COMMENT: Richard Kerbaj, Wahhabism & The Taliban

Richard Kerbaj regularly writes for The Oz on issues relating to local Muslim groups. He claims fluency in Arabic and has a Middle Wastern background (I think his family is from Lebanon, but I stand to be corrected).

Unlike some reporters, Kerbaj has made every effort to be accessible to ordinary Muslim community members as well as self-appointed leaders. The last time I did that was in a professional capacity working as a lawyer with two offices (including one in Auburn). It almost drove me nuts!

In the 31 August edition of The Oz, Kerbaj writes about a Muslim leaders’ conference to be held in September. The headline of the article is “Radical clerics to be brought in from the cold.”

Kerbaj is not responsible for the headline. Decisions about headlines are made much higher up in the chain, and tend to reflect the bias or slant of the newspaper. Unfortunately, it is the headline which sets the tone for the entire article in the minds of most readers.

My problem with Kerbaj’s article is with his information on a phenomenon he describes as Wahhabism. Before I start talking about this, I should lay my cards on the table.

I am an implacable opponent of Wahhabi/Salafi theology. I regard it as a fringe theology which rarely complies with mainstream orthodox Sunni or Shia Islam. I regard Wahhabism has being on the very fringes of Islam, and particularly object to:

a. It’s opposition to Islamic spirituality (known to Sunnis as tasawwuf and to Shias as irfan);

b. It’s rejection of the following of 4 schools of law by Sunni Muslims;

c. It’s tendency to regard Shias as non-Muslims.

Of course, these tendencies are characteristic of most Wahhabism that I have been exposed to. Like many Muslims brought up in Australia, my knowledge of Wahhabism is gained from reading books published in Saudi Arabia.

I also understand that there are many Wahhabis who do not agree with the Saudi formulation of Wahhabi doctrine. Just as with Sunni and Shia Muslims, Wahhabis represent a broad spectrum, and cannot be typecast.

Which makes Kerbaj’s formulation of Wahhabism disturbing. The published version of Kerbaj’s article states:

… Wahhabism, a fundamentalist teaching of Islam that is preached by Osama bin Ladin and inspired the fanatical Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

According to Kerbaj’s formulation:

1) Wahhabism is a single kind of teaching.

2) Wahhabism is one of numerous “fundamentalist” teachings.

3) Wahhabism is preached (perhaps exclusively, if not mainly) by Osama bin Ladin.

4) Wahhabism inspired the Taliban regime.

I don’t wish to comment at this stage on the first three suggestions. I’d like to speak with Richard and find out what his source is for this information. Which books has he read? Which experts has he consulted? Which websites does he rely upon?

Anyone who believes that Wahhabism is one monolithic teaching should visit the website of the Canadian based wahhabi TROID where one can find numerous attacks by this Wahhabist group on other Wahhabis.

What surprises and amuses me most is the claim that Wahhabism inspired the Taliban regime. The most reliable information on the subject suggests that the Taliban were a mish-mash militia funded by Pakistani and Saudi interests. However, the dominant theological strain of the Taliban was not Wahhabi but Deobandi.

The Deobandi school is named after Darul Uloom Deoband, the most prominent Islamic institution in India. Yet one in four Muslims is from the Indian sub-Continent, and Indian Islam has its own unique theological spectrum. Indian Muslims are mainly Sunni. Indian Islam, like Hinduism, is a deeply mystical affair. Sufi spirituality plays a large role in the two main Indian Sunni schools – the Deobandi and Barelwi. The anti-Sufi Ahl-i-Hadis (India’s answer to Saudi-style Wahhabism) has few followers

Not Pakistan. Not Saudi Arabia. Not even Afghanistan. India. A nation where Muslims make up hardly 15% of the population.

The Deobandi school/sect is by no means Wahhabi. Indeed, prominent Deobandi authors and scholars have written detailed refutations of Wahhabi doctrine.

It would take a substantial amount of space to explain what the Deobandi strand of Islam teaches. Suffice it to say that it is a uniquely sub-Continental strand and is often in conflict with a competing Barelwi strand of Indian Islam.

To understand the Deobandi/Barelwi dispute, one must understand something of the unique nature, history and Sufi terrain of North Indian Islam. Perhaps the best Western source on this is Professor Barbara Metcalf.

The conservative Deobandi sect was founded in the north Indian village of Deoband during the late 19th century. Despite its orthodox, Deobandism played a pioneering role in educating Indian Muslim women in theology frequently regarded as the sole domain of men.

Deobandism competes with the Barelwi sect founded during the same period by Indian Sufi Syed Ahmad Raza Khan who hailed from a nearby town called Bareilly (from whose name the sect’s label is derived). is derived the school’s popular label of “Barelwi”.

Khan criticised Deobandi scholars for what their alleged lack of respect for the status of the Prophet Muhammad and their claims that certain cultural practises of Indian Muslims represented unnecessary and deviant innovations in orthodox liturgy. The gulf between the two was further widened due to various political differences.

Differences between Deobandi and Barelwi Muslims represent a sectarian divide unique to Indian communities and virtually non-existent in other Muslim communities, including among our own South East Asian neighbours.

Political differences between the two schools are numerous. During the movement for Indian independence most Deobandis worked with Gandhi and opposed Pakistan’s creation. Barelwis tended to support Pakistan.

I’ve provided an imperfect summary which hopefully provides some understanding of Deobandi Islam. If this is what the Taliban stood for, it is a far cry from the alleged Wahhabism attributed to them by Kerbaj and his sources.

© Irfan Yusuf 2006


Bookmark this on Delicious

Tabloids helping terror?

Once again, the Daily Telegraph has been busy spreading hysteria about “Islamic terrorists”.

Under the blaring headline of “SYDNEY WILL BE ATTACKED” (28 August 2006), Luke McIlveen boasts about how

MOST Australians believe we are losing the war against Islamic terrorists
and an attack on our home soil, most likely Sydney, is inevitable.

So who are this majority of Australians? What have they been asked? And what were their responses?

It turns out that the DT interviewed … wait for it … 572 people. 572, out of 18 million. You don't need a PhD in demography to know that isn't the most statistically significant sample on the planet. The interviews were said to be carried out

… in Sydney, Newcastle, country NSW and the ACT in the past week …

But hang on. The DT said their results were evidence of the beliefs of most Australians?

I don't like to speculate, but apparently quite a few Australians live in Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth and even ... SHOCK! HORROR!! ... Melbourne.

McIlveen (or, presuming he’s been heavily and unfairly edited, his editor) has blown a legitimate study about security concerns out of all proportion and turned it into a free-for-all on Muslims.

He even goes to the extent of claiming poll result

… raises concerns about the behaviour of Muslims in Australia.

He then quotes from a 62-year-old Newcastle woman who repeats the well-worn mantra of hate

Not all Muslims are terrorists but all terrorists are Muslims.

I’d love to see Mr McIlveen put these suggestions to the Turkish consulate in Sydney. They might remind him that the last terrorist attack in Australia was the 1986 attack on the Turkish Consulate. Then there was the 1980 assassination of the Turkish Consul-General. They might also remind McIlveen that Turkey has just suffered a string of terrorist attacks, responsibility for which has been claimed by Kurdish Marxist groups.

Or perhaps McIlveen could stroll down to the Sri Lankan High Commission and ask someone there what religion the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam follow. He might also wish to read his colleague Anita Quigley’s column in the DT discussing the upcoming tour of American terrorism expert Robert Pape.

The only poll questions which suggested anything positive about Islam or Muslims was this one:

“Do you believe Australian Muslims are moderate?”

Er, aren’t there other ways you could describe Muslims? Is the only contribution Muslims can make to national security that they remain “moderate”? And is terrorism only a Muslim or Islamic phenomenon?

The DT answers this question very clearly. The final 3 questions speak of “Islamic terrorists”.

McIlveen’s hysteria took up an entire 17 paragraphs, plus graphics. A somewhat less negative piece by Evelyn Yamine was given a much smaller amount of space.

Muslim organisations, leaders and activists are run off their feet trying to inform people about their faith and culture. They are organising interfaith meetings, liaising with Federal Police and other law enforcement officials, reporting suspicious activities, writing articles, networking, speaking, organising and much much more.

Notwithstanding such efforts, some journalists and papers continue to play on people’s legitimate fears. No doubt, there is a genuine fear in the broader community about security and terrorism. And these fears are worth reporting.

However, in my opinion the DT’s poll as reported on 28 August 2006 is a classical example of “push polling”, asking loaded questions with underlying assumptions playing upon popularly held misconceptions, if not prejudice and bigotry. It seems they are seeking to combine legitimate fear with illegitimate prejudice.

It's arguable the poll spends less time seeking opinions and more time reinforcing hysteria and hatred toward an entire set of communities whose only common factor is their religious heritage.

By furthering the process of marginalising and demonising nominal Muslims, articles like McIlveen's are effectively helping the cause of al-Qaida. Terrorists want Muslims to feel marginalised, to feel like second class citizens in their own country. McIlveen may well be helping terrorists achieve their strategic goals.

The DT has every right to criticise aspects of Muslim cultures and beliefs they find distasteful. Yes, it's true - often Muslims are the ones who need a good kick up the backside. But the DT and other papers should keep in mind that sometimes their critiques will be seen as attempts to manufacture hatred against ordinary Aussie Muslims. If they want to support al-Qaida, they can keep manufacturing hatred against ordinary Aussie Muslims. If they want al-Qaida to fail, the DT can report and critique without the hysteria and prejudice.

Still, to be fair to the paper, Roger Coombs (who is one of the most senior editors at the paper) has written an excellent critique of the thick-Sheiks who make Aussies of all faiths look like fools in their response to the Muslim beauty queen aspirants. Anita Quigley gives Professor Robert Pape a fair hearing. She's also written a piece on converts which (in my opinion) is a genuine attempt to understand the troubled communal and cultural terrain they must pass through.

In fact, to be fair to McIlveen, his treatment of Jack Thomas was much fairer than many of his colleagues at The Oz.

© Irfan Yusuf 2006

Frank Devine, 1.2 billion people and one word

Frank Devine is a senior columnist at The Australian. In a profile of his daughter, Miranda Devine, The Bulletin once described him as a "conservative Catholic". Devine’s views on certain issues are similar to those of his daughter.

In 2004, he praised genocide-denier and ex-Marxist Keith Windschuttle’s book praising what was (and thankfully no longer is) Australia’s racist White Australia Policy.

Devine now attempts to justify using a term championed by Islamophobes to link the acts of homicidal terrorists to Islamic theology. His column in The Australian, entitled Let's not be shy as the Islamo-fascists certainly aren’t, supports George W Bush’s description of “Islamic fascists”, though preferring the even more offensive terminology (“Islamo-fascist”) of far-right fruitcakes like Mark Steyn and Daniel Pipes.

Given his conservative Catholic leanings, one might expect Devine to have greater tolerance for a faith which suffers similar demonising in the mainstream press as his. No such luck. Devine’s attitudes toward Islam display near-chronic ignorance.

Thankfully, most Catholics don’t share Devine’s views. Devinde’s lack of sophistication can be illustrated by his lumping together a whole range of disparate interests (from the Deobandi Taliban to the Wahhabist al-Qaida to the Shia Hezbollah) as

... our Islamic foes.

Gee, that really tells us a lot, doesn’t it. The intellectual senility continues with Devine remarking:

Islamo-fascist groups or of their common purpose - to damage and, ideally,
destroy Western society - and their identical murderous tactics.

Yes, of course anyone who supports Hezbollah must be anti-Western. Try telling that to supporters of Michel Aoun with a straight face.

And who is Devine’s magical authority for his claim? First, it is widely used Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Yes, I'm sure most serious scholars of religion go straight to that source when wanting to understand the complex theological and political nuances of a faith followed by 1.2 billion people.

His next source? American historian Paul Berman. Now presuming this is the same Berman I know, I’ll admit that he isn’t exactly on the far-Right. He regularly writes for the American small-‘l’ liberal Slate magazine.

However, I’m not sure if Berman would agree with the lazy manner in which Devine applies part of one sentence from an unnamed book or article or Berman’s to conclude any Middle Eastern movement calling itself “Islamic” is necessarily linked to European fascism.

Of course, Devine is no expert in the field. Daniel Benjamin of the Centre for Strategic & International Studies is such an expert. BBC quotes him as stating:

There is no sense in which jihadists embrace fascist ideology as it was
developed by Mussolini or anyone else who was associated with the term. "This is
an epithet, a way of arousing strong emotion and tarnishing one's opponent, but
it doesn't tell us anything about the content of their beliefs.

The people who are trying to kill us, Sunni jihadist terrorists,
are a very, very different breed.

It may be hard for Devine to accept, but some phenomena cannot be summed up in a term that is

… catchier: it's only one word, is easier to say and holds promise of
developing the acronym IF (pronounced eye eff).

Devine isn’t concerned with the fact that Islam happens to be the faith of the vast majority of victims of terrorist attacks. He also isn’t concerned that Islam is the surname of a British victim of the July 7 2005 attacks in London. As far as he is concerned, attributing terroristic tendencies to the faith of the majority of its victims is perfectly acceptable.

Without meaning to sound ageist, Devine isn’t exactly growing younger. Then again, who is? I've certainly increased my quota of grey hairs since the photo in the top right hand corner of this page was taken in 2001.

Still, I can confidently say that Devine's views are part of the edifice of yesterday’s Australia, an Australia which took pride in hating anyone deemed different. The White Australia Policy has been relegated to the intellectual dustbin of Australia. It’s only a matter of time before views such as those of Devine are treated in a similar fashion.

© Irfan Yusuf 2006

Gerard Henderson & Lebs

What on earth does Gerard Henderson have against Lebs?

His most recent piece for the Sydney Morning Herald, an assault on anti-Israel protesters who allegedly hijacked a Sydney Hiroshima protest, contained the usual defence of hawkishly pro-Israel positions that even Israelis themselves are beginning to doubt.

Fair enough. Henderson supports Israel. Many Australians are sympathetic to Israel and hostile to Lebanon and/or Hezbollah in the current conflict. And yes, it is hypocritical for some protesters to mourn for Lebanese but not for Israelis. And I can’t say people like the Mufti Mel Hilaly (or should that be Tajeddine Gibson?) and his interpreter are my favourite Aussie Mossies.

But for Henderson to claim that an entire migrant wave came to Australia on the basis of false pretences is little more than an attempt to sound sophisticated whilst jumping on the same bandwagon Waleed Aly so deftly demolished last Sunday.

Henderson writes: “Many of the Lebanese Muslim Australians … were given refugee status during the civil war in Lebanon in the late 1970s and early 1980s, despite the fact they did not meet the requirements for obtaining refugee status.”

And the relevance of his point to the protest march and the current conflict in the Middle East is? Who knows? Indeed, who cares?

Is Henderson claiming that Lebanese Muslims engaged in migration fraud? Is he suggesting the Australian embassy in Damascus was party to this fraud? Is he suggesting Malcolm Fraser and his immigration minister were subverting due processes to favour Lebanese Sunni and/or Shia Muslims?

I’d love to see Henderson make this pitch to Ahmed Fahour should the Institute need NAB sponsorship.

I’d also love to see Gerard argue this point with Anne Henderson, who seems to have excellent rapport with Lebanese Aussies of all backgrounds.

© Irfan Yusuf 2006