Erm people are implying that the author is a traitor to the Ummah – it isn’t me who needs to take a deep breath.

Yes, but I expect more from you.

Erm people are implying that the author is a traitor to the Ummah – it isn’t me who needs to take a deep breath.

Irfan Yusuf writes:
Yesterday’s Daily Telegraph included an opinion piece titled “Hizb ut-Tahrir wants a Caliph”, supposedly written — and seemingly submitted to the Tele — by media spokesman for the Australian branch of Hizb ut-Tahrir, Wassim Doureihi.

In fact, Doureihi confirmed to Crikey yesterday afternoon that neither he nor anyone else from his organisation submitted anything to the Tele.
So where did the Tele’s Opinion Editor Tim Blair source this article? Well…Doureihi sees the article as surprisingly similar in content to a recent Hizb ut-Tahrir press release placed on their website.

If The Australian thinks Media Watch is suspect for dealing with alleged jihadists, the Tele must be equally as suspect for reproducing articles by Islamists. But more fundamental than this, what on earth was Tim Blair thinking when he decided to reprint (and almost plagiarise) a press release as an article without seeking the author’s permission?

I’ve had op-eds published in over 16 newspapers in Australia and New Zealand. I’ve never seen or heard of a paper editing and reprinting my stuff without my permission. In fact, most opinion editors ask me to approve the final version before it goes to print. Certainly Blair’s predecessor showed the same basic professional courtesy.

If you’re worried that it might prompt “gee, those funny mooslims”, the reponse isn’t to get annoyed at the people who wrote and published an entirely factual piece. Living as a sort of secret society in Australia isn’t an option, nor is apartheid.

Gee, Antish, maybe lay off the Red Bull and take a deep breath. The article was pap, and we’re entitled to think so. If it was a meaningful discussion of social behaviours, then maybe it would elicit a more favourable response. As it is, it’s just a self-indulgent rant about religious people being too religious.

Nadia is wrong, I’m pretty sure the Muslim community want to give her the shake.

But if it makes her feel any better, SMH will always extend their handout to her.

Sometimes we get too complacent preaching to the converted. Polemic? For God’s sake, is the suffering of the Muslim world a mere figment of the imagination? Is the complicity of Western governments in this suffering just rhetoric? Are we so blind so as to not recognise the inherent contradiction between Islam and Secularism / Capitalism / Liberalism / ‘insert whatever other ism you like’?

In all seriousness, wouldn’t it be more productive to abandon the mutual use of rhetoric and articulate our case to those with whom we may disagree? Or is this beneath us? I don’t wish to engage in a slanging match, but let us at least aknowledge we are talking about Muslim who are paying with their blood for what they believe.