Yusuf: unleashed or unhinged?
Yusuf’s Jihad by the Pen
Yusuf, always a faithful defender of the faith. Yusuf doesn’t stop at nothing when it comes to whitewash his Â terrorist co-religionists misdeeds. When it comes to veteran jihadist Mahmod Dawoud aka David Hicks, Â Yusuf just knows Â he is ‘innocent’. Â A jihadist can do no wrong. Â It was all ‘a farce’- , evidence was obtained through prisoner abuse, something Al Qaeda would never do. (i.e. torture)
Of course. Straight out of the Al Qaeda playbook, lesson no 18.Â Â Imagine that! The injustice! Hicks, an Â Australian citizen, Â to be pushed through a kangaroo court system subject to political influence Â where evidence was obtained using torture! (sic!) Unfortunately for Yusuf the spin-doctor, Hicks confessed, quite voluntarily, and no amount of Yusuf’s bile will change that. But wasn’t he supposed to apologize to the Australian people and to the United States? Any idea what came of that, Yusuf?
Who would have thought!
Abdallah Salih Al Ajmi
* But what has Yusuf got to say about some of Hicks bothers in arms, and all those who were released from Gitmo only to join their brothers again on the battlefield? Â For example Â Abdallah Salih Al-Ajmi? Hello…? Yusuf? Anybody home..? Â Pentagon: Ex-detainees returning to fight
Yusuf the beacon of morality:
“If Western nations like Australia don’t speak out about human rights abuses of our allies, what moral basis will we have to criticise other countries (such as China and Saudi Arabia) for their human rights abuses?”
* Indeed: what moral basis do we have? Well Yusuf, Â as Pat Condell says, ‘we have double standards to maintain’. But they’re our double standards. Â Islamic crap-holes have none. Â Besides, we have every right to protect ourselves against those who wage jihad against us. Unfortunately those who are sworn to protect us do not (yet) take their duty very seriously. That’s YOUR good luck. That’s why agit-props like Yusuf are still not locked up…
* Â Snake oil anybody?
* Yusuf has no problem with Saudi funding for the ridiculous Islamic Studies Centre at Griffith university in QLD. A ‘paltry’ $ 100.000.00 dollars? Almost nothing…
Not even enough to make a decent bomb. Â Hardly enough for flight training to learn mid-air turns or to fly a jet into a building, right Yusuf?
Yusuf conveniently forgets to mention the paltry 1.37 million Â which Griffit’h’s Â da’awa doctor Abdalla Â in 2006 sought from the Saudi embassy when he offered to keep elements of the deal secret. No, Yusuf doesn’t have a problem with that. Yusuf’s Â problem is with his ‘old buddy ‘Dickie Kerbaj’ from the Australian who reports it.
*Â Â Â ‘Dickie’ is doing a good job, Yusuf, and he is certainly not your ‘old buddy’… ButÂ Yusuf, the lawyer, is becoming increasingly unhinged. Because he doesn’t like the truth.Â What Yusuf is saying is: don’t go there, leave it alone! This is what Muslims do and you filthy infidel got no business to stick your nose in it!
Ain’t that right, Yusuf?
* Whatever it is, Female Genital Mutilation in Indonesia or 50 other Islamic countries? Â Not a problem: Yusuf gonna fix it for ya:
“Perhaps our imams can remind Indonesian imams that not all vestiges of Indonesia’s indigenous pre-Islamic customs are worth holding onto.”
* If it weren’t for the nasty hadith that tells us exactly the opposite you would almost sound believable, Yusuf. You liar, you!
Okay Yusuf, lets sent them sheik Fehmi to straighten ‘em out, shall we?
Remember this, Yusuf?
* Yusuf, the ball is in your court: name ONE Australian imam who Â openly speaks out against the abominable Â practice of clit-cutting on the basis that it is ‘pre-Islamic’ barbarity! Name ONE!
* Btw Yusuf: what is your problem with Ayaan Ali Hirsi? Why do you constantly snicker and smear her as an ‘immigration fraud?’ Â What do you make of theseÂ creepy people then? Perhaps we should ask the Muslims to payÂ Â a special tax for every case of Muhammedan immigration fraud?Â
* Tell us about your co-religionist Mamduh Habib, Yusuf: Is there anything about him that is not a fraud?
* Â Yes Yusuf, you’re quite a piece of work. For one who learns his jihad from the pseudo-intellectual Â Tariq Ramadan, grandson of Hassan al Banna (how was that again with the Nazi’s and the Handschar brigades?) Â Yes, you have quite a hide to blow smoke in the pockets of unsuspecting infidels. Very funny, Yusuf! Just like that joke about you singing Christmas charols with your Jewish and Christian friends. Hahaha! Too funny! What where you smoking when you had those weird revelations?
Always good for a joke:
* Yusuf attacks against Daniel Pipes over the refusal of Muhammedan cab-drivers to provide service to handicapped people with seeing eye dogs, really funny, Yusuf! They’re all allergic to canines, right Yusuf? Hahaha! No wonder Pipes properly identified you asÂ Â ‘hysterical and inaccurate’.
* Â Interesting mental acrobatics, but stoopid!
Until next time, Yusuf: Greetings from Gitmo: see you there!
Btw Yusuf: your prank about “Today’s Nazis have replaced Jews with Muslims” is disgusting and offensive. Muslims are not Jews, Yusuf. Muslims hate Jews and want to annihilate them, Yusuf. Â That’s what they tell us and that’s what they teachÂ their Â children. Â All the time.
* We know how you feel, Yusuf. But keep it civil. Not like like last time when you took a dump and posted it on you blob. You always act like a shyster?
More Yusuf exploits: do your own psychological evaluation!
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 ofÂ The Oz, Kerbaj writes about a Muslim leaders’ conference to be held in September. The headline of the article isÂ “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 asÂ Wahhabism. Before I start talking about this, I should lay my cards on the table.
I am an implacable opponent ofÂ Wahhabi/SalafiÂ theology. I regard it as a fringe theology which rarely complies with mainstream orthodoxSunniÂ orÂ ShiaÂ Islam. I regardÂ WahhabismÂ has being on the very fringes of Islam, and particularly object to:
a. It’s opposition to Islamic spirituality (known to Sunnis asÂ tasawwufand to Shias asÂ 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 mostÂ WahhabismÂ that I have been exposed to. Like many Muslims brought up in Australia, my knowledge ofÂ WahhabismÂ is gained from reading books published in Saudi Arabia.
I also understand that there are manyÂ WahhabisÂ who do not agree with the Saudi formulation ofÂ WahhabiÂ doctrine. Just as with Sunni and Shia Muslims, Wahhabis represent a broad spectrum, and cannot be typecast.
Which makes Kerbaj’s formulation ofÂ WahhabismÂ 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 thatÂ WahhabismÂ is one monolithic teaching should visit the website of the Canadian based wahhabiÂ TROIDÂ where one can find numerous attacks by thisÂ WahhabistÂ group on otherWahhabis.
What surprises and amuses me most is the claim thatÂ Wahhabisminspired 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 notÂ WahhabiÂ butÂ Deobandi.
TheÂ DeobandiÂ school is named afterÂ 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 â€“ theÂ DeobandiÂ andÂ Barelwi. The anti-SufiÂ Ahl-i-HadisÂ (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.
TheÂ DeobandiÂ school/sect is by no meansÂ Wahhabi. Indeed, prominentDeobandiÂ authors and scholars haveÂ writtenÂ detailed refutations ofWahhabiÂ doctrine.
It would take a substantial amount of space to explain what theDeobandiÂ strand of Islam teaches. Suffice it to say that it is a uniquely sub-Continental strand and is often in conflict with a competingBarelwiÂ strand of Indian Islam.
To understand theÂ Deobandi/BarelwiÂ dispute, one must understand something of the unique nature, history and Sufi terrain of North Indian Islam. Perhaps the best Western source on this isÂ Professor Barbara Metcalf.
The conservativeÂ DeobandiÂ sect was founded in the north Indian village ofÂ DeobandÂ during the late 19th century. Despite its orthodox,DeobandismÂ played a pioneering role in educating Indian Muslim women in theology frequently regarded as the sole domain of men.
DeobandismÂ competes with theÂ BarelwiÂ 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 ofÂ “Barelwi”.
Khan criticisedÂ DeobandiÂ 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 betweenÂ DeobandiÂ andÂ BarelwiÂ 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 mostÂ DeobandisÂ worked with Gandhi and opposed Pakistan’s creation.Â BarelwisÂ tended to support Pakistan.
I’ve provided an imperfect summary which hopefully provides some understanding ofÂ DeobandiÂ Islam. If this is what the Taliban stood for, it is a far cry from the allegedÂ WahhabismÂ attributed to them by Kerbaj and his sources.
Â© Irfan Yusuf 2