UK Teacher Not Guilty for Naming Teddy Bear "Muhammad"

Say: "Whether ye hide what is in your hearts or reveal it, Allah knows it all: He knows what is in the heavens, and what is on earth. And Allah has power over all things." (Aal `Imran 3:29)

Guilt is a feeling of culpability for offenses. Ikhlas or purity of intention applies all over Islam, like the Golden Rule. I am referring to the case of the British teacher in Sudan who was arrested (to be prepared for forty lashings) in Sudan for naming a teddy bear 'Muhammad'. But which 'Muhammad' are we talking about? Not the Apostle, but a little boy in her class. The children, not the teacher, voted for the name. The dominant Western media is very accurate and 'objective' in reporting the errors of other parts of the world, which is not necessarily a bad thing, so we know it is true. Where do we move from here? Express outrage, yes. That's a collective obligation on the rest of the world. My purpose is to look at it from a slightly different perspective, while making clear my objection to it.

1. There has been a tendency among some Muslims to completely whitewash the sensibilities of Muslim peoples living in Asia and Africa, something I myself have been guilty of in the past. The Muslim Council of Britain is spot on when it decribes the judgment "completely injustified", but there is no attempt made to change the system that produces those judgments. Words like "ridiculous" and "unfair" flow readily from the lips of Muslims who are educated enough to know better, but they ignore the dignity of the people they are talking about. On scaling the Everest, Hillary said: "I came, I saw, I conquered." With more privileged Muslims in capitalist democracies, it's like: "I came, I saw, I spoke aloud so the crowd could hear [that would make one good Muslim] and I went home feeling smug." Shame on us.
2. Is this the first time this year that a teacher has been subjected to forty lashings? If a strong case can be made against a smokeless barrel [reminds me of the WMD], I'm sure there were plenty of rulings against Sudanese teachers before this. So let's not turn this into a debate about a "British woman". It is a ruling against an innocent lady, and it is incumbent upon the Muslim-majority state to protect her just like it must protect its own citizens.
3. The non-humanitarian, war-mongering, pro-Globalisation Western Right's response on various newspaper columns is symptomatic of a disturbing anti-Muslim war that is being waged for imperial hubris and geopolitics. They care as much about justice and life as a B52 cares about a little boy in Afghanistan before blowing him to shreds. It doesn't make sense when people who articulated the war against Iraq and demonise Muslim immigrants in Europe with fascistic fervour get pro-justice all of a sudden.
4. And the question of ikhlas or the purity of intention. Ask yourself. Most of all, this is something the Sudanese authorities should be asking themselves for imprisoning an innocent lady. Will their ego let go?

Muslim Terrorism

In their brilliant introductory book 'The Vision of Islam' that I advise everyone to read, Murata and Chittick nonetheless commit the same error of generalisation that I commented on in the previous entry by reducing wide-ranging Muslim practices to 'modernist Islam'. But what I agree with is their analysis of Muslim terrorism. I state that the phrases 'Islamic terrorism', 'Islamist terrorism' and 'Islamic rage' are all clever lingual constructions that mostly conceal the actions of the state that is engaged with them, but there indeed is a segment of Muslims that participates in ways which are both ignorant and criminal. Murata and Chittick argue that modernist Islam rejects the intellectual understanding of the tradition. I will not employ their term, because it is deficient in itself. Instead I will use Karen Armstrong's phrase "Qutbian terrorism" in its place.

One is the tremendous stress placed upon tanzih and the almost total eclipse of tashbih, at least among those who speak up vocally for Islamic values [eg. Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda], especially those with political agendas. In some cases, the celebration of God's wrath and anger is used to justify methods of warfare - such as mass killing and terrorism - that are explicitly forbidden by the Shariah....Islam does have its own political teachings, but these have always remained peripheral: To place them at the cent[re] is to break with the tradition. Of course, the political ideologies of contemporary Muslim movements are seldom rooted in Islamic teachings; rather, they are reinterpretations of the [Qur']an and the [Ah]adith based on modern presuppositions concerning democracy or other "good" forms of government...[1]

I think this is a really good analysis, and it basically explains in a few words what they don't tell us. They is more than they here. Yes, it is.

Sources:

Sachiko Murata and William C. Chittick, The Vision of Islam (New York, USA: Paragon House, 1994), pp. 333-334.

Introduction to 'The Black Armband of History'

Peace. Tomorrow or day after insha'Allah I'll be updating my blog with the planned article 'The Black Armband of History' as a tribute to the indigenous peoples of Australia. I had been thinking about writing on this, but my encounter with some Muslims who, like the ruling elites, view the Aboriginal people with disdain or are wholly ignorant of Australia's extraordinary pre-conquest civilisation of which there is much to be proud, calls for a juxtaposition of their marginalisation with the outright destruction of the Aborginal homeland. One of the objectives of this blog is to constructively address issues of social significance (hat tip, Erik). This article comes at the wake of Pauline Hanson's xenophobic and supremacist political statements against Muslim immigrants. One of my peers counts Pauline Hanson among the three worst persons she wouldn't want to be stuck in a desert with.

To be honest, I don't like flags. I don't like people who wave their nation's flags in front of my eyes out of some war-mongering, nationalist mania or to prove their flag has brighter colours. But if there's one flag I would proudly hang in my window, it would be the Australian Aboriginal flag, which is much more sincere and artistic than the one flying atop Howard's headquarters, servile as it is to the dismantled British Empire. The Aboriginal flag illustrates the dignity and beauty of the Aboriginal peoples. Literally, it is an imprint of their struggles against what John Pilger called "one of the most intransigent and meanest political establishements."[1] But it is also what I hold to be the legitimate symbol of Australia, an Australia distinctive from the European brotherhood.

References:

1 - John Pilger, The New Rulers of the World (London: Verso, 2002), 12.

Islam and its Discontents

What is jihad? What is the status of non-Muslims under Islamic leadership? Is Islam compatible with democracy? Is the world divided into two zones: belief and disbelief/non-belief, and if so, do Muslims have a holy mission to convert us? These are some of the serious questions that crop up in the minds of non-Muslims in the present political climate. The public is driven to form opinions based on the availability of popular discourse: that of an Al Qaeda spokesman holed up in a cave with the hottest technology or anti-Muslim commentators. There is seldom a middle ground, as reactionaries on both sides are gratified by the deception. Let me give you an example. In Islam, there is no concept of holy war. But several Muslims and non-Muslims will tell you otherwise. I was debating with an apparently sophisticated poster on a forum, and he countered by providing a link to an unheard of Muslim website that explicitly defined jihad as holy war. Fair enough. Better yet, why not establish that Islam is evil by lending your ears to some other outrageous Muslims like the merry men of the Taliban? It is not unusual, hence, to be charged by some non-Muslims “for sugar-coating Islam”, and by Muslims for being a Muslim apologist. Muhammad Asad fits the bill perfectly for earning the wrath of some Muslims and non-Muslims alike, and Bernard Lewis the fondness. Let’s think it over. There are some non-Muslim individuals who are aware that jihad doesn’t mean holy war. Nevertheless, the Muslim who tells them so is sugar-coating Islam and someone bending of knowledge and tradition is honest. A Muslim who tells you that Islam is here to conquer is a candid spokesman to the oft-discussed, however a first-rate myth, dangers of Islam, and a Muslim who tells you that Islam is a religion of submission to One God and peace is an idiot. Because, you see, conceited people…and I mean those who try to invalidate Islam by believing that Islam is evil anyhow i.e. those who make their personal belief and civilisation look superior, not by irrelative, unannounced intellectual jihad (struggle), but positioning the favourite fruits of their belief with those of the distorted teachings of another. Take up ‘race’. Since infancy, we have been fed the myths that white man is superior. This has not been achieved by science, assumed staple of the European Enlightenment, but a reductionist and colonial exposition. Indeed, even science as religion claims that all of us are equal, that the Palestinian/Iraqi victim of American/Israeli state terrorism is as worthy a victim as a New Yorker or a Tel Aviv club-hopper.

What is my point exactly? I think we have an immediate need to question the contemporary discourse of Islam both among Muslims and non-Muslims. Fourteen centuries ago, God said in His speech, the Qur’an, to come to “common terms”. This doesn’t mean twisting the verses in religious texts out of context like it is the habit of armchair bombers who are hostile to Islam, often parading as sophisticated enlightened free spirits. You might say “liberal”. And nor like an Al Qaeda terrorist who wants to kill innocents, not because he understands the message in the Qur’an, which he clearly doesn’t as mainstream Muslim scholars have affirmed in their writings, but that he believes there is no hope. Of course, this may also lead us to question words like “civilisation”, “democracy” and “liberty” which are callously tossed about by terrorists, apartheid appeasers and stooges of Western triumphalism we never read or hear about.

Comment on a Comment

Peace be upon everyone. I'm sorry about not updating this blog sooner, but I've been really busy lately. Anyhow, I'd like to address a comment in an old post titled Kafir Watch? that echoes a rather poignant sentiment:

Nothing in this world is perfect. Life is not easy for anyone, including western people. Everyone has to work to succeed. Don't blame the whole western society for the problems because they aren't the only source. Open that mind to the possibility that some nonbelievers are more than immoral bastards.

I almost wholly agree with this sentiment. But I did not blame the "whole western society". I should indeed have differently phrased or downright edited some of my views had I known they would be interpreted as such. Yes, but I acknowledge some hostility to the West in my words, but they weren't to be chucked on every Western bystander. I wrote:

Not reporting on the real issues faced by the downtrodden does not make them 'free people', however much they may invoke the Enlightenment period which as the Muslim commentator Amir Butler pointed out was a result of conflicts within Europe and its religions. Muslims, on the other hand, have no need of an Enlightnment. No thank-you, Mr Tariq Ali. You may continue to rail against the capitalists who hover around the other end of your system and preach to Muslims and the capitalists may continue to dominate and slaughter Muslims outside the system.

I wrote this in reponse to a popular belief that Western Reformation must be wilfully forced on Muslim populations, as outlined by authors and pundits like Bernard Lewis and Samuel Huntington. But a closer look at world history suggests that Western Reformation has never been successfully transmitted nor has it been seen as a virtue by centres of power that would like to enforce it. It has merely been an excuse for colonialism. I'm not denying that people in the East haven't benefited from Western virtues, but the concept of virtue is universal and democratic. It flows to and fro. When I wrote Muslims aren't in need of a European Enlightenment, it was to counter the new intellectual methods of global order that present virtue as a guise for economic and political greed. Moreover, I don't consider all Muslims innocents. But rather I'm very worried about "the recent terror fitnah being perpetrated by Muslims that has gripped all corners of the world as we know it".

The Western civilian population is as innocent and good as any. And most non-Muslims are not "immoral bastards" and if they were, Muslims wouldn't be very differerent from them, because we're all human beings to start with. There are extremist groups on both sides, and Muslims are equally to blame.

Well Said, Craig

Craig Murray on Rushdie (hat tip to Zanjabil):

If the Muslims are right, Rushdie will get his come-uppance eternally, which should be enough vengeance for anybody. You can't make eternity last longer by killing someone quicker.

As I have maintained, any out-of-place Muslim reaction to the honouring of Rushdie will not benefit anyone but the politicians, East and West.

Sir Salman Rushdie

I am really disappointed at the Muslim elite response in view of Salman Rushdie being awarded the knighthood. Consider the following google outputs:

1. Iran Condemns Rushdie Knighthood
2. Pakistan Minister Says Salman Rushdie's Knighthood Justifies Suicide Attacks
3. Rushdie Knighthood an Attack on Islam: Iran

The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: "Much silence and a good disposition, there are no two works better than those." And you can bet that those who are causing all this angry brouhaha over a worthless imperialistic award aren't much in tune with Islam. I am aware of Rushdie's anti-Islamic screed in his book "The Satanic Verses" which by the by I have read with the purpose of critiquing him. Those who contested that it was simply a work of fiction, including Edward Said, didn't get it right. In the words of Annemarie Schimmel, the great scholar of Islam: "Misunderstanding of the role of the Prophet has been, and still is, one of the greatest obstacles to Christians' appreciation of the Muslim interpretation of Islamic history and culture." Notwithstanding, the Muslim 'mob reaction' in 1989 was really shameful. I wasn't old enough to witness it though. The best response was artistic, as exemplified by Yusuf Islam, formerly the popstar Cat Stevens, in his spoken-word album The Life of the Last Prophet. What I want to tell my non-Muslim brothers and sisters who visit my blog is that any crass reaction like those I listed is elitist and governmental. Most, if not all, Muslims don't give a fig about this award. The governments of Muslim countries and their minsters are not at all concerned about the wellfare of Muslims. All they care about it politics. On the other end, you have embarrassing, fading heads of states like Tony Blair who when they're not participating in genocidal campaigns against Muslims with liberal literati like Salman Rushdie as the mouthpieces for those crimes, are busy awarding trophies to their henchmen. Yup, the Queen may shake your hand but she also shook the hand of the massmurderer Suharto, darling of the IMF, World Bank and Margaret Thatcher.

Vociferously supporting the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq on "humane" grounds, condemning criticism of the war on terror as "petulant anti-Americanism" and above all, aligning tyranny and violence solely with Islam, Rushdie has abdicated his own understanding of the novelist's task as "giving the lie to official facts".

Rest assured, this will only help in increasing the sales of Rushdie's, what I view as otherwise, mediocre books. June is a good time for business, especially with all those Iraqi deaths and oil wells flowing. Money-making is a humane cause.

Impact of Globalisation on Indonesia

Indonesia is the most populous Muslim country on earth, but what you mayn't know is the sixty million of its population is extremely poor. I have yet to hear the exclamations of Arab and Muslim leaders that followed the Danish cartoon controversy, against the sordid, miserable working conditions of Indonesians, mostly sweatshop labour. Apart from the racism spewed by Western corporations, there is racism from Muslims themselves -- in their absolute silence over the fate of these people. While we rage about Palestinians in political apartheid, we mustn't overlook Indonesians in economic apartheid. Tiger Woods is paid more money for promoting Nike than almost the entire workforce actually making Nike in Indonesia, John Pilger informs us. Mostly women have to work in 40 degrees heat under poor light for the entire day. They are only paid seventy-two pence a day. Imagine the world we live in. World Bank, IMF and other corporate, Cold War vulture institutions are draining the very blood and spirit out of these sixty million people. Say no to Globalisation! Say yes to humanity! Say yes to One Ummah! Say yes to One World for all, Muslims and non-Muslims, without borders!

Kafir Watch?

Robert Spencer's Jihad Watch must be hooting with joy at some of the Muslim website names. In fact, when I googled 'kafir watch', the first result was from Jihad Watch titled Islamist Barbarism and the Western Media. I didn't click on it, so it may well have been noted in the comment section; and the comment section of Jihad Watch is polluted by racists and hate-mongers in a similar vein as the great bigot Robert Spencer himself. Speaking of media, check out Framing Conflict's Media Tenor Releases Report Comparing Al Jazeera, European, and American Television News Content: Must Read!

Al Jazeera is considerably doing a better job than Western news channels as I always suspected though I have never watched it. I remember in the media class, I was shaken when a girl got up and said that news in the West was 'balanced' because 'we love freedom' or 'we are free', and the tutor agreed. That is not quite the case as we know. As the great journalist Amirah Hass wrote:

Journalists are not neutral, cannot be ‘objective’...The more closely I came to know Palestinians (and Israeli occupation methods)… the less and less neutral I could be.

In an interview with Robert Fisk, she said:

There is a misconception that journalists can be objective. Palestinians tell me I'm objective. I think this is important because I'm an Israeli. But being fair and being objective are not the same thing. What journalism is really about – it's to monitor power and the centers of power.

In my view, this is the truth. Journalists either work for the people or the common man or the rulers. They DO have a moral obligation toward the victims and the oppressed. Not reporting on the real issues faced by the downtrodden does not make them 'free people', however much they may invoke the Enlightenment period which as the Muslim commentator Amir Butler pointed out was a result of conflicts within Europe and its religions. Muslims, on the other hand, have no need of an Enlightnment. No thank-you, Mr Tariq Ali. You may continue to rail against the capitalists who hover around the other end of your system and preach to Muslims and the capitalists may continue to dominate and slaughter Muslims outside the system. Yes, I think we Muslims have a lot to do. We have a lot to work on. We have a lot to think. We have a lot to study. We have a lot to introspect about. But no, we won't be like you. We won't talk about socialism and honour Fidel Castro who definitely has several millions in his back account. Islam has always been a religion that preaches egalitarianism, and it doesn't need the broken pieces of Enlgihtenment or Marx. We are a religion of One God and truth and charity and science. And we did it all without your Enlightenment.

"Those Whacky Saudis!"

Imagine an ordinary Saudi citizen getting a whiff of the xenophobia and generalization fired up by the Neanderthal American Muslim movement called Progressive Islam or PMU. On the Progressive Islam blog, Laurie Silvers writes:

Nothing is more fun than listening to the US government try to deflect our attention away from the Saudis towards Iran as if Iran were the source of all that is scary. Not that the Saudis are the source of all that is scary, but dagnabit if they don't give it all they got! Those wacky Saudis. Watch this exquistely painful interview with the head of a British Muslim school that uses books saying that all other religions are worthless, etc....

At least once they disagree with Uncle Sam and that's not about anti-war mongering but an exchange of targets. What Laurie Silvers seems to say is that the US should rather attack Saudi Arabia for its religious intolerance than Iran. A reasonable person will never invoke the American govt., which is responsible for great crimes against humanity, but work to quell the propaganda in their country that anyone with a turban offshore is a threat to national security. Laurie Silvers doesn't say it, but I can already hear that oft-familiar: "Damn those Wahabbis!" (For the benefit of those unfamiliar with it, let me mention that the term "Wahabbi" is corrupted and a label to denigrate the so-called Wahabbis. The correct term is "Salafi"; and no, I don't fall for the line that all Salafis are crazy and creditworthy for the crisis of Muslims -- frequently trumpeted by some Muslim bloggers and media spokesmen).

When you look at Laury Silvers' statements, you'll find that it comes through a sanctimonious throne of self-pride, in this sense the US government, and indicates that just because you live in the most powerful empire on earth you have the right to dictate to others, ruefully absent from your discourse is both what you're trying to address and what you mean. For what may seem like an attempt at Muslim introspection by a non-Muslim reader, it is a delightful birdsong of a progressive, delighting in using words like "whacky" and "Saudis".

Laury Silvers has every right to call for tolerance and respect by Muslims for the demonized and vilified (with racist connotations) Christians and Jews in Saudi textbooks, it should be noted. And the Saudis indeed need to wake up and erase the hatred in their textbooks and those which they export to other countries. This intolerance and hatred is indeed a tragedy for the average Muslim, and action must be taken. But unfortunately, Laury Silvers squanders such an opportunity by invoking the US government to attack the country (doesn't the writer read of what occurs in Iraq every single day?). Let me add that Saudi Arabia is rightfully called one of most intolerant countries in the world. It is from what we gather, but I think while we are at it there isn't a need to bomb it. Isn't bombing and nuking supposed to a be a haraam violent terrorist act? And so the progressives shall find reasons to bomb everyone, do fox-trots around the White House, and ask: "Why do they hate us?" I didn't think I would have to say this, but all the Muslim Saudi-haters need to familiarize themselves with the unbearable fact that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was a Saudi. And if any progressive is curious, no, I'm not a Saudi but I wouldn't mind. All people on this earth are beautiful. Unfortunately, that is an old-fashioned thought.

Check out PMUNA Debate, Dr Maxtor, Living Tradition and Progressive Muslims for more on the the so-called progressive movement. For a more tasteful and helpful overview of Saudi textbooks, visit the Wikipedia page.

On "Moderates" and "Extremists"

Since 9/11, we've had various Muslims talking about terrorism and signing petitions against it, which is all good, but the trouble is further expounded when Muslims single themselves out as law-abiding, "moderate" and anti-terrorism against others. Some Muslims on the blogosphere even have the "American Muslims Against Terrorism" logo with stars and stripes. Let's see. You want to say you're against terrorism while wrapping yourself in stars and stripes in the manner of bourgeois intellectual Salman Rushdie on the cover of a French magazine while bombs from your country rip apart innocents. Your overbearing silence puts you in league with the Muslims on the other end who chant from the Qur'an and praise Osama bin Laden. The only reason you are comfortable with that logo is because power rests there...the mainstream media is on that side, and you shall be tipped by the masters for your patriotism around state terror and apology around terror from co-religionists. Why not stand up and condemn state terror alongside terror inflicted by Muslims? Contrary to what is said, that will make you a better Muslim. Do away with labels like "moderates" and "extremists", which while may make you rest easy will harm other people just because they they don't share a similar enthusiasm for presenting themselves as "moderate" Muslims.

Freedom of Speech in Iran

One of my favourite blogs, Austrolabe, which I urge everyone to bookmark, has an excellent dissection of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Holocaust Denial Conference by the writer Amir. The first paragraph is especially telling on what it was all about:

The conference of ex-KKK leaders, trucker’s daughters, contrarian Jews, and innocent Canadian professors with tendencies towards career self-harm recently convened by the Iranian state to “discuss” the supposedly fake Holocaust has been cast by some as striking a blow for “freedom of speech”. (Of course, people promising dissenting views were banned from attending; even Iranian understandings of free speech have their limits).

Later, in the almost surgical procedure, Amir lists a couple of bullet points with explanatory quotes on the habits of Iran pertaining to freedom of speech: "good old fashioned censorship of books", "arrest journalists for criticising the state", "shut down newspapers that criticise the State", "ban students from attending university because they are 'outspoken'”, "blocked the New York Times internet site, Youtube and even Wikipedia" etc. etc.

In short, a mild totalitarian state (but don't jump up and down, George Bush -- this doesn't give you the right to "bring them freedom" as you're fit for the shackles of the Hague, and the Iranian people can manage without your cluster bombs and genocidal sanctions and they've recently shown Ahmadinejad that they dislike blusterers).

I recommend everyone read Does Iran support freedom of speech? in its entirety on the Austrolabe site. This Holocaust Denial Conference in my view is deeply abusive and disparaging to the Jewish minority in Iran who have one seat in the Majlis, and they might feel how Danish Muslims felt when the Flemming Rose attacked them with racism and Orientalism. Any centre which takes potshots at the minorities or slanders another people in the name of virtue and freedom proves nothing but that it is so fattened with all the power and authority that it can't even move to the window to see the Face of Freedom.

Shaykh Taj al-Hilali Hospitalized

Hat tip to Austrolabe, which has been covering the developments very well. Shaykh Taj al-Hilali has been admitted to hospital after an angina attack (may God restore his health) in Lakemba Mosque, Sydney. And in a statement [PDF format] he isssued since then, he has apologized (sort of):

I confess that this analogy is inappropriate and unacceptable for the Australian society and the western society in general.

I am deeply saddened and distressed by the acts of some devious groups which lurk in the dark watching me, and who cannot tolerate the moderate balanced way...

Well, my viewpoint on this is that this analogy i.e. Guilty Meat But Innocent Cats is wholly inappropriate for not just Australian/Western Society but also Eastern Society. It is strictly a case of basic morality. On Islamophobic, racist sites like LGF and Jihad Watch, they're having a real go at this. Take for example this slur, all nonsense of course, by Robert Spencer (my regular readers may have observed that I don't provide links to sites featuring Islamophobic content as I have no wish directing more traffic their way):

This sort of thing may just seem silly, or even cute, until one realizes that to anyone who takes the Sheikh's claim seriously, Australia is now Muslim land. Islamic law stipulates that Muslims possess by right any land that once formed part of the House of Islam; this is a key element of the claim to Israel put forward by Hamas and Islamic Jihad. The same claim has been advanced, by the way, for America.

I'm sad to note that Islam is often judged by the slightest error on the part of its followers. Nobody spoke when some rabbis justified the bombing of innocents in Lebanon and the second Qana massacre by proclaiming that there were no innocents in wartime:

The Yesha Rabbinical Council announced in response to an IDF attack in Kfar Qanna that "according to Jewish law, during a time of battle and war, there is no such term as 'innocents' of the enemy."

"All of the discussions on Christian morality are weakening the spirit of the army and the nation and are costing us in the blood of our soldiers and civilians," the statement said.

Yesha Rabbinical Council is the recognized authority on Jewish religious questions in Gaza and the West Bank. This week it decreed that at least 56 Lebanese citizens of Kfar Qanna, including at least 34 children, targeted by an Israeli air strike, were not “innocent.”

The council’s edict reflects existing Israeli military/religious law. The chaplain for the IDF forces says, “In war, when our forces storm the enemies, they are allowed and even enjoined by the Halakah to kill even good civilians, that is, civilians that are ostensibly good.”

At least some of the Israeli religious heads are more honest and forthcoming about the intentions (as played out) by their military than the American guardhouse lawyers who have beleaguered the rest of the world with the phrase "collateral damage" during their vicious slaughter of millions for more than half a century now. P.G.Wodehouse wrote there are is no use apologizing if you make a mistake: good people will forgive you anyway, but bad people will use your apology against you. Welcome to humanity. Everyone knows that the statements by this rabbinical council doesn't speak for Judaism or ordinary Jews per se. But guess what, Islam doesn't have the privelege of unequivocal understanding. It is the Other. Whatever can be used against Muslim immigrants and our crusade against their oil-rich homelands will be splashed on our papers. C'mon, The Australian, you who are a flagship paper owned by the corporate lord Rupert Murdoch have been digging your heels on this issue as it runs parallel to your right-wing agenda. You love nothing more than to watch Muslims stumble...brings on the almighty dollar.

IOL is reporting that the Australian Federation of Isamic Council (AIFC) will vote to abolish the Mufti post that is presently held by Shaykh Taj al-Hilali. Amir, the author of the article Guilty Meat But Innocent Cats, commented well before this news appeared:

AFIC should just abandon the ridiculous idea of a mufti and stop trying to turn Islam into an “organised religion” with its own clerical class and “official leaders”. Of course, that would mean AFIC would itself have to go but then that isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

Hmmm...so it was AFIC who came up with this ridiculous concept in the first place.

Cats and Milk...No, Meat!

Via Austrolabe:

The Australian is reporting today* and, as one might expect, the media is abuzz with Sheikh Taj al-Hilali’s alleged comments during Ramadan. According to the report — which I hope is untrue — the sheikh is reported to have likened rape victims to a piece of meat and those that rape her to cats merely dining on the meat that has appeared in their view.

I left a comment there, yet to be moderated (last checked): "I agree that these comments are utterly sick and he should be stripped off this title. It’s really sad. We don’t need muftis etc." I found the author, Amir's, feedback most succinct in this respect:

The problem is that he is seen as the “spiritual leader” of Australia’s Muslims so even though none of us have any connection whatsoever with him, we all get held hostage — like Douglas Woods — to whatever he says. His comments are then given the same weight by non-Muslims as if, say, George Pell or the Pope was to make some statement about Catholicism. That’s the real issue here. AFIC should just abandon the ridiculous idea of a mufti and stop trying to turn Islam into an “organised religion” with its own clerical class and “official leaders”. Of course, that would mean AFIC would itself have to go but then that isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

* this item appeared on the 25th of October, 2006.

Additional note: Islamophobia Watcher doesn't endorse the smearing of Muslims or Islam as is being done over this issue by hate sites like Jihad Watch, LGF and other right-wing idiotorians (to use their own vocabulary against themselves). Islamophobia Watcher will insha'Allah record the progress of this situation on these media and give them a share of their due. I've decided to introduce an Introspection/Self-Criticism category, because that's one of the things that separates us from the rest -- a love for truth.