Posted on

Condemnation by Muslim leaders of atrocities is now expected to be said even louder, without delay

 

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/opinion/joseph-wakim-condemnation-by-muslim-leaders-of-atrocities-is-now-expected-to-be-said-even-louder-without-delay/story-fni6unxq-1227186240974

 http://bit.ly/1J5V7Jz

 

Condemnation by Muslim leaders of atrocities is now expected to be said even louder, without delay

The Advertiser

16 January 2015

The Advertiser

ARE Muslim leaders condemned whatever they do?

If they are silent in the face of atrocities that incriminate their faith, they are seen as complicit. Their silence is construed as consent and they are treated as collectively guilty by association until proven innocent.

If they condemn the atrocity, they feed into an unquenchable hunger for submission, as if their condemnation does not go without saying.

Does the condemnation guarantee that their equal citizenship status is restored? On the contrary: it guarantees they will be condemning forever.

It guarantees that their loyalty remains in question because they continue to answer that question.

This is exactly how the bullying cycle is perpetuated. The bullied know their place and recite the mantra on cue, every time, as soon as the bullies flex their muscles.

The cycle runs along these lines. A crime is committed by misguided ‘‘Muslims’’, in Australia or abroad. Their brethren are asked: are you part of ‘‘them’’ or part of us – Team Australia? The brethren plead: we hate them! We love you! Please believe us! Thus, they perpetuate the perception of the powerful bringing the powerless to their knees.

How do I know this?

Because I have been involved in public advocacy for Middle Eastern people for nearly 30 years. I have written and received hundreds of press releases, condemning the other, denouncing the other, distancing ourselves from the other. It has been a struggle to have these condemnations published, only to find letters columns accusing Muslim leaders of ‘‘silence’’.

Has the hunger for these public condemnations diminished because it finally goes without saying?

No. The stock standard condemnation is now expected to be issued even louder, without delay, without reservation.

So I stopped writing them and stopped encouraging them.

When asked about the atrocities, the answer should be, ‘’Please Google all previous condemnations on the public record. Why would our position be any different today? What part of the word condemn don’t you understand?’’

To those addicted to condemnations, and those hoisting the pen as a flag of free speech, it is time for new questions and new condemnations.

Yes, we should link arms in silent solidarity after the 17 cold-blooded murders in Paris.

But if we are serious about free speech, where were the Je Suis Gaza banners last July when Operation Protective Edge claimed more than 2100 Palestinian lives, mostly civilians and children?

Where was the arm-in-arm international condemnation by world leaders?

Is death less painful or less cruel if bombed from above?

Is it less of an atrocity if sanctioned by the state?

Is human life not precious if the victim is not Western?

During this war in Gaza, the Sydney Morning Herald published a cartoon on 26 July that caused profound offence to readers. The elderly Jewish man in the cartoon was sitting in an armchair ‘emblazened with the Star of David …[which] closely resembled illustrations that had circulated in Nazi Germany.’

The Herald decided to ‘apologise unreservedly for this lapse, and the anguish and distress that has been caused.’

Hence, the pen of cartoonist Glen Le Lievre was trumped by this ‘serious error of judgement.

This was not the first time that freedom of expression was sacrificed at the altar of ethnic or religious sensibilities.

In April 1996, actor Marlon Brando claimed that ‘Hollywood is run by Jews. It is owned by Jews and they should have a greater sensitivity about the issue of people who are suffering.’

After a swastika was pasted across his star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame and he was threatened that the rest of his life would be a ‘living hell’, Brando apologised for his ‘anti-Semitic vulgarities.’

Unlike Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons, it was the artists, not the critics, who were condemned. It was freedom from offensive expressions rather than freedom of expressions that prevailed.

While those offended resorted to ink rather than blood to voice their outrage, the examples highlight the hypocrisy of those who defend some offensive cartoons but condemn others.

If Muslim leaders are expected to stand in solidarity and continuously condemn crimes, could they expect some reciprocation? Where was the condemnation when Australia voted against a UNSC motion to end Israeli occupation within 3 years and to recognise a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders? On 30 December, the USA was the only other country to vote against the motion in the 15 member Council. By voting against a ‘just, lasting and comprehensive peaceful solution’, Australia voted to perpetuate the misery of the Palestinian people.

To condemn or not to condemn, that is the question.

Whether it is nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of continuous condemnation, or to stop the cycle and invite condemnation of all inhuman atrocities, equally.

Joseph Wakim is the founder of the Australian Arabic Council and former Multicultural Affairs Commissioner.

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

Guess who’s not coming to dinner

To break bread or to boycott: that’s Muslim Australia’s choice

Refusing to eat with someone is a gesture indicating they’ve dishonoured you. That’s why Muslim leaders are boycotting high profile events in an attempt to be heard

The Guardian.com, Tuesday 12 August 2014

In recent weeks, three high-profile boycotts have been launched by Australia’s Muslim leaders against the backdrop of the current conflict in Gaza. As a form of political activism, the boycotts are novel, but perhaps the response to them isn’t: they have been described as “divisive and unproductive” and a barrier to constructive dialogue.

Those remarks came from Vic Alhadeff, who was the subject of the first boycott. In his capacity as CEO of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies, Alhadeff issued a community update on 9 July which justified Israel’s Operation Protective Edge by republishing a statement from Israel’s ministry of foreign affairs. By doing so, I and others argued, he abrogated his responsibility to remain neutral as chairman of the NSW community relations commission (CRC).

We argued his position had become untenable, and that he had to resign. Local Arab leaders issued an open letter to Victor Dominello, the NSW citizenship minister, and met with him in person, but the minister concluded that Alhadeff “is doing an outstanding job” as CRC chair and would remain in the post.

Similarly, Mike Baird, the NSW premier, affirmed that Alhadeff had “his full confidence” – although he conceded that it was inappropriate in his role for him to have made those comments. This was seen as a slap on the hand for Alhadeff, and a slap in the face for NSW’s Muslim leaders.

After being ignored, a boycott or withdrawal becomes a worthwhile option. Community leaders announced that they would “suspend involvement with the CRC so long as [Alhadeff] is at the helm … [because] the minister has walked away from what is morally right”.

Many who had accepted the invitation to attend the premier’s annual Iftar (breaking of fast) dinner, scheduled for that week, announced that they would “respectfully withdraw … on moral grounds”. They could not break bread with those who shrugged off what they saw as propaganda. Images of injured or dead Palestinian children had spoiled their appetite for a celebration.

The result was many empty tables at the parliament house dinner. Photos of Baird addressing the half-full room made a powerful statement: the premier and minister did not treat Australian Arabs and Muslims with respect, so they acted with respect for their culture, faith and tradition.

The “Iftar boycott” is such a strong image because dining is much more than physical act of eating, it’s a spiritual communion of people. There is an Arabic expression said after a meal is shared, along the lines of “there is now bread and salt between us”. Even the poorest people share what little food they have as a gesture of hospitality, which is often bread and salt.

Salt is a bonding and flavouring agent when baking bread, and a bonding agent that preserves friendships. It’s also a common motif in the Abrahamic faiths. In Christianity, breaking bread holds profound significance after the last supper, as does salt; Christians are described as the “salt of the earth” in Matthew’s gospel. In the Jewish Shabbat, there is silence during the hand-washing ritual before the bread is blessed.

Refusing to break bread together is neither about dishonouring the host, nor is it a threat or a provocation. It is, rather, a gesture to indicate that he has dishonoured you. The Sydney Morning Herald apprehended this in their editorial on 26 July, when they lamented that “some ill-chosen and insensitive words at an inopportune time have tarnished [Alhadeff’s] otherwise fine work”.

Alhadeff resigned the next day and Baird finally conceded that his comments had made his position untenable. “I will always listen to the Muslim community, just as he has in that resignation,” Baird said, proving the boycott was a landmark lesson in how to be heard without yelling; on 28 July he addressed thousands of Muslims at Lakemba mosque.

The precedent was repeated last week when the Australian National Imams Council announced its withdrawal from the annual Eid dinner hosted by the Australian Federal Police on 7 August. Again, it was a moral stand led by professor Ibrahim Abu Mohamed, the Grand Mufti, who said they “regrettably, must in all good conscience decline the invitation to attend the dinner in protest of the new proposed anti-terrorism laws … the amendments are a direct attack on the … presumption of innocence”.

Like the Alhadeff boycott, which was launched to preserve the CRC’s neutrality, the AFP boycott sought to preserve a fundamental maxim of Australia’s system of justice, the presumption of innocence. Neither promoted, imported or apologised for an ideology that is dangerous or divisive, such as fighting foreign wars.

Yet both boycotts were met by last-minute offers that miscalculated the seriousness of the Muslim community’s concerns: Alhadeff issued a statement, rather than an apology, and the AFP invited the Grand Mufti to speak about his concerns.

Many Muslim Australians watched with horror as their American counterparts were humiliated at Barack Obama’s annual Iftar dinner at the White House on 14 July, when he appeared with Israeli ambassador Ron Dermer. With Dermer’s tweeted support, Obama said during the dinner that “Israel has the right to defend itself against … inexcusable attacks from Hamas.” He was talking at them, not to them. Any hope that the dinner was a dialogue were smashed when the president left soon after his speech.

Given the US weapons supplied to kill civilians in Gaza, many argued that the dinner should have been boycotted in the first place. The American-Arab anti-discrimination committee made the case: “political engagement is important and having a seat at the table is crucial — but only when that seat is intended to amplify our voice as a community, not tokenise or subdue it.”

A third Australian boycott has been announced, over the controversial resignation of Fairfax columnist Mike Carlton. Peak Muslim organisations have written to Fairfax, calling for Carlton to be reinstated or they may stop cooperating with journalists and start targeting advertisers. Given that the Australian Jewish News had called for readers to “cancel your Fairfax subscriptions” a week earlier, this counter-boycott risks being trivialised; there was less at stake. It may have been wiser for community leaders to invite the editors to their table, break bread together, and explain why Carlton was a vital voice for the voiceless.

The political Iftar has arisen during a period of conflict and tragedy, but it may well become a new phenomenon in Australia. If Australians are serious about multiculturalism, the broader community should realise that the boycotts are a pouring forth of Ramadan themes of human rights, justice, integrity, poverty and morality, which return each year. The 2015 Iftar agenda could be political again; consulting with and respecting Australian Muslims may ensure next year’s hosts won’t need to guess who’s not coming to dinner.

http://bit.ly/1sKx6kc

Posted on

Muslim majority rises to be heard

http://www.afr.com/p/opinion/muslim_majority_rises_to_be_heard_noo7xtNSXelD4Md2H2jo6N
Muslim majority rises to be heard

What do Muslim leaders condemning the Sydney violence have in common with Pope Benedict condemning the Syrian violence?

Both highlighted forgiveness as a shared monotheistic virtue.

Muslim lawyer Mariam Veiszadeh declared on ABC radio on Sunday morning that “our prophet was constantly ridiculed and repeatedly assaulted and abused, but every time he responded with dignity, restraint, kindness and showed patience”. A case in point from the Hadith is the story of the prophet’s pilgrimage to Ta’if to preach about God. When the locals abused and stoned him, he prayed for forgiveness of their sins because “they did not know what they were doing”.

During his inaugural three-day visit to Lebanon, Pope Benedict preached a change of heart for those who desire to live in peace, especially in Syria. He said that this involves “rejecting revenge, acknowledging one’s faults, accepting apologies without demanding them and, not least, forgiveness”.

It was a sobering reminder that none of the monotheistic faiths have a monopoly on forgiveness. This flies in the face of the popular perception that while Muslims only abide by “an eye for an eye”, only Christians abide by “turn the other cheek”.

Apart from reclaiming forgiveness as central to Islam, this was a milestone moment in the history of Muslim advocacy in Australia for other reasons that must go unnoticed.

As an advocate for over 25 years, I have watched Arab and Muslim reactions inflame and subjugate their respective communities. In the 1980s, leaders would anxiously apologise for the extreme behaviour of extreme minorities, as the culprits were dumped at their feet. In the 1990s, they would try to explain and justify the behaviour so as not to offend the culprits in this vulnerable minority group in Australia. After the September 2001 terrorist attacks, leaders began to disown the behaviour as un-Islamic, echoing John Howard’s coined phrase un-Australian.

But the weekend events drew a new line in the sand: Muslim leaders disowned both the criminal behaviour and the culprits as not true Muslims, but as Australians committing crimes in Australia: The individuals responsible for the violent outburst run completely contrary to Islamic tradition.

This was reiterated yesterday by the Muslim leaders’ press conference in Lakemba where the president of the Lebanese Muslims Association, Samier Dandan, condemned “the actions of a very small minority” and urged that we all “leave this matter in the hands of law enforcement agencies”.

He could have also commended the community for alerting the police about the text messages and the plans for a demonstration, thereby protecting innocents and indeed the US Consulate.

These “good relations” were conceded by Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione. This solidarity with police contrasts with the wall of silence that dogged the bike gang violence earlier this year.

Apart from condemning the criminals, Mr Dandan also condemned the vilification, both of the placard holders and the inflammatory film, and demonstrated that leaders have not been silent about the spark. However, his call for Muslims to “respond only to directives from reputable centres and mosques” may be preaching to the converted, as the bad apples prefer to take the law into their own hands and are unlikely to attend the mainstream mosques.

Leaders are fed up with these individuals dragging the community through the mud and essentially put on trial, and have shaken the tree so that these bad apples fall and roll into their own trials in courts. Leaders no longer talk about the Muslim community as singular but as plural. Unlike the Australian Catholic Church with Cardinal George Pell as its singular head, Muslims have no such hierarchy.

The abhorrent behaviour of the self-appointed defenders of the prophet, intoxicated with heroic hatred, drew swift, unanimous and un-orchestrated condemnation from all Muslim leaders. For a change, the first leadership faces we saw were Muslim women, not a sheikh. And for a change, it was their voices of reason, not voices of radicals, that were given centre stage. While the police resorted to capsicum spray to avert what could have been fatalities, these leaders sprayed their own Hazchem fire extinguishers to avert another wave of Islamophobia.

Ironically, those who responded to the Cronulla riot style SMS alert “We must defend his honour” have much in common with the instigators of the spark – the creators of the amateur film that mocks the prophet.

Both the movie makers and these trouble makers appear to be no strangers to crime and very unforgiving. They rely on social media, endanger innocents, disrespect the law and ignite violent confrontations.

The unreleased movie is ultra-insulting to any cinema audience, not only to Muslims, as it features “spaghetti western” scenes and a talking donkey. The YouTube trailer in English was brought home to the Arab and Muslim audiences on September 8 when it was dubbed in Arabic and featured on Egypt’s Al-Nas TV. This Islamic TV station strives for the normal upbringing of Muslim personal behaviour and ethics and its website includes a list of fatwas.

Equally provocative is Al Hayat TV or KMN whose vision is to “unveil the deceptions of Islam” and whose mission is to help “new (Muslim) converts develop a deeper understanding of Christianity”. This apocalyptic channel believes that “the kingdom must reach out to the Muslim world and the whole world and then shall the end come”. The movie makers such as Coptic convicted criminal Bassily Nakloula have grown out of this branch and have endangered the lives of an already endangered Coptic minority in the new Egypt.

Such cable TV stations preach inter-faith hatred, not dialogue or forgiveness, and they are beamed into Australian homes. They are the fuel that spread the flame.

These bad apples have much in common and grow on similar branches. Both Christian and Muslim leaders have a moral duty to shake them from their trees, or amputate the branch. The bad apples should fall at the feet of the law, not the faith. More importantly, the fact that these bad apple branches are grafted overseas poses a legal challenge for anyone serious about uprooting it from Australia. They heed a call to violence from global satellites, not a call to prayer from Australian minarets.

NSW Deputy Police Commissioner Nick Kaldis is in a unique position to stem the violence. He was born in Egypt and understands both the Coptic and the Muslim sensibilities. He can communicate in a language of peace, just as former prime minister Kevin Rudd spoke Mandarin to the Chinese government.

The mature Muslim response on the weekend has heralded a new era, where the voice of the majority, not the minority, has been given the prominence it deserves.
Australia can be a beacon to the world that our brand of multiculturalism has been moulded by those imported, and is good enough to be exported.

Joseph Wakim is the founder of Australian Arabic Council and former Multicultural Affairs Commissioner