Last week, I attended a media training course run by a recognized university in Melbourne. Two experienced academics were running the course and both had extensive hands-on experience in the media. One of them insisted that we should always treat Journalists as “raptors” and that we should never trust them. She said “We (journalists) don’t treat our own friends as friends” if they stand in the way of a story and that the moto of many journalists is never to let the truth ruin a good story. While this is not news to me, it was an eye opener to come from someone within the industry.
“O People who Believe! If any miscreant (afasiq) brings you some tidings (some news), verify it, lest you unknowingly cause suffering to some people, and then remain repenting for what you did.”[Hujurat 49:6]. And a miscreant indeed is Richard Kerbaj who published the article about Sh Hilali and just two weeks ago published an article titled "Prophet not perfect, says Islamic scholar".
I now compare this to the official response made by the Islamic Council of Victoria as well as radio and press responses from members of the ICV and also members of the Islamic Women's Welfare Council of Victoria (IWWCV). The ICV were quick to attack Sh Hilali and requested his immediate resignation. IWWCV were quoted on the Age saying "The average Muslim realises that these are not comments that represents Islam, and certainly don't represent Muslim Australia,". How quick were we to accept the opinion of Richard Kerbaj and attack one of the most knowledgeable Muslim scholars in this country. If Sh Hilali’s comments do not represent Islam, then what does????
The ICV’s response to Sh Hilali’s comments was ill considered and sought a short term exit from an immediate attack with no consideration for the future. I now wonder, how will the ICV respond when Hijab is banned in public schools!
John Howard says that it is the responsibility of men to control their sexual urges and not the responsibility of women. It is indeed the responsibility of men to control their urges and Islam advocates that. But this is not the full story. Islam asks men and women to lower their gaze. Islam asks men and women not look or listen at things that they are not entitled to see or hear. Islam also prescribes a heavy punishment for rape and adultery. In other words, Islam advocates for you to drive carefully but also to put your seat belt on.
Islam has a principal of demonizing sin. It is a principle of building communities with high morals and values. How do you ensure that all men can control their urges? There will always be the odd few who, for some reason, can not; possibly for a mental disability or the like. It is a matter of closing all gaps. It is fasting the seat belt as well as driving carefully. The Werribee incident is an example of that and I would like to note here that the perpetrators were not Muslims (when some media hoped it was).
Sh Hilali was simply demonising a sinful act to the Muslim community and encouraging modesty within this same community. He did not enforce it on anyone else. While, the delivery was questionable and probably irresponsible, the intent of the message is on good moral grounds and is worthy of support from anyone who opposes promiscuity within our society.
Sunday, October 29, 2006
Friday, October 27, 2006
Mufti Hilali comments about dress code and assault
The Australian has reported on October 26th that Sh Hilali has made comments during a Friday sermon in the month of Ramadan that indicated that he “blamed immodestly dressed women who don't wear Islamic headdress for being preyed on by men and likened them to abandoned "meat" that attracts voracious animals.”
I can’t confirm or deny the accuracy of the translated version of his speech. However, I would like to make the following comments:
1- Islam encourages and prescribes modesty in dress (including Hijab). At the same time, Islam views rape as the most heinous of crimes and prescribes a severe punishment for rapists.
2-I have no doubt in my mind that Sh Taj never meant to rationalize the act of rape nor to suggest that rapists should not be exposed to the full force of the law. However, he should have been careful about how he presented his view so not to risk the slightest chance of being misunderstood by youth that he is rationalizing rape. He made a grave mistake by making such irresponsible comments.
3- I think that some of the words of the Sheik have been intentionally mistranslated like the use of the word "meat" instead of "flesh" to make the comment sound even more degrading than it already is. "Exposed flesh" is a word used commonly by Australians.
4- This view (suggestive dress encourages assault) is still used in courts of law by defence lawyers of raping offenders. It is also a view held by some church groups.
5- If you asked me: Does Hijab / conservative dress reduce the risk of being sexually assaulted? I would say: Probably yes, although it does not prevent it. Rapists are sick people anyway and may not only be sexually motivated for example elderly women are also raped in Australia. However, I would advocate (as Islam does) maximising of personal safety.
6- I am surprised that the comments were published more than 2 weeks after being made and their release was timed with the Werribee incident in Victoria. It is suspicious because the author of the article is Richard Kerbaj, the same guy who claimed that Dr Amir Ali said that the prophet had "character flaws" last week (see previous posting).
UPDATE: ICV and other Islamic organizations have asked for Sh Hilali's immediate resignation. We will see what happens.
References:
The Australian article.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/muslims-pan-muftis-speech/2006/10/26/1161749253946.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200610/s1773857.htm
I can’t confirm or deny the accuracy of the translated version of his speech. However, I would like to make the following comments:
1- Islam encourages and prescribes modesty in dress (including Hijab). At the same time, Islam views rape as the most heinous of crimes and prescribes a severe punishment for rapists.
2-I have no doubt in my mind that Sh Taj never meant to rationalize the act of rape nor to suggest that rapists should not be exposed to the full force of the law. However, he should have been careful about how he presented his view so not to risk the slightest chance of being misunderstood by youth that he is rationalizing rape. He made a grave mistake by making such irresponsible comments.
3- I think that some of the words of the Sheik have been intentionally mistranslated like the use of the word "meat" instead of "flesh" to make the comment sound even more degrading than it already is. "Exposed flesh" is a word used commonly by Australians.
4- This view (suggestive dress encourages assault) is still used in courts of law by defence lawyers of raping offenders. It is also a view held by some church groups.
5- If you asked me: Does Hijab / conservative dress reduce the risk of being sexually assaulted? I would say: Probably yes, although it does not prevent it. Rapists are sick people anyway and may not only be sexually motivated for example elderly women are also raped in Australia. However, I would advocate (as Islam does) maximising of personal safety.
6- I am surprised that the comments were published more than 2 weeks after being made and their release was timed with the Werribee incident in Victoria. It is suspicious because the author of the article is Richard Kerbaj, the same guy who claimed that Dr Amir Ali said that the prophet had "character flaws" last week (see previous posting).
UPDATE: ICV and other Islamic organizations have asked for Sh Hilali's immediate resignation. We will see what happens.
References:
The Australian article.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/muslims-pan-muftis-speech/2006/10/26/1161749253946.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200610/s1773857.htm
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Lecturers asked to spy on Muslim Students
The Guardian has reported on October 16th that the British Department of Education has produced an 18 page proposal asking Lecturers and University Staff across Britain to spy on “Asian Looking” and Muslim students. The document, reportedly, talks about students of "Asian appearance" being suspected extremists. The document, reportedly, urges monitoring of the activities of Islamic societies on campuses including monitoring guest speakers. It claims that Islamic societies at universities have become increasingly political in recent years and discusses monitoring their leaflets and events.
Offcourse, the Australian media has picked up on this within less than 48 hours and the debate is now open in Australia on this same topic.
ABC News Online reported on an interview with Professor Gerard Sutton, who is the president of the Australian Vice Chancellors Committee (AVCC). The article quotes Professor Gerard saying "I think if the Government asked us to monitor particular groups of students then there would be outrage from academics about that,". He was also quoted saying: "We are about centres of learning, not about monitoring private activities of individual students." The same ABC article also suggests that Lecturers’ groups in the UK are worried about being lured into an "anti-Islamic McCarthyism".
While the stance of Professor Sutton is admirable and worthy of respect and support, I am not sure how long it will stand in the face of pressure from John Howard's and Pro-Zionist lobby groups' efforts of inciting hatred against Muslims.
There is history behind this. This issue has been brewing for a while within Pro-Zionists lobby groups (UK and Australia). There is evidence to indicate that Pro-Zionists lobby groups in the UK and Australia have a hand in this saga, possibly, in response to Muslim students being vocal in their criticism of Israel over the war on Lebanon and occupation of Palestine. Also in response to Muslim students collaborating with left wing groups over the same issue.
The Guardian describe the document saying “…Islamic societies at universities have become increasingly political in recent years”. I always thought that making Muslim students politically active is one good way of ensuring the integration of Muslims students, a good way of fighting terrorism (as students find a legitimate way of self expression) and an integral part of democracy and human rights. But then….I may be naïve. Does political activism for Muslims now constitute extremism??
For John Howard, this claim of “extremism on campuses” will came as favourable material to defend the “war on terror” and the War on Iraq.
Such a proposal to ask Academic staff to spy on Muslim students will come as a severe attack in the civil liberties of all citizens and the freedom of Muslim students who are already threatened enough as it is. Such a proposal will further alienate Muslim youth rather than help to build bridges.
My view is that there is no evidence of extremism in Australian University campuses and people who advocate for university staff to spy on people with “Asian appearance” and Muslims MUST first provide evidence of extremism.
Offcourse, the Australian media has picked up on this within less than 48 hours and the debate is now open in Australia on this same topic.
ABC News Online reported on an interview with Professor Gerard Sutton, who is the president of the Australian Vice Chancellors Committee (AVCC). The article quotes Professor Gerard saying "I think if the Government asked us to monitor particular groups of students then there would be outrage from academics about that,". He was also quoted saying: "We are about centres of learning, not about monitoring private activities of individual students." The same ABC article also suggests that Lecturers’ groups in the UK are worried about being lured into an "anti-Islamic McCarthyism".
While the stance of Professor Sutton is admirable and worthy of respect and support, I am not sure how long it will stand in the face of pressure from John Howard's and Pro-Zionist lobby groups' efforts of inciting hatred against Muslims.
There is history behind this. This issue has been brewing for a while within Pro-Zionists lobby groups (UK and Australia). There is evidence to indicate that Pro-Zionists lobby groups in the UK and Australia have a hand in this saga, possibly, in response to Muslim students being vocal in their criticism of Israel over the war on Lebanon and occupation of Palestine. Also in response to Muslim students collaborating with left wing groups over the same issue.
The Guardian describe the document saying “…Islamic societies at universities have become increasingly political in recent years”. I always thought that making Muslim students politically active is one good way of ensuring the integration of Muslims students, a good way of fighting terrorism (as students find a legitimate way of self expression) and an integral part of democracy and human rights. But then….I may be naïve. Does political activism for Muslims now constitute extremism??
For John Howard, this claim of “extremism on campuses” will came as favourable material to defend the “war on terror” and the War on Iraq.
Such a proposal to ask Academic staff to spy on Muslim students will come as a severe attack in the civil liberties of all citizens and the freedom of Muslim students who are already threatened enough as it is. Such a proposal will further alienate Muslim youth rather than help to build bridges.
My view is that there is no evidence of extremism in Australian University campuses and people who advocate for university staff to spy on people with “Asian appearance” and Muslims MUST first provide evidence of extremism.
Sunday, October 15, 2006
40 US Soldiers killed in Iraq since start of October
Al-Jazeera has reported that 40 US soldiers of occupation have died in Iraq since the start of October. Also, acts of aggression against Iraqi civilians are steadily increasing, leading to mounting numbers of civilian deaths.
When is George Bush going to wake up to the fact that his misguided foreign policy has led to this human tragedy? When is he going to look outside his self-centred arrogant way of thinking?
The US and its allies are directly and indirectly responsible to the state that Iraq is in and the death of Iraqi Civilians.
US intelligence organizations have released a study stating that the war on Iraq has not decreased the threat of terrorism in the world and that the opposite has happened. A statement that many balanced people around the world have been saying for the last three years.
Today....most Iraqis now wish for the Saddam days to be back....
When is George Bush going to wake up to the fact that his misguided foreign policy has led to this human tragedy? When is he going to look outside his self-centred arrogant way of thinking?
The US and its allies are directly and indirectly responsible to the state that Iraq is in and the death of Iraqi Civilians.
US intelligence organizations have released a study stating that the war on Iraq has not decreased the threat of terrorism in the world and that the opposite has happened. A statement that many balanced people around the world have been saying for the last three years.
Today....most Iraqis now wish for the Saddam days to be back....
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
North Korea has done it
North Korea has allegedly carried out its nuclear test yesterday. I now fear a spiralling increase in global armament. The US administration has only itself to blame.
I view this event as another milestone in the weakening of the US dominance over the world and its coming down from the "super power" status. More and more countries are standing up to the bullying tactics and going ahead with their own policies against the will of the US administration.
However, this comes at a cost of an increased amount of nuclear capability around the globe putting all humanity at risk. I say: No to Nuclear weapons for all (including US and Israel).
I view this event as another milestone in the weakening of the US dominance over the world and its coming down from the "super power" status. More and more countries are standing up to the bullying tactics and going ahead with their own policies against the will of the US administration.
However, this comes at a cost of an increased amount of nuclear capability around the globe putting all humanity at risk. I say: No to Nuclear weapons for all (including US and Israel).
Monday, October 09, 2006
Dr Amir Ali's statement about Prophet Mohammad
On October 4th, 2006, The Australian published an article titled "Prophet not perfect, says Islamic scholar". In my view, the article is a venomous attack on the Prophet (pbuh) and an intentional mis quotation by the journalist.
I have to say that the minute I read the article, I had a strong suspicion that Dr Amir Ali was misquoted for the following reasons:
1) The author described Dr Ali as an Islamic Scholar which he certainly is not, nor did he claim so.
2) This answer to this question appeared to me as an answer to a different question. "Asked if the prophet had character flaws, he said: "Of course - you must look at him as a human being also.""
3) The journalist "Richard Kerbaj" is known for his anti-Islamic view.
Later, Dr Ali has issued a statement dated 6th October titled "MISREPRESENTED BY JOURNALISTS", where he argued that his statement was taken out of context.
While I fully understand what Dr Ali has experienced, I think that a person in his position should be more savvy as how to handle hostile journalists like Richard Kerbaj. He should have recorded his interview. I think he is negligent (at least).
The prophet has made very few minor mistakes in his life (without which he would have been more an angel than a human). These few tiny mistakes where corrected by the Quran to set the standard. An example of that was when he did not give sufficient attention to answer the enquiry of a blind man.
Oh my beloved prophet Mohammad...may the peace and blessings of Allah be on you.
Saturday, October 07, 2006
North Korea tests Nuclear Capability
North Korea is now threatening to carry out a nuclear weapon test. North Korea argues that this is its only way of defending itself against the threat of the US administration to attack North Korea.
In fact, an increase in armament is now a global trend. The misguided US foreign policy is a main reason for this trend. The US administration has set the standard of "might is right" and that less armed states have no say.
The proliferation of nuclear weapons in the world can end humanity as we know it. The more they spread, the more is the chance of an error like Chernobyl. But surely a balance of power must still be safer than a single super power.
North Korea, Iran and Venezuala have decided that they will not respond to the bullying tactics. Now the only country that has used the nuclear weapon against civilians is giving North Korea the choice between its own future and carrying out the nuclear test.
In fact, an increase in armament is now a global trend. The misguided US foreign policy is a main reason for this trend. The US administration has set the standard of "might is right" and that less armed states have no say.
The proliferation of nuclear weapons in the world can end humanity as we know it. The more they spread, the more is the chance of an error like Chernobyl. But surely a balance of power must still be safer than a single super power.
North Korea, Iran and Venezuala have decided that they will not respond to the bullying tactics. Now the only country that has used the nuclear weapon against civilians is giving North Korea the choice between its own future and carrying out the nuclear test.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
