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
2 comments:
Richard Kerbaj’s TIMES ARTICLE EXPOSED AS A FABRICATION!!!
Dog-whistle journalism: http://www.mwaw.net/2008/10/30/dogwhistle/The Times, Ramadan and the London Olympics
BY Dave Crouch
Grumpy Muslims in 2012 Olympics terror shock! When Muslims are feeling tired and hungry during Ramadan they present a terrorist danger, alleges the Times.
The story is so pathetic that it barely warrants serious discussion. But it’s there in the Times. On page 4. And the article is typical of so much media reporting of Islam.
The paper published this “news” item on October 27 under the headline “Police warned of Ramadan tension during 2012 Games”.
The story claimed that Scotland Yard was concerned that the 2012 Olympics in London would “clash” with Ramadan, making it harder to “reduce tensions between Muslims and police” during the Games.
Instead of offering any proof, however, that a religious festival could present a problem for police, the Times article switched in its second paragraph to speculation about terrorism. The 40th anniversary of the shoot-out at the Munich Olympics – in which 9 Israeli hostages died after they were taken hostage by Palestinians – meant there was an “Islamic terrorist threat” to the 2012 Games, the paper said.
Only then did the story returned to Ramadan and the London Olympics. It quoted the head of the highly respected Woolf Institute of Abrahamic Faiths that the police would need some basic training to deal with religious issues that might arise during the Games: “During Ramadan you’re going to have a lot of tired, hungry, less evenly tempered people because they haven’t eaten for 18 hours.”
The implication is clear: tired, hungry Muslims are more likely to lose their temper and… commit a terrorist attack on the Games.
MWAW contacted Dr Ed Kessler, head of the Woolf Institute. He wrote back that he was “very unhappy” with the Times article, which “failed to depict the conversation” that he had had with the paper’s reporter. He said it was “sensationalism of the worst kind” and was “inaccurate in its reporting about the Olympics, Ramadan and the proposed Munich commemoration”.
Dr Kessler has written to the Times to complain, but the paper has yet to publish his letter.
The Times’ method is clear: take a bit of flimsy information from the police, slap on some unrelated speculation about terrorism, throw in a quote – torn out of context – from a respected source to make the piece appear reasonable, and let the reader draw their own racist conclusions. The article is constructed to make it appear that fasting during Ramadan makes Muslims more likely to commit a terrorist atrocity.
This is dog-whistle reporting: the article is couched in reasonable language but sends out a clear message that Islam is dangerous.
It is because of reporting of this kind that MWAW is holding its conference this year on Islamophobia.
This entry was posted on Thursday, October 30th, 2008 at 12:36 am and is filed under U.K., Editorials. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. http://www.mwaw.net/2008/10/30/dogwhistle/
LONDON METROPOLITAN POLICE DISCREDIT RICHARD KERBAJ’S FALSE REPORT ON LONDON OLYMPICS PLANS (SOURCE: LONDON NEWS RADIO STATION - SUNRISE NEWS RADIO)
MET POLICE DENY OLYMPIC TERROR FEARS
DATE: 29.10.08
Updated: 10:29
The Met Police have rejected a national newspaper’s claims that Ramadan coinciding with the 2012 Olympics has increased the security threat.
It has also now been reported that the Times’ claim that an Islamic scholar allegedly warned the paper that the timing of the games could create a security threat is unfounded.
It has now emerged that Sheikh Michael Mumisa, a respected Cambridge Scholar, said nothing of the sort and that journalists must act responsibly.
Chief Inspector Andy Goldstone from the Met Police Olympic Security Directorate agrees there should not be a problem.
--------------------------
SEE ALSO:
The respected London Jewish newspaper THE JEWISH CHRONICLES (JC) has also discredited RICHARD KERBAJ'S the TIMES ARTICLE:
Leon Symons
October 30, 2008
Allegations that a police trainer has labelled a proposed commemoration of the Munich Olympics massacre at the 2012 London Olympics “a security threat” have been vehemently denied.
[WOOLF INSTITUTE’S] executive Director Edward Kessler, said: “Sheikh Mumisa’s words have been twisted in a way that is not accurate. I know what was said because I was there throughout the course. We were very unhappy with what appeared because it did not reflect the course that the officers took.
“We are not experts in terrorism, we are experts in faith and interfaith and that’s what they were here to learn. It was a very positive programme which dealt with subjects including antisemitism and Islamophobia.”……
Alex Goldberg, chief executive of the London Jewish Forum, said that any commemoration would be “up to the families of those who died, with the Israel Olympic Association and, ultimately, the International Olympic Committee to decide what it will be”.
Post a Comment