Australia’s Mufti Sheikh Hilaly meets Hezbollah in Lebanon

Woody Allen’s comic masterpiece Zelig, features Leonard Zelig the ‘human chameleon’ with a multiple personality disorder - an ongoing identity crisis – who mimetically identifies with every famous personality he meets. He adopts their speech, mannerisms and beliefs.

Bob Dylan’s film Renaldo and Clara explores similar themes as Bob becomes Sara and Sara becomes Joan and Joan becomes….as he points out: Renaldo and Clara is about identity. Joyce’s Ulysses poses the eternal question of the paternal signifier and the author ponders whether paternity is a legal fiction as he walks Sandymount Strand in Dublin.

The de-centered self, in which the self is conceptualized as a personal and social construct of fractal selves, is central to post modernist epistemology. The concept of self is intrinsically unstable; there are only selves. And all truth claims – especially about the ontological and logical status of the alleged self - conceal other truth claims.

Like contemporary Islamists, the inspirer of postmodernism, Nietzsche promoted an epistemology of continuous suspicion. There are only interpretations and all other ‘truth’ claims are expressions of the will to power. Truth, they insist, is contextual.

Tradition, modernity and post modernity have strange synergies. Post modernism therefore centers on irony. Sheikh Hilaly embodies the post modernist dilemma. He is never understood. But always speaks the truth. And always misinterpreted!  All his pronouncements on Jews, Zionism, and jihad are de-contextualized! 

The Sheikh of course is a victim. Of the linguistic turn in philosophy!  As he asked an ABC interviewer plaintively or rhetorically: ‘what is the truth? Non-Arabic speakers and non-Muslims can never understand the Sheikh by definition. Sheikh Hillay: locked in the tower of truth!

Only one man understands him - his trusted translator Kaysar Trad and he may be suffering from ITSD –Islamic Translation Stress Disorder as the Sheikh reportedly has a new translator, Al Sayed Kandil, an authorized translator attached to the Community Affairs Council in Sydney, NSW.  

Post modernists reject essentialism - the idea of an unchanging essence. But filmmakers, great songwriters and poets and novelists constitute a single identity and are unmistakably themselves - whether it is Joyce or Dylan. They are unique.

Here lies his dilemma. The Sheikhs ‘dilemma’ like most dilemmas, is false. There is a self. And in Lebanon, the Sheikh’s real self, essential self, repressed self emerged.

And he emerged in full flight as a global Jihadist, a supporter and inciter of suicide bombers, an anti-American, anti-Western and Jewish hating conspiracy theorist.

But there is a problem in transliteration and translation back in Australia. How to portray the Sheikh to an Australian audience as peace loving, scholarly, compassionate, caring and forgiving?

That is why the Australian Sheikh Hilaly needs a fulltime translator and a team of shadowy advisers. In Lebanon the Lebanese Sheikh Hilaly was surrounded by fellow jihadists. The Sheik was consonant with cultural context! 

But in Lebanon, the sheikh blew his cover. His essential fundamentalist self was exposed. His reported statements meant that he would not be lost but found in translation.

Lebanon: 15 February 2004. Sidon Mosque.

Sheikh Hilaly is flying. Free at last!  He has met with Hassaan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, ‘The Party of God’.

[The Party of God, they are the victorious’ The Koran V, 56.] is a Shiite Lebanese based anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist Syria/ Iran –sponsored jihad/ terrorist organization with global reach.

Hezbollah, established in 1982 by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, the Iranian  secret police, professional terrorists and agents,  pioneered human bombs, high profile martyr operations, suicide car and truck bombs against major buildings and installations, hostage taking, airplane hijackings – intricate and synchronized and choreographed strategic terrorist operations against American targets and of course, Israel. Credit card fraud, drug smuggling, blackmail, threatened and actual assassinations are also part of their terrorist-crime repertoire.

Hezbollah is financed by a budget of $100 million from Syria, Iran and numerous ‘charities’ through the Middle East and Western countries. Hezbollah trains many other Middle Eastern terrorist groups and is believed to have contacts to Al Qaeda although Hezbollah’s terror operations are shrouded in Shiite secrecy and the requirements of taqiyya.

Hezbollah also operates against Western targets using diplomatic cover of Iranian embassies and has recently been observed by CIA and FBI engaged in surveillance of US targets in Western target countries.

As early as 1994, the Sheikh’s contact in Lebanon, Hasan Nasrallah claimed, ‘… a thousand suicide commandoes are ready to strike Israel all over the world’.

In his sermon at the Sidon Mosque, Sheikh Hillay reportedly praised Jihad, suicide bombers and martyr operations, praised the ‘true man … the boy who opposes Israeli tanks with strength and faith’ and the September 11 terrorists attacks as ‘God’s work against oppressors’.

The Sheikh must have felt at home. Surrounded by jihadists!  Hezbollah’s objectives are to create a radical theocratic Islamic regime in Lebanon and eliminate / ‘liquidate’ ‘the little Satan or the Zionist entity (Israel) by killing as many Jews as possible. ‘The Great Satan’, the USA is their parallel hate and blame object.

Hezbollah has a unique terrorist identifier. Hezbollah favors terrorist spectaculars designed for high media salience with no regard to collateral damage. Hezbollah does not make the distinction between military and civilian targets made by Sheik Hilaly but neither does he!    

Blowback in Australia

In Australia the bomb drops. Metaphorically of course! The Sheikh’s speech is widely publicized. He is attacked by the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Tireless Trad begins work building the edifice of plausible denial.

On February 18 2004 Trad the Translator works the phones. From Lakemba to Lebanon. He speaks to the Sheikh or more accurately is briefed by the Sheikh. Crisis management is set in place. Perceptions management. Trad speaks to the Sheikh and that settles the matter! Trad claims the Sheikh’s remarks were…’taken out of context’, ‘mistranslated’.

According to Trad, the translation of the Sheikh’s sermon was false and malicious, as it was made by an Israeli research organization [MEMRI] ‘…a right wing think tank with connections to the Israeli lobby and military intelligence’. This disinformation theme will be repeated by other pro Sheik spokesmen.

The Israeli lobby! Blame the Jews!  Taquiyya Trad intoned:

‘I believe the context has been lost in the translation…he’s not praising by any means, he’s really condemning these atrocities. I believe these people have been far too selective in taking information somewhat out of context. The Mufti is a proponent of peace and peaceful solutions to any conflict and his message was in a completely and entirely different context. I spoke to him today and he assured me that the context in which he made his message was not in the way it was reported by these people’.

Interviewer: 'What sort of context would you call for a jihad?'

Trad: ‘He wasn’t so much calling for a jihad…he was not so much calling for a jihad in the nature of war, but  in the nature of what these people [Israel] to start to respect the United Nations resolutions…’.

Interviewer: 'But some people could argue that what he is suggesting here is carrying a bomb on you and blowing yourself up is probably a good thing'.

Trad: ‘What he’s saying here is let’s not condemn these people…there’s a big difference between saying let’s not condemn them and calling on people to do something like this’.

Is there?

‘I believe these people have been far too selective in taking information somewhat out of context. The Mufti is a proponent of peace and peaceful solutions and his message was in a completely and entirely different context’.

On 29 February Trad the tireless Translator returned to the Sheikh’s semiotics claiming Hillay had taken ‘bits’ from his poems which he often incorporated into his talks. Further, he had spoken to the Sheikh again and his remark about jihad was a rhetorical question, as in ‘what does it take for Israel to respect UN resolutions? Another Jihad?’  

Is Hillay or Trad threatening Israel with ‘another jihad? Of course not. According to Trad, the Sheikh’s reference to the September 11 attacks meant that ‘evil can reach everywhere and everything’ and the power of terrorism should not be belittled. Further, Hilaly’s statement that September 11 was God’s work against oppressors meant ‘people only do these things when they feel oppressed’.

Trad too is an Islamic fundamentalist who speaks like a deconstructionist philosopher. In his wisdom Allah has chosen Trad to leap into the post modern. But it is a high wire act and a long way down. Still there is the example of the Prophet (pbuh) who prevailed over his enemies, particularly the hated Jews.

7 March 2004 - Hilaly returns to Australia

The Sheikh claimed during his visit to Lebanon that the Australian media were ‘under Zionist hegemony’. Proof of Zionist hegemony was the comment by Prime Minister Howard who expressed deep and genuine concern.

The usually downbeat Australian Foreign minister Downer virtually called the Sheikh a liar!  

Foreign Minister Downer: ‘He [Hilaly] talks out of both sides of his mouth. When there was initially a suggestion in the media that he had called for a jihad, a spokesman for Hilaly said that his words had been taken out of context’.

Interviewer: ‘Well, that’s not true’.

Foreign Minister Downer: ‘Exactly. That did not turn out to be true. We got a copy of the speech, we translated the copy and it’s pretty obvious…that he’s been calling for jihads and suicide bombers to kill innocent Israeli men, women and children. He’s been praising September the 11^th as Gods work’.

Hilaly was outraged. On 9 March, on Al-Aribya, TV in Arabic he claimed:

‘Australia is a multicultural society, and is not the property of Howard or the foreign minister. I am an Australia citizen like him…. If he thinks Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, then I disagree with him’.

Interviewed by the ABC, Sheikh Hilaly predictably and routinely claimed he was ‘taken out of context’ and claimed he was merely reading a poem. Like most poets, he did not support suicide bombings except ‘in the right circumstances… Against an army, not civilians’ a false distinction as Sheikh Hillay knows. Especially in the ‘context’ of suicide bombers and martyrdom operations conducted by Hezbollah, his favourite terrorist organization, against Israel and Western targets. But back to the poet’s defense:

‘Actually, it was poetry (sic) and in poetry we go a little bit into an imagination of presentation….’

Interviewer: ‘You say that now, but you didn’t say that in your sermon. And the suspicion is growing Sheik Hillay that you say one thing in English in Australia and something else in Arabic in Lebanon’.

Hilaly: ‘Of course, of course, you are talking about two different environments’.

Interviewed on 19 March 2004, Hillay told a reporter he used such a high level of eloquence and poetry in his sermons it could not be properly translated into English.

‘I can understand why some people would mistranslate my comments because to them they cannot understand my high level of expression and they might feel my words have some ambiguity for them’.

Asked if he would choose his words more carefully in the future, Sheik Hillay demonstrating his knowledge of Australian vernacular and his ribald sense of humor replied: ‘Of course mate’.

Interviewed in Arabic on SBS Radio (translation supplied) the Sheikh was more comfortable using one of his favored tricks; simultaneously denying and affirming. He reiterated his support for Hezbollah:

‘Hezbollah are not terrorists… I feel that America has a war against Allah.'

'The claim that he supported suicide missions was stirred up by Zionist [Jewish] organizations'.

So why was the Sheik involved in so many controversies?

‘They do not want any person to raise their head against Zionist and American hegemony’. In the Sheikh’s inverted universe, ‘They’ are the Zionist-Crusader-infidels of the West who hate and persecute Islam.

Enter AFIC - the Sheikh’s patron and sponsor

March 2004. The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils (AFIC) expresses concern. They are mystified. And shocked!  They want to meet with the Sheikh. Immediately! They will look into the matter. The Sheikh loves peace. Is this the same person?  Now the controversy rises to the level of farce as AFIC expresses pretend puzzlement, praises the Sheikh, refuses to discuss the matter at AFIC official level and questions the bona fides of the translation, noting that it was contaminated by…Jews.

AFIC sponsored the Sheikh to Australia in 1983. Why should they criticize their choice of Hilaly as Mufti? They appointed him Mufti! Why and how could they doubt his word? AFIC dragged dazed interviewers through a maze of broken mirrors. Double talk, code word, ambiguity, terrorism, metaphor, jihad, peace, hatred, love, poetry- what were they engaging with? The journalists, even on the ABC, became increasingly annoyed - and who could blame them?

On 4 March 2004, AFIC’s Amir Ali claimed to ABC Radio:

‘…Unless I can see this transcript. and unless I get it cleared by Sheikh Hilaly [note’cleared’ by Hilaly-an infidel cannot judge a Muslim] whether he has said the same thing, I will not be able to comment on what he has said. But, having said that, we are waiting for this man to come to this country so that AFIC is going to investigate the matter and sit with him, and talk to him and get to the bottom of this issue.’

Interviewer: ‘Hasn’t the time come when the Muslim community has to stop saying that his comments are being misinterpreted or taken out of context?’

Ali ‘Yes it is definitely happening all the time’.

Ali acknowledges the truth of the question but diverts the question into an attack on the alleged bias of the source:

‘Now the origin of this whole issue came out from – this was started by the Middle Eastern institute from Washington which is known for twisting and turning what the Muslims say in order to create a bad image’.

Interviewer:  ‘But the comments made…and you have just heard are not based on that report, they’re based on a transcript that was prepared by the Foreign Affairs Department’.

Ali: ‘Exactly. This sermon was not given in English, it was in Arabic. Now, who made the transcript, I want to know. And this man [Sheikh Hilaly] he’s not good in speaking English…So, unless I see the transcript, and I see what he has - listen to this man what he has said, I will not be able to make any comment.’

Ali inferred a Jewish plot was hovering in the background.

Who made the transcript?

It was taken from a video of the Sheikh’s speech by the Australian Embassy in Lebanon. But in Islamic terms, that is a contaminated source. It is non-Islamic and therefore false.

On 7 March 2004, AFIC CEO, Amjad Mehboob stated:

‘What he is reported to have said is not consistent with what he has previously stated. We will get to the bottom of this quickly when he returns’.

On 9 march 2004. Tireless Trad claimed:

‘…AFIC has already made their position clear, that they have spoken to the Mufti, and will not make any judgment until they see something different in the tapes themselves. They have seized on comments which have been misrepresented to demonize an outstanding member of the community’.

Trad assumes the position! He demands Australian Prime Minister John Howard and Foreign Minister Downer apologize to the Sheikh and to Muslims! 

On 21 April 2004 the Australia Federation of Islamic Councils (AFIC) holds its 40th Annual congress. President, Amir Ali, interviewed by the same dogged and skilled ABC interviewer delivers a masterpiece of obfuscation:

’ the issue was discussed, but it certainly wasn’t put to any resolution or vote…In fact, we said the government did not submit the tape; the original tape that script was taken from. Still we are waiting for the tape to come, so they didn’t send the tape’.

Interviewer: ‘Oh, so when you told me on this program that you intended to investigate this matter and get to the bottom of it…’

Amir Ali: ‘Yes, we investigated it and then we saw the translation was wrong’.

Interviewer: ‘You never actually did get the tape from the government?’

Amir Ali: ‘No, Not the tape, we only got the transcript.’

Interviewer: ‘Is it true that the majority of the Imams at the meeting expressed confidence in Sheikh Hillay’?

Amir Ali: ‘Yes they did. They did.’

‘Well God willing, the Federal government will get round to sending a copy of the tape at some stage’.

Diversion and Distraction and Deception. AFIC is waiting on the tape? Or on the transcript? The tape? Surely Trad the translator would have had a copy. Or even Sheikh Hillay might have a copy. Does he record his sermons? Many others do! Inshallah.

A genuine Islamic scholar Professor Abdullah Saeed of Melbourne University criticized AFIC. ‘Mufti’ he claimed was an honorific title and could and indeed, should be withdrawn from Sheikh Hillay. Professor Saeed claimed conferring the title Mufti was a political tactic by AFIC: 

‘AFIC though, wanted to keep him in Australia. I think the reason for giving him, conferring him this  title was to in part to strengthen their case for Sheikh Hillay to be in Australia’.

Interviewer: ‘So, It was more or less a means to an end, the title, you think?’

Amir Ali: ‘More or less, Yes’.

In plain English, AFIC facilitated the Sheikh’s stay in Australia and strengthened his case for residency by appointing him Mufti. How could a Mufti be deported? Honor was involved! And multicultural blackmail.

The Sheikh’s daughters joined in. They ‘believed’ their father’s speeches, spoken in Arabic, were taken out of context. The sisters blame the complexities of the Arabic language or the controversy ‘….you cannot just interpret it, just word by word’, Asma assured an interviewer.

But back to the Sheikh’s dilemma; lost in translation. One of the Sheikh’s anonymous associates is cited in a newspaper report:

‘We know he speaks English quite well. But a translator gives him time to think about his responses and gives him that ‘out’ if what he says provokes an angry response. And he thinks that if he gives a sermon in his native tongue no ones going to bother to translate it anyway’.

And then there’s the faithful Keysar Trad who claims the ‘Iman struggles with the English language. Arabic doesn’t translate well into English, his sermons often go on for hours and are sprinkled with songs and poems, confusing translators and he is a passionate speaker who may go too far sometimes, to prove a point’.

But Sheikh Fehmi Naji-al Imam, Iman of Preston Mosque of Melbourne [ABC radio interview 10 March 2004] called for a Mufti who ‘can communicate directly with the public, instead of always going through translators and interpreters’:

Interviewer: ‘…Sheikh Hilaly only really speaks Arabic. We hear this talk about flowery, poetic language and hum being misunderstood. Do you accept that?

Sheikh Fehmi: ‘(Laughs). I don’t buy that.’

‘Am I the Person or not?

The Sheikh told Geraldine Doogue [ABC radio 7 March 2004]

‘I’ve been following the commotion in the Arabic media and in the western international media and I was asking who was the person they are calling all the fuss about, and I started doubting myself. Am I the person or not?’

‘Am I the person or not?’ 

How cute! So Western !  The answer is – Yes.

The Sheikh is an Australian citizen. He visited Lebanon aware that Hezbollah had been prescribed as a terrorist organization by the Australian government only months before. He openly supports Hezbollah. If any other Australian citizen visited Lebanon and met the political/religious identities the Sheikh met, they would be routinely interviewed by ASIO. The Sheik however, met the heaviest hitter - Nasrallah.

The Sheikh blesses Hezbollah

Did Sheikh Hilaly have face to face meetings with Hezbollah’s terrorist planners in Lebanon in February 2004?  Even he could not dispute he met with Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s secretary-general. The same Nasrallah who at a rally in Beirut, Lebanon in September 2002 declared:

‘Martyrdom operations - suicide bombings- should be exported outside Palestine. I encourage Palestinians to take suicide bombings world wide’.

After meeting Nasrallah, The Sheikh reportedly blessed Hezbollah as a global model for terrorists:

‘I bless Hezbollah for liberating the prisoners and the bones of the Shahids [martyrs-terrorists] and I praise it and its sacrifice. Hezbollah has become a model for Mujahideen [holy fighters- terrorists] in the world. Most of the Australian people do not support the policy of the Australian government which has placed Hezbollah on the terror list out of submission to the US’ (emphasis added).

Hassan Nasrallah has many identities and roles:  religious leader, political leader and  Islamic fundamentalist and terrorist regarded by Middle East counter terrorist specialists as one of the most dangerous terrorists planners in the world, if not, the most dangerous, second only to Osama bin Laden.

Due to operational, doctrinal and funding ties to Iran and Syria, and its global reach including an operational presence in Australia, Hezbollah is assessed by the CIA and the FBI as a more potent terrorist threat than Al Qaeda. Hezbollah has murdered over seven CIA officers in terrorist attacks. Prior to the September 11 attacks, Hezbollah killed more Americans than any other terrorist organization.

The Sheikh’s visit to Lebanon raises many questions relevant to the security of Australia and the USA. Who sent Sheikh Hilaly to Australia? He arrived in Australia on February 1982 with his family on a three month visa. Was he sent on a mission? Not Da’awa but an operational mission? Did he have covert foreign advisers and sponsors? Was he wittingly or unwittingly under the control of a foreign intelligence service?

But a more compelling question: What did Sheikh Hillay say to Hezbollah planners in private in Lebanon?

Did Sheikh Hilaly discuss ‘the situation in Australia’ with Nasrallah in a one-to-one meeting and/or Hezbollah’s terrorist planners? Did the Sheikh visit Lebanon 'bearing gifts' for Hezbollah? Where did such discussions take place? Did the Sheikh and his hosts use special measures to avoid surveillance?  Did they meet in mosques? In the darkened rooms of safe houses?  

The Sheikh claims he is concerned about the security of Australia and is a loyal Australian citizen. He conducts interviews in his study at Lakemba with an Australian flag draped in the background.

Australian Foreign Minister, Downer, pointed out [The Age 1 March 2004

‘For an Australian to go overseas and make these comments is appalling, it’s provocative’.

As he is an Australian citizen, would Sheikh Hillay therefore agree to a debriefing with or without translators of his choice by an Australian intelligence organization relating to his contacts and meetings with Hezbollah identities in Lebanon?

Or would he then be found in translation?

Visitors are invited to share and comment on these perspectives.
feedback@ci-ce-ct.com