WAGING A CULTURAL REVOLUTIONARY WAR
By Irfan Yusuf

On Line opinion, Australia
Sept 11 2006

September 11, 2001 is seen as the beginning of a new (and very heated)
Cold War. Writing in The Australian on August 11, Dr Tanveer Ahmed
described politicised Islamic extremism as the new Marxism, an
apparently monolithic force at war with an allegedly monolithic West.

Ahmed’s description of politicised Islamic extremism has been broadened
by more jaundiced commentators. Addressing a dinner hosted by Quadrant
magazine, former "Joh-for-PM" campaigner John Stone referred to
"Australia’s Muslim problem" and "the Islamic cancer in our body
politic".

Perhaps more subtly, Canadian theatre critic Mark Steyn warned
Sydney-siders in August of the dangers of "resurgent Islam". He
even suggested that the best antidote to conversion was convincing
potential converts that it’s better to be Australian or American or
British "or even French" than to be Muslim. As if being Western and
Muslim were mutually exclusive categories.

More than September 11, it was last years July 7 London bombings that
brought home the real possibility of terrorist threats from home-grown
sources. Sadly, such security threats are still used as an excuse
to wage a cultural revolutionary war which seeks to replace decades
of liberal democratic multi-cultural consensus with an illiberal,
almost Soviet-style government-enforced mono-cultural experiment.

All this raises a number of questions. Does the existence of multiple
cultures affect national security? If so, to what extent? If
integration is an ideal, how should it be implemented? Should
governments implement culture? Will the complete integration of all
minority groups ensure security risks are minimised?

For the likes of Steyn and Stone, any multiculturalism involving
nominally Muslim migrants necessarily represents a security risk.

Their generally crude analysis seeks to identify common features
allegedly forming an essential part of a monolithic Muslim culture.

Such simplistic formulations are not supported by even anecdotal
evidence. In January I witnessed Indonesian Muslim artists perform
the Ramayana ballet to a largely Muslim audience in an ancient
Hindu temple complex located in the city of Yogyakarta, the cultural
heartland of Javanese Islam. Such a performance by Muslims would be
deemed sacrilegious in the Indian sub-Continent.

To speak of a single monolithic Muslim culture, whether in Australia
or elsewhere, is as absurd as to speak of a single Christian culture.

Brazilian Catholics have more in common with Brazilian Muslims than
with Lithuanian Catholics. Lebanese Muslims have more in common with
Lebanese Maronites than with South African Muslims.

If culture and terror were related, security officials should keep
close watch on a range of communities. Writing in the Canberra Times
on September 9, ANU Researcher Clive Williams provides a litany of
terrorist incidents going back to 1868 when a Victorian Irishman
belonging to a predecessor organisation to the IRA shot the visiting
Duke of Edinburgh.

Recent incidents include the 1980 assassination of the Turkish
Consul-General and his bodyguard by Armenian extremists believed to
be protected by local Armenians. The same group struck again about
six years later in Melbourne.

Other groups believed to be responsible for terrorist attacks include
the Ananda Marga sect and the Croatian Revolutionary Brotherhood.

Muslim involvement in terrorist incidents includes deportation of
Mohammad Hassanein in 1996 for attempting to attack local Jewish
community targets.

Terrorism is hardly a mono-cultural affair, either in Australia or
elsewhere. Hence, simplistic remarks by the Prime Minister about
some Muslims refusing to integrate display a profound ignorance of
the history, politics and motivations of terrorist groups.

Howard has rarely shown much sophistication in his understanding
of Australia’s non-Western cultures. One of his former staffers,
conservative columnist Gerard Henderson, commented on this in
the Melbourne Age on May 25, 2004. Henderson wrote of "the one
significant blot on [Howard’s] record in public life … a certain
lack of empathy in dealing with individuals with whom he does not
identify at a personal level: for example, Asian Australians in the
late 1980s and asylum seekers in the early 21st century".

Howard has repeatedly claimed Muslim migrants to be a new wave of
migration, separate from Asian and European migration waves of the mid
to late 20th centuries. This is historical revisionism at its worst,
and most unbecoming of a leader so intent on our school children
being taught "accurate" history.

One needn’t be a professor of history or demography to know that
Muslims have been represented in all major waves of migration during
the 20th century. For instance, post-war European migration included
significant numbers of Yugoslav, Albanian, Turkish, Cypriot and Middle
Eastern Muslim migrants.

The first book on Islamic theology published in Australia was authored
by Imam Imamovic, a Brisbane-based writer from the former Yugoslavia
who wrote his book in the early part of the 20th century.

The first mosque built in Sydney, known as the Sydney Mosque, was
established by Turks in the Inner-Western suburb of Erskenville during
the 1950’s.

On ABC TV’s Four-Corners aired to coincide with the September 11
attacks, Howard repeats his claim that a small section of Muslim
communities refuses to integrate. He goes further, saying: "And I
would like the rest of the Islamic community to join the rest of the
Australian community in making sure that the views and attitudes of
that small minority do not have adverse consequences."

Howard’s ambiguous reference to "adverse consequences" is most
unhelpful. His inability to identify precisely what these consequences
are means he cannot identify exactly how "the rest of the Australian
community" have been working.

Presuming adverse consequences means security threats, Howard’s
comments reflect a profound and fundamental ignorance of efforts
made by Muslim communities to combat extremism, including individual
Muslims reporting suspicious behaviour to authorities. Howard’s views
contrast with those expressed by law enforcement officials (including
Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty) that Muslim efforts have
been crucial in catching suspects and averting terrorist attacks.

Perhaps the real problem is that Howard insists putting ordinary
Muslims in a lose-lose situation. He has hand-picked a small number
of Muslims to advise him as part of a "Muslim Community Reference
Group". His choice of Muslims is dominated by men of his own generation
who are generally as out-of-touch with mainstream Muslims as he is.

Howard’s choice of Muslim advisers is reflective of his choice of
Muslim "leaders" joining him for a summit in August 2005. Howard’s
leaders were dominated by first generation migrant males of Howard’s
age group, men who routinely exclude and alienate women and youth
from community management roles.

It seems Howard wants to have the right to select which Muslims he
talks to, and then reserves the right to criticise all Muslims should
his chosen Muslims say the wrong things. If Howard were genuine
about involving Muslim communities in decision-making on combating
extremism, he might appoint mainstream Muslims who have made their
mark on mainstream Australia, even if it means appointing people who
will effectively challenge his views on culture and security.

If Howard were serious about national security, he might also consider
following the lead of his Deputy. Peter Costello has shown a far more
sophisticated understanding of the relationship between culture and
national security. Costello understands it isn’t the wrong culture
that presents a security threat. Rather, it is the absence of genuinely
Islamic culture which is the problem.

In his February address to the Sydney Institute, Costello spoke of
young Muslims in "a twilight zone where the values of their parents’
old country have been lost but the values of the new country not
fully embraced".

Further Costello has emphasised on the need for Muslim religious
leaders to provide a greater degree of pastoral care to converts,
saying leaders should "make it clear to would-be converts that when
you join this religion you do not join a radical political ideology".

Costello’s remarks, though crude and inaccurate in some senses,
display a more sophisticated understanding of how the relative
ignorance and zeal of young people and converts can be trapped by
fringe extremists. Costello doesn’t see Islam itself as a problem,
nor does he make any claims about Muslim cultures. He is more concerned
with ensuring ordinary sincere Australian Muslims are not manipulated
by foreign extremists.

Of course, it is easy for Muslim leaders to blame politicians for
their woes. I believe Muslim leaders should be selective in how they
respond, particularly to Howard’s ill-considered remarks. Muslim
leaders should display more political sophistication, and appreciate
that Howard’s rhetoric is probably more determined by interest rates
and the unpopularity of his industrial relations laws than by any
concern for the nation’s cultural health or security.

Muslim leaders should seize upon Howard’s admission that at least 99
per cent of Muslim Australians are fully integrated. It is difficult
to fund similar endorsement of any other ethnic or faith community
in Australia. It certainly flies in the face of infantile commentary
often found in metropolitan tabloids.

Muslim leaders of Mr Howard’s generation should heed the lesson that
Mr Howard refuses to heed. They should step down when alternative
and effective leadership is available. Muslim organisations are in
desperate need of generational change. Younger Muslims, including
and especially women, must form part of this change.

Articulate Muslim women are far more capable of effecting positive
change for Muslim women than neurotic feminists and cultural
chauvinists that congregate on the op-ed pages of allegedly Australian
newspapers. Muslim women need to come forward and take their rightful
place as leaders of Muslim Australia. Their voices need to be heard,
and they need to take control of decision making on issues affecting
them and all women.

Further, Muslims need to ensure that a diversity of Muslim voices
are heard from across the cultural, sectarian, gender and political
divide. There is no reason why debates within the Muslim community
cannot be discussed in the public arena where followers of other
traditions can share their experiences.

In this respect, Muslim leaders must continue to strengthen their ties
with their Jewish brethren. Australian Jews share profound cultural
and religious similarities with Australian Muslims, who can learn
much from Jewish experience in terms of community structure and
infrastructure development.

Finally, Muslims need to invest a good amount of time and money
in decent PR. They need to ensure that Australians are made aware
of Muslim values to the extent that irrelevant middle-aged male
politicians are no longer able to claim that Muslims should ensure
their women are treated with as much disdain as Mr Howard’s faction
of the NSW Liberal Party treats female preselection candidates.

Ordinary Australians do have legitimate fears about security. They have
even greater fears about rising home loan interest rates, conservative
opposition to life-saving scientific research and workplace relations
policies that remove job security. One way we can address these real
issues is if Muslims allay Australian fears about Islam. In doing
so, we can ensure governments cannot shirk their responsibilities by
hiding behind the sound of dog whistles.