Some Muslim leaders referred to the 'deportation of Muslims' by senior
Government leaders and Members of Parliament. This is an unjust reflection of the deputy leader's speech and misconstrues both the deputy's and the
Qur'an/shari’a's position on oppression: Ross Peake, 'Muslims hit back at Costello attack', The Canberra Times (Canberra), 25 February 2006. The Muslim leaders' reading of the various references to Muslims (and particularly to deportation) by politicians is not a fair reflection of the latter's words. There is however, a reason for Muslim leaders' instrumental characterisation of the politicians' words in this form, as it provides a shari'a legal basis for 'Muslims to fight back'. In practice, however, these Muslim leaders' words amount to political posturing which increases the leaders' standing within the Muslim community7, exploiting both an uninformed mainstream community and the vulnerability of the Muslim community' already feeling under siege. Muslims are not prevented from performing their 'ibadat (worship) in Australia, and the deputyr's statements must therefore be construed as referring only to Muslims calling for the application of
mu'amalaat. In a sense, these statements such as the deputy leader's statement offer a simplistic view of violence inspired by religious beliefs and sometimes
downplaying (or being uninformed about) the complex social conditions which give rise to these conflicts: see generally Patrick J Mclnerney, 'Religion and Violence' in J Inkpin (ed) Religion and Violence, (2007) 4.
See text accompanying n 162, 67.
There are no Federal anti-religious vilification laws in Australia to prevent vilification and taunting of Muslims on the grounds of religious affiliation. On the other hand according to Simon Bronitt and Bernadette McShery, Principles of Criminal Law (2 ed, 2005), 779. the federal offence of sedition in Australia does cover the urging of inter group violence. While the Australian Constitution (s. 116) states that [Australia shall] 'not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, does not allow the State to favour a particular faith over other [...]', the Head of State in Australia was for the greater part of Federation, HM the Queen/King of the United Kingdom and Australia who was also the Head of the Church of England. Further, the Monarch of England must be of the Established Church, and as mentioned serves as its Spiritual head. The English Sovereign is also Sovereign of each of the separate Australian States. Unlike say laicitee in Francophone States, the 'separation' of Church and State in Australia has however, not been as strictly enforced, allowing politicians to bring in notions of Christian morality' and charity' into public debate, and is an avenue not denied to adherents of other faiths. Stephen Crittenden, 'Kevin Rudd:
C hapter 3 —137
On the other hand, and not withstanding the deputy leader's ill- considered invitation for such Muslims unconditionally to leave Australia, Ms Rabia Hutchinson, an Australian-born Muslim convert, was prevented from doing just that. However, and notwithstanding the deputy leader's unilateral 'offer' to such Muslims to leave Australia, this 'offer' did not bind the Government.
While this is not an established shari'a view, it can be argued that when prevented from leaving Australia, an individual, or to take Ms. Hutchinson case (to join w hat she called her 'community' overseas196), she is prima facie entitled under the shari'a to seek help to do this. This best, least damaging help in this case arguably is not so much, in the first instance, to shed blood in Australia, but perhaps in the first instance with help to escape from Australia to där al-Islam, thus helping her to
compensate for her error of judgment, prematurely in declaring her intentions to Australian authorities, by declaring her intention to fight Australia before leaving our shores.
Generally, oppressed Muslims must first seek to emigrate,197 and there are no general, practical or legal impediments at tine Australian end to Muslims exercising this choice. Further, as it stands, Australian Muslims have not as a group called for any help against oppression and in any event such a call would not, it is posited, be justified.198
Bonhoeffer and 'the political orchestration of organised Christianity" in The Religion Report ABC RN, 4 October 2006. for instance, cites PM Rudd stating:
[...] you can't deny Christians having their voice, just as you can't deny anyone else having their voice, and the single purpose of my intervention in this debate, apart from honouring the memory of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, is to say that when Christians inject their voice into the public political debate in Australia, to be mindful of this continuing social justice tradition of the church, rather than simply have a single voice of privatised conservative Christianity [... j.
Lisa Millar, "Jihad sheilas' speak out1 in 4 Corners ABC Australia, 2 February 2008. See text accompanying n 162, 67.
These requirements apply equally to attacks in other countries such as Spain and the UK. Thus, Spanish Muslims who feel that they are oppressed may move freely and without much effort to other freer parts of Europe. On the other hand, not only have Australian Muslims as a group not called for external help but to the contrary Australian Muslims have condemned al-Qa'eda attacks. It is conceded that these statements of condemnation are sometimes made by unelected and often non representative groups, sometimes 'selected' by governments for their
'cooperativeness' may be seen as self serving: 'Selling anti-terrorism laws 'not up to Muslims" in ABC News 6 October 2005. On the other hand, the majority by their silence have at least acquiesced in these statements. This is arguably because there
C hapter 3 —138