Posted on

The Koranic verses are not negotiable

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/the-koranic-verses-are-non-negotiable/story-fni0cwl5-1227639731821

http://bit.ly/1RFEkEI

The Daily Telegraph

December 10, 2015

RECENT calls for a reformation of Islam, akin to what happened with Christianity in 16th century Europe, are all very well. But the suggestion has a fundamental flaw which goes to the nature of the Koran.

When Tony Abbott calls for a religious revolution to confront the ‘‘problem within Islam’’, this implies that something may be rotten within the Koran itself. Such an ‘‘honest debate’’ would be fruitless ­because the sanctity of the verses are non-negotiable.

The Christian Gospels were written up to four decades after the crucifixion of Jesus by his eyewitness disciples, based on their repeated recollections of his words and deeds.

However, the Koran is ­believed to be the actual words of God as revealed and recited as verses through archangel Gabriel to his messenger ­Mohammad, in the Arabic language, without translation, without interpretation. Hence, there is no wriggle room to argue that “what God really meant was this”.

Unlike the Gospels which were enriched by parables about the New Testament of love and forgiveness, the Koran is a thorough prescription that governs virtually every aspect of life from birth to death. It leaves little room for modernisation and adaptation.

What can be debated, though, is the man-made ­implementation of the words, especially regarding the true meaning of jihad, purity and cleansing in the context of ISIS propaganda.

The Christian Reformation was successful in redistribution of power in hierarchical churches and stamping out abuses of power such as “indulgences”.

But it did not seek to flush out any words in the Scriptures. On the contrary, Martin Luther translated the Bible so that it was more ­accessible to more people. Some speak of reform when what they really seek is an audit of all the verses that ISIS misuse as a pretext to “justify’’ violence. If that is what they want, then they should just say so, but be prepared to at least read the entire Koran first.

Some have even sought to expunge all the verses that promote violence and contradict the premise that Islam is a religion of peace.

Ironically, this is what ISIS purports to be offering — a revolution to the purist version with literalist interpretations.

But this version is fraught with contradictions as bearded old men seduce boys to perform suicidal terrorism, acts that the bearded old men are not prepared to commit, but expect the boys to believe in the hedonistic rewards that await martyrs in paradise.

If what Tony Abbott seeks is an audit of the ideas driving ­extremism, this requires policing of Imams and cyberspace, and he should know that this is what our intelligence authorities already do.

If the intention is to have an honest debate, he may be wiser to learn from his successor Malcolm Turnbull who recognised that ISIS leaders “defame and blaspheme Islam”.

An honest debate would also open up questions of double standards. For example, as the far right voices such as ­

Reclaim Australia and Rise Up Australia morph from cyberspace and coalesce as street protests, do we ask white leaders: what causes radicalisation and violent extremism in your culture? With the abuses of power revealed by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, do we ask respective ­religious leaders to confront theological problems within their scriptures?

If anyone seeks to understand the contents and ideas within the Koran, then they should seek an open meeting with the Australian National Imams Council.

If Abbott is seeking to add an intelligent political voice to the anti-Muslim ‘‘crusade’’, then he needs to be offering more than this red herring.

Posted on

Faith During War

FAITH DURING WAR

Sunday Age, 6/8/06

 

It was like a scene out of Life is Beautiful – the 1997 movie that earned Roberto Benigni an Oscar for portraying a Jewish father buffering his child during the holocaust.

 

From the 1500 meter altitude above the clouds, just below the village of Ehden in North Lebanon, my child and I gazed down at Tripoli. When the clouds rolled into Ehden, the only visible landmark was the nearby antenna at the peak of Mount Aito.

 

The juxtaposition of the spectacular sunset over the Mediterranean Sea was an awesome sight to behold, conjuring up images of Creation. Indeed, Ehden was named after Eden, where Adam and Eve lived, according to Lebanon’s prospective next saint, 17th century Patriarch and historian Istfan Doueihi.

 

“Is that a thunderstorm in the clouds?” asked my child, pointing to sudden explosions and reflections of light near the Tripoli sunset. Keen to avoid conjuring the bloody scenes on television, I explained that the amazing lights were fireworks from celebrations such as weddings. But I could hear warplanes humming high overhead and knew exactly what they were doing.

 

When we went to farewell our relatives down the street, we were reassured by repeated claims that Ehden was immune from bombings, and that our relatives would remain safe. Within minutes of entering their house full of young children, the first missile had struck the nearby hilltop antenna and broadcast station at Mount Aito.

 

In the multi-storey building and throughout the street, only two words were louder than the deafening thunder of the explosions: faith and family. The origin, purpose, frequency, proximity and precision of the bombing were simply irrelevant to those around us. Indeed, the echo of the impact was disorienting and we had no idea which direction and which hilltop was hit.

 

Children’s faces became pale, mothers were hyperventilating, some startled from their summer siesta, some rushing out of showers dumb-founded, others running like ants from a destroyed molehill. Indeed, this is how it must appear to the boys with the toys above.

 

We saw young and old in neighbouring homes fleeing to lay hands and eyes on their family, as if this was the Last Book of the Bible.

 

When the second bomb hit, the families huddled together with terror filled eyes. All previous promises about safety and my tales about fireworks were now bombed like the landmark antenna. The sky that had been a source of inspiration and beauty was now the source of terror. It was now raining down not with life-giving water but life-taking fire. The place that was renown for Creation and the Beginning was now tainted with destruction and the end.

 

Those who could not reach their family members fell collectively to their knees and commenced the rosary. I had never seen children pray so intensely, clinging to whatever sacred relics, crucifixes or saint icons they could reach. Cell phones were now out of order so rosaries became the hotline to heaven.

 

Beyond the hills, the antennas, the planes and the skies, innocent families fled to their faith, as the only source that was higher, literally and figuratively. All the psychological skills I could muster to calm their spirits had paled into insignificance when I witnessed the power of prayer, and the visible effect on their faces.

Posted on

The Church Should Untangle Civil from Sacred ‘Marriage’

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2015/07/14/4273269.htm

ABC Religion and Ethics 14 Jul 2015

The church must distinguish what belongs to Caesar from what belongs to God. If the church is no longer wedded to the word ‘marriage’, it will have nothing to lose if and when the civil law changes.

“Don’t mess with marriage” was in my face when I reached for the parish newsletter at last Sunday’s mass. Before I turned the page of this pastoral letter from the Catholic Bishops of Australia, there was already a problem: the mess predates this “same-sex marriage debate.”

Our church has never had a monopoly on the meaning of marriage – an institution that existed long before Christianity. Marriage was never ours to begin with and has been continually re-defined throughout history by many institutions, including the church itself.

If the “faithful” relinquish the word marriage and give it back to secular society, religious institutions could dust off and reinstate the holy sacrament of matrimony, with all the sacred implications.

When I was a child, Easter Sunday was used in church to mark the most definitive day on the Christian calendar. As we learned that Easter derives from the Saxon goddess of Spring, Eostre, one of many pagan notions adopted into church traditions, my parish now calls it Resurrection Sunday – and rightly so. Eostre was the goddess of fertility, hence the association with the bunny. This revolution away from borrowed names to reinstate the original event helps untangle history.

It was only 500 years ago, at the Council of Trent in 1563, when marriage was officially deemed as one of the seven sacraments. Long before marriage was adopted as a sacrament, it was a strategic alliance between families for economic reasons or class reasons, often arranged by parents. Love and offspring were secondary.

As I read the pastoral letter, I cringed at the timing of our faithful assuming the moral high ground and pontificating about sex while harrowing revelations continue in the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. While the churches have a legitimate role to contribute to moral debates, why does the Catholic church appear to do most of the heavy lifting whenever this debate rages in Australia? After all, synagogues and mosques also profess the sanctity of a heterosexual marriage, but we do not see such public protests from rabbis and imams.

The pastoral letter defines marriage as a covenant that is “open to the procreation of children,” which is problematic for couples who choose not to have children. Last Sunday’s homily reminded me that family is a “holy” trinity between father, mother and child(ren).

The pastoral letter explains its central concerns about children, not because of the same-sex “parents” per se, but because of the church’s fundamental teachings on surrogacy, IVF and “the lure of the technology of artificial insemination.”

Australian census data attests that the institution and sanctity of marriage has been continually evolving and indeed eroding for decades. Popular culture and television programs have redefined marriage as a competition for of vanity, originality and fashion. The sacrament and “holy trinity” rarely enters into the equation when scoring points over wedding dresses, decor, catering and music to win the luxury honeymoon prize.

I was affronted by the pastoral letter asserting that “mothering and fathering are distinctly different” and that absence of a mother or father may “impede child development.” As a widowed father of three children, I can testify that it is the quality of parenting rather than the (in)equality of gender that most influences the child’s development.

Soon after my wife died, our parish priest gave me the classic Rembrandt painting, The Return of the Prodigal Son, and pointed out that the father figure had both paternal and maternal features. This image has been displayed in many confession boxes (sacrament of reconciliation) and reminds us that we are all wired to fulfil dual roles. I think it is more nurture (culture) than nature that leads to these gender distinctions.

The most compelling arguments in the pastoral letter pertain to the rights of children, especially to know their right to know their biological parents. Although the “consequences of redefining marriage” examples in the pastoral letter may be perceived as scaremongering, Australia needs safeguards to prevent these anomalies and protect the religious institutions and private institutions.

Exclusion clauses need to be enshrined for ancillary services such as cake bakers, hotels, photographers and clergy who refuse to extend their services to same-sex couples, in “good faith.” Otherwise, we run the risk of replacing one form of discrimination against same-sex couples with another form of discrimination against those who refuse to recognise the couples as married.

If the opening slogan is “Don’t mess with marriage,” the closing slogan may as well read, “What next – polygamy?” And it is indeed these examples of state-sponsored punishment that need to be placated if the civil law changes are to retain a civil society.

Yes, the religious institutions cannot impose their sacred definition of marriage onto civil society, but in turn civil society cannot impose its redefinition onto religious institutions. That would be inequality.
We can discern what belongs to Caesar (civil society) from what belongs to God (sacred society). If we in the church faithful are no longer “wedded” to the word marriage, we have nothing to lose if and when the civil law changes.

 

Posted on

Muslim, Christian clergy condemn terrorism

https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/24969401/muslim-christian-clergy-condemn-terrorism/

Muslim, Christian clergy condemn terrorism

Ehssan VeiszadehSeptember 11, 2014, 7:16 pm

Senior Muslim and Christian leaders have condemned the sectarian bloodshed in the Middle East and vowed to uphold Australia’s security.

Grand Mufti Dr Ibrahim Abu Mohamed, head of the Chaldean Catholic community Archbishop Gabriel Kassab and six other religious leaders released a joint statement denouncing all forms of “violence, sectarian discrimination and terrorism, especially in Iraq and the Middle East”.

“We stand in solidarity with the displaced families in the region who have every right to live free from fear, and we pledge any support that eases their hardship,” the statement said on Thursday.

The leaders also pledged to “uphold the safety of our homeland Australia and Australian people”.

“This is an integral part of our divine teachings,” the statement said.

“We affirm our commitment to continue this solidarity and maintain open lines of communication with each other and with the Australian government.”

Joseph Wakim, of Arab Council Australia, commended the religious leaders for speaking out against violent extremism abroad.

“What they’re trying to make sure is that it doesn’t come home to Australia,” he told AAP.

Mufti-Bishop

“They’re really trying to buffer it by saying to all these angry youths who are out there trying to take the law into their own hands that they don’t have any sort of blessing (from their religious leaders).”

The statement comes amid a federal government push to tighten counter-terrorism measures.

The Abbott government says it is concerned that dozens of Australians who are fighting in Syria and Iraq might bring their extreme ideologies back home.

 

Posted on

Plenty of smoke but little fire in Tony Abbott’s concerns over Muslim radicals

http://m.theage.com.au/comment/plenty-of-smoke-but-little-fire-in-tony-abbotts-concerns-over-muslim-radicals-20140901-10ay16.html

http://bit.ly/1B8AlGQ

Published in The Age, 2 September 2014

The Islamic State is emerging as a political movement.

 

The Prime Minister should be a beacon leading us out of the terrorism smoke, not fanning the flames.

Mr Abbott’s announcement that $13.4 million will be earmarked to “support community efforts to prevent young Australians being radicalised” is fraught with contradictions.

How can one allocate money to a “community” solution before we have any evidence-based research on the cause? There is no singular definable career path or pathology for the radicalised terrorist. Some are educated professionals who are drawn to ideology of a pure Islamic caliphate. Others are disenfranchised and unemployed, angry at their lack of belonging. Whether it is the pull or push factor, the allure of power and making history is a magnet for some.

The compounding factors may be idiosyncratic to the individual, compounded by their selected peers or by their selected social media. There is no evidence that the family or the “community” sanctions or supports this pathway to violent extremism. When discovered, these individuals appear to be leading a double life.

If “community” refers to Islamic organisations and mosques, they are rarely on the radar or habitat of these recluses. When was a radicalised jihadist recognised as a regular at a youth centre? These marginalised individuals appear to shy away from these “mainstream” professional agencies that encourage education and employment. Throwing the solution at the feet of Muslim community leaders implies that they are part of the problem.

While Mr Abbott is at pains to point out that his measures “are not directed against any particular community or religion”, this is refuted by his recent round of Muslim meetings. The leaders that the Prime Minister “consulted” last week while trying to sell his anti-terror reforms are the respectable officials and unlikely to be “consulted” by the radicalised jihadists.

The Attorney-General’s Living Safe Together website affirms that “there is not just one path to violent extremism”, and that “extremists exploit social and economic conditions, and individual vulnerabilities to recruit and motivate others”. However, it also affirms that “many projects are already under way across Australia under the Building Community Resilience Grants and Youth Mentoring Grants Programs”. This begs the question: has Mr Abbott announced a continuation of an existing funding?

Mr Abbott claims that “the best defence against radicalisation is through well-informed . . . local engagement”. But his concerns about returning radicalised extremists becoming “involved in terrorist activity here” may be ill-informed. ISIS is not al-Qaeda. The Islamic State is emerging as a political movement that is founded on reclaiming and expanding its own territory, commencing with Iraq and Syria.

Their enemies are infidels in their caliphate who refuse to swear allegiance to caliph Abu-Bakr al Baghdadi. Their ethnic cleansing is driven by a sense of victimisation and vengeance. As confirmed by many “rear-view mirror” empirical studies on the radicalisation process, angry political views are the prerequisite, not religious intolerance.

Unlike al-Qaeda, which launched attacks on foreign soil, this offshoot recruits fighters for its own soil. There has been no official escalation of Australia’s “medium” risk of terrorist threat since 2003. Despite this unchanged risk assessment, Mr Abbott heightens the media hype by referring to what “we have seen on our TV screens and on the front pages of our newspapers”.

If one listens to the propaganda of the travelling circus that recruits youth into the Islamic State, they are replete with references to western racism and hypocrisy.

If Mr Abbott is serious about “activities to better understand and address radicalisation”, the onus cannot be left at the feet of the “community”. Ironically, the double speak in his announcement has already fed conspiracy theories that Muslims are being targeted, yet again. The differential treatment of Australians in the Israeli Defence Forces, which have killed over 2000 Palestinians in Gaza, remain a bone of contention for many who see all killing of civilians as immoral, regardless of uniform or citizenship. The maps of Sydney CBD seized inside a “bomb-making” house in Brisbane failed to attract the usual terrorist headlines, perhaps because the suspect was not from the Middle East.

Even “moderate” Muslims have been angered by Mr Abbott’s recent ultimatum that “you don’t migrate to this country unless you want to join our team”, especially given that near half of the Muslim population was Australian-born.

Repeated references to “Team Australia” reduce these issues to a sport where the non-players are rendered non-Australian. Mr Abbott may be wise to play down the politics of fear by stating “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear”.

The hype around home-grown radicals planting bombs is real, and has been spurred by the free publicity given to Islamic State scaremongering. But planting the solution at the feet of the community is not realistic.

They need to be coupled with government efforts to stop the divisive language and foreign policies that cause the very radicalisation that the Prime Minister is ostensibly diffusing.

Posted on

Rabbi or imam, a threat is still a threat

http://bit.ly/1gk86tz

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/opinion/joseph-wakim-rabbi-or-imam-a-threat-is-still-a-threat/story-fni6unxq-1226833133261

The Advertiser
20 February 2014

“BY the power of our Holy Torah, we admonish you to cease immediately all efforts to achieve these disastrous agreements, in order to avoid severe heavenly punishment for everyone involved.”

In an open letter to US Secretary of State John Kerry, this wrath formed part of a recent statement by Rabbis from the Committee to Save the Land and People of Israel and “hundreds of other Rabbis in Israel and around the world”.

The rabbis were incensed by Kerry’s mediation between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators.

Their statement did not register on our media radar, as such ultra-orthodox voices are treated as atypical of mainstream Israeli society. If the word Torah is replaced by Koran in this statement, the words severe, punishment and everyone suddenly read as a global fatwa.

These rabbis attribute terrorism exclusively to their enemy as they proclaim that Kerry’s “incessant efforts to expropriate integral parts of our Holy Land and hand them over to Abbas’s terrorist gang amount to a declaration of war against the Creator and Ruler of the universe”.

This war-speak reaches the same pitch as their Muslim counterparts who purport to speak for the same deity.
But it is a fallacy to assume that only Muslims execute such threats and take the divine law into their own hands.

In 1994, Baruch Goldstein massacred 29 Palestinian worshippers at a Hebron mosque. He belonged to the Jewish Defence League, which the FBI later classified as a “far right terrorist group”.

He was publicly denounced by mainstream Jewish bodies as a lone madman and an extremist, yet over 10,000 sympathisers visited and venerated his “holy” shrine until it was forcibly removed by the government in 1999.

The growing influence of the 10 per cent of ultra-Orthodox citizens within Israel’s population of eight million continues to create a sectarian-secular divide.

While they may not resort to street violence like Palestinian stone-throwers, they flex their political muscle with violent decisions that suffocate Gazans, expand settlements and segregate the West Bank.

In Australia, the growth of the Muslim presence has seen a growth in Islamophobia. Too often, the extreme actions of an extreme minority are treated as typical and therefore stereotypical.

When the abhorrent placard at a 2012 Sydney rally screamed ‘‘Behead all those who insult the prophet’’, Australians screamed even louder with outrage.

Those responsible for this message were swiftly condemned and written off as unrepresentative by Muslim elders. But the mud stuck on the Muslim name.

When the abhorrent YouTube video by Sheikh Sharif Hussein was falsely attributed to the Islamic Da’wah Centre of South Australia in August 2013, again the elders tried to extinguish the local backlash and gross generalisations.

His “sermon” labelled Australian soldiers in Iraq as ‘‘crusader pigs’’ and beseeched Allah to kill Buddhists and Hindus who have harmed Muslims.

More than anyone, Israelis should understand that hate speech is the ominous precursor to violence, especially when coupled with real power and weapons.

The violent voices of these rabbis deserve the same amplification and accountability as their Muslim counterparts. We cannot keep marginalising them as extremists who don’t count.
They do count, and so will their victims.

Joseph Wakim is the founder of the Australian Arabic Council and author of Sorry we have no space

Posted on

Christmas is the critical time to reach out to lonely hearts, especially those close to home

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/opinion/joseph-wakim-christmas-the-critical-time-to-reach-out-to-lonely-hearts-especially-those-close-to-home/story-fni6unxq-1226789051420

http://bit.ly/1gSTaXf

Christmas is the critical time to reach out to lonely hearts, especially those close to home
The Advertiser, 24 December 2013

The countdown to Christmas is a critical time to reach out to the lonely hearts, especially those close to home. Source: Supplied

As the twinkling gaze of children turns to the North Pole to fulfil their wishes, there is an icy gaze by those who feel poles apart from this love and warmth.
Indeed, the Christmas season can be the most polarising time of the year.

For those who lack this love, it is the time when being the ”have nots” is most in their face. The glow of the nativity scene is lost on them, as they feel that there is no room for them at any inn, not even their own. Sadly, many are tipped over the edge as the pain of loneliness or loss becomes too unbearable.

As families congregate around carols and trees, and the aerial view of society resembles many rotating wheels, those who have fallen off the wheels become the loneliest dots. They seek to be understood, not to understand; to be listened to, not to be lectured. And they may be closer to home than the homeless people.

One can be lonely without being alone. Ironically, the annual celebration of the birth of the messiah could also be the time of pondering the end of a life.

Suicidal Christmas may seem like an oxymoron, but for those involved in its prevention, it is a fatal combination.

It is a time when one can hear one’s own heartbeat pounding in one’s head, and the ears ringing like sirens, and one’s life flash past. The rest of the world seems so caught up in expressions of love that they are oblivious to these ticking time bombs.

And when it tragically happens, there is gnashing of teeth, and a slow motion rewind of all the clues that were missed. The blame game can create lifelong ripple effects and survivor guilt.
When I worked with “street kids”, I struggled to understand why they could still take their own lives regardless of how much unconditional love we showered upon them.

“Do you really want to die or do you want the pain to go away?”
That hole in the heart cannot be healed by outsiders; they had to love themselves. Receiving love from others was not the suicide bulwark.

At the funerals, loved ones struggle to find peace. They try to answer one question: Why?

The countdown to Christmas is a critical time to reach out to the lonely hearts, especially those close to home. As we accelerate towards our self-imposed deadlines, we may speed past some subtle cries for help.

A person who suddenly decides to visit relatives and thank them for nostalgic childhood memories may be applauded with, “he is finally learning to show respect for her elders – isn’t this wonderful?” But he was actually preparing his farewells.

A person who stops going out with friends at night and instead withdraws to his bedroom may be applauded with, “finally he has outgrown that dangerous stage and stopped wasting money with late nights – isn’t it wonderful that he now stays at home with his family?” But he was actually starting to close in on himself.

A person who starts to give away personal and favourite belongings to others may be applauded with, “he takes after his father – isn’t this wonderful that he has become so generous?” But he was actually parting from all worldly possessions.

A person who declares his unconditional love may be applauded with, “he will grow up to be a fine man who is not afraid to express emotions”. But he was actually saying goodbye.

This Christmas, we can give the gift of saving a life, by giving presence rather than presents. It is indeed the gift of giving, even in the simplest abode, that was celebrated in the first Christmas.

We can try to make lonely people feel loved, and hopefully that they deserve to be loved. It is at this polarising time that they may most need to believe in another miracle: that they are worthy of our time, and worthy of self-love.

Joseph Wakim is a former Multicultural Affairs Commissioner and author of Sorry, We Have No Space.

If you need help, visit Lifeline here or call 13 11 14 or visit beyond blue here or call 1300 22 4636.

Posted on

Beware Australia’s real ‘illegals’

http://bit.ly/17QYaGP

The Advertiser, 8 November 2013

PICTURE this scenario at an Australian international airport arrivals terminal: “
Excuse me, sir. We are the Federal Police. You are under arrest.”
“Are you serious? What for?”
“Participating in illegal military activities while in Syria.”
“I was on a humanitarian mission!”
“You will need to prove it.”

But this scene will not play itself out in reality while politicians drag their feet in a legal quagmire.
The Abbott Government is renowned for its simple and clear statements, especially pertaining to border protection.

The incarnation of the ‘‘stop the boats’’ war-cry was to launch Operation Sovereign Borders, deploy a three-star general and render the seafaring asylum seekers ‘‘illegal arrivals’’.

So what is the incarnation of its “baddies versus baddies’’ banner overarching Syria?

Why have we not seen the Government launch Operation Foreign Fighters, deploy a three-star general and render the returning mercenaries ‘‘illegal combatants’’?

In his book Foreign Fighters: Transnational Identity in Civil Conflicts, Dr David Malet from Melbourne University claims that the 200 Australians participating in the Syrian war outnumber all other Westerners.

He contends that “the biggest danger is that they return home as recruiters” and are hailed as “heroes in their local communities”.

Surely, this must render them more dangerous than the ‘‘illegal arrivals’’ who are desperately seeking life for their beloved families, not martyrdom for their ‘‘brothers in arms’’ and a ‘‘ticket to paradise’’? Already four Australians are known to have been killed in Syria since the uprising began.

It was rich of former foreign minister Bob Carr to urge his successor to revisit the idea of legally blocking these Australian citizens from returning home from the Syria war zones. He had his chance.

What has been the result of his strategy of intelligence gathering and merely monitoring their recruitment activities after their return? The number of fighters swelled from single to double to triple digits.

While our intelligence agencies need to keep their confidential information and control orders out of the public domain in case the radicalised recruiters go underground, the public deserve more than blanket response of ‘‘trust us – we are doing much more than you think’’.

Regardless of reality, there is a prevailing perception that Australian jihadists come and go with impunity.
Community advocates sounded the alarm when there were two high-profile Australian fatalities in the battle zone in 2013. The alarm was amplified with when this figure subsequently increased.

The government’s “‘wait and see’’ strategy revealed a gaping loophole and made a mockery of our federal laws.

Those opposing the Syrian government did not want their sons to slip down this hole, as virtually all embraced Australia to flee from war. Those supporting the Syrian government also opposed this loophole because of their general concern over foreign mercenaries and terrorists allied with al Nusra and al-Qa’ida.

When David Hicks was participating in paramilitary training in Afghanistan in 2001, the US Military Commission charged him with “providing material support for terrorism” and he was detained in Guantanamo Bay until 2007. But when other Australians participate in military activities in the plethora of pro and anti-government ‘‘brigades’’, they return home to a hero’s welcome.

The current law is articulated by the Department of Foreign Affairs travel advice: “It is illegal under Australian law for Australian citizens, including dual citizens, to provide any kind of support to any armed group in Syria.

“This includes engaging in fighting for either side, funding, training or recruiting someone to fight.”. . . Australians who commit these offences while overseas may be prosecuted in Australia”.

Breaches may incur heavy fines and a maximum 10 years’ imprisonment. So why has there not been a single arrest, prosecution of or conviction reported to the Australian public since the alarm bells were sounded?

Too many of these Australians publicly claim to be offering humanitarian aid to the Syrian refugee epidemic, but their Facebook photos show them posing proudly with guns.
If the problem is loopholes within the current Australian law, then it is incumbent upon the Attorney-General George Brandis to update the national security laws. , just as the anti-terrorism laws were updated with 54 new Bills under the Howard government. The real ‘‘illegals’’ are arriving in planes, not boats.

Joseph Wakim is the founder of the Australian Arabic Council and author of Sorry We Have No Space.

Posted on

Are Christian Arabs an endangered species?

bit.ly/16rzkZT

National Times, 22 October 2013

Are Christian Arabs an endangered species?

From the onset of the Arab Spring in Syria, I was advocating a third way: unarmed dialogue, rather than the status quo advocated by the pro-Assad rallies or the forced regime change advocated by the armed rebels.

The more I listened to stories from those living in Syria, the more I suspected that the Arab Spring foliage was hiding some foreign seeds and foreign weeds. There was a disconnect between the factual testimonies and the fictitious tale. Many minorities, especially Christians, feared that a crude form of democracy would prevail: majority rules with no constitutional protection for the most vulnerable citizens.

But it was an uphill battle for me to find media space to question the Arab Spring goodies and baddies. “Sorry, we have no space” became shorthand for “sorry, we have no space for counter narratives”. If the Christians were declared an “endangered species” of animal, rather than the indigenous people, there would have been greater global outrage.

After all, the fishing bait that I was feeding to the media may have been bitter to swallow and my fishing hook was upside down in the shape of a question mark.

More than a decade after George W Bush’s divisive ultimatum, “Either you are with us with us, or you are with the terrorists”, it appeared that some still chose to watch a colour television in black and white.

Then I happened to be grounded at the airport. My plane had “something missing from its checklist” and could not take off. As I gazed out of the plane’s window, I had an epiphany that something else was grounded – me. After more than 20 years with more than 500 published opinion pieces, why was I still grounded at the same intersection?

A former editor once sniggered: “When will you stop beating the same racism drum?”
I replied: “When you stop beating the racist drum. When you stop, I stop.”

I looked at the wings of the plane and thought about the wings of my advocacy. Those who walked with me in the 1991 Gulf War had moved on. Those who walked with me in the 2001 War on Terror had moved on.

Many became disillusioned with this unpaid work. Some were fed up with being “fire extinguishers” that were rolled out every time Arabs behaved badly. Others became armchair advocates for the advocates, tweeting and emailing from their “clearing house” of articles by advocates. Many pursued creative paths by writing plays, writing poetry, writing musicals, writing PhDs or writing speeches.

I understood them, but still stood there. The perils of criticising fellow Christians when they are “Islamophobic” and criticising fellow Arabs when they are “anti-Semitic” come at a personal price.

But with the rise of so-called “Christianophobia” in Muslim majority countries, as warned by peace-activist Mother Agnes Mariam and British historian Rupert Shortt, it will be inspiring to see the rise of Muslim advocates defending the Christian “endangered species”. Just as many of those speaking out against Islamophobia were fellow Christians.

For too long, some sections of our media treated Arabs as a wild species to be contained and scrutinised in a test tube. But the irony was that some of us advocates were treating media editors like a school of fish without realising it. I wanted to inhabit their habitat and understand their feeding patterns so I could offer the right bait to catch the coveted “column”. But their feeding habits kept changing.

In the shadows of the Arab revolutions, there was an advocacy evolution. In the main streams of yesteryear, the bait had to be a proven “head” of a proven organisation with proven representation. But with global warming, the media mountains were melting and little islands were breaking away and sinking. The fish were migrating. They were more interested in immediacy than legitimacy.

Their food was literally “online” and they could feed from anywhere. As a free floater, my catch could no longer be fetched by casting one rod to one fish at a time. I needed to cast my net out wide.

After staring at each other through the barrel of the test tube for too long, editors and writers learnt that we swam the same turbulent ocean like little dots on a global page. We never said something so simple. “Let’s have a coffee” was code for let’s have a conversation. After all, coffee and conversation start with C which is an open circle, while Other starts with O which is a ‘closed circle.’

Joseph Wakim is the founder of the Australian Arabic Council and a former multicultural affairs commissioner. This is an edited excerpt from his forthcoming book Sorry we have no space to be released this month.

Posted on

Give up something meaningful for Lent

Published in Sunday Age, 10 March 2013
http://bit.ly/14LDQkt

Fast and loose – give up something meaningful for Lent

”WHAT I have given up for Lent” has become a fashion statement in some social circles. The announcement has been trumpeted so loudly, it may as well be tattooed on foreheads with pride in place of the ashes of penance. Indeed, it is written on the wall of many Facebook pages for all the friends to see.

Some of my ”faithful” flock mope pathetically about how they have given up their favourite luxury – chips, pizza, chocolate or caffeine. They appear to have forgotten that it is not what goes into their mouth that defiles them, but what comes out of it: pride, profanities, gossip.

As a child raised with Lebanese Christian traditions, spirituality and culture intersected and fused. Meat was the prescribed sacrifice during Lent, which was meaningless to me as I detested meat.

I should have been denied dairy products instead. Ironically, I looked forward to Lent because I much preferred the lentil soups than the mandatory meat anyway.

Many Christian faithful who celebrate Lent may need to be reminded of its origins. It is meant to be a time to enhance the relationship with their maker through private prayer, with their ”neighbour” through private almsgiving, and with themselves through some private sacrifice.

But before the faithful sacrifice alcohol, there are some sobering biblical reminders against pride and hypocrisy because ”God sees the unseen”. When you fast, wash your face and comb your hair so that only God notices, rather than look miserable and moan so that people pity you. When you give alms, do not sound a trumpet. And in praying, do it in secret.

Looks like some social sins persist after two millenniums. Indeed, bragging on Twitter, Facebook or Instagram about what you gave up for Lent is merely a modern manifestation of hypocrisy and reward seeking.

Herein lies the biggest difference between fasting privately for spiritual reasons and fasting publicly for social reasons. The former is tougher because it involves long-term faith that ”God will reward you later”, while the latter is tempting because it involves fulfilment from ”friends” and ”followers”.

For the ”fashion” fasters, it prompts the question – why sacrifice your favourite edibles if you undermine it with conceit and complaint? Are you point-scoring for this life now, or the next life?