During the February Estimates hearings, I had the opportunity to question Australia’s Special Envoy to Combat Islamophobia. Although the session was brief, it raised an important issue.
How can we protect Australians if Islamic-motivated terrorism cannot be addressed directly?
It is difficult to resolve “misunderstandings” about mainstream Islamic teachings without acknowledging that radical interpretations have been used by violent actors, including in the Bondi Islamic terrorist attack.
While these views may fall outside mainstream doctrine, the reality is that many individuals adopt these distorted interpretations that lead to real-world harm.
Avoiding the link between extremist interpretations of Islam and terrorism ultimately makes it harder to address the problem effectively.
One Nation is prepared to have these difficult conversations if it means protecting Australians and ensuring tragedies like the Bondi attack Never. Happen. Again.
— February | Senate Estimates
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing. It’s nice to have you in person rather than on the box. Following my question on notice 1477 relating to the cost of producing the National Response to Islamophobia, which has not been answered, what is the cost of the document?
Mr Malik: I thought I had submitted those answers. I’m sorry if you haven’t received them. I did complete all that. Have you received them?
Senator ROBERTS: No.
Mr Malik: I apologise. I have answered your question. Maybe I will follow up with the support envoy team as to why you haven’t received those.
Senator DUNIAM: Is it still with the minister?
Mr Malik: I replied back to the envoy support team when I got the questions on notice. I responded straightaway. Sorry. I apologise. I can follow that up.
Senator ROBERTS: In the December estimates, I asked you why your report did not mention Sharia law and you asked, ‘What version of Sharia law?’ Therefore, you didn’t mention any. Let me be specific. The Centre for Arbitration and Resolution of Disputes, CARD, run by the Australian National Imams Council, the peak body for imams in Australia, arbitrates disputes in marital areas and civil disputes. Is this an alternative system of law based on Islamic teaching rather than on the laws applying to every other Australian?
Mr Malik: I don’t think there are two systems of law. Everyone here understands and fully accepts that everyone works underneath Australian law. I’m not a spokesperson for the CARD. That question perhaps is best asked of them. It tries to arrive at a mutual understanding between the two partners. I’m not the spokesperson. You could clarify with them yourselves, but I think that’s why it was established.
Senator ROBERTS: You said it was voluntary. Apparently it’s not. By consent settlement in marital disputes can be filed with the Family Court as a binding agreement, an agreement made under Sharia law?
Mr Malik: Again, I would have to push back on that. From my understanding—as I say again, I’m not a spokesperson for CARD; I’ve actually had no engagement with CARD as well—it seems to be operating as many of the councils in the UK, and that is where the husband and wife will come together with a religious imam to try to reconcile between the two. But, ultimately, the divorce can only take place in a secular court. Again, you would need to direct that to CARD.
Senator ROBERTS: The Australian National Imams Council has called for an end to the use of words like ‘radical Islam’ and ‘extremist Islam’. The Australian National Imams Council leader, Sheikh Shadi Alsuleiman, has gone further and declared that terrorism and Islam should not be linked at all. Your report failed to mention Islamic terrorism. Will you now correct that omission you have on your statement, and discuss the link between Islamic terrorism and Islam? Feel free to include Bondi.
Mr Malik: Yes. I’ve actually just finished writing an article. The first topic I dedicated to you. It should be out in a few weeks. I answer that question very specifically. Again, one needs to understand the history of Islam rather than going on YouTube or TikTok. The Prophet Muhammad, who’s seen as the sole authority in Islam, said two people would be denied paradise, and the first one is a religious extremist. Muslims get confused when people say questions like you put forward to us, because within mainstream normative Islam extremism is anathema. It’s really something that we have to stay away from. Those individuals who break that code or that ethical conduct are individuals on the fringes of mainstream society. For example, when Scott Morrison read his article about reforming Islam, he seemed to miss the point that the individuals are out of their systems. As one of the leaders of Muslim countries explained, mainstream Islam does not accept extremism. It’s actually anathema to Islam. But non-Muslims will say, ‘These guys are quoting from the Quran and saying that God is great. They must be Muslims and Islam.’ I acknowledge the confusion, but I think it can quickly be put to bed by just a simple conversation and a simple reading of history, to be honest with you, as well.
Senator ROBERTS: On notice, could you provide us with a copy of that article?
Mr Malik: Yes. I’m hoping it will be published within two or three weeks.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll put another question on notice.
Leave a Reply
Want to join the discussion?Feel free to contribute!
Using your first name