There have been a number of media reports lately about Muslim involvement in Australian politics. There was the news that Sheikh Taj was going to run some candidates in NSW state elections, followed by news in Victoria that some prominent Muslims might be running for senate seats. And now, most recently, the bizarre news that former Camp X Ray detainee Mamdouh Habib is going to be running (supported, it seems, by members of Socialist Alliance although he isn’t running on their ticket).
Mr Habib, dressed in a T-shirt bearing an anti-American slogan, arrived for his first press conference smoking a cigarette.
Before speaking to the media he stubbed the cigarette out with his foot, leaving the butt on the ground.
He then went on to say voters had no business knowing what he was up to while he was in Afghanistan.
Although I can’t say that it does much for me, it does seem to have gone down wonderfully with readers of Sydney’s Daily Telegraph with 72% of them (at the time of writing) voting that they agree with the proposition that Habib’s experiences “would be useful for an MP.”
All of this raises a few questions: Are Muslim candidates the political silver bullet that some in the community apparently see them to be? Is there even such a thing as an “Islamic platform” or a “Muslim vote”? Is it better for Muslims to run as independents or is it better for Muslims to engage with one or more of the mainstream political parties? And if we, as a community, put forward and promote Muslim candidates running on some sort of “Muslim platform”, what sort of message are we sending to the broader community and, if they are defeated at the polls, how will this be interpreted?
My personal feeling is that engagement with the political process is a good thing but rather than run as ostentatiously Muslim independents, it makes more sense and is of greater long term benefit for Muslims to engage with one of the major (or even minor) parties. As to which party best represents Islam, then the answer is obviously none (if that is what one sees the purpose of running for office to be); however, a more useful and valid question is which party’s politics or which ideology best serves the general maslaha (benefit) of the Muslim community?
4 comments ↓
just a question:
what if the party which best serves the maslaha of the Muslim community, is also the same party which supports or is even responsible for the oppression of Muslims abroad?
do you not think that getting involved with political process by engaging with one of the major parties can put one in a position whereby one’s deen, practices, beliefs, morals can be compromised?
what if the party which best funds the building if islamic schools and masjids, also supports the banning of hijab in public places, or says that islam should be left as a religion that is practiced in the home and should be left out of all other spheres of life?
Its hard to imagine a more preposterous scenario (actually I can imagine a more ridiculous scenario: Humphrey B Bear standing for office on the platform to bring greater government funds to develop sign language for the mute bears who only have brown furry mittens, but no fingers)
http://australianetwork.com/gu.....0149_l.jpg
But there is not that much difference.
The problems is that it will confirm wider Australia’s suspicion that Islam is merely a political ideology disguised as a religion, if candidates stand as “Muslim” candidates.
Secondly I’m not sure who the “prominent moderate intellectuals” are but they are so media shy that one cannot imagine that they would garner any votes.
Third unlike parts of France or England there is not sufficient concentration of Muslims in one electorate to make a difference in anything except council elections). Also the Muslim community is divided and mistrustful of each other and unlikely to vote as a block for one candidate. Also if someone stands as a Muslim candidate it is likely only to unify the wider community to vote against him, because of the public opprobrium currently associated with Muslims.
Fourth, when one enters religion into the political arena then you should expect Muslims to be torn to shreds by the nature of the contest. One also will make lifelong enemies who will be professionally hostile. This is the worst position for an organized religion to be in.
Fifth. Its one thing to be lauded by the great and the good, but these candidates have no organized party or political nouse backing them.
Sixth it would push back any serious attempt by a Muslim candidate to stand as a real candidate sometime in the future.
seventh, the architects of this cunning strategy have picked entirely the wrong end of the political spectrum from which to campaign. In an era where conservative social politics and free market economics are the ascendancy, to run as the socialist alliance candidate is like running for Pope with the endorsement of the venereal disease party.
“A community is like a ship; everyone ought to be prepared to take the helm”
The Muslim communities in the West are a long way away from Henrik Ibsen’s quote. Certainly, it is not because we are short of people who strive to be Captain, but because we never seem to be “prepared”. The only way we can achieve better results for our community is if we get more people involved in the society around us. It’s a well known fact that if you neglect a position/seat/role/job/issue, chances are that someone else will fill that vacancy and you will then have no control (and no right) over the quality of it’s implementation. Similarly, if we don’t engage ourselves then other people, Muslim and non-Muslim, suitable and unsuitable, will and are speaking on our behalf. And all that will bring is a long list of mutinies in our history as a community until we get it right.
However, there are many problems with Muslims getting involved in politics in the West. On the one hand, due to the lack of choice, many Muslims might vote for a candidate based solely on his/her religion (i.e. being Muslim) instead of his/her suitability, with consequence. The same could be said of non-Muslim politicians sporting ‘Muslim’ causes, the apparent rarity of which causes Muslims to unconditionally support him or her. And on the other hand, for a Muslim to get very far (in a lot of cases) in the Western political system, they may face certain obstacles that could test their beliefs. If they get affected negatively, it will defeat the purpose, doing more harm than good by becoming part of the problem and not the solution.
Also, the issue of whether we should run independently or engage in the mainstream is a question that is not just limited to political engagement. Should we set up our own schools or focus more on becoming governors in non-Muslim schools? Should we set up our own media or become journalists in mainstream media? There are no right answers to these questions, the community is still young and we’re still seeing the results. But what I do believe is, any sort of participation, as long as it doesn’t compromise our religious integrity, will always be a good thing insha’Allah.
AL Razi,
I’m sorry for not answering earlier. The question that you pose is central to Muslim political understanding in the west. I firmly believe that foreign policy must be an ancillary matter, that must be given given very low priority amongst Muslim voters.
First it does not immediately effect us (in most cases).
the second is that under what law or right do we presume to speak on behalf of another population, their hopes and aspirations?
The third is that since we have no constituency in the area in question, events on the ground may overtake us and render our position irrelevant (e.g. assume that Australians Muslims take a hard anti-Israel stance, and a unity Palestinian government makes peace with Israel, our position is rendered irrelevant and absurd).
The fourth is that by taking a strong stance we enter the world of partisan politics, which I agree with Tobias is no place for a religion.
The other part is voting purely for ones immediate sectional interests. i.e. Muslims voting for those who offer and deliver the most for our community. I think this is unworthy of us religiously, and not necessarily in our interests. Example, one assumes that more government funding to Imams and masjids is better for the community. There is a strong empirical evidence that the exact opposite is true.
That is not to say we should not offer a view on foreign policy, we must, but using sober language critique policy rather than personality.
Leave a Comment