To adapt the now well reported statement of the embattled Mufti of Australia, 90 percent of Muslim PR disasters usually start with a cleric: He makes some remark; then a seductive headline; then a denial; then a claim that it’s taken out of context; then a media pack that has no mercy; and then an apology. And meanwhile Muslims, to borrow another analogy, become the meat in the sandwich.
Whilst people, clerics included, are free to say whatever they wish, the problem here is that a diverse community of 300,000 Muslims is being made accountable for the pronouncements of anyone that the media anoints as a “Muslim cleric”. There seems to be the understandable belief that any statement issued by a man in a turban or, in this most recent case, a man identified as Australia’s Most Senior Cleric carries the same spiritual weight as a Papal decree. However, this is far from the truth.
Sunni Islam is one of the world’s few laissez-faire religions: there is no clerical class, hierarchy, or Supreme Leader. Each individual Muslim is responsible for the practice and interpretation of their own faith. Although they may refer to scholars, no individual scholar holds absolute authority over the interpretation of the religion; and for most Australian Muslims, the scholar they refer to is the Imam of their local mosque or some other respected figure in their community or sect.
Despite that, the inflammatory or incorrect statement of one imam is often interpreted and reported as though it is the incontrovertible Islamic truth. This happened when Sydney’s Sheikh Faiz offered his views on rape last year; when Melbourne’s Abu Bakr Benbrika expressed his disrespect for other beliefs; and it is occurring again with Sheikh Taj’s reported comments. However, the views of one individual cannot represent the entire Muslim community it all its heterogeneity and ideological disunity.
For this reason, if there is one lesson to be learnt from the current controversy, it is this: the idea that one man can represent the views of Australia’s diverse and divided Muslim community is, to put it delicately, nonsense. And the Lebanese Muslim Association seems to implicitly support this view. If the sheikh had really been the spiritual leader of Australia’s Muslims, as some are wont to assert, then the decision as to whether he should remain would have been made by a group more diverse than the Lebanese chieftains of Sydney’s south west.
The controversy has, however, raised two important questions: should the office of Mufti of Australia continue; and should Sheikh Taj continue as Imam of Lakemba.
The first issue is the office of Mufti. Rather than being a source of unity, the unjustified elevation of one man — any man — and his opinions above all others has led to major problems. It has harmed the sheikh by subjecting him to a level of scrutiny that is, to be fair, not warranted by his power within the broader Muslim community. It is doubtful that his comments would have sent politicians into paroxysms of outrage had they not seen him as a totemic representative of Australian Islam. It has also affected the Muslim community by allowing controversy surrounding one man to become a controversy engulfing an entire religion. As Muslim talking heads are fond of saying, it’s all about context; and abandoning the office of mufti would achieve some much needed context in reporting of future Islamic issues.
Secondly, despite the gnashing of teeth from government, media, opportunistic former friends and Sheikh Taj’s sectarian rivals, the LMA — his employer — must decide alone as to whether he remains the imam of their mosque. The sheikh has since offered an apology, made three attempts to explain himself, and stood aside. The reported comments have offended many people and have clearly harmed relations between the Muslim and non-Muslim community. However, it is only the LMA, like any other employer, that can decide whether they wish him to continue. If the tremendous outpouring of support for the sheikh is any indication, many Muslims have accepted his explanation, and want him to remain. If the LMA sack him, it will not be to satisfy the demands of their constituents but to appease the demands of the state and media. And in these politically charged times, setting such a precedent requires careful consideration.
15 comments ↓
dear austrolabians,
is the office of the Mufti of Australia an institution similar to that of, say, the Mufti of Syria or the Mufti of Egypt?
what are the conditions to become Mufti of Australia? what are the powers? who elects/appoints this mufti?
cheers,
–raf*
www.aqoul.com
Raf,
No, it is completely different. The Mufti of Australia is not a government position nor a position to which the government refers for fatwa. Unlike KSA, Syria or Egypt, the mufti has no ‘official’ position or power.
The title was created in the 1980s in order to help the Sheikh avoid deportation. You can read a history of that here and in his Wikipedia entry. As you can see, there is certainly not much love lost between him and the government.
The organisation that created the role for him, the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils (AFIC), has since gone into administration and is now being run by non-Muslim accountants because they were unable to pay their bills or run the schools under their charge. It’s all a bit pathetic. See here for more details on the AFIC situation.
So, basically, the Muslim community here has an unelected mufti with no real authority or power, appointed by an unrepresentative and now non-Muslim controlled Islamic organisation, that the majority of Muslims don’t recognise as their leader, but is constantly refered to by government and press as our Supreme Leader.
Islam is a religion of the commons. It becomes problematic, especially in the West, where we have minorities already vulnerable to great criticism paying for the image of a so-called religious leader with their own image. People like John Howard couldn’t be happier. The next election has already been predicted as another Tampa by Malcolm Fraser. The bottom line is that this whole idea of a religious head or mufti is illogical and incorrect, at least for Australia. I agree that merely removing him is not all but diffusing the situation amid this media and p[olitical storm. Taking him out might also encourage some to apply for more Muslim change in other areas.
That was a top post, and definitely warrants further thought and consideration. I also feel that among certain segments of the Muslim community, that they do not actually understand how limited the ‘autority’ of Sh. Taj actually is in the wider Muslim community. This also needs to be addressed, in my humble opinion.
I don’t know if yu caught the Insight program the other night about all of this, but it seems that this was beginning to be realised. Although I feel disappointed at many of the responses from it, the explanation of the actual role of a community Mufti givenm by Mr Trad was interesting and needed. When mediated by your comments above regarding the idea of putting someone on a pedestal, I believe we begin to get a truer picture of the state of affairs.
assalamu alaikum,
What I find interesting about this debate is the people who are actually adamant that he is the Mufti of Australia (and New Zealand too). I’ve noticed majority are from Sydney from his constituency.
I love and support my local Imam (who also happens to be my dad
but I wouldn’t go as far as to say he represents all of Victoria.
It is hard to argue with people who are really in the mindset that if you don’t want Sh. Taj (though in reality you don’t want anyone else either) as Mufti then you are somehow disrespecting the sheikh.
Does any other Western country have a Mufti?
wassalamu alaikum
The problem is that such people generally have no connection with Muslims outside of their immediate community, let alone with people in NZ or the other Islands scattered about within the national boundaries.
This is a real issue which needs to be addressed, and at the grass-roots level.
How is his authority limited exactly, is it simply because he is projected as the Mufti as Australia by the Australian govt. (and others)? Or is it something more?
Well, apart from the projection by the media and the government (remembering that AFIC was the one who originally appointed him - they have marginal support here in Sydney, and currently have their own issues to deal with) it is unclear how much wider Muslim support he has outside of the Arab (specifically Lebanese) community. Maybe some of the posters here can actually fill us all in?
Apart from the obvious issue of the linguistic barrier and such (how many languages are covered by the Muslims here?), as well as not having a professional team of liason officers, people to translate and advise and so on, which all need to be considered too if you ask me. This is specifically for intra-Muslim dialogue, but of course it is also needed for wider Australian community relations.
I know that, for example, the next biggest (% wise) and longest standing “ethnic” group is the Turks, and they have their own Imams who are connected to the Turkish Diyanet (Religious authority). They have their own heirarchy, with state heads and an Australian overseer that delegates and organises all the Imams. It is pure business-like, and I am constantly amazed by their organisation. It is clear that they at least don’t view Sh. Taj as a Mufti in any way, and this opinion has to be given weight - even if only numerically.
I have not had much experience with other groups, but would imagine a similar feeling. Can anyone else help fill gaps?
In Victoria (which is where the second highest population of Muslims in Australia reside), I’m yet to meet anyone (whether it is one of the Imams or a normal layperson) who would consider Sh. Taj their ‘Mufti’. In fact, before we saw on the news that we had someone called the ‘Mufti of Australia’, we didn’t know one existed.
I really think that you would be unlikely to meet someone outside of Sydney that would consider him the Mufti.
As dezhen mentioned, the Turkish community (which makes up one of the biggest segments of the Muslim population) has their own system of Imams and heads which have nothing to do with the rest of the community. Various other groups (whether based on cultural or ideological differences) have their own leaders and people they follow.
The Mufti position gives the idea to the rest of the population that one man speaks for the Muslim community and that is such a false and misleading view that it should be removed immediately.
My issue, is that as was explained on Insight:
What, then, does every other Imam and Shaykh in the multitude of communities do that is different?
dezhen: Whether we like it or not, the idea of a ‘Mufti of Australia and New Zealand’ does give the impression to the rest of the community that he is our community spokesperson and the highest authority figure in the religion in Australia. Whether done deliberately or not by Sh. Taj, he is seen as the spokesperson for Australian Muslims because of this title. Do you think non-Muslims understand that the position was simply created to keep him from being deported and actually has no value to the rest of the community?
So I do think that is vastly different to when any other Muslim sheikh or imam speaks on issues. They aren’t seen by the wider community as representing all Muslims.
Also, just to clarify what Dezhen wrote above. Diyanet Isleri runs most of the Turkish mosques in Australia and they are part of the Turkish government. They bring imams in every couple of years and control what is taught and even how the imams look and dress. Has anyone ever seen an imam in a diyanet controlled mosque that wears a beard? Exactly.
So be careful what you wish for, guys.
Aussie in Medina: Sure thing, this is exactly what I was trying to show with the quote: it effectively looks like those who do see him as representing them, basically see him as any number of other Muslims see their own Imams. The issue is that this is blown out of context because of the lofty title and airs.
Ibrahim: The issue of being an Imam comes down to having a beard?
No bro. I meant that it was an issue that the Turkish government is tighly controlling every aspect of the mosques right down to whether the imams shave or not. I don’t think it’s good for a foreign government to meddle in Australian mosques especially a government that oppresses Muslims like Turkey. I just mentioned the beard as an example.
I agree, we do not need this. My point in using them as an example, however, was to show that there is a sizeable amounf ot Imams in Australia who do not see the Shaykh as Mufti. Plus (I would guess) most of the other Turkish Hocas who work in the various Dergah’s and other associations as well, although not directly connected to the Diyanet.
That was some good info though - thanks a lot!
Leave a Comment