REPORT: The difference between a terrorist and a terrorist

When is a terrorist deemed a genuine refugee who doesn’t pose any threat to Australia? When they’re not a Muslim, apparently. But what makes the Tamil Tigers any different to Hamas, Hezbollah or the Taliban?

What’s the difference between a terrorist and a terrorist? And when is a terrorist deemed a genuine refugee who doesn’t pose any threat to Australia?

Victor Rajakulendran, secretary of the Australian Federation of Tamil Associations, provides some clues. He acknowledges that there are members of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam aboard the Australian Customs vessel Oceanic Viking, landing in Indonesia with its cargo of 78 asylum seekers.

Rajakulendan was quoted in The Australian as saying:

The ex-combatants are in danger in Sri Lanka so they will have to flee somewhere. They have to be rehabilitated. They are not going to be fighters here. They were fighting for a cause, even if some of the tactics are unacceptable, they were fighting for a cause. They are not going to fight for a cause here. They are not like Islamic terrorists.

Did you spot the difference? You can be an ex-combatant who may be fighting for a legitimate cause. You may have used tactics that could be described as unacceptable. For instance, you may have been part of an organisation that has undertaken more suicide terrorist attacks than any organisation on the planet. You may have been part of an organisation that taught groups such as Hamas and Taliban how to use the suicide vest. Your victims may have included a large number of heads of state, politicians, etc.

But as long as you are not an Islamic terrorist, you pose absolutely no risk to the country. You may have fought for an organisation that taught Islamic terrorists just about everything they needed to know about how effective suicide terrorism is. But so long as you aren’t deemed to belong to the wrong religion, you’re fine in Dr Rajakulendran’s books.

Indeed, Rajakulendran doesn’t regard the LTTE as a terrorist organisation at all. Instead, he describes it as being 

... involved in a bloody armed struggle for more than two decades to liberate the Tamil-speaking people living in the north-east of the island from the oppressive Sri Lankan Singhalese-dominated governments.

Crikey spoke to Rajakulendran this morning. He confirmed he didn’t regard the LTTE as terrorists and claimed most Tamils agreed with him. He said he didn’t believe senior LTTE leaders would be on the boat but rather youths. He also said that the LTTE were different to “Islamic terrorists” because the LTTE had established a state and showed the ability to govern in the interests of Tamils.

I put to him that some “Islamic terrorists” (e.g. Hamas, Hezbollah and Taliban) made similar claims. He said that these groups were in this respect similar to the LTTE though some had “gone too far” and “lost their way”. I asked what he proposed should happen to young Afghan asylum seekers who were found to be Taliban fighters at some stage. 

It depends. If the local Afghan community can work with the government to rehabilitate these people, why not let them in?

It’s true that many former LTTE fighters may not have been terrorists. They may have been forcibly recruited or press-ganged into military service. The Taliban did the same thing in Afghanistan and continues to do it on both sides of what has become known as the “AfPak” border. Even armies carrying the legitimacy of a democratic state can force young men to fight. Sometimes these men are forced to use terror against persons they are told are terrorists. That’s the nature of war.

Anyone who can flee from this kind of madness and has the guts to jump on a boat and risk their lives crossing the ocean deserves to go through the usual refugee application processes. Whether they’re Tamil or Islamic or Callithumpian is irrelevant. But if they pose a threat to Australian citizens, they’re best not settled here. Again, whether they’re Tamil or Islamic or Callithumpian should be irrelevant.

(First published in Crikey on 26 October 2019)

REFLECTION: Seeking knowledge in an outback Australian pub

 

It’s 10pm on a Thursday night 20 December and I find myself sitting in a pub in Broken Hill. The beer (and in my case, the Coca-Cola) is flowing freely as is the conversation.

The couple next to me are accompanied by their adult son who is the same age as the bloke behind the bar.

“I grew up here,” said the wife who works at the local hospital. 

I love this town, but all the young people are leaving. One of my kids is studying in Melbourne. It’s just us oldies left. The town has nothing for them.

I hesitate to ask the barman for a glass of water. You wouldn’t risk drinking the tap water here. My skin is super dry thanks to having too many quick showers before work and not applying moisturiser.

“It’s OK,” the husband says. “They double filter the water here. This pub has the best water in Broken Hill.” He was right. I could taste a piece of Sydney.

“Our water is absolutely horrid,” the wife tells me. Like many locals, her family has links to other surrounding towns such as Menindee and Wilcannia. 

It’s all because of mismanagement. Our water used to come from a lake in Menindee. We used to swim and fish there. Now the water has dried up. We’re paying for the government to build a pipeline from the Murray.

The Murray River twin towns of Mildura (in Victoria) and Wentworth (in NSW) are around 4 hours drive from Broken Hill on a highway often strewn with roadkill. You must drive carefully lest you hit a kangaroo or run over its fresh carcass.

Most people drive utes or 4WD’s with massive bull bars. The road isn’t the best – one lane in each direction – and if you don’t keep your eyes both on and either side of the road, you’re likely to roll off the side and not be able to call for help as there is no mobile coverage.

Returning to the pub. 

Our hospital used to be managed by people with no health management or medical or nursing experience. It’s like that here. Useless people managing useful things. 

Gosh, have Muslim organisational hacks taken over this town as well?

This is National Party territory. Both State and Federal MP’s are National. But there wasn’t much evidence of National sentiment in this pub, even if most of the drinkers were in small business or farmers.

It isn’t sex scandals and moral hypocrisy that upset these people. It’s the lack of basic services, the disgusting water and the refusal to acknowledge the reality of a changing climate.

Oh, and guess what. These people love migrants. 

We have a lot of Indians moving in here and we love them. They’re all professionals. Some have set up businesses. They’ve even got a cricket team here.

Perhaps Broken Hill will produce another Usman Khawaja.

I never imagined I would learn so much about Australia in an outback pub.

(First published in AMUST on 28 December 2018)

REVIEW: A delightful story to help overcome the covid blues

Huda And Me

by H Hayek

194pp

Allen & Unwin

When you’re in lockdown in an eastern state of Australia (or anywhere else in the overly rich and lazy First World for that matter), it’s hard to find things that will make your First World problems go away.

Let’s be honest. Watching or reading the news with wall-to-wall COVID coverage really sucks. Especially if you are like me and come from an “ethnic” family with relatives in overseas locations in a virus warzone.

Social media can provide some relief. Streaming television services become a bit tedious soon after. In fact, screens in general make you sick after a while.

It was during one of my awful moments of lockdown stress that I discovered printed words on a page. Words that were so easy to read, that told a cheeky story that I wish I had access to when I was in Year 7 or 8.

Young adult fiction isn’t just for young adults. Even not-so-young adults like me can find so much joy and emotional release just by feasting on a story that literally floats off the page.

Huda And Me is the story of a large family. In the novel they are Lebanese Muslims, but they could be any large family. In the story they are in Melbourne. But the author’s family, on whom this story is based, were in Perth.

Perth has an established, middle class and very multicultural Muslim community. Unlike Sydney or Melbourne, no single ethnic group dominates. Into this melting pot grew H Hayek’s large Lebanese family of two parents and seven children.

And out of that family grew Hayek’s fictitious tale of a young boy and his slightly younger and more adventurous sister who sneak away and fly to Lebanon. Unaccompanied. And no, this isn’t some crazy tale of confused kids joining some tinpot caliphate.

The story begins with a loving family celebrating the birthday of their elderly Polish neighbour, Mr Kostiki. Mum is making a birthday cake for him, while the kids are joining in a traditional Polish dance.

This isn’t the Lebanese Muslim scene you would have read about in the mainstream media. Muslims? Celebrating the birthday of a white European man? A bearded Muslim father laughing, his wife in hijab bringing out the cake with candles? You can almost hear the clapping and the music.

After the party, Dad announces they’re heading to Lebanon to care for the maternal grandmother. They being the parents. The kids are being looked after by an eccentric (to say the least) Aunt Amel.

One of the boys, Akeal, narrates the story. I don’t want to give too much away, but we are taken to such far-flung places as Dubai and Bar Elias in Beqaa, Lebanon. Readers see these places through the eyes of nervous and highly perceptive kids.

This is a story that will warm your heart and take away the Covid blues. I give it 10 stars out of 5.

(First published in AMUST on 31 August 2021)

OPINION: Lessons in loathing

The Government is inconsistent and hypocritical in its responses to religious extremists, offering support to radical Christians and vilifying Muslims, writes Irfan Yusuf.

LATE last year, I shared a podium at the NSW Parliament House with a radical cleric for the first time. That religious leader refused outright to condemn a terrorist organisation responsible for more suicide bombings than any terror outfit on earth. The cleric called on his religious group to take over politics in Australia. He also asked his congregation to pray for the houses of worship of other faiths to be pulled down.

But far from being condemned or threatened with prosecution, The Age reported yesterday that this cleric and his group are to receive a special video message from the Prime Minister. When this cleric faced a court hearing over religious vilification, he received a letter of support from the Treasurer.

The Herald Sun reported yesterday that acting Attorney-General Kevin Andrews expressed concern "about a pattern of behaviour among outspoken Islamic leaders". Perhaps he should also be concerned about a pattern of support his colleagues are showing to fringe Christian extremists. He might also ask the Prime Minister about the growing influence of Christian extremism in the membership of the NSW branch of the Liberal Party.

It seems that in the allegedly conservative world of federal Coalition politics, different rules of integration and tolerance apply to different religious groups. A firebrand preacher such as Feiz Muhammad must face the full force of tabloid columnists and even more tabloid politicians.

Meanwhile, Danny Nalliah can stand up in an Australian Parliament and call for the Christian right to take over Australian government and politics. When called upon to specifically condemn the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam, he can prevaricate and make excuses. And he can publish newsletters calling on his followers to pray for Hindu and Buddhist temples to be torn down. Politicians can support his organisation despite its links to anti-Semitic groups such as the League of Rights.

Recently, I asked my best mate from school about Nalliah. He is a practising Anglican and is heavily involved in organising church music in the Sydney diocese.

"Everyone knows that Danny Nalliah is a fruitloop. He doesn't represent mainstream Christianity," my friend replied.

My friend isn't alone in this view. Prominent Christian leaders (including an Anglican minister) appeared as witnesses in support of the Islamic Council of Victoria's action against Nalliah and his colleague.

Personally, I found the case troubling. I am not a huge fan of legislation that criminalises certain types of speech. But if such legislation is to be introduced, applied or strengthened, it should be done so across the board. Imams who use insulting language towards Jews should be prosecuted, as should shock-jocks who use hate-filled words to instigate race riots at Sydney beaches.

Further, when politicians go on the attack against extremism and non-integration, they should be consistent. The Prime Minister cannot condemn Muslim non-integration while remaining silent on religious congregations (such as the Exclusive Brethren) accused of actively undermining court orders and covering up allegations of sexual assault on minors.

Last year, the Prime Minister refused calls to allow radical imams to attend a national conference of imams organised by the Australian Multicultural Foundation. He said that his Government wouldn't deal with extremists.

Yet successive ministers (including the Prime Minister) continue to have dealings with Christian pastors and groups known for spreading venom against Muslims. Indeed, even in dealings with Muslims promoting radical forms of Islam, the Federal Government is showing inconsistency.

In recent weeks, the Foreign Minister has spoken out against funding of an Adelaide mosque by Saudi interests. Alexander Downer specifically expressed concern about Saudi-style Wahhabi Islam.

These concerns were also reflected in a British Channel Four program titled Undercover Mosque. That program exposed the steady flow of guidance and funds from the Saudi religious establishment to mosques and preachers in the United Kingdom. British Muslim scholar Tim Winter told the program that "what the Saudis are doing in the ghettos of British Islam could one day prove fatal to the community".

I share both the minister's and Winter's concerns. In 2005, I spoke on ABC's Lateline show about one particular Saudi financier of religious institutions and activities in Australia.

Yet this didn't stop the Prime Minister from inviting such individuals to his Muslim leaders' summit in Canberra. And if a report on September 10, 2005, in The Sydney Morning Herald is to be believed, even our Attorney-General Philip Ruddock is happy to lunch at a Saudi financier's home.

The Channel Four program also showed Sydney Sheikh Feiz Muhammad preaching hatred towards Jews and called for children to be taught jihad. Yet Muhammad is just one of numerous young Australians offered financial and moral support to study in Saudi religious institutions.

When it comes to combating religious extremism, the Government is sending out mixed signals. When not dealing with Christian ministers preaching hatred, Coalition MPs defend them and even provide letters of support in vilification cases brought against these groups.

The Government's position will have credibility only if it is applied across the board.

(Irfan Yusuf is a Sydney lawyer. First published in The Age on 20 January 2007)

MEDIA: News Corp gumshoe Sharri Markson does serious jernalisms on toddlers’ hair

 

News Corp senior writer Sharri Markson has whipped up a brand new scare campaign against Muslims based on the practice of toddlers wearing hijabs.

Ramadan is the month of spiritual miracles. This year, it was especially miraculous in Australia as the imams managed to get their act together and declare that the lunar month would end on the same day. Normally, the month begins and ends on separate days, depending on your mosque. For example, the mosque serving your ethnicity (assuming you have a single ethnicity, which has its own mosque) could determine Ramadan by resorting to a calendar, or it could do it by sighting the moon with the naked eye.

Still, it’s not every day that you see 50,000 Muslims performing their Eid prayers on Haldon Street, Lakemba. Mostly these are the people who don’t turn up to the mosque at any other time of year. This year, The Australian sent its senior writer Sharri Markson to cover the event. In one report, she advised that 

... toddlers have begun wearing the hijab as Australian Muslims follow a global trend of younger children covering their hair.

Did you read that, punters? A global trend. That’s a bold claim to make. To establish such a trend, you’d need to do a huge quantitative and qualitative study across not just the 180-plus ethnicities that make up Australian Muslims but also Muslims across the planet, including the 20%-plus of Muslims living as minorities in everywhere from India to Taiwan to our cousins across the dutch.

Did Markson ask some women about this? There were 50,000 people there, and my guess is at least one-quarter would have been women. On unfairly conservative estimates, perhaps half would have spoken English as their first language. So Markson could have asked any one of 6250 women and girls. She might well have, but not one is quoted in her story.

She might have gone to any number of mosques in Sydney catering for other ethnic groups, including groups where women only cover their hair during the actual prayer time and/or when listening to the scripture being recited, not just for an hour or so after emerging from the mosque. She might have joined my parents at the Urdu-speaking mosque in Rooty Hill and sat with my mum and all the other south Asian women with their hair loose draped with translucent “dupatta“, which would quickly be removed as soon as the prayer was over.

But why would you do that when you can speak to Keysar Trad, a controversial imam and the former president of a peak body with a bombastic name? Interestingly, none of her sources confirmed Markson’s claim that Muslim toddlers and girls across the world are increasingly covering their hair.

In her other article, Markson was most disappointed that NSW Premier Mike Baird 

... failed to condemn the community leader’s inflammatory remark. 

And what were the inflammatory remarks of the President of the Lebanese Muslim Association? Muslims felt under siege from Muslim-phobic politicians, felt vulnerable to bigotry and hatred and were subject to 

... divisive and toxic policy decisions. 

Gosh, how inflammatory can you get!

And worse still, 

[n]one addressed the issue of radicalisation, focusing instead on Islamophobia and racism. 

Terrible. You’d think a Muslim leader would use the occasion of Eid to read out Andrew Bolt columns.

Being the awesome investigative reporter that she is, Markson wasn’t content:

Mr Baird refused to condemn Mr Dandan’s remarks when contacted after the ceremony. ‘There were a number of other speakers but the Premier won’t be doing any commentary on their contributions,’ his spokesman said.

Asked why he spoke about ­racial vilification towards the Muslim community but did not use the opportunity in front of 40,000 people to discuss radicalisation or terrorism, Mr Baird’s spokesman said ‘there were many subjects the Premier did not mention in his remarks, which occupied less than three minutes’.

Seriously, one of the toddlers in a hijab or dupatta could have told Markson that.

(First published in Crikey on July 8 2006. Reproduced in full on the Planet Irf blog)

OPINION: Why Sheik Hilaly Has To Go

Over the weekend, I joined people from a range of backgrounds and faiths in the heart of Canberra for the annual Eid Mela festival — which celebrates the end of the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan. This year, the festivals of Eid and Divali (the Hindu ‘Festival of Lights’) took place within days of each other, and the Hindi word ‘mela’ (Hindi/Urdu for “festival”) was used to provide a peculiarly sub-Continental flavour to the event.

In Canberra , Muslims gathered to celebrate the multicultural, multilingual and multi-confessional nature of our great capital city. Two Sikh gentlemen started the day, entertaining guests with a gorgeous rendition of traditional sitar music. This was followed by prayers and songs by performers of Sri Lankan, Chinese and Spanish origins — without forgetting a group of young children singing the Australian national anthem.

Representatives from Jewish, Catholic, Hindu and other faiths spoke of how pleased they were to attend such an event. Dr Anita Shroot, a respected member of the ACT Hebrew congregation, greeted the crowd with ‘Salamu alaykum. Shalom aleichem’ and spoke approvingly of celebrating with her ‘Muslim cousins’ — the weekend also coinciding with a Jewish festival as well.

And why shouldn’t she and the other faith leaders be pleased? Ordinary Canberrans are happy to celebrate multiculturalism, as were Sydney-siders attending the Multicultural Eid Festival & Fair at the Fairfield Showgrounds.

It seems the only people unpleased with Australia ’s multicultural reality are a minority of pseudo-conservative politicians and commentators determined to impose their own version of a mono-cultural revolution on Australia . Unfortunately, the words of Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali in an address given in Sydney ’s Lakemba Mosque some weeks back have provided them with plenty of fuel.

Sheik Hilali’s remarks were first reported in The Australian — a newspaper which many Muslims regard as conducting a vendetta against their community. It is impossible to make sweeping generalisations about any newspaper — The Oz has provided space for commentators such as John Stone and Janet Albrechtsen to sprout their conspiracy theories about the alleged threats posed by Muslim migrants and their children, but similar theories are published in the Fairfax Press by the likes of Paul Sheehan and Miranda Devine.

For its Muslim critics, what makes The Oz different, however, is the frequency with which such views are published. Many Muslims see this in the context of reported comments made some months back by Rupert Murdoch when he suggested that Muslims weren’t to be trusted as they always put faith over loyalty to the nation.

In relation to Sheik Hilali’s comments, the Friday 27 October 2006 edition of The Oz carried a full 8 pages of broadsheet material on the issue. Yes, you read it correctly. Eight pages! You’d think the Sheik had just completed 10 years as Prime Minister or delivered his 10th budget!

John Howard, in particular, has shown a startling level of hypocrisy and double standards in his comments on the Hilali case.

He has placed the onus on Muslims to deal with Hilali. Ultimately, the only bodies that can control Sheik Hilali are the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils (AFIC) and the Lebanese Moslems Association (LMA). AFIC created the position of ‘Mufti of Australia’ and immediately appointed Hilali to fill it. Howard is aware that AFIC is currently under administration. I doubt any court-appointed administrator would be prepared to take so sensitive a decision as to sack the nation’s most senior Islamic religious jurist, notwithstanding the outrageous nature of his remarks.

That leaves the LMA, which owns and manages the Imam Ali ben Abi Taleb Mosque in Lakemba, where Hilali generally preaches. Hilali is not employed by the LMA as an official resident religious scholar (or ‘Imam’). Indeed, one former LMA Vice President has advised me that Hilali has never been on the payroll. Even before he was appointed Mufti, his wages were paid from a combination of sources — the Libyan Islamic Call Society and private individuals.

A few years ago, Howard clearly showed his views on sexual assault victims in his response to comments made by a former Governor-General of Australia. Readers will well remember this saga, and I do not wish to repeat details which could cause further distress to the parties directly affected. The point is that on that occasion, Howard could have pressured (and maybe even forced) the Governor-General to stand down. He chose not to.

Indeed, Howard’s cheer-squad from the allegedly conservative commentariat claimed at the time that the entire campaign against the Governor-General was a huge conspiracy by republicans to discredit the Vice-Regal office — just as today, Hilali’s supporters claim the attack on the Sheik is a conspiracy by News Limited and elements within the Sydney Lebanese community.

Conservative politicians and commentators critical of Hilali should recall their own refusal to deal with the gross offence caused to all victims of child sexual assault. That offence and hurt was compounded by the refusal of the conservative establishment to act on the matter. Indeed, far from acting, conservatives ignored loud protests from across the Australian community for the then Governor-General to resign.

Today, the LMA and many Sydney Lebanese Muslims seem to be playing the same game of strident defence that the PM and his allies did. In this sense, the LMA’s approach is perfectly in accord with the PM’s precedent and hence with the his vision of ‘Australian values.’ The PM has no right to criticise those who effectively follow his example.

Of course, the Governor-General on that occasion showed more decency than his conservative supporters. Notwithstanding the shield he received from their moral and political support, he resigned.

Contrary to claims from some media quarters, Hilali is not being shielded by the majority of (largely non-Lebanese) Muslims he claims to lead. Across Australia and New Zealand , Muslim leaders and community members are up in arms over the Sheik’s comments. Muslim women have expressed particular disgust. Even members of the PM’s Muslim Reference Group have expressed outrage.

Sheik Hilali should follow the example of our former Governor-General and resign of his own accord. But this seems unlikely. His followers are already planning a rally to show their support this Saturday. Their antics are orchestrated by a small minority of die-hards who rely on Hilali’s status as Mufti to gain some notoriety of their own. These people wish Mufti-day would never end, regardless of how much damage it causes to the image of Muslims or the person of Sheik Hilali himself.

Hilali was handed the mantle of Mufti-hood to suit the politics of then Acting Prime Minister Paul Keating, who felt nervous that his backyard was turning Liberal after the NSW State seat of East Hills was lost to the Liberals in 1986 following a by-election swing of 17.5%. It was a short-term decision with long-term consequences.

What the broader community knows about the Sheik are his frequent gaffes and his refusal to learn English. But many in his Lebanese Muslim congregation love him dearly. Even his Muslim critics have had no hesitation in acknowledging the good that Sheik Hilali has done over the years.

The Sheik has made himself available to people of all ages and ethnic groups and at all hours of the day and night. In most Muslim-majority countries, people holding the title of Mufti live like Governors-General, residing in palatial homes and attended to by servants. Their relationship with law-making is certainly similar to those holding Vice-Regal address. Often the Mufti has his fatwas (or religious decrees) written for him by government officials, and he merely rubber-stamps it.

To his credit, Hilali has not been owned by any government. He has been critical of all Arab governments, and he has steered his large congregation away from the nefarious influence of Middle Eastern governments that are ever-ready to provide short-term funding in return for long-term influence.

(It’s interesting to note that the man Hilali replaced as Imam of the Lakemba Mosque went onto form his own splinter group and established the Markaz Saddam Hussein Islami — The Saddam Hussein Islamic Office!)

And if Hilali goes, who will take his place? For many Muslims living outside the Lebanese ethno-religious ‘ghetto’ of southwest Sydney , the position of Mufti means nothing. But if there is going to be a Mufti, they believe they would be better off having someone who will not do such damage to the image of Muslims in Australia.

(First published in New Matilda on 1 November 2006. Reproduced in full on the Nihari Nation blog.)

REPORT: Muhammad wins the Nobel Prize twice!

A few weeks ago, Pope Benedict XVI cited a Byzantine emperor who claimed that Muhammad had brought nothing new to the world except war and violence. Yet in the past two years, the secretive Norwegian Nobel Committee has chosen Muhammad to receive its prestigious international peace prize. And not once, but twice in a row.

Well, not exactly. But it’s certainly significant that the two most recent recipients of this award have been prominent members of the Muslim intelligentsia who share the world’s most commonly used name given to male children.

Last year it was the Egyptian-born head of the International Atomic Energy Agency Mohamed ElBaradei. This year, the committee overlooked 190 other candidates to award the prize to an eccentric banker from the Indian sub-Continent.

Muhammad Yunus is a Bangladeshi-born and American-trained economist who invented microcredit - an unusual method of lending money to people with no assets to mortgage and nothing to offer except a business plan and economic desperation that forces them into hard work.

Yunus’s Grameen Bank has now lent over $8 billion, most of it to impoverished villagers in Bangladesh and other parts of the Third World. Although largely unknown in the West (as opposed to prominent politicians and activists among past winners), Yunus and his bank are household names in much of Asia, Africa and Latin America.

Grameen Bank has an impressive array of assets. It owns Bangladesh’s largest mobile phone network. The bank has played an important role in assisting women from impoverished backgrounds gain some financial independence, particularly women whose male providers are unable to find work.

Muhammad Yunus’ unique banking methodology has been applied outside Bangladesh to great effect. His bank has worked on development projects for women in Vietnam and other parts of the world. From time to time, he has fallen foul of religious zealots in Bangladesh unhappy at what they perceive as Yunus’ methods challenging traditional Bangladeshi gender relations.

Yunus isn’t the only Muslim to receive a Nobel Prize. This year, the Nobel Committee awarded prizes to two prominent Muslims, the other being Turkish author Orhan Pamuk.

(First published in the Crikey alert for 18 October 2006. Re-posted on the Nihari Nation.)