al-Azhar.

This by the way is not an attack Irfan Yusuf. It is a memo/note to the doubters.

Irfan, you mention the names of sheikhs and elders that you would like Sidi Afroz to display his credentials to. Have you asked any of these sheikhs whether or not they are interested in sighting his credentials? Have you asked any of them if they have any issues with Sidi Afroz? I know for a fact that you haven't asked at least two because I have. They are neither interested in seeing his credentials nor do they have any issues with any of his teachings. The reason for this is that neither of the two sheikhs have heard anything negative from anyone noteworthy in the community regarding Sidi Afroz. The simple formula is 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it.'

Regarding taking money for classes; Our community has to snap out the fantasy that everything should be free, mosques across the country are empty, community leaders holding onto ideas of yester year and being run by old boys clubs serving the interests of a select few and leaving the rest to fend for themselves. Al-Ghazzali centre does not charge you money to feed 400+ homeless every month, to do morning invocations, or to attend any of its classes (no one will be refused entry due to inability to pay) this does not apply to structured courses such as the Foundations Diploma or specialised workshops. For the money you do pay, you get undivided attention, all the time you want with the teacher, a quality product and at times as another brother succinctly noted an 'inconvenient truth'.

Please brothers and sisters, let us not cause fitna and spread bad words amongst ourselves about our teachers. Let us look at our own faults and diseases and if we have an issue, go to the source. Sidi Afroz is available at the Al-Ghazzali centre on Saturdays between 1pm and 3pm. If you would like to discuss anything that you have read, seen, heard, are unclear about, be a man and go ask the questions that I humbly confronted my teacher with.

Wassalam

P.S If this does not put to rest doubts, than go and see Afroz and have a chat. I urge you to do this and stop committing grave sins. May Allah purify all our hearts Inshallah.

My detailed response to this comment is reproduced below ...

“As a student of Al-Ghazzali centre and advocate of Sidi Afroz Ali,”

=> Are you claiming to be Afroz’s lawyer? In what sense are you an advocate?

“I am deeply offended by the claims of Irfan Yusuf. I will begin with the facts... Sidi Afroz has been studying Islam since the age of 7.”

=> I have been studying Islam since age 4 when I started learning the Arabic alphabet and memorising certain chapters of the Qur’an. So what?

“He was a qualified Imam in Fiji in 1984. I've seen the certificate.”

=> How does one qualify as an imam in Fiji? In what sense was he an imam? Did he lead prayers in a mosque? Does he lead the Friday service as I used to at Macquarie University for some years? Can I now claim to be an imam?

“The reason I've seen the certificate is because I approached him directly and didn't make my first port of call a public forum.”

=> Lucky you. I approached him directly as well, but never saw anything despite repeated promises. I’m not the only one to have approached him directly. Each time someone approaches him and seeks to view his qualifications, Afroz prevaricates and/or becomes abusive. Why? What can one say about someone who questions other people’s credentials, yet when asked about his own, becomes rude and abusive?

“I've also seen his Ijaza to teach Hanafi Fiqh.”

=> In which area/s of hanafi fiqh? Was it in the entirely of hanafi fiqh? Or in a selection of books? To claim to have ijaza in hanafi fiqh is a nonsense. Hanafi law is the broadest and most comprehensive of the four Sunni schools of law, covering a range of areas.

“The purpose of an Ijaza is not to have it hanging on a wall in an office, it is not a law degree in a lawyers office or doctors practicing certificate.”

=> You clearly don’t have much of an idea about the purpose of ijazas or university degrees. Both are means of accreditation. Standardised accreditation. You only get the accreditation if you go through a process which is standardised and which ou can only get if you go through a structured learning process and you pass certain assessment procedures. If you don’t have the accreditation, fools can still go to you for professional advice. If you claim to have accreditation but are reluctant to show it, one can infer that you are being less than completely honest.

“A teacher should not have to justify his position to his students rather the Ijaza serves the purpose of being proof to another teacher that one is qualified to study at the next level.”

=> Afroz is not my teacher. I have every right to ask him to prove his claims and qualifications.

=> My teachers at school had teaching qualifications. Had they not had any qualifications, they would not have been employed.

=> If people are happy to learn intricate and specialised areas of Islamic jurisprudence from a man who hides his qualifications, that is their choice. I choose not to do so. I also choose to warn others from doing so.

“For example you cannot attend university unless you have completed your Higher School Certificate. Similarly, you can only further your religious knowledge with another teacher if you have an Ijaza noting your completion or mastery of the preceding level of that particular subject, be it fiqh, aqeedah etc.. As a result of this, his other two Ijaza's in Shafii fiqh and aqeedah are kept Zaytuna Institute where they will be required as evidence from him by from his future teaches.”

=> This is the first time I have heard this claim. I will write to the Zaytuna Institute and confirm if this is in fact the case.

“Sidi Afroz openly says that he STUDIED in Medina at the Medina University. He does NOT say that he has any degree from that institution, nor does he rely on the knowledge gained there.”

=> Absolute rubbish. Afroz Ali has repeatedly claimed to have a degree in sharia law from Madina Islamic University. He has made this claim at an Affinity conference on September 11. He made this claim during a seminar organised by the University of Western Sydney. He has also made this claim during a series of lectures he delivered in New Zealand.

=> Further, the claim to holding degrees from Madina has been made in his presence or in promotional material. He knew full well this erroneous and false representation was being made about him, yet he at no stage corrected those making the claim. He was quite happy for those sponsoring his appearances to make this claim about him, yet never did he once correct it.

"He mentions his time there so as not to be accused of hiding anything. This is why he can't show documentation saying that he completed his studies there, simply because he did not."

=> So what did he do at Madina University? Did he complete even one single course? Did he do a summer course? Did he complete a non-award subject? Did he sell man’oush at the canteen? If he completed no systematic study there, why mention it?

=> I have been to Darul Uloom Korangi and Darul Uloom Binuri Town in Karachi. I’ve sat with some shuyukh there. I even gave a bayan in Korangi which was heard by a teacher from the Darul Uloom and whose contents he approved of. So?

"If you require proof, ask Professor Abdul Saeed of Melbourne University and stop slandering."

=> I did. Professor Abdullah Saeed says he doesn’t recall ever studying alongside a student named Afroz Ali. I guess you will say Professor Saeed is lying and slandering.

"He has studied in Pakistan, Mauritania and later this year inshallah, at Al Azhar."

=> A few years ago, he was claiming that his courses were receiving accreditation from al-Azhar. Now it seems he hasn’t even studied there.

=> I also studied in Pakistan. So what? I spent 9 months at the Madressa of the Masjid al-Falah in Karachi.

"Irfan, you mention the names of sheikhs and elders that you would like Sidi Afroz to display his credentials to. Have you asked any of these sheikhs whether or not they are interested in sighting his credentials?"

=> Yes, I have. One of them is a senior imam who was Mufti of an entire province in Turkey and has a Masters Degree from Madina Islamic University.

“Have you asked any of them if they have any issues with Sidi Afroz?”

=> Yes I have. Yes they do.

“I know for a fact that you haven't asked at least two because I have.”

=> I have no way of verifying this because you choose to remain anonymous. For all I know, you could be Afroz Ali yourself.

“They are neither interested in seeing his credentials nor do they have any issues with any of his teachings.”

=> Well, one of them has had his own spot of bothers of late, not to mention frequent overseas travel. Another has expressed serious reservations to me, as have a number of his students. A third has invited Afroz to teach at his sharia college on the proviso that he show his credentials and qualifications.

“If this does not put to rest doubts, than go and see Afroz and have a chat. I urge you to do this and stop committing grave sins.”

=> The best way for the doubts to be alleviated is for Afroz to be up front and open. Personally, I have no problems with the activities of the Ghazali centre in relation to its work with Just Enough Faith or other groups. I have no problem with its inter-faith or other works. I have no problems with its retreats. Even after I brought up these issues with Afroz personally and then publicly, I still participated in and supported certain Ghazali centre programs with no hesitation. My issue is with his attacks on others who express views contrary to his own. Let me give you an example. I once made a comment to the effect that I do not recognise Sheik Hilaly as my Mufti. Afroz Ali thereupon remarked that my refusal to regard Sheik Hilaly as my Mufti affected my aqida. When I asked him for proof of this, he made some reference to Tahawi and then proceeded to claim he had an ijaza in aqida. Despite repreated requests, I have not yet sighted his ijaza in aqida. Yet I am expected to take such an obviously wrong statement for granted on the bases that I must trust Sidi Afroz.

=> I have had other persons send messages to this blog concerning matters which I believe severely compromise Afroz’s credibility. I have deliberately not posted them because they appear to concern private family matters. However, there are issues beyond mere dishonesty concerning qualifications. If you are not Afroz, please feel free to inform Afroz and I will be happy to forward him these unmoderated posts.

=> I realise some will not believe this, but I seriously have no personal issues with Afroz. My concern is that the good work he does will suffer if he does not provide consistent explanations about the issues I have raised. We have already seen the damage done to our community by people making false claims. There are many young people who look upto Afroz as an elder and as a teacher. He owes it to them to be transparent and honest.

Words © 2007 Irfan Yusuf