Sydney, Australia
-- We’ve all heard
some pretty terrible things from the mouths of so-called religious
teachers, but this is a new low. Sheikh Sharif Hussein, an Islamic
preacher and imam, used his platform during Friday prayers at the
then Allenby Gardens headquarters on March 22 to call for the death
of all Buddhists and Hindus, as well as issuing vile, hate-filled
diatribes against the Jews, Australian soldiers, and
others.
The speech was
published in an edited form by the US thinktank, MEMRI TV. Please
watch this if you haven’t already. Among other despicable rantings,
Hussein said this:
Oh Allah, count
the Buddhists and the Hindus one by one. Oh Allah, count them and
kill them to the very last one.
He has issued a call
for the death of all Buddhists and Hindus. Hate speech does not get
any worse than this. It is time for the Islamic community in
Australia to stop apologizing for such people, blaming media bias
and the West, and start accepting responsibility for the actions of
their community.
The Adelaide press
has reported the matter, and there have been responses from several
community representatives, including the Federation of Australian
Buddhist Council through its president, Kim Hollows.
The man is deranged.
No surprise there; there are always crazy people in our world. What
makes him more than just a loon waving a placard is that he has
people backing him, and people listening to him. He has a platform,
and that platform is supported by an institutional and community
basis. This is why the most disturbing aspect of the event is not
that such speech exists - which is disturbing enough - but that it
is defended and apologized for by institutions in the Islamic
community. The center where he gave the talk, the Islamic Da’wah
Centre of South Australia (IDCSA) has, unbelievably, issued an
actual defense of the speech. The Islamic society of South
Australia has not gone so far, but has avoided making any real
condemnation.
Imagine if I were to
give a speech in the Dhammaloka Buddhist Center, calling for “Death
to all Muslims and Christians!” What would happen? Well, firstly,
the audience would not believe their ears. That a spiritual leader
could say such a thing is so outside their sphere of comprehension,
it would take a few moments to sink in. But when it did sink in,
there would be an uproar. People would get up, leave, call out in
protest. Quickly, the PA would be shut down and I would be firmly
asked to leave the premises, and if I didn’t the police would be
called. I would be immediately banned from the place, expelled from
membership, and the BSWA would issue a statement condemning my
statement and totally dissociating themselves from me and my
views.
Well, that is what
Hussein did, and none of this happened. The audience sat there,
apparently quiet and acquiescent during the talk. No-one called out
or protested. He was not cut off, but allowed to continue. The talk
was recorded by the IDCSA and published by them on their Youtube
channel. (The IDCSA still has a video of Hussein giving a talk at
their center. Apparently lacking any irony, the talk is on
“forgiveness”. Unfortunately the video is private so we can’t see
what Hussein thinks about that highly relevant topic.) Again,
presumably without any special comment or discussion in their
community, this has been current since March. Their community has
done nothing about this, but continues to receive “teachings” from
this man. Only when MEMRI.TV published the edited clip did anyone
say anything.
Now the IDCSA has
issued a response. What exactly do they say? Here’s some
points:
IDCSA do not
necessarily hold the same views/positions of the
video
Not necessarily hold
the same views?! So they might possibly hold the same views, but
maybe not. Well that clears that up then. It’s good to know that
the people running this pillar of society do not necessarily wish
death on a couple billion innocent people. As inadequate as these
weasel words are, they are only the start. They go on to
say:
we believe that
the Sheikh’s words were clearly taken out of context and put
together in a suggestive manner
Let me state this as
plainly as I can: there is no context that can justify a call for
the murder of billions of innocent people. To even suggest that
this statement could be contextualized is nonsense. The man called
for genocide. The only moral response is to condemn it.
But it gets worse.
What is the context they allege is lacking?
The sheikh
presented in his speech some of the war crimes directed against
Muslims around the world, something that was completely ignored in
the video. While addressing the mass rape cases in Iraq, the Sheikh
was emotional and used strong words in addressing those who
committed these crimes.
If you have seen the
video, you know that this is simply false. The video, while
obviously edited from a longer talk (who wants to listen to more of
this stuff?), clearly presents Hussein’s allegations about mass
rape and the like. The alleged missing context is right there in
the video. This means that the IDCSA has either not watched the
video (unlikely), or they are lying. Since they are defending a
call to genocide, lying seems a good bet. Do they imagine we are
all so stupid?
And the statement
goes on:
some media
organisations are trying to present this video as hate speech while
ignoring the fact that denouncing a criminal act is a social right
which falls under the general category of ‘freedom of
speech’.
Yes, I know, the
irony of fundamentalists relying on the free speech argument. Once
again, it seems there is a need to spell out something very simple:
denouncing what you think is wrong is not hate speech. Calling for
the death of billions of innocents is hate speech.
This is obvious, but
underlying it is something deeper. There is, concealed in this
statement, a basic misunderstanding of what free speech means in a
liberal society. Truly free speech is courageous and open. It does
not hide behind closed doors, and resort to blame and hypocrisy
when it is criticized.
Free speech happens
in connection, in a multitude of voices contending, dissenting,
arguing. So it only has meaning if there is someone listening. It
is not free speech if you just rant and never listen to other
points of view. Really listen, with compassion and
understanding.
Free speech always
tends towards reason and moderation, which is why fundamentalists
cannot meaningfully take part in any broader dialogue in society.
They can only imagine themselves as the outsiders, as the
oppressed. If they actually listened to a voice of reason, they
might learn something. Perhaps they might be able to contribute.
Perhaps they might be able to join with the very many Australians
who opposed the invasion of Iraq, and who turned out in their
hundreds of thousands to peacefully protest the war.
And the statement
from the IDCSA continues with more lies:
no part of that
clip contain any call towards violence and/or friction between the
non-Muslims and Muslims or multicultural communities in Australia.
The lectures were delivered in relation to the Burmese Buddhist
massacre of the Rohingya minority Muslims
No doubt the
massacre of Rohingyas in Burma was one of the reasons the Buddhists
got called in here. But the video is quite clearly calling for
death to all Buddhists.
I remember a little
story from when I was in grade 7 at Aquinas College in Perth. Our
teacher, Brother McMahon, taught us all a particular way of ruling
a page. He asked that we rule all out pages like that in future.
The next day he was checking our homework, and saw that one of the
students, James Toop, had not complied. He grabbed Toop, pulled him
up to the front of class, and started whacking him with his strap.
Toop started crying, and tried to talk, but couldn’t get a word in.
When it was finished, he explained that he had been absent because
sick the day before. Even while sick, he had called a friend to get
the homework, and had done it all, but he didn’t know about the
page ruling thing.
Terrible, right? So,
we all thought Brother McMahon was a dickhead. But we knew well
enough that this didn’t mean that all other teachers were
dickheads. In primary school, we had learnt the basic moral lesson
that if someone does something wrong, they are to blame for that,
not everyone who is similar to them in some way.
But when hate burns
like a wildfire, when reason exits and dogma reigns unchallenged,
such elementary moral distinctions evaporate. Hussein and the IDCSA
exhibit a moral consciousness that is more primitive than that of a
primary school child. Thus the fact that some people who are
Buddhists in Burma have done some dreadful things provokes a call
for the death of all Buddhists (and Hindus and Jews and whoever
else).
Finally, the
inevitable blaming of media bias:
we would like to
bring into question the reliability, independence and veracity of a
media organisation like MEMRI TV, which has served as a mouthpiece
for islamophobes
The IDCSA
conveniently supply some links to back their claims up. I followed
the links, and here is what they say.
The first link is to
a page of the American radical political scholar Norman
Finkelstein. The article says that MEMRI doctored a video interview
to give the impression Finkelstein was a holocaust denier. A
transcript is given, which shows which parts of the interview were
kept and which were deleted. Check for yourself, but I can’t find
anything in the deleted portions that would somehow construe
Finkelstein as a holocaust denier. In fact, in the portion that was
not deleted, he clearly says, “my parents passed through the Nazi
holocaust. Every member of their families was exterminated during
the war and I felt it was important to accurately represent what
happened to them during the Nazi holocaust.”
Next there is an
intelligent article in the
Guardian, which
discusses the political bias of MEMRI. The suggestion is
essentially that MEMRI does not represent the full spectrum of
political discourse in Arab countries, and should not be relied on
as a sole source of information for Arab political discourse. There
is no allegation that the videos themselves are untrustworthy; in
fact at the bottom of the article they say that in the case in
point—an allegation that Saddam Hussein cut the ears off
deserters—there was independent confirmation.
Then there is a page
on
Sourcewatch. While
repeating the criticism of biased selection, and various other
specific criticisms, this also shows that MEMRI’s videos are widely
cited.
The next link points
to the Wikipedia page for MEMRI’s founder, Yigal Carmon. I am not
sure what this aims to prove. Perhaps the fact that he is a Jew who
has criticized jihadi extremists is, in the eyes of the IDCSA,
sufficient to prove he cannot be trusted.
Next is a page on
Counterpunch, where the
author says regarding MEMRI: “Thus I specifically retract my
allegation that the organization’s translations are questionable,
and I apologize for my error.” He repeats the accusation of
selective quoting. However, it seems even their critics acknowledge
that the translations are correct. (The translation of the talk in
Adelaide was independently confirmed by the Adelaide
Advertiser.)
Thus of all the
sources referred to by the IDCSA, none of them substantially show
that MEMRI’s output is inaccurate. For an organization that
disseminates information on such a controversial topic, some
criticism is to be expected, and no doubt some is warranted. To
leap from an accusation of selective quoting to try to argue away
the incitement to genocide that was, quite clearly, spoken by
Hussein in Adelaide, is utterly disingenuous.
So what is to be
done? The shameful truth is that the answer to this is, not much. A
principled and meaningful response by the Muslim community simply
requires a consistent rejection of this kind of speech.
It seems that
Hussein was kicked out of his former base, the Marion Mosque,
because of his hate speech. Good on them. The IDCSA should follow
this example. And if their leaders do not, the members should call
a Special General Meeting, and have the sheikh and his supporters
kicked out. This is what any Buddhist community in Australia would
do. It is not too much to ask. If they do not do so, they should
have their charitable status revoked, and to the fullest extent
permissible by law, the SA and Federal Governments should shut them
down.
And good on the
principled Muslims like Director of the International Centre for
Muslim and non-Muslim Understanding Professor Pal Ahluwalia, who
clearly and unambiguously slammed Hussein, saying
“The Sheikh has
done his Muslim brothers and sisters no favours by preaching hate.
Extremism in all of its forms is the natural enemy of truth – so
every time this kind of extreme preaching makes headlines it
obscures the reality of the strong, ethical, law-abiding, engaged
and contributing Muslim Australians who are our neighbours and work
colleagues, our class mates and friends. There are extreme groups
across all religions and cultures and there are individuals who
advocate violence and aggression for their own agendas. What people
must remember is that just as Geert Wilders is not representative
of all Dutch people or the Army of God does not speak for all
Christians, so the extreme rants of one Sheikh do not reflect the
views of all Muslims.”
Sadly, though, this
voice is isolated. I have tried to find articulate responses from
the more progressive of Australia’s Islamic community, and there is
nothing here, here, here, here, or here. Perhaps I have
missed things; if so, please let me know in the
comments.
It is not hard to be
honest. We must simply admit that some things done by people who
adhere to our religion are bad. Here’s how to do it. There was a
Buddhist mob in Burma a few days ago that attacked a police station
and went on a rampage, led by three monks. They alleged that a
Muslim man had raped a Buddhist woman. Their response was wrong.
They should have supported the rule of law. The monks who led the
mob should be disrobed, and criminal charges should be laid against
them. In addition, the Burmese Sangha needs to give a clear and
consistent message of harmony and understanding of
difference.
See? Not that hard.
I can do it, and so can the voices of the Islamic community.
Bloggers, Imams, teachers, leaders, activists, scholars, humans
with a voice: where is there someone who has the guts to stop
blaming non-Muslims, and start taking responsibility for the acts
of Muslims?
Source:http://sujato.wordpress.com/2013/08/27/less-blame-more
responsibility/
<!-- stopprint -->