Several centuries after theocracy was rejected in the West, it can be a shock to find calls for sharia law in Australian places of worship. Still, it would be a big mistake to dismiss this as “un-Australian” rather than to begin the kind of engagement that eventually made Christianity less bloody. Indeed, talking to the more hard-line Muslims, rather than ostracising them or shouting them down, could be one of the greatest services Australia can render to the wider world. Why shouldn’t the Muslim version of the Enlightenment and an Islamic doctrine of the separation of church and state be fostered in Australia? Especially as the task is so urgent.
There are countries that apply religious or sharia law – Saudi Arabia and Iran come to mind. If a person wants to live under sharia law these are countries where they might feel at ease. But not Australia.
And the citizenship pledge should be a big flashing warning sign to those who want to live under sharia law. A person who does not acknowledge the supremacy of civil law laid down by democratic processes cannot truthfully take the pledge of allegiance. As such they do not meet the pre-condition for citizenship.
No, Kim. Why do you ask?
Eek, Rob, he’s saying it might be legitimate to call for sharia law in Australia! You might like to read the whole of Costello’s speech (I’ve hyperlinked to the transcript on his website rather than just the grabs reported in the press) to see what Cossie thinks of such un-Australian sentiments.
Kudos to Abbott though for some sensible and thoughtful remarks (I’ll look forward to reading the full article in Quadrant) compared to his colleague the Treasurer’s lame sloganeering.
I’ve only seen the extract in the paper however from that and as much as I think Abbott is a prick I’ll congratulate him on it if it’s as good all the way through as the newspaper extract.
Seconded, thirded or whatever, FXH. Even the Abbott should get credit where it’s due, whether his motives turn out to be less than pure or not.
I’ve seen some discussion that suggests that Abbott is trying a step to the left in the leadership stakes to counter Cossie’s step to the right. However, I think that’s over-analysing. Abbott’s article for Quadrant would have had a substantial lead time between submission and publication, so I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt on his motives on this one. Though it’s worth noting that Costello made similar comments about Sharia in August last year, and he must have had that in mind.
It’s always strange but rewarding when someone surprises you like this and challenges your assumptions about them. What a good article…
You must be reading a different article Kim, I read Abbott as confirming Costellos remarks that there is only one Law;
The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition were right to see Cronulla and its aftermath as a breakdown of public order rather than an indictment of Australian society. What Cronulla really demands is not further navel-gazing about who is an authentic Australian but a swift reminder that everyone is equally subject to the rule of law.
Strange but rewarding my eye. It’s a total piss-off. Too much of that sort of thing and people might start looking to other values they have in common which would pretty much stuff up the ties of Mutual Contempt which really hold this great society of ours together.
You must be reading a different article Kim, I read Abbott as confirming Costellos remarks that there is only one Law
Abbott wasn’t calling for Sharia law, he was calling for those that espouse these views to be engaged with rather than isolated (or deported)
Yes a sane article – as much as we have of it.
Funny when Tim Costello made similar remarks about publishing and debating extremist points of view he was howled down by certain commentators.
However….
While I agree there is an Islamist element (albeit small) within Austrailia and I don’t agree with the Peter Costello (and Ruddock etc) line that citizenship should be used as some stick/carrot. (I also find it odd that the government was so keen to promote citizenship in its early days in government as a means of fostering commitment are now discussing and have used it as a weapon.)
and…
While I accept multiculturalism has much to offer (although again I note the definitions that Abbott infers) I also don’t think that multiculturalism however you define it is an answer to what is essentially a theological problem.
For violent extremists: I think action has to centre on defusing their attractiveness – perhaps not by convincing some of their leaders but their potential followers (in the way you deprogramme cult followers???). Last year I blogged about this programme in Yemen which was yielding positive results. Do we have such Muslim clerics or theologians here who can work towards “immunising” their faith groups? I can’t see any amongst the present (self appointed?) Muslim leaders.
For those who nevertheless want to advocate parallel religious courts, sharia law in the civic sphere (who I think are Costello/Howard/Ruddock’s targets; some of them may be violent extremists, some probably aren’t) I am not aware of very much in Muslim theology that fosters the possibility of separation of church and state. If anything I think you will find some moderates would still argue for say parallel relgious courts (as one Muslim group did in Victoria last year). I personally am dead against parallel religious courts because they can be and have been used to prevent people from apostasizing and therefore go against freedom of religion – I made some comments on that at Public Opinion. But want to convince some Muslims that they can dump what is perceived as a key tenet of their faith?
Even Turkey still struggles with this – they got howled down by the EU when they tried to make adultery a crime (something advocated by conservative groups) and I note that Indonesia is about to debate laws which will also allow for a ten year jail term for, wait for it, public kissing, to bring them in line with other Islamic states. Gosh I didn’t even think the Singaporeans were that draconian. Abbott’s sentiment may be fine but my question is: is there room in Muslim theology to accept and embrace something akin to what we understand as separation of church and state and still remain a Muslim?
“Engagement”:
————
Muslim: We want sharia law.
Aussie: Too bad.
Muslim: So we can’t have it, then?
Aussie: No.
THE END
————
Typically constructive and well thought out comment there, C.L. Though it’s nice to see you disagree with Tony Abbott
saint, I think we worry about this stuff too much sometimes. We don’t tend to get a bee in our bonnets about Covenant marriage in the US which effectively sets up a separate system of jurisprudence ordered according to religious norms. Or how about the legislation in Louisiana that bans hipster jeans because they’re sexually provocative, or immodest or something? Do we run around tearing our hair out about whether fundie Christians in the States are opposed to secular law? Dominionists more or less are. They want to set up a Christian theocracy, but do we panic that the secular West is in danger?
There was a neat op/ed piece in the Age which expresses the view of a lot of Muslims who chose to come here, and just want to get on with their lives.
You can over-estimate the influence of theology and of clerics – we all know that lots of Catholics use birth control, etc. etc. And similarly, lots of young Muslim women in Australia choose whether or not to wear a hajib. I think we need to get this discussion in better perspective.
Peter Costello’s speech was nothing new for him. He said exactly the same thing last year. http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2005/s1444603.htm
I think the real issue – then as it is now – is how would Costello actually put in place a plan to deny citizenship, or remove citizenship from people who don’t uphold ‘Australian values’.
But Costello has no idea. He hasn’t even the vaguest of plans for how to do it.
How would you actually strip people of their citizenship? How would people be denied citizenship? How would we test if they are upholding Australian values? Who would decide what those values are? Would there be a questionnaire? An exam?
I think Costello won’t give an answer to any of these questions. He won’t ,because he can’t.
I reckon Tony Jones on Lateline nailed it back in 2005 when he responded to Costello ideas with:
“ But isn’t this the sort of thing you hear in pubs, the meaningless populism you hear on talkback radio?â€?
When pushed to give an answer in that Lateline interview about how these ideas would actually be implemented, Costello admitted that it would be voluntary! You would simply ask the person to leave Australia.
So the Treasurer is not only pandering to racism but is flakey . He deserves to be ridiculed as much as heckled.
But I think it is worth reading Costello’s Sydney Institute speech to the end, where lists in some detail what he sees are the six key Australian values.
‘Value’ number six is:
“Strong Physical and Social Infrastructure: Australia has roads that are paved, where traffic moves.�
I don’t know what is more stupid: that Costello thinks traffic moves in Sydney or that ‘roads that are paved’ is a core Australian value.
–
I wrote some more about on my blog http://www.benoquist.com
Thanks, Ben, here’s what LP had to say back in August.
Mark.
1. Australia is not America. Australia is not America. Australia is not America. Australia is not America. Australia is not America. Ooops. And pray tell too how is covenant marriage in Arizona or wherever (which I still think is odd) and which is not tied to any religious group or open only to a particular religious group, similar to a parallel Muslim religious court?
2. You should perhaps visit a few U.S. god blogs and Christian theology and political sites and see how often those “dominionists” as you call them get debated and deflated by Christians from all traditions and all perspectives.
3. I have often said, both here and on my blog and elsewhere, that the majority of Muslims just want to get on with their lives: work, raise their families, enjoy life. Just like everybody else. I don’t need a survey to tell me that. I just know it from the Muslims I know (with the exception of one)
4. Having said that I also have said that just like Christians, atheists, Hindus or whatever, are variously engaged, disengaged or partially engaged with their faith. In any case their theology will influence them to some degree even if differently and with a different intensity for a fifth generation Aussie Afghan Muslim mum living in regional South Australia than that for first generation Aussie Lebanese Muslim teenager living in the western suburbs of Sydney. This is no different to the spectrum of nominal, collapsed, lapsed, committed and fundamentalist Catholic Christians (or any other Christians for that matter)
5. It therefore matters to know who it is one worships.
or once worshipped.
saint, I don’t disagree but it seems to me that we concentrate on Islamists and really have next to no knowledge of how salient what we think are the theological precepts of Islam are on church and state to the opinions and lives of most Australian Muslims. I suspect not very much, but the Government would do the debate a real service by funding some proper opinion research.
As to the dominionists, yeah, they’re a minority position within US Christianity but then so are Islamists within Australian Islam. And I bet there’s more dominionists about in the US than there are Islamists in Australia.
The covenant marriage laws allow people to opt in to a different type of divorce law based on a religiously grounded belief that divorce ought to be very difficult.
Mark, I think Cossies Howards Ruddocks etc comments are targetted at extremists/Islamists – at least in public.
Touche, you finally agree that there is a theological issue here as well which it seems most Aussie commentators are afraid of or incapable of investigating or addressing. I would also suggest that it is of import even amongst moderate Muslims even if they do not support violent or coercive propagation of their faith/faith-politics.
Of course there are more dominionists in the U.S. then there are Islamists in Australia. The U.S has 300 million people, we have 20 million. Even 0.1% of 300 million is going to be more than 0.1% of 20 million.
I don’t have any desire to defend covenant laws. But I will
a. bet that nearly everyone who is married wants to see their relationship survive and grow and don’t set out to see it end in a divorce court, regardless of their religious persuasion and would variously avail themselves of any options to guard and protect their marriages
b. they are open to anyone, not necessarily religious and
c. they are remarkably liberal given the Christian understanding of marriage/remarriage even those who opt for the more liberal “Erasmus option” and
d. divorce is still not a crime under those laws as was proposed in Turkey, currently being proposed in Indonesia etc. and
e. face it Mark, faith and in particular the Christian faith plays an infinitely more public and important role in American society and yet they still offer and maintain more freedoms for people of no faith or differing faiths than even your most liberal or secular Muslim society (want to talk Christians in Turkey? Ever enjoyed the company or the clubbing of religious police in eastern Malaysia have you ?) and
f. they do not prevent one from apostasizing from or converting to any faith. Wanna say the same for a sharia religious court?
I actually don’t want to get into a debate on Christianity vs. Islam, saint. I do think, as I say, that some evidence-based policy would be a good idea. But I suspect it’s in the interests of both sides that we’re all just kept in ignorance and reduced to assertion.
Mark and Saint:
Agree with most of what you both have said …. but I’m only 1 in 20 million.
Sorry, but I’m pessimistic.
We were all too relaxed and comfortable for too long.
We left ourselves wide open to having our government and our institutions manipulated and usurped by hostile pseudo-religious hoodlums and charletans.
We failed to update our treason laws so as to stop anyone in government – from the lowest to the highest – dragging Australia from semi-independence back to being merely somebody else’s colony.
Too late to do anything about that now. It’s off to the stake with all you heretics and infidels …..
Trackback.
What’s the issue here? Abbott is a Catholic conservative; he wants to recruit conservative Muslims to the right, just as conservative Catholics were recruited to the right via the DLP. What is surprising is that people as fixated by Howard that any disagreement with Howard is considered progressive. The enemy of my enemy is not my friend; I would have thought the left would have learnt this by now? Tony Abbott as ally and I suppose Bill Heffernan cares for the forests as well?
Equally, it’s a mistake to suppose one’s opponents form a monolithic block; there are fissures and fractures along ideological and religious lines.
Bill Posters:
Agree wholeheartedly …… but sometimes, when our enemies gather together, even if only for the day, we are the ones who get hurt.
Here’s a novel idea for Costello – rather than stripping radical Imams and other unworthies of their citizenship, why not simply refrain from importing any radical Imams in the first place?
Oh, and their mendicant co-religionists. Almost forgot.
Tony Abbott – “…it would be a mistake to dismiss those advocating sharia law as “un-Australianâ€?.”
Dear GOD, this man is an outed Marxist. Who on earth will ever believe his crap again?