The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils (AFIC) have (yet again) undergone another change in leadership, with the previous president Mr Ikebal Patel being removed; followed, as is now almost ritual, with the traditional internecine bloodletting taking place on the pages of the nation’s newspapers.
Mr Patel, who migrated from Fiji in 1992, has been replaced by Haset Sali, a Sunshine Coast commercial lawyer who once likened the actions of former mufti of Australia Taj Din al-Hilali to those of Hitler.
As fans of old school hyperbole, there’s nothing quite like an over-the-top Hitler comparison from one of our Muslim overlords. Reductio ad Hiterlum: the argument of champions!
And, as we all know, the second stage of the Ousted Muslim Leader Grieving Process is for the deposed party to run to the courts, crying foul, and demanding their reinstatement.
Following a coup last week deposing Ikebal Patel and his executive team, the former AFIC president has taken legal action in the NSW Supreme Court seeking reinstatement, alleging the removal was unconstitutional.
After a brief hearing on Thursday, the court appointed a receiver-manager to run the federation until the matter comes back to court in July.
As Irfan Yusuf told Radio Australia:
YUSUF: I guess there’s really not much AFIC can do. I think it’s pretty much a rotting carcass and I guess the best thing that can happen is if it’s perhaps buried.
22 comments ↓
Does this sort of thing happen in other countries, or is it an Oz thing (maybe caused by the diversity of ethnicities here)?
Well I think Australia is the first non-Islamic country to have a Mufti, generally in Islamic countries the Mufti is appointed by the government, or a government appointed body. Never really understood why we had one in Australia (other than a reason not to deport Taj).
the reason for everyone fighting for the presidency of AFIC is the MONEY, who ever is at the top keeps the top jobs to himself and his friends. not to mention the money they get from being at the top (it is well documented in the last court case).
As a Muslim in QLD, I haven’t seen AFIC do anything to our Brisbane community, even when i was strugling to find a job they told me to basically go and find it yourself, and once i got my dream job with a high paying salary they came to me and requested (almost demanded) a donation.
I have lost faith and trust in AFIC a long time ago.
Omar, without wanting to read too much into it, but why on earth would you expect a religious representative organisation to help you find a job?
Antish,, arn’t they suppose to help and support the community? isn’t this their tole???
Let them play their little games if that is what they think will please Allah. “moderates” I can’t think of a worse insult, yet they seem to revel in the epithet. It seems really moderate to compare Sheikh Taj to Hitler.
Omar, not to the extent of finding jobs for community members, surely.
Abdul Rahman, you’re having it both ways, there - you’re being scathing of people who describe themselves as moderates, yet you bother to point out that one of their views ISN’T moderate.
If you can be bothered with the tedious powerpoint, the AFIC homepage lists the organisation’s aims, none of which are directly concerned with providing employment services or individual welfare.
“you’re having it both ways”
if you say so.
I do. Don’t you see it?
How they describe themselves and how they behave are not in my control.
True. But you’ve criticised them for being moderates and for not being moderates.
Ok to clarify, “moderate” is a self escription, or worse a label applied by those they aim to please, so it becomes a useful term of reference. I don’t think that it is an accurate term. “Moderates” are just wahhabis in drag. Same rejection of the traditional methods and equally guided mainly by their nafs.
Traditional understandings of Islam are the moderate path.
It is quite a theme with me so I thought you may have already picked up on it.
Traditional understandings of Islam are the moderate path.
Exactly.
I know what you’re saying (although I don’t believe that a single “traditional Islam” exists) but I’m curious as to why you think ‘moderates’ are Wahabis in drag. Surely the hallmark of Wahabis is rigidity and the hallmark of moderates is flexibility?
The hallmark of both of them is a disregard for what is traditional. A rejection of the pious scholars of nearly 1400 years, replacing that with an “I know what is best” attitude. Coupled with a complete disregard for evidence that does not suit them, and the arrogance to derive rulings from what they clearly do not i) understand or ii) have a sufficient depth or breadth of knowledge in. Ultimately arriving at the opinion most in line with their disposition, whether that be “flexible” or “rigid”. The external differences to my mind are inconsequential.
So whether it is beating women for not dressing properly or insisting that women can lead the prayer of a mixed group, the choice is largely about what one wants and then making the evidence fit. Interestingly, both groups have members that wipe over invalid socks and say bismillah before consuming what is clearly haram.
“Interestingly, both groups have members that wipe over invalid socks and say bismillah before consuming what is clearly haram.”
There are strong arguments for both within Islamic sources and rulings given by well known Islamic scholars. If you do not follow or accept these rulings or scholars that is entirely up to you, but to then dismiss these as un-Islamic is wrong, the scholars that gave their rulings on this did not reject 1400 years of Scholarship but based their rulings on these, such as the ruling by Albani RH on the wiping of socks issue (cotton socks) he brought forth evidence from plenty of scholars that preceded him. You are not exactly talking about opinions here that have no basis in the Quran and Sunnah, so try and be fair with your comments.
You have no right to force your opinion upon anyone, just like they have no right to force theirs upon you. You seem to be as rigid as those you condemn.
Just a final note.
Every Islamic group sees itself as the moderate one, the right one, regardless how rigid it might be. And at the end of the day I am not impressed with any of them, and will not follow any. From the Salafis/Wahabis to the Sufis, Progressives or Liberals, all have their faults and good luck to them. If their followers are happy and convinced then may Allah be pleased with them.
A willingness to express an opinion is not the same as forcing it, the worse crime I commit in doing so is to be repetitious and dull, anyone is free to accept or reject.
Albani {raheem Allah alayhi} was not a scholar, at best he was a self taught muhadith with no recognised ijaza to even analyse the hadith he memorised, let alone extract rulings from.
It is not wrong to reject what the pious scholars of Islam reject.
Wa salam.
This pretty much brings us back to the :”just how will the caliphate ever get a coherent legal system?” question, doesn’t it?
You claim he was no Scholar, others saw him as a Scholar, including Scholars such as Uthaymeen RH and Bin Baz RH. So I see no point in trying to argue a man was no scholar when scholars accepted him as one …
You are not simply expressing an opinion, but rather claiming moderation and attacking those you see as rigid, when in reality your own behavior is no better.
antish it has happened in the past, generally what occurs is that the leadership would follow one legal school, sometimes two as the Ummayads in Spain had both the Hanafi and Maliki schools, yet would not enforce that school on the people, though the Maliki school was the dominant one as he recognized them as the proper rulers over the Abbassids. It is when they tried to enforce it that problems arose, such as the Fatimmids in Egypt who eventually decided to let the people remain sunni and stop trying to force them into their version of shiism.
The majority of Khalifahs ruled based on which school they followed, those that asked for trouble tended find it.
I don’t know about Uthaymeen but Bin baz was no scholar either, unless you are talking about the madhab adhering bin Baz which I sincerely doubt, although I am quite happy to be wrong.
Bin Baz {Raheem Allah alayhi} and Albani {Raheem Allah alayhi} are the two giants of their movement, and neither of them possessed a valid ijaza and qualification to make ijtihad. Unless you can quote real scholars who adhere to a madhab you are just quoting misguidance. The evidence supporting this position is enormous.
A difference of opinion has to be valid to bear any weight like the differences between Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Ash-Shafi’i may Allah exalt them and increase their rank and may he give us the taqwa to take only from them and their like.
Leave a Comment