MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A HAPPY FATWA

A fatwa is an Islamic religious ruling, a scholarly opinion on a matter of Islamic law; it is not necessarily "binding" on the faithful. But it does carry weight.

On Friday night, Sheikh Yahya Safi, while delivering a sermon, warned the faithful that “participating in the festivals of non-Muslims is a kind of cooperation in the disobedience of Allah” and one of the  "falsehoods that a Muslim should avoid ... and therefore, a Muslim is neither allowed to celebrate the Christmas Day nor is he allowed to congratulate them (the infidels) ".

The Sheik is not a semi literate fanatic. He is an Islamic scholar with a higher degree in Sharia Law and the Imam of the largest mosque in Australia. His sermon was tailored to the audience and I see no evidence that anyone got up and left in disgust.  One can deduce therefore, that the congregation did not find his utterings too offensive. There is some evidence, though, that some found the content of the sermon unwise;  and the consequent public airing on Facebook of the fatwa, was deemed to be “irresponsible” by the Grand Mufti of Australia.

One should also point out that the Sheik was not breaking new grounds in his interpretation of the Sharia Laws:  in 2009, In Egypt, Sheikh Yousuf Al-Qaradawi, issued a fatwa forbidding Muslims to participate in Christmas celebrations or mark the holiday in any way. “Such appearances are prohibited by Islam,” he said. “Muslims participating in them are ignorant of Islamic teachings in this regard.” Al-Qaradawi, is head of the European Council for Fatwa and Research, president of the International Union of Muslim Scholars (IUMS), and a spiritual guide for many Islamist organizations, including the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Egyptian Christians saw this as part of the wider problem of Muslim persecution of Christians in Egypt.   The Australian Christians will no doubt draw their own conclusions.

 

The reaction of the Australian Muslim community is just as interesting and telling:

Samier Dandan, the head of the Lebanese Muslim Association, which oversees the mosque, said the fatwa was unsanctioned. He blamed a junior employee for airing the fatwa; he did not condemn the fatwa itself, merely the airing of it.  And he refused to apologise. Nor did he suggest that the Sheik may be happier elsewhere.
''Removing the post was the right thing to do,'' Mr Trad, a spokesman for a section of the Australian Muslim community and a controversial figure in his own right, said.  But was Mr. Trad referring to the removal of the fatwa from the Facebook or withdrawing the fatwa itself?

The fallout from this fatwa will be considerable. It may, perhaps, force our politicians to re-examine our immigration policies; it could become a major obstacle in progressing interfaith relations and understanding; it will add to the antipathy that many Australians feel for Muslims. Finally, it casts a shadow on multiculturalism in Australia.

Before signing off, I leave you with this thought: Sheik Yahya Safi came to this country in 1992. I assume that he became an Australian citizen several years later. If that is the case, instead of the Oath of Allegiance, he would have taken the Australian Citizenship Pledge.  It reads:

From this time forward, under God,
I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people,
whose democratic beliefs I share,
whose rights and liberties I respect, and
whose laws I will uphold and obey.

I wonder which part of the Pledge did the Sheik had in mind when he was issuing the fatwa?

LIES, DAMN LIES, AND STATISTICS

On the 5 December the Reserve Bank of Australia announced that the interest rate will be reduced by 25 points, to 3%.  It took a few days for the effect to be felt but most major banks indicated, with various degree of bad grace, that some of the benefits will be passed on to the consumers; passing on the full reduction would have amounted to, as the chairman of the Westpac Bank put it  “.banks  ... subsidising the home buyers” (apparently,  the cost of borrowing offshore funds has gone up). It appears that the banks have no obligations to reduce the interest rates by the full amount or any part thereof.  They tend to do so, to be sure, because, well... because.. they are such good corporate citizens.

Even an economic ignoramus such as I am came to the conclusion that lower interest rates are good for the economy, good for the housing industry, and good for those who are paying off a mortgage.  Gail Kelly, Westpac Chief Executive, added to seasonal cheer by signalling that more good news can be expected early in the New Year.

It occurred to me that it would be interesting to look up what is happening in other parts of the world.  But before doing so, I felt a need to define some of the terminology used. So:

Cash Rate:  In Australia the Cash Rate is set by the Reserve Bank of Australia and applies to the interest paid by the banks to the RBA through the overnight money market. In the USA the Cash rate is set by the Federal Reserve Bank. Most countries have an analogous central banking authority to adjust and regulate the prevailing commercial interest rate in the country. Thus, the Cash rate presently in Australia, is 3%, as in Canada.

Prime Rate: The interest rate that commercial banks charge their most credit-worthy customers.

Variable Mortgage Rate:  Is the rate homeowners are charged. The interest rate is not locked in but “floats” depending on the prevailing rate.  The borrower has the option to pay off the loan at any time. The present variable rate in Australia is about 5.5%.

Term Deposit Rate: interest paid on maturity date for a specified amount of money deposited for a agreed period of time. Term Deposits generally carry a fixed rate of interest.

Real Rate of Interest:  Essentially, the variable rate adjusted for inflation.                                              

Bearing the above in mind, I put together a composite table, from various sources, none, I suspect, too reliable, such as the World Bank, others:  

Country	Federal or Reserve bank rate (where available)	Deposit rate	Average Interest rate	Non-performing loans to total gross loans, %	Real Interest Rate, 2011 Adjusted for inflation. )
Australia	3%	4.2% (var) 5%> fixed	5.6%	2.2% *	1.3% (current figure is expected to be slightly higher.)
Canada	1%	0.1%	4.75%	1.1%	-0.2%
China	6%	2.8%
* (Euro. Central Bank)	0.75%	NA	4%	3%	N/A
Japan	0.1%		1.88%		3.7%
UK	0.5%		5.00%		1.4%
USA	0.25%	1%	3.6%	4.7%	3%

Further digging showed that our banks in Australia are paying considerably more interest than banks in other countries which has resulted in a substantial growth of foreign currency deposits, i.e. foreigners keeping their savings or investments in Australia. Although the upside is considerable, the downside, in particular adding strength to the Australian dollar, is problematic.

The default rate, is small in comparison to other developed countries. Nevertheless when the present 2.2%, is compared to the 2007 figure which stood at 0.7%, it is an increase of almost three fold and I would think it is a cause for concern.

Overall we seem to be doing well. Is this because or despite our government?

And of course there is always the nagging problem of lies, damn lies, and statistics.

BIBI'S FOLLY

I am trying hard to remember an armed conflict which ends with no losers, only winners. The last conflict in the Middle East ended with just that: winners all round. Maashal, the leader of the political wing of Hamas, claimed victory, Bibi bowed to international and US pressure not to resort to a land incursion of the West Bank, thus winning a few brownie points and a promise from Hamas that they will stop raining missiles on Israel, US reasserted itself as a major player in the region; Hilary made all the right noises, and Morsi emerged as a statesman demonstrating that he is not entirely shackled by Muslim Brotherhood ideology.  

Actually, there was a loser, albeit a temporary one:  Mahmoud Abbas, the President of the Palestinian Authority, a secular Arab leader who has acknowledged publically and unequivocally, the right of Israel to exist within secure borders. His only precondition to direct negotiation is that Israel stops building new settlements in West Bank.  Since direct talks did not eventuate, he reneged on his promise and went to New York, from which he emerged a clear and unambiguous winner. Bibi responded by announcing that more than 3,000 housing units will be built in the E1 zone, also reneging on his promise to US not to do so.

The UN vote in the status of Palestine is not just a diplomatic defeat for Israel; it is a slap on the face; a well deserved one, some may add.  Just take a look who voted against the resolution: Israel itself, US and Canada, (staunch allies) Panama, the Czech Republic (who did more protecting its Jewish citizens during the war than any other East European country) and several Micronesian states. All the friends of Israel, including Australia who never wavered in its support, could only manage to abstain. Israel is losing friends and allies and the old standby of blaming all anti-Israeli sentiments on anti-Semitism, no longer works. Germany, who has backed Israel both by words and deeds since the formation of the Jewish state, no doubt as partial compensation for the Holocaust, is finding increasingly difficult to do so. Five European countries have summoned the Israeli ambassadors to voice their disquiet; liberal Jews throughout the world are questioning and condemning, some for the first time, recent Israel’s policies.

There is some suggestion that Bibi is acting out  elaborate Machiavellian play to win Israel’s hard right. Once elected he would find a face saving way to back out of a plan that is likely to finally alienate US. However, as Tzipi Livni said: “by then we will have lost [the support of] the entire world and Israel’s closest friends.”

 

THE ARAB SPRING -- THE ARCTIC WINTER

The Arab Spring, especially in Egypt, is over. The arctic summer which followed was short lived and fall is fast approaching. The northerlies began to blow and the long cold winter is about to set in.  Soon the long arctic nights will blanket the land.

What gave us hope to think otherwise?  Democracy is a profoundly Western concept. We own it. It has its roots in Greek antiquity; it developed slowly and torturously in Europe, made its way to the New World, and finally was accepted by the western world as the expression of the highest form of our collective political development. We were so enamoured by this system that after WWII we began to graft this system on to the bodies of Asia and Africa, and more recently on East Europe and the Middle East.  We compared socialist systems with democracy and rightly found them wanting. We looked at oriental despotism in its various forms, and found them to be unquestionably unacceptable. So, we came to the conclusion that democracy is far better than anything else on offer. George W. Bush said: “ I believe that freedom is the deepest need of every human soul “. (April, 2004) This was accepted as a truism; it became mandatory for all nations to adopt democracy and those countries that balked found themselves ostracised. Unless, the country is rich in oil.

I would argue that the demonstrators that toppled Mubarak were not representative of the broad spectrum of the Egyptian population.  Like many others, I sat glued to the TV and following the protest on the internet. What I saw was a large number of young men and women, primarily students or recent graduates, well dressed, well spoken and articulate. Most spoke good English. These people embraced western ideas, and were demanding a say in the decision making process and, more than anything else, they wanted jobs. Overwhelmingly they were scions from families that were not part of the elite, had no political clout or social influence. They laboured to give their children an education and a chance for a better life. However, there is a downside to education: it creates expectations, and when these expectations are not suitably addressed, it leads to discontent. These young people, armed with mobile phones, twitters, and face books, made the revolution happen without really knowing what they were doing.  They were neither organised nor did they have clearly defined goals.  The election which followed proved this: the farmers who live under near-feudal conditions, the uneducated masses who are fundamentally conservative, the religious that are numerous, voted for the religious parties, including the Muslim Brotherhood. The people who started the revolution, i.e. the young educated and westernised elite, were left out in the cold.

Morsi will, or, I should say, already has, bulldozed the new constitution through the parliament and by doing so, set the country on the road to becoming an Islamic republic. The constitution will then go to the people for endorsement, a referendum. I have no doubt whatsoever that it will receive overwhelming support because the majority of people in Egypt, as elsewhere in the Arab world, are conservative and suspicious of western ideas. Moreover, questions will be couched in such a manner as to make its acceptance of the constitution a foregone conclusion.

Finally, there is the question of the military. In most countries, there is a clear delineation between the role of the army and the police. The latter is there to ensure that the laws of the country are obeyed; the former to protect the country from outside enemies. In democratic countries any blurring of these lines are not tolerated.  In the Arab world, and indeed some other countries, often the role of the army is to support the government. It certainly was the case in Egypt; only when this support was withdrawn, did Mubarak’s regime fall.  Quite often the military also act as a bastion against religious extremism, as in the case of Turkey, Pakistan and Egypt, at least in the past. Now a major problem is about to develop: Egypt is the second largest recipient of US military aid. The Egyptian military is keen for this to continue. Meanwhile, politically, Egypt is drifting towards becoming an Islamic state, and the Muslim Brotherhood which is the spiritual godfather of the global Islamist movement, is jockeying for a more prominent role in the Arab world, a situation which cannot possibly be in the interest of US.  Should that happen, military aid to Egypt would surely be reviewed.

Or the military will step in and put an end to the Brotherhood and the new Pharaoh.

ASYLUM SEEKERS -- A PROBLEM THAT WILL NOT GO AWAY

The depressing news, for me at least, was yesterday’s headline in The Australian: Labor Asylum Solution Swamped. The infrastructure of Nauru and Manus Island proved to be inadequate to cope with the huge influx of boat people, 7829 people since August of this year. Mr Bowen’s proposal to grant them bridging visas, as a substitute for offshore processing, is clearly fraught with danger; they will not be allowed to work, they will be given a subsistence allowance and some help with accommodation almost certainly in or around capital cities. We can expect boredom, resentment, and a growing pool of people who, out of desperation and poverty, will be drawn to illicit activities. There will be a veritable storm of protest, criticism and accusations. Eventually the government will cave in. The overwhelming majority of the asylum seekers will be given permanent visas to remain in Australia. 

The reaction from the opposition leader was true to form: destructive criticism without offering an alternative. But at least there was a promise of one. I can’t wait. And then there is the gaggle of geese known as the Greens. They invariably occupy the moral high ground. The very, very high ground. Its a bloody wonder that they don’t develop a collective nose bleed.  They sure as hell have little to offer other than a stream of moral platitudes. And this they can afford to do because they only need some 10% of the votes to retain their Senate seats and thus remain on the gravy train.  

Australia is a signatory to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, as are 136 other countries, of which only 9 countries participate in accepting and resettling refugees. Australia is one of these countries, and has agreed recently to increase the intake quota to 20,000 per annum. In relation to our overall population, it is a generous offer. I understand that NZ, for example, takes in 750 per annum. However, if we were to limit our intake to this number, and the current trend of some 8000 boat people arriving here each quarter continues, then we can safely predict that most of the refugees in the camps, who patiently await their turn to come to Australia, will continue to wait indefinitely.

If I am to be permitted a short aside: I have two friends, both retired academics. Some time ago we decided that periodically we will take a car trip to somewhere remote in Australia, eat counter lunches and drink cheap, but hopefully palatable wine. The main aim of the trip, however, was to solve the problems of the world. Which we do.  However, it should be added that we labour at a disadvantage of an extremely limited audience. In fact even our children show little or no enthusiasm for the array of remedies that we come up with designed to cure anything from global warming to the Middle East conflict.

Several years ago we visited the Snowy River project, a magnificent site which brought back some warm and emotional memories to me, especially when we visited a tiny little place called Brandy Mary marked only by a grave stone. The project itself was perhaps the largest single such undertaking by the Commonwealth government which brought thousands of refugees from war torn Europe to work on the scheme. It was a good project that brought this country much benefit, including a wave of migration that made tangible and significant contribution to this country and who overwhelmingly were proud of taking part in this historic construction.

This year we began our journey in Mount Isa, with my friends making their way from Armidale and Brisbane. We went north west to Northern Territory, crisscrossing our way to Katherine, Darwin, and then into north Queensland and eventually back to Mount Isa.  And everywhere we went we saw vast tracks of land, largely uninhabited.  As we travelled through towns and mining communities the lament we heard was that there was not enough people living in these places or willing to work there. Everywhere we stopped we were were serviced by young men and women on working holidays in Australia. Moreover, we saw traces of previous migrations: Chinese who grew vegetables and Afghanis who pioneered the transport system.  Bob Katter is right: numerous projects of local significance could be started that would have a fast and meaningful impact on the local communities – dams, irrigation, roads, bridges, land clearing etc.  All three of us agreed that here was an opportunity to make good use of the people who wish to settle here.

What I am driving at is this: Australia has a legal and even a moral obligation to provide sanctuary to refugees. However, there is nothing wrong, I feel, in asking for something in return; a right of passage if you will. Small projects, Commonwealth funded, that would be of immediate and profound significance to the local area; mining communities that are short of labour; stations and properties that need labour and cannot source it.   Two, perhaps three years of work in the remote parts of Australia, and then they are free to go wherever they chose. And I wager that some will stay. A similar programme has been in place, very successfully, in the medical profession. Doctors with recognised qualifications, many from the Indian subcontinent, are invited to come to Australia and work in areas of need for a period of time, which I understand to be 10 years. Then they are free to take up positions of their choice. There is no shortage of candidates, which, by the way, are extremely well paid.

Thus, perhaps naively, my solution is a quid pro quo one: Australia will provide you a sanctuary and you, in turn, will, for a period of time, work in remote rural areas. For many of the asylum seekers this would not be such a burden: many come from isolated rural communities in their own country. 

As it stands, the latest wave of migration has been less than satisfactory. The percentage of unemployed 5 years after coming here remains high. They tend to settle in urban areas and they compete in a job market for which they are not qualified. They settle close to each other making for slow integration and development of enclaves, which may or may not be a good thing. In view of what has been outlined here, perhaps, just perhaps, this suggestion, which is by no means original, may be of merit.

Finally, I would like to end this item with a comment on another item on the front page of The Australian: a certain former Iraqi asylum seeker, now residing in Australia, states that the new rules are cruel. He came here on a boat in 1999, laboured under the temporary visa arrangement, left Australia for Iraq to visit his ailing wife, and would have remained in Iraq if not for the fact that he made friends with Australian soldiers and was thus labelled as a collaborator. We learn all this through an interpreter, the services of which he no doubt had when fraternising with our troops back in the old country. Threatened once again, he made an arduous return journey back to Australia, via three intermediate countries, and a stint on Christmas Island. He is now here for good, lamenting the hard times he had. Well my friend, in the six years you been here you could have made an effort to learn English and you did not. Your lament that you have lost 6 years of your life while waiting for your family in Australia is spurious. You are alive and so is your family. And nowhere in the interview did I hear a word of gratitude for being accepted into this country. His journey back to Australia took him through Iran, Malaysia and Indonesia – countries populated by his co-religionists. Not one of these countries offered him a safe haven, nor did Saudi Arabia, Bahrain or Qatar, perhaps because they are not signatories to the Refugee Convention.

Work can be found in Australia. Migrants interested and committed to staying in Australia, educating their children and building a future here, find jobs.  And then there are those who are content to stay on the
dole.