CRIKEY: The Oz – Always alarmed but rarely alert?

Today’s front cover of The Australian has a story splashed about a “Home-grown jihad threat”. The story is then referred to in The Oz’s editorial entitled “Vigilance alone will not win this war”.

Both the editorial and the story cite the arrest of a number of Australians by Lebanese authorities for being involved in terrorist activity. The same article and editorial then cite as an authority on radical Muslim youth a young chap who is associated with another Islamist group (known as the al-Ahbash) whose representatives have been arrested in Lebanon in relation to the assassination of Rafik Hariri.

That isn’t all. The Oz claims that Mustapha Kara-Ali ...

... was given a $200,000 grant by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship in June last year.

This is absolute nonsense, and the journalists who wrote the story know it. In fact, Mr Kara-Ali is not the recipient of a single cent of government funding.

This is amateur and sloppy journalism most unbecoming of a national broadsheet. Surely the journalist has an obligation not to just repeat what his source tells him. Surely where the information can be independently verified, the journalist can check the facts.

All Richard Kerbaj et al had to do was look up the website of DIAC and see for themselves that Kara-Ali hasn’t received any money. Further, the grant was actually awarded to al-Amanah College, an independent school run by the Lebanese al-Ahbash sect. The amount awarded was not $200,000 but rather $157,866.

Kerbaj then faithfully reports Kara-Ali’s outlandish claims about “ideological sleeper cells” representing some 3,000 Sunni Muslim youth. No indication is given of how that figure is calculated, what research methodology was used, what criteria were used to determine whether a young person has become radicalised and which ethnic groups are involved in the research.

Most tellingly, Kerbaj doesn’t bother to ascertain whether Kara-Ali is qualified to make such alarmist statements or to carry out such research.

(It’s interesting to note that Kara-Ali’s qualifications are predominantly in engineering. He has no social science, sociology, demography or anthropology qualifications whatsoever.)

Kerbaj doesn’t question Kara-Ali’s statement that

... the Muslim community in Australia is still new.

How can this be when the current Mufti appointed by the Australian National Imams’ Council has lived in Australia since the early 1950’s? And isn’t Kerbaj aware of Albanian and Bosnian (formerly Yugoslav) Muslims who have lived in Australia since the 1920’s?

All in all, it is sloppy journalism, written and presented with a view of supporting a clear editorial slant on these issues.

A version of this was first published in the Crikey daily alert for Monday July 02, 2007.

© Irfan Yusuf 2007


Bookmark this on Delicious

MEDIA: Kerbaj’s Claytons Scoop

Richard Kerbaj has again “broken” a hot story about Muslim leaders. Sadly, it’s little more than extracting the tallest mountain from a microscopic mould hill.

No doubt The Oz’s hysterical front-page packaging of Dr Ali’s relatively benign remarks (not to mention the hysterical responses of caricatured sheiks) will assist in his re-appointment to the PM’s undemocratic handpicked Muslim Community Reference Group. But how revolutionary were Dr Ali’s words?

The gist of his message seems is that the Prophet Muhammad wasn’t perfect. But what kind of perfection is he talking about? Muslims agree that the Prophet was a perfect human (al-insan al-kaamil in Arabic). But the word for human (insan) itself means negligent. Muslims agree that, as a human being, the Prophet was perfect. Yet there are places in the Koran where he has been corrected in his conduct.

So how is this perfection to be worded? This is where the controversy among different Muslim denominations begins, whether in the Indian sub-Continent or the Middle East.

At worst, Dr Ali could be accused of using somewhat inappropriate language to describe the Prophet. He should have used more careful phrasing. Then again, had Sheik Hilaly bothered to learn English during his last 2 decades in Australia, he might have recognised the problem not in Dr Ali’s message but rather in his choice of words.

The rest of Dr Ali’s comments are nothing new, especially those relating to the process of renewing the understanding of Islamic sources. Similar thoughts have been expressed by the likes of prominent Swiss scholar Dr Tariq Ramadan and the American sharia academic lawyer Professor Khaled Abou el-Fadl.

Yet The Oz’s editorial on 5 October continues with manufacturing Mt Everest from a speck of dust, describing Dr Ali’s remarks as evidencing

... great courage ...

... and applauding them for ...

... promoting honest discussion that is in the interests of Islam, its followers and the Australian community.

The editorial took swipes at both Sheik Hilaly and his arch-nemesis, Muslim Community Reference Group member Mustapha Kara-Ali. For once, these two find themselves on the same side of an argument.

The editorial further claims that ...

... Dr Ali's standing cannot be easily dismissed.

How so? He has a doctorate in economics and teaches at a university. An economist claiming expertise on Islam’s most argued esoteric theological controversy. About as nutty as suggesting Sheik Hilaly be appointed to the Reserve Bank Board.

Speaking of Sheik Hilaly, Dick Kerbaj wrote on October 5 about Hilaly’s response to Ali’s remarks. Kerbaj described the Sheik as ...

... the head of Lakemba Mosque in Sydney's southwest.

Had Kerbaj done his research, he would have found out that there is no such a place as “Lakemba Mosque”. The Sydney suburb of Lakemba is home to at least 5 mosques, the largest of which is the Imam Ali ben Abi Taleb Mosque. Further, the head of that mosque (where Sheik Hilaly is senior imam) is in fact the President of the Lebanese Moslems Association which owns and manages the mosque and the property on which it is built.

Words © 2006 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

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