War has Lured Bigots out into the Open

By Waleed Aly
July 31, 2006

The bombardment of Lebanon has spawned a humanitarian crisis. Hundreds have been killed. Well over half a million have been displaced [...]

Only last week, 25,000 Australian citizens were caught in the middle of this military bombardment...In such a situation, the only relevant question for the Australian Government is how, not if, to evacuate them. And indeed...this was precisely the Federal Government's response. Simple, really.

How then, did an unambiguously tragic humanitarian mess...give life to what the Prime Minister last week acknowledged was an emerging debate on dual citizenship? Suddenly...Western Australian MP Wilson Tuckey is arguing that dual citizenship should be abolished; that people should choose one or the other. [...]

This absurdity stems from the fact that, at least according to an odious array of letter writers, talkback radio callers and newspaper columnists, these Australians trapped in Lebanon were not Australian after all. They were Lebanese-Australians. They held Lebanese passports, too. They even lived in Lebanon. On this basis, faced with Australian citizens in grave peril, this group's rhetorical response was not to advocate for their rescue, but to question their loyalty.

In so doing, they created a new category of person: the pseudo-citizen to whom we owe nothing or at least not a rescue mission from a war zone. After all, that costs taxpayers' money. Why should we spend it on saving their lives?

It is perhaps the most disgusting argument I've heard over the course of a decidedly ugly fortnight. One might have thought that money spent saving...lives...could scarcely be called wasted. It is irredeemably repugnant to argue that people can be undeserving of the Australian Government's help simply because they hold another passport and spend extended periods of time overseas.

It is tempting to say this discourse merely reflects a recently emerging narrative of Australian nationalism. Several federal politicians and business leaders have sounded off about loyalty to Australia in recent...times of insecurity and stress. [...]

But it seems clear now that there is something deeper at play here. Last Wednesday, Assaf Namer, an Australian citizen fighting with the Israeli army in Lebanon, was killed in a Hezbollah ambush in Bint Jbeil...The public testimonials to a man who loved Australia and had Australia in his heart are plentiful.

We have heard how he planned to return to Sydney, marry his girlfriend and spend his time between Australia and Israel. We have heard of his parents' anxiety when he told them of his decision to volunteer for military service. What we have not heard is anyone...questioning his credentials as an Australian for his demonstrably zealous loyalty to a foreign state.

Similarly, when Israel began pounding Lebanon, putting at risk the lives of thousands of Australian citizens, I don't recall pro-Israeli spokespeople being bombarded with questions about whether their primary loyalty was to Israel or their fellow Australian citizens.

Let me be abundantly clear: had such questions been asked, I would have found them repulsive. [...] They exhibit a grotesque myopia, and fail to acknowledge that as Australians we are still connected...the world around us. But, if the emerging philosophy of vehement nationalism is truly about nothing more than total and undivided loyalty to Australia, it is precisely the kind of question that was begging to be asked.

And if Iran was attacking England, leaving many London-based Australian citizens stranded, it surely would have been. And British-Australians (the largest group of Australians with dual citizenship) would, rightly, be unquestionably Australian.

Instead, it was only endangered Australian-Lebanese civilians who were required to justify their Australian existence. Perhaps here, it becomes clear that the loyalty question is about something else.

Perhaps the objection is not purely to what the Prime Minister calls hyphenated Australians. At least for some commentators, it would seem that some hyphens are more acceptable than others. It is not the hyphen's mere existence that is of concern, but what is on either side of it.

Nationalism, though sometimes harmless, has occasionally provided cover for bigotry. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that in this instance, that cover has been blown.

Waleed Aly is an executive committee member of the Islamic Council of Victoria.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Yes, another article by Waleed Aly. It can't be helped, the man simply talks too much sense.

A view from Medecins Sans Frontiers

Lebanon: Aid moved with difficulty and access hampered

There have been violations of the most essential humanitarian obligations, including the destruction of trucks loaded with aid and the targeting of fleeing civilians by bombing. Aid workers have also been subject to machine-gun fire. It is almost impossible to gain access to civilians in the most exposed areas.

As four Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) teams continue to evaluate needs in different areas of the country (Beirut, Jezzine, Saida, and Tyre), an initial delivery of 85 tons of supplies is on its way to Lebanon. This first round of distributions is intended for the displaced persons who have fled the fighting.

Pierre Salignon, MSF's General Director in France, provides an initial view of the situation in the field and the problems the teams face.

What is the situation of the Lebanese population?

This is a serious crisis. As part of the evaluations that our teams have conducted in the field over the last few days, they have observed that the population is in a very fragile situation.

The human cost of the war between the Israeli Army and the Hezbollah militia fighters is high. The bombings have not spared civilians or the infrastructure required for their survival. It is revolting. There are hundreds of wounded and more than 300 dead.

Massive numbers of people have been displaced from the bombed areas, with authorities estimating their numbers at more than 500,000. The poorest among them have lost everything and are completely destitute. They have no water, no items essential for daily life (mattresses, blankets, soap) and some have no food. They have no resources and can purchase nothing. They are totally dependent on the aid provided by their families and the local governments in the areas where they are sheltering.

How is the aid being organized? What problems are the teams facing?

At this stage, the aid organized by our Lebanese colleagues has been responsible for avoiding a medical catastrophe. I want to emphasize that. From the first days of the war, the Lebanese medical authorities and organizations have been the ones to take on the bulk of the aid effort.

But that won't continue. Local capacity is dwindling daily. There is a real risk that the health situation will worsen and only a major international organizational effort will prevent a wider catastrophe.

Unfortunately, the work of our teams - and of all aid workers - is very dangerous because of the fighting and the Israeli Army's military operations initiated after the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers and in response to Hezbollah rockets launched against Israeli towns.

There have been violations of the most essential humanitarian obligations, including the destruction of trucks loaded with aid and the targeting of fleeing civilians by bombing. Aid workers have also been subject to machine-gun fire. It is almost impossible to gain access to civilians in the most exposed areas. This is unacceptable and could have more tragic consequences in the near future.

Can we expect improved access to the populations in need of aid?

For the last 10 days, Lebanon has been virtually sealed off and international aid has been blocked. It appears that the French government's call for establishing humanitarian corridors, relayed by the United Nations, has been heard. The Israeli government has agreed, in principle, to facilitate the transport of humanitarian aid between the island of Cyprus and Lebanon. Several countries have released funds for humanitarian aid to Lebanon. It's a first step.

It remains to be seen, in the coming days, if political will can move beyond ceremonial speeches and, specifically, if the parties to the conflict will facilitate access to civilians in the areas hardest hit by fighting and bombing in Lebanon. The humanitarian aid promised will only have an effect if it actually reaches the displaced populations. There are no assurances and that worries us.

One man's terrorist...

Conflicting views of the Middle East crisis
July 27, 2006

A Hezbollah point of view from Ali Fayyad.

FOR nearly two weeks, Israel has been waging a war of terror and aggression against Lebanon. Its stated justification is the capture by the Islamic Resistance (Hezbollah) of two Israeli soldiers with the aim of exchanging them for Lebanese prisoners. The war has already resulted in the killing of about 400 and wounding of more than 1000 Lebanese. Most are civilians (a third children), crushed in their homes or ripped to pieces in their cars by Israeli bombs and missiles.

In reality, the Israeli escalation is less about the two soldiers and more about its determination to disarm the Lebanese resistance. According to the US, Israel and some other Western states, this would implement UN Security Council Resolution 1559, which led to the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon last year.

Most Lebanese, however, do not regard the resistance forces of Hezbollah as militias, as referred to in the UN resolution, let alone any kind of terrorist organisation. Our resistance accomplished a major national mission by forcing Israeli troops to withdraw from most Lebanese territory in 2000 after 22 years of occupation...

The Lebanese people's support for the resistance was demonstrated by the fact that Hezbollah and its allies won more seats in the 2005 elections, following the Syrian withdrawal, than when Syrian troops were still in the country. That is why Israel is now targeting civilians.

In the context of the continued occupation, detention of prisoners and repeated Israeli attacks and incursions into Lebanese territory, the capture of the Israeli soldiers was entirely legitimate. The operation was fully in line with the Lebanese ministerial declaration, supported in parliament, that stressed the right of the resistance to liberate occupied Lebanese territory, free prisoners of war and defend Lebanon against Israeli aggression.

[...]

There is now a clear national consensus on the need to maintain the military power necessary to prevent Lebanon from being subjugated by Israel's war machine. Popular resistance is a way of redressing the huge imbalance of power [and] defending Lebanon's sovereignty...It is also dictated by an entirely local agenda, rather than reflecting any Syrian or Iranian policy.

The aggression against Lebanon, which has primarily targeted civilians and failed to achieve any tangible military objectives, is part of a continuing attempt to impose Israeli hegemony on the area and prevent the emergence of a regional system that might guarantee stability, self-determination, freedom and democracy.

Hezbollah has tried from the start of this crisis to limit the escalation by adopting a policy of limited response while avoiding civilian targets...However, Israel's systematic destruction of entire civilian areas in Beirut and elsewhere and perpetration of scores of horrific massacres prompted Hezbollah to shift to an all-out confrontation to affirm Lebanon's right[s]...just as any sovereign state would do.

Thus far, Hezbollah has had surprising military successes, while maintaining its position in the face of Israel's superior firepower, and preserved its capacity to wage a long-term war. But Hezbollah is still ready to accept a ceasefire and negotiate indirectly an exchange of prisoners to end the crisis.

This is what Israel has so far rejected, with the support of the US, for this is also a war of American hegemony over the Middle East, and the US is fully complicit in the Israeli war crimes carried out in the past two weeks. It would appear that the peaceful option will not be given a chance until Hezbollah and the forces of resistance have demonstrated their ability to confront Israel's aggression and thwart its objectives, as happened in 1993 and 1996. That is why resistance is not only a pillar of our sovereignty but also a prerequisite of stability.

Ali Fayyad is a senior member of Hezbollah's executive committee.

...is another man's freedom fighter.

Conflicting views of the Middle East crisis
July 27, 2006

An Israeli point of view from Isaac Herzog.

SOME may wonder how, as a man of the left and Israel's peace camp, I can at the same time be a member of a Government now fighting a war in Lebanon. The answer is the same one that Clement Attlee or even Harold Wilson would have given: when your very existence is under threat, you have the right to defend yourself and the responsibility to your people to defend their security. Let's be clear: Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation. This is not a political issue, it is not an ideological issue; it is a matter of survival...

Israel today is facing a sustained onslaught from one of the world's most dangerous and effective terrorist organisations. In the past few days, 1000 rockets and 1200 mortar rounds have been hurled across the border by Hezbollah at hospitals, schools and homes. Their intention is the killing and maiming of Israelis in general.

Israel is fighting back. Israel's use of force is entirely proportionate to the extent of the threat that Hezbollah poses. A third of our people are in immediate danger of Hezbollah missiles and are sheltering in fear for their lives. The whole of the north of our country has, in effect, been shut down. International law recognises the right to respond to the extent of a threat, and Israel has therefore acted within international law.

Our goals are clear. Israel was forced to enter this conflict after an unprovoked attack by Hezbollah terrorists across the border, in which three soldiers were killed and two kidnapped. The attack, one of many in recent years, was made possible because of an abnormal political situation in Lebanon. Since May 2000, the southern part of that country has effectively been hijacked by a terrorist organisation. Hezbollah controls the border and administers every aspect of life for the residents of southern Lebanon. The organisation is armed, trained and kept afloat by foreign powers — Iran and Syria are at the forefront.

This terrorist organisation openly desires the destruction of Israel. Its leader, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah is an anti-Semite [who] uses Lebanon as a launch pad to pursue his own agenda with a wilful disregard of the hardship and pain he has brought on his fellow countrymen and women in Lebanon.

This situation is unacceptable. It will not continue. Israel's goal, first and foremost, is to ensure that, when our operations end, Hezbollah may not reignite fighting [from the border] at its whim. This is why a simple ceasefire, as attractive as it sounds, is not enough. It would allow Hezbollah, as it has done for six years, to regroup, replenish supplies, and then start the fighting all over again.

The goal of ending Hezbollah's capacity for aggression can be achieved in a number of ways. From our point of view, the obvious solution would be the deployment by the Lebanese army of its forces throughout the entirety of Lebanese territory. This is in accordance with the norms of life in sovereign countries. It is also required by Lebanon's obligations according to UN resolution 1559. We are told, however, that the Lebanese army is weak and small, and contains within its own ranks a considerable number of Hezbollah sympathisers.

So be it. Clearly, it is imperative that the international community endeavours to help the Lebanese Government reach a situation in which it is able to effectively police its territory...

The international community has already proved that with solid, unified support it helped Lebanon rid itself of Syrian occupation. The same international will must now be garnered to rid Lebanon of Hezbollah. For the interim period, however, Israel could accept the deployment of a sizeable, effective international force along the border.

I hope the Israeli action of recent days has disabused Hezbollah and its backers of the notion that Israel is a "paper tiger", lacking the will to act in its citizens' defence. If this lesson has not been absorbed, and the aggression begins again, Israel will be prepared, if necessary, to mobilise once again.

It is to be hoped that arrangements of this type, along with the immediate return of the kidnapped soldiers, will now be enforced on Hezbollah. The lives and dignity of the people of both Lebanon and northern Israel have for too long been forfeit to the whims of a terror group in the pay of a neighbouring dictatorship. It is time for this situation to end. Hezbollah's immoral and illegal behaviour must end so a new era may dawn on the region.

Isaac Herzog is Minister of Tourism and a member of Israel's security cabinet.

Petition

Here's something you guys might want to have a look at: Justice For Lebanon.

Family features...

Oh, Bolty...

Escape from Beirut
by Andrew Bolt

July 21, 2006
The Herald Sun

LOYALTY cuts both ways. So how much do we owe the dual-nationality "Australians" screaming to be rescued from Lebanon?

At least 25,000 of the Australians in Lebanon actually live there and the vast majority have Lebanese citizenship, too.

Does that make them really "ours", deserving all the help that we'd give to someone living in our own street who runs into strife overseas?

[...]

The real question is instead whether we have sold the right to be Australian too cheaply.

By allowing Australians to keep a second nationality have we have weakened our notion of what an Australian citizen should be in these fractured times?

And as this conflict warns only too graphically, does dual nationality mean we'll be sucked too easily into wars not of our making, just because some ersatz "Aussies" are in danger?

[...]

If we keep allowing or encouraging immigrants to treat Australia, not as a family but a camping ground, what do we get?

I'll tell you.

We get an Australia in which a crowded Bankstown Town Hall in April heard Islamist speakers say the "overriding commitment of a Muslim" was not to Australia but "Allah and Allah alone".

We get an Australia in which Islamist immigrants are arrested and some jailed for allegedly plotting to blow up Australians for a foreign-inspired jihad.

We get an Australia in which second-generation Lebanese form ethnic gangs in Sydney that fight for turf rights to beaches in Bondi and Cronulla.

[...]

We now have enough warnings that our community is fraying fast. Mass immigration, cheap travel and communication, multiculturalism and a loss of faith in Australia has given us the hyphenated citizen. The dual nationality. The split loyalties. And trouble.

The cries for help from Lebanese Australians should wake us up.

Help we can always offer, and will. We're generous.

But our Australian identity? We must remember that some things are too valuable to hand out for free, or as some optional extra. Choose us or choose someone else. We're too good for only half your loyalty and love.

...........................................................................
...........................................................................

You know, i started to question this 'right' of citizenship when the single Australian passport holding David Hicks applied for a British citizenship because his own government would not lobby for his rights.

And since he mentioned it, let's remind Old Bolty what really happened at Cronulla...


But maybe Bolt's right. Maybe we have sold our 'right' to be Australian too cheaply. But the real question is, to who?

The Amazing John Howard

Oh my God, teenagers brighten up PM's day
Tom Allard and Belinda Kontominas
July 11, 2006

TO BREATHLESS teenage squeals of "oh my God" and "he's sooo coool", John Howard began the defence of his leadership yesterday by unveiling his most potent weapon, his political popularity.

Engulfed by the biggest political crisis of his 10 years in power, the setting for Mr Howard's first public foray into the saga was near-perfect.

A glittering Sydney day, the Opera House and his palatial home of the past decade, Kirribilli House, resplendent just across the harbour.

The news conference in the western courtyard of the building was vintage Howard. Terse, tightly scripted denials and relentlessly "on message".

There had been no leadership deal, he said. Just like he and Peter Costello had been saying for years.

The meeting witnessed by former defence minister Ian McLachlan occurred but "there were many discussions about the future leadership of the party at that time that went on for weeks after that particular meeting".

Ipso facto, "nothing could have been concluded at that meeting".

Calling the news conference abruptly over, Mr Howard turned on his heel for a rare prime ministerial promenade down the Opera House concourse.

Stunned families waved back as Mr Howard loudly declared the weather to be fine. The students of Perth's Penrhos College went gaga, mobbing the Prime Minister.

"You're our favourite politician," they screamed as Mr Howard, and the trailing media, joined them for some hearty glad-handing and pictures. "It's pretty cool to meet John Howard in person," said 16-year-old Olivia Loxley. "We'd all vote for him if we were 18."

"He's pretty short in person. Oh my God, I'm taller than John Howard," said another student, Brittany Lynch.

[...]

Impromptu it may have seemed, but Mr Howard's harbourside meet-and-greet was clearly calculated.

While many of the men and women of the parliamentary Liberal Party may scoff at his insistence there was no leadership deal struck with Mr Costello, few could deny his enduring appeal to the electorate.

The Prime Minister is banking that, ultimately, this is what will determine the outcome of the leadership tussle.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Clearly, Johnny Cool is an accomplished hypnotist/magician.

WARNING: DO NOT LOOK DIRECTLY AT HIM
(NOT THAT YOU WOULD WANT TO)

Dr. M is for Democracy

Miffed Mahathir starts to Retaliate

Michael Backman
July 12, 2006

MAHATHIR Mohamad, Malaysia's former prime minister, is not happy. He was content to leave politics in late 2003 in return for a degree of reverence as an elder statesman, and perhaps to be consulted from time to time. He wasn't banking on being largely ignored, openly blamed for current and past errors, and seeing initiatives he backed dismantled in a way that seems calculated to make him lose face, particularly in the Asian context.

But Mahathir has retaliated in the past fortnight. He has claimed publicly that his successor, Abdullah Badawi, has stabbed him in the back. He has rebutted criticisms made of him and he has questioned Abdullah's policies.

The media, which under Abdullah was supposed to report the news rather than be the Government's good-news mouthpiece, blacked out Mahathir's remarks, presumably on Government orders. The Government also responded through Nazri Aziz, a minister in the Prime Minister's office who, in a 45-minute news conference, launched a fierce attack on Mahathir, advising him to be a "real man" and to leave UMNO, the ruling party. He even accused Mahathir of not loving his country, as if criticising the Government meant criticising the country. That's the sort of confusion normally reserved for developing-world dictators.

Also last week, a former political secretary of Mahathir, who weighed in to support his former boss, was rewarded with a defamation suit for 50 million ringgit ($A18.3 million) from the deputy chairman of Malaysia's biggest newspaper group.

And a former owner of the national airline filed a court document to say he never wanted it and that Mahathir's government made him buy it. Presumably, that is what led him to strip millions from it in related-party transactions.

And former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim lodged with the High Court his reply to Mahathir's attempt to get his defamation suit against Mahathir quashed. Anwar made a range of new allegations about how the government was run under Mahathir, seemingly neglecting the fact that it was also Anwar's government at the time.

Amid all this madness, there was spark of common sense. Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail floated the idea of bringing back jury trials, which were abolished 11 years ago. Malaysians were now better read, informed and competent, he said.

But the spark was soon extinguished by none other than Nazri Aziz. Jurors were "ordinary" people, Nazri said, and might be swayed into believing clever lawyers' arguments. Goodness. On top of that, they might be bribed. Essentially, Nazri was saying that Malaysians were too stupid to be jurors and that court decisions were better left to judges. Apparently Malaysian judges are renowned for their professionalism, incorruptibility and independence. I hadn't known that.

The Mahathir furore has helped Abdullah mask his own inaction. When he came to office he encouraged expectations that he would seriously tackle corruption and promote transparency.

But Malaysia's police remain a disgrace. Out of control, corrupt and trigger-happy, they generally kill at least one person a week.

So far, no major Government project has been subject to an open tendering process, despite Abdullah's suggestions they would be.

And, despite all the talk of getting rid of nepotism, the families of most politicians remain involved in businesses that rely on Government contracts, including Abdullah's own.

Furthermore, he appears to be excessively reliant on his son-in-law, the unelected 31-year-old Khairy Jamaluddin.

[...]

Back to Mahathir. Is all his noise a bad thing? Not at all. Mahathir must keep up his criticisms. It doesn't matter whether he is right or wrong. What matters is that he keeps going. Monopolies are never a good thing, particularly when it comes to a monopoly of ideas. Mahathir has given Malaysians a lot of things. Giving them what might turn out to be the most effective opposition voice they've had is his latest contribution.

Flashy buildings make a country look modern. But real modernity comes from open public debate. Mahathir is dragging Malaysia forward while Abdullah is disappointing.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Apparently, Tun Dr. Mahathir is the new crusader for democracy and free speech.

Now, there's a sentence you never thought you'd see...
I joke.

Turn up the noise, old man. Maybe then your people will get the chance to as well.

Sorry Mate, No Such Thing As A Fair Go

By Terry Lane
July 9, 2006

Remember when the Man of Steel tried his hand at writing a preamble to the constitution? How he managed to go right to the heart of essential Australianness?

Australians are free to be proud of their country and heritage, free to realise themselves as individuals, and free to pursue their hopes and ideals. We value excellence as well as fairness, independence as dearly as mateship.

It is true that there is a want of poetry here. And how we laughed at the time at this feeble attempt to define the true spirit of Ozness. But one has had reason to take another look at Mr Howard's words these past few days and one has spotted a semantic error in the juxtaposed qualities a dinkum Aussie must keep in tension. We understand that excellence and fairness are euphemisms for profit on the one hand and a damn good thrashing if you ask for a decent wage on the other. And we understand that independence and mateship are code words for well-deserved wealth over dole bludging.

However, the opposite of mateship is not independence - it is paranoia. And if there's one thing the Man of Steel is good at, it is paranoia. Not only has he elevated it to the status of a virtue but he has almost succeeded in wiping out the last vestiges of the good old bush socialism we think of when we hear the word mateship.

The essence of mateship, as a universal virtue, is that it is an impulse to help strangers, assuming the best of them until they prove themselves unworthy of an altruistic helping hand. Mateship is a shorthand way of describing a system of social organisation based on the moral imperative of doing one for others without calculating that one day you may need them to do one for you. It is a sort of bucolic golden rule that even affects social interaction in the cities.

It is, of course, the very socialistic weakness of spirit that the Man of Steel and his cronies so despise. Here is what set me thinking along these lines. Last week, the Spouse took one of her occasional trips to Adelaide and before embarking in Melbourne she was gone over with the explosives sniffing device. This is the third time that this has happened to her at Melbourne airport. Now she is a cruel woman, but you would never know that from just looking at her. So why is she singled out for the explosives treatment?

In Adelaide, she has a small accident. A water bottle in her bag leaks and items in the bag get wet. She asks a shop assistant for a plastic bag into which to separate the wet from the dry. She is told that she can't have a plastic bag because she will use it to steal merchandise. She asks another assistant. And another. Same response. (Harris Scarfe, in case you're wondering.) Then she misses her bus and a stranger, seeing her distress, tells her to hop in his car and he will take her to the next stop. Who is this man, ready to help a terrorist shoplifter in distress? A white-slaver? A mate?

When the Prime Minister reads the parable of the Good Samaritan, he probably despises the Samaritan as a sentimental fool and cheers the priest and the Levite who had the good sense to pass by on the other side.

These three Muslims boarded a plane …

and their Official Muslim Comedy Tour is helping knock down stereotypes. Waleed Aly explores the jesters' role in society.

Comedy of terrors

MEL BROOKS ONCE insisted that no subject, however dark or serious, is unfit for comedy. He should know; his musical comedy The Producers derived much its humour from Hitler's Holocaust. Still, stand-up comedy scarcely thrived in the immediate aftermath of September 11, 2001, particularly in the United States. Some sores were just too sensitive to be prodded.

But according to the cliche, humour equals tragedy plus time. If this could be true of the Holocaust, it was inevitable that September 11 would eventually provide swathes of new material, opening new comedic spaces. Yet few would have expected Muslims to fill them.

Enter Azeem, Azhar Usman and Preacher Moss, three American Muslim comics who form Allah Made Me Funny: The Official Muslim Comedy Tour.

The trio came together in 2004 and have toured across the US and Canada, attracting extraordinary attention at every stop. Their media file is impressive, featuring reviews and interviews from The New York Times, The Washington Post, Time and US TV, plus international coverage on the BBC and in The Guardian. The reviews have been overwhelmingly positive, though smacking of quaint curiosity.

Muslim comedy? Surely, in the popular imagination, there is no phrase more oxymoronic. The public Muslim is pathologically humourless. Not surprisingly, these Muslim comedians are under no illusions about the cynicism that confronts them.

"A lot of people don't expect the tour to be funny," Usman admits frankly. Azeem agrees: "They think a Muslim comedy show is like going to a prostate exam and telling him he's going to have a great time."

Meantime, Muslim comedians are emerging with surprising regularity. Arab-American comics, many of whom are Muslims, have long been a fixture in the US. Across the Atlantic, British-born Shazia Mirza is perhaps the first person to do stand-up in a headscarf. Her career took off with the opening line of her first gig after September 11: "My name is Shazia Mirza. At least that's what it says on my pilot's licence." Other Muslim comics joining Mirza at last year's Edinburgh Fringe Festival were fellow Brit Paul Chowdry and Danish-Egyptian Omar Marzouk.

Perhaps, then, it is to be expected that Allah Made Me Funny is shooting for the mainstream. What began in mosques and Islamic community centres has now ventured successfully into some of America's best-known comedy clubs, such as The Improv. This is a calculated step, designed to force Muslims and non-Muslims to come together and interact through laughter.

Also, this is a comedy tour with a pedigree. It is the brainchild of Preacher Moss, a veteran of the industry who has written for Damon Wayans, George Lopez and Saturday Night Live. Azeem has shared the stage with Steve Harvey, Adam Ferrara and John Pinnette. Moss and Azeem are black American Muslim converts of about 20 years, and their roots have left an unmistakable imprint on their acts. Much of their material trades on the kind of racial observational humour mastered by Eddie Murphy and Richard Pryor.

The result is a kind of black-Muslim fusion. Azeem recalls being 17 and telling his grandmother, a devout southern US Baptist, that he had become a Muslim. "I said, 'Grandma, I'm a Muslim.' She looked up and said, 'No you're not. You ain't never been to jail.'"

Usman, by contrast, goes straight to the political Zeitgeist, opening with a disclaimer: "I am not in any way affiliated with al-Qaeda. Nor am I a member of the Taliban. I just play one on TV." The joke is visual. Usman, with his skull cap and long beard, quite unlike his colleagues who could pass for jazz musicians, is the very caricature of the fundamentalist Muslim image - a fact he exploits regularly in his act.

He discusses how people stare at him in utter fear whenever he boards a plane. "Everybody's real nice to me once the plane safely lands," he says. Drawing on his Indian heritage, he adds: "People look at me like I was responsible for 9/11. Can you believe that? Me, responsible for 9/11 - 7-Eleven, maybe."

In many ways, Usman is the odd one out. The Chicago-born former lawyer is the only one of the trio born into a Muslim family. He is also probably the least experienced, having only started performing what he calls his "Muslim schtick" a few months before September 11. His act hasn't changed substantially since. "The main difference," he says, "is now people care."

Usman is right. To borrow from John Howard, the times suit him. Muslims in the West find themselves in the intense, perpetual spotlight, and this can be thoroughly exhausting. "Muslims need a laugh," says Usman, and Moss quips that after September 11 the tension and paranoia was so high that you couldn't even tell a Muslim a knock-knock joke. Try it, he says:

"Knock knock."

"Don't answer it!"

This environment guarantees no shortage of stereotypes waiting to be given the stand-up treatment. "Muslims are the most peaceful people on the planet Earth," retorts Azeem to the common perception that Muslims are violent.

"Y'all don't believe it? Think about it. Mike Tyson ain't won a fight since he became a Muslim."

Like all good comedians, Azeem, Usman and Moss are quite prepared to laugh at themselves. Usman's character comedy brings us "Sheikh Abdul, the radical imam", who intersperses vitriolic lectures with announcements about double-parked cars and meetings to re-elect the mosque committee that has remained unchanged for 37 years.

There's also "Uncle Letmesplainyou", an antique Muslim who barely speaks English, has crazy political views and a voracious desire to share them, elbowing others aside to embarrass the community in television interviews. He also brags about the growth of Muslim America to people who don't care. "He's bragging to his friends at work: 'Can you believe it, Bob? Seven million Muslims in America!' He thinks Bob is impressed. He's not, he's scared."

Muslims connect immediately with these characters because they, and the elements of internal community dysfunction they represent, are so achingly familiar. Usman recounts a conversation with a friend who says he is completely uninterested in organised religion. "I said: 'Great! Become a Muslim. We're the most disorganised people on Earth!'" In this way, Allah Made Me Funny gives Muslims permission to acknowledge and laugh at the problems in their own community, and to share that process with non-Muslims. "It is therapy," says Usman.

[…]

Usman calls this "comedy of distortion", where "the minority group that is the butt of the stereotype (is) using that stereotype, flipping it inside-out, and exposing it for what it is".

In truth though, Muslim stereotypes scarcely need explicit treatment. The mere existence of Allah Made Me Funny is often treatment enough. "When was the last time you saw a happy, bearded Muslim on TV?" asks Usman.

From all reports, the sense of empowerment is apparent in Muslim audiences. "The group of people that I've noticed that come out are those persons who, for some reason, have felt spiritually disenfranchised," says Azeem. "What I've noticed is that as they leave, it's like they just came from a spiritual revival."

It is as though the comedy gives Muslims permission to celebrate who and what they are. In a world of intense pressure and relentless maligning, such opportunities for celebration are otherwise in critically short supply.

But if stand-up at its best is a commentary on the human condition, and if the lives of American Muslims are by now indelibly politicised, it is inevitable that Allah Made Me Funny would have a political edge. Jokes about the absurdities of modern security measures are high on the agenda. Xenophobes are also useful fodder.

Usman wonders how some archetypical callers to Fox News manage to get through the screening process: "Yeah, hi, my name is Billy-Bob. I'm calling from Louisiana and I just wanna say that all them Muslims - and them Islams - and all them Pakistanis and Afghanistanis and Iraqistanis - they should just go back to Africa!"

[…]

Comedy has this unique power. As Australian comic Adam Vincent says: "The jester would be the only one who could get away with telling the king what was wrong with the kingdom."

Usman is explicit on this point. "There's a history of the underdog using stand-up comedy to speak truth to power. People take notice and are transformed by the experience."

Viewed through this lens, Allah Made Me Funny represents the forging of a new American Muslim identity. And like all social development, it is not without its resistance. Some Muslims will be uncomfortable with mixing comedy with religion.

Moss is frank about the challenges: "You know, some Muslims just take themselves too seriously," he muses. When Usman was booked to perform for a Shi'ite audience, some members of the community objected. It took a favourable ruling from the Ayatollah himself before the show could go ahead. Now, Usman is dubbed the "Ayatollah of comedy".

But for all the obstacles, Allah Made Me Funny has been hugely successful. Plans are afoot for the tour to go to Britain, and requests have flooded in from the Muslim world. Australian Muslims have made similar requests, but so far the tyranny of distance and economics have not yet made it viable.

Globally, it seems, there is an insatiable appetite for the Western Muslim voice. It's fitting that via the speech of the jester they are beginning to find it.

I really, really want these guys to come to Neverland (aka Australia)! I love the Mike Tyson joke. And Joey, does the term "Islams" ring a bell? lol

By the way, I tried very hard to cut the original article down. I failed miserably. :p

Happy Birthday Saniye!

...aka Nur. Hope you had a wonderful day! :)

(And just 'cause you're older than me, doesn't mean you're right! :p)

Howard Heart Hicks...Not.