Given the massive military operation undertaken by a
coalition of countries to defeat the Islamic State (IS), one would think that
the war against IS has already been won and Iraq restored. Alias no, U.S.
officials conceded that Islamic State fighters still control large parts of
northern (including the major city Mosul) and western Iraq (“U.S., Iraq Prepare Offensive to Retake Mosul From Islamic State” the
Wall Street Journal 22/1/2015). More importantly, the counter-insurgency
analyst David Kilcullen (“Remote Control
Terror” The Weekend Australian 17-18/1/2015) wrote:
“Finally, it should be clear that there’s no magic bullet
here: no technological fix, … that can
protect society from this threat (terrorism).
… We need new approaches, designed to break the escalatory cycle of threats and
counter measures seen since 9/11. ..” But I believe Kilcullen’s real message is
that the front-line of the battle against modern terrorism is neither on the
battlefield nor the Internet because Kilcullen went on to write:
“It might also involve a debate on ways to detect and
intervene in the radicalisation pathways of at-risks individuals …”
Clearly the International community needs to do more to
address why seemingly rational individuals (and even Western educated youths)
are being radicalised (“Drop the idea of the lone wolf as a madman: most
terrorists think rationally” The Weekend Australian 24-25/1/2015). The problem
of radicalisation is further highlighted by the fact that young Australians, in
spite of massive Australian government effort, continue to be attracted to IS.
The problem of IS has its root in history. The backlash over
the invasion of Iraq (supposedly to rid Iraq of the weapons of mass
destruction) and the Syrian Civil War created the prefect condition for the
rise of IS. However even before the appearance of IS in 2014, Australia has already
have de-radicalisation programs
(“Investing in Mentoring and Educational Initiatives:The Limits of
De-Radicalisation Programmes in Australia” Shahram Akbarzadeh Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs Vol. 33,
Iss. 4, 2013). Researchers such Dr Clark Jones (“Terrorists can be turned around - here's how” ABC The Drum)
also advocate de-radicalisation programs.
If de-radicalisation programs have worked why then does the secular West
continue to bleed their youths to the IS cause?
Henry Ergas (“Islamists cannot be
permitted to abuse our tradition of tolerance” The Australian 26/1/2015) on
the other hand argued that it is “… impossible to lull the intolerant into
tolerance …” and therefore “… no Islamist should qualify for Australian
residence or citizenship. “ But must Australia’s or even the rest of the
Western world be forever polarised between the liberal left and the
conservative right? Should we perhaps first ask the Islamists what is it they
are riling against? The answer to this question can be found in the media
reports on the Anti-Charlie-Hebdo protest at Lakemba on the 23/1/2015. It is
interesting that both Associated Press and SBS chose to highlight the
organiser’s (Hizb ut-Tahrir) attack on the Freedom of Speech. At the protest Sofyan Badar from Hizb
ut-Tahrir argued that Free Speech is a smoke screen for Western politicians and
media to hide the underlying issues. He
further suggested that the West use Free Speech to maintain dominance over
Muslims. The idea of the alienated youth is clear but the media completely
missed the earlier part of his speech where Badar accuses Christians and
Judaism of compromising their beliefs with secularism. Presumably Badar is
suggesting that only Muslims (Sunnis? Shiites??, others???) are true believers.
So while Muslims argued that it is wrong denigrate the prophet Mohammed but is
Badar suggesting that it is OK to denigrate other religions? At the very least
his comments show a complete lack of understanding of the Christian faith. In the Gospel of John, just before Jesus
execution on the cross, Jesus explicitly stated “My kingdom is
not of this world.” Christians do not need to live in a theocracy. Christians
believe that the Good News Jesus Christ is spread by reasoning and love rather
than through the threat of violence.
That is not a compromise to secularism rather it is a realisation that
God is love.
Finally Ergas rightly pointed out
that the founders of the Australian constitution ensure that Australia is
religiously diverse, not favouring one faith or denomination over any other.
However Ergas is wrong to suggest that we are to practice our faith privately.
No, because this is exactly what Badar riled against. For too long Australians,
whether they are secular, Christians and other faiths have been silent on
justice and righteousness issues. Australian Christians, in particular, need to
stand up when asylum seekers are being denied justice. Australian Christians
need to stand beside Australian Muslims when they are being attacked for living
out their faith. After all, our Lord
Jesus himself calls on us to “seek first the Kingdom of God and his
righteousness”. Australians have taken
the lucky country for granted, failing to realise we must continue to uphold
the Fair-Go idealism. Interestingly, the Fair-Go idealism has its root in the
Good News of Jesus Christ. Perhaps it is
time for all Australians (Christians and non-Christians) to revisit Peter
Jensen 2005 Boyer Lecture (The Future of
Jesus http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/boyerlectures/the-future-of-jesus/3339436) to see how much our contemporary Australian
culture is rooted in Jesus because on this Australia Day we need to realise
that a fair-go is for all Australians.
