JavaScript disabled. Please enable JavaScript to use My News, My Clippings, My Comments and user settings.

If you have trouble accessing our login form below, you can go to our login page.

If you have trouble accessing our login form below, you can go to our login page.

We do have to speak frankly about Islam, even if it's risky

Date

Anthony Bergin

We need to work with moderate Muslims to defeat jihadists – not alienate them

The Grand Mufti, Dr Ibrahim Abu Mohammed, has accused Tony Abbott of stirring up anti-Islamic sentiment.

The Grand Mufti, Dr Ibrahim Abu Mohammed, has accused Tony Abbott of stirring up anti-Islamic sentiment. Photo: Steven Siewert

The Grand Mufti of Australia, Ibrahim Abu Mohammed, has accused Tony Abbott of aiding terrorism by conflating Islam with terrorism and providing legitimation for anti-Islamic sentiment.

Terrorists operating against Western targets claim their acts are inspired, and in many cases required, by Islam. But should our leaders be openly linking Islam and terrorism, or is it better if they publicly deny any such links? After all, many religions have both those who legitimate violence and those who work for mutual respect in the name of the religion. All religions have those who are an embarrassment to others.

All religions have those who are an embarrassment to others. 

Abbott's recent comments aren't new for him. When he delivered his national security statement as prime minister in February, he made it clear where he stood. "I have often cited Prime Minister Najib, of Malaysia, who has described the Islamist death cult as 'against God, against Islam and against our common humanity'. In January, President al-Sisi told the imams at Egypt's Al-Azhar University that Islam needed a 'religious revolution' to sweep away centuries of false thinking."

Our political elites aren't experts on the Islamic religion. They won't have much credibility challenging Muslim scholars who point to Islamic sources that reject terrorist behaviour. But does it follow that they should keep silent on the issue of any links between Islam and terrorism?

Tony Walker, international editor at the Australian Financial Review, clearly thinks so. Writing at the weekend, he stated that like Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen and "others on the far right", Abbott has "dared to traverse into an area that is highly contentious, and in a way that he must have known would give offence".

Both Islam and Christianity preach peace and work for harmony and community cohesion. But Islam is subject to the temptations of a political fundamentalism that doesn't differentiate between religion and the state, since it has no model of such a separation based on a literalist interpretation of the Koran.

The problem is exacerbated by Islam's lack of an authority structure and globally accepted authority figures.

Publicly saying there's a link between Islam and terrorism might, however, be self-defeating: it could, as seems to have occurred with Abbott's latest remarks, stir up trouble with moderate Muslims who oppose terrorism.

It's a sensitive and complex debate. Most political leaders will want to avoid being open to the charge that they're somehow at war with Islam. But shouldn't they be calling it as they see it?  The major terrorism threat we face is violent extremism perpetrated or inspired by groups or lone actors who claim to act in the name of Islam.

The New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has argued that he's "all for restraint on the issue, and would never hold every Muslim accountable for the acts of a few. But it is not good for us or the Muslim world to pretend that this spreading jihadist violence isn't coming out of their faith community".

Asra Nomani​, an American Muslim born in India, has argued there's a loose, well-funded coalition of governments and private individuals "that tries to silence debate on extremist ideology in order to protect the image of Islam".

I'd like to see here more of the kind of demonstration that occurred in Norway this year: more than 1000 Muslims formed what they called a ring of peace around Oslo's synagogue, offering symbolic protection for the city's Jewish community and condemning an attack by a Danish-born son of Palestinian immigrants, who killed two people at the synagogue. "Humanity is one and we are here to demonstrate that," one of the protest's organisers told a crowd of Muslim immigrants.

In a powerful gesture after the Sydney siege, a Muslim bride made a pilgrimage to Martin Place on her wedding day. Manal Kassem​ was adorned in a white dress, hijab and veil when she laid her wedding bouquet among the floral tributes to the Lindt cafe victims. Onlookers applauded. Her wedding planner explained that she did it out of "respect for her country, that will one day be the country of her children and grandchildren".

As we engage our Muslim communities at home after the terrorist attack at Parramatta police headquarters and the Paris massacres, we should focus on the value of life.

Our strategy must be to support and work with the religious moderates and community leaders who make it clear they won't tolerate those who seek to alter fundamentally our way of life by imposing their values on others by killing people.

Anthony Bergin is deputy director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.

 

55 comments

  • Yes but do all religions have sections that say you will be rewarded in the after life for your brutality against non believers.

    Commenter
    Steve
    Location
    Coffs
    Date and time
    December 15, 2015, 3:08PM
    • 1.
      G’day - Steve.
      Anthony Bergin - thank you.
      Hopefully - another step in an ongoing dialogue on this issue.
      In keeping with our ‘Western values’ -
      In a tolerant West, I am sure there will be a time when Islam is integrated to the point of being freely and openly lampooned and criticized – without those doing so being automatically labeled as Islamophobic or ‘anti-Muslim’.
      Of course, this criticism may go beyond what is acceptable for some of its adherents: not just beyond a sense of considerable disquiet or discomfort - but quite possibly to the point of outrage and offence.
      Indisputably, this is already the case with Christianity in the West – and attempts to shut down scrutiny or ridicule of Christianity are readily dismissed.
      In the West, it is broadly accepted that few things have the right to be shielded from our critical gaze – this includes religions and philosophies; religions do not get a ‘free pass’ – this certainly includes Islam.
      So
      A fundamental principle of English liberalism is that people interact and engage with each other in the public arena - despite firmly held differences of belief.
      Philosophers such as John Locke were important in the evolution of this notion - this involved the parliamentary tradition and concept of a free market in land and labour.
      Initially, the differences were sectarian - but inevitably included divergent political views and broader differences in how people lived (lifestyle and relationships).
      We should remember
      The best way to promote tolerance of difference – is by showing it.

      Commenter
      Howe Synnott
      Location
      Sydney
      Date and time
      December 15, 2015, 5:07PM
    • 2.
      It is not prejudice or intolerance of Islam to expect all citizens conform to the same laws and rules of a liberal democratic society; this is not some kind of marginalizing behaviour by the broader society.
      No society can thrive if special allowances and exceptions are permitted for some elements within that society.
      It is reasonable and sensible to have standards and norms.
      Multiculturalism depends on societal rules - with limits to what is acceptable behavour; it depends on community support – to counter those on the fringe (of society and politics).
      For some journalists and members of the public, it is easy to make generalizations in conceptualising the problem – or to create a political advantage.
      Of course, there are problems – but matters won’t be helped with simplistic notions or easy populism

      Commenter
      Howe Synnott
      Location
      Sydney
      Date and time
      December 15, 2015, 5:08PM
    • 3.
      Unavoidably, we will see examples of a lack of mutual respect and a lack of tolerance between people of differing cultures and religions - no one is without fault and we can all do better, of course.
      However, that’s no reason to shut down debate.
      Religions are a fundamental part of many societies - and significantly shape their laws and values. 

      Equally, society moulds the way religion is interpreted and viewed – in the broader society and divergent cultures and communities within. 

      Differences may evolve, and cultural or religious groups may head off in their own directions – especially likely if a group is isolated from the larger community, or resistant to influence from ‘outsiders’. 


      If society is respectful of the religious and philosophical groups within its midst - encouraging and nurturing alternative views (including non-believers and heretics), tolerance and diversity are the likely beneficiaries. 


      Once people move past the construct of there being just one immutable religious or philosophical ‘truth’, fanaticism and zealotry will be less powerful (but not completely vanish), and open to being confronted by opposing views that are just as strident. 


      In a secular society, the opinions of believers and non-believers are given equal value – but not necessarily welcomed or respected by their opponents. 


      In less liberal communities with less room for divergent views or tolerance of difference (more likely in a monoculture which discourages contrary opinions and resists people leaving the group), bigotry and intolerance have more chance to sprout (particularly if not confronted by members of the same cultural group). 


      These malignant forces thrive in dark places – when shielded from the glare of competing philosophies. 

      In the longer term, words are the 'weapon' to counter these issues - not laws.


      Commenter
      Howe Synnott
      Location
      Sydney
      Date and time
      December 15, 2015, 5:11PM
    • There is a negative trend developing of people trawling through The Koran for something negative to say, to start a finger pointing exercise that is definitely not promoting a civilized co-existence of Muslims and non-Muslims in our society.
      Do such people not really think that by stirring up such enmity that they are fostering fear and disharmony?
      ISIS is ISIS, a nasty organisation that uses religion to promote its aims. The Muslim people who live in Australia are NOT ISIS. Do people really think that the Muslim population in Australia are a fifth column of ISIS? Do you want them to grovel for forgiveness for sins they have not committed? By continuously criticising the Muslim population you run the risk of turning Muslims into people who feel they have nothing left to lose. Isn't it better to reach out to Muslims to make them feel a Part of Australia rather than harping on about this clause or that in an ancient book of scriptures? Are Christian Australians so pure they are above everyone else; or are the critics another elitist version of Tony Abbott and his claims of one culture being better than another.

      Commenter
      Dr Reg
      Date and time
      December 15, 2015, 10:27PM
    • Thanks Steve that helps the reasonable and measured debate.

      Commenter
      Bernie
      Location
      HV
      Date and time
      December 16, 2015, 7:42AM
    • #Dr Reg

      Unfortunately there really is a lot to criticize in the Quran Doc.

      Muslims tell us that the Quran is the inerrant unalterable word and commands of Allah to all Muslims for all time.

      So when non Muslims read the Quran along with the trusted Hadiths and become aware of the differences between the more peaceful chapters and verses revealed to Mohammad in Mecca when he was weak and the way the peaceful verses were abrogated and replaced by the violent, hateful Medina chapters and verses when he was strong that command and compel Muslims to eternally kill, conquer, enslave and convert the entire world to Islam we have a right to ask questions and expect answers rather than be accused of being racist or Islamophobic for asking them.

      I have waded laboriously through the Quran, a truly boring and repetitive book that thankfully most Muslims either have not read or they choose to ignore....
      but it is an inescapable fact that ISIS is sticking to Allahs script and following Mohammads example to the letter and non Muslims should not be guilted into silence because Muslims are embarrassed / ashamed and outed by the content of there scripture.

      Commenter
      Rory the Red
      Date and time
      December 16, 2015, 11:06AM
    • And that is helpful is it Rory? Could you go through the Bible or other scripture books of other faiths and find lots to criticise? Most people of whatever faith have verses and 'rulings' made by their scripture writers centuries that they totally ignore; they are moderate peaceful people who just want to be left alone and not have fingers waved in front of their faces continuously.

      Commenter
      Dr Reg
      Date and time
      December 16, 2015, 12:29PM
  • I'm aghast so few see how the religion of a killer matters not one bit.
    Anyone can claim their god guides their heinous deeds but as god is not around that excuse is not plausible.
    Recently an American killed numerous staff and presumably clients in a medical clinic whom he believed were an affront to his religion so why is that not called terrorism by the government? Is there an agenda behind the word 'terror' to tarnish Islam being played out as subtly as in word association?
    My simple point is that religious reform will not counteract terrorism. If as Tony Abbott seems to imply Christianity is a reformed religion and Islam is not then surely there would be no Christian terrorists in modern times. Unfortunately the IRA, Atlanta bomber, anti-abortion murders, Anders Breivik and many other lone wolfers suggest religion is only being used to justify terrorism and not to oppose it.

    Commenter
    Andrew - Northbridge
    Date and time
    December 15, 2015, 3:36PM
    • It's not a religion, but an extremist ideology. Did the ideology of the Nazis matter not to the 6 million Jewish victims of the holocaust?What an absurd thing to say... When the allies occupied Germany they undertook a systematic denazification programme of society. They didn't simply arrest the SS killers. They realised the ideology had to be countered. It's the same principle with ISIS.

      Commenter
      Professor
      Date and time
      December 15, 2015, 8:02PM

More comments

Comments are now closed

HuffPost Australia

Featured advertisers

Special offers

Credit card, savings and loan rates by Mozo