Bondi Attack: Imams Fail to Link Violence to Islamic Doctrine

ABC Australia interviews Bilal Rauf, spokesperson for ANIC (Australian National Imams Council)

This CSPII Monitor item will deal with 2 issues, one being the content of Mr Rauf’s interview, and the second being the stance that ANIC takes on the incitement of Jew-hatred.

Bilal compares the event to the Christchurch shooting, where Muslims were the targets of the shooting, and he brings up the Muslim man who attempted to stop one of the 3 shooters in the Bondi shooting. But neither the topic of whether there were similarities between the shootings, nor the topic of the identity of one of the heroes (there were also Jews to barehanded stormed at the shooters, but unfortunately they didn’t live to tell the tale), was the reason he was brought to the stage to talk about that massacre of Jews. He was brought to speak in the name of Australia’s central Islamic organization because it was an attack by Islamic jihadis, and because close to 80% of the murders and attempts at the lives of Jews are made by perpetrators who do it in the name of Allah. That’s why no one was curious to hear a statement by the New Zealand Jewish Council following the Christchurch shooting. Unfortunately, Mr. Rauf avoided the topic they were supposed to be speaking about.

That’s why we have to look into ANIC, and we will see that while they condemn the massacre, they do not accurately present the doctrine that led to it, and are actually participating in spreading anti-Jewish narratives that create the ground for such attacks to happen (see the next paragraph). They published two written statements following the Bondi shooting. The first statement was a general condemnation, which made no reference to the motive of the massacre. The second statement, which came a day later, was about the danger of Islamic State, known as ISIS or Daesh (while Israel suspects that Iran is behind the massacre, the Australian police suspects ISIS).

ANIC claim that ISIS actions and ideology stand in complete opposition to the teachings of Islam and the values upheld by Muslims worldwide. While that claim is not supported by any evidence by ANIC, there’s plenty of evidence to the contrary, including the fact that many Islamic organizations in non-Islamic countries promote anti-Jewish narratives disguised as criticism on Israel. This includes ANIC, which does all of the following: accuses Israel of genocide and starving and civilians on purpose, a claim not backed by facts; which doesn’t accuse Hamas, the entity responsible for the situation in Gaza; speaks incorrectly about Israel as an occupying force; does not criticize other states that are involved in conflict where Muslims are being killed (because both sides are Islamic); holds Israel to standards not demanded of Hamas; denies Israel the right to the self-determination that 57 Islamic states have; and thus, promotes the same ideas that support such anti-Jewish violent attacks.

ANIC claims that the overwhelming majority of ISIS victims are Muslims, and that therefore they should be not labeled “Islamic” or be connected in any way to Islam. However, it is absurd to claim that this is evidence that ISIS, “The Islamic State”, is not Islamic.

ANIC states that there’s no relationship to Islamic teachings, ethics, or scholarship, which emphasize the sanctity of life, justice, and mercy.

ISIS maintains that Muslims must shun and oppose any “Kafir” (non-Muslim) rulers or regimes.

• Koran 5:51: Allah commands Muslims not to take Jews and Christians as friends.

ISIS maintains that Muslims are obliged to fight Kafirs universally until Islam prevails.

• Koran 2:193: Allah commands Muslims to fight Kafirs until only he is worshipped.
• Koran 9:5: Allah orders that the Kafirs be killed wherever they can be found.
• Koran 9:29: Allah demands that Muslims fight against those who do not believe in him.

ANIC mentions the case where, in 2017, ISIS publicly listed ANIC’s senior members as targets to be killed for betrayal and cooperation with the Australian government. However, it is not unusual for two Islamic organizations to be rivals. For example, Sunni jihadis in Syria recently massacred thousands of Alawites (Shia Muslims). Up until recently, when Bashar al-Assad, the Alawite, was in charge, it was Sunnis who suffered and were butchered. They are rivals, but it doesn’t mean that either are on the side of Kafirs. The reasoning that ANIC must be on the side of Kafirs because they were targeted by ISIS simply doesn’t hold.

Different orientations of Islam choose different tactics for subjugating non-Islamic societies. Some opt for violent jihad, others opt for subverting them from the inside through politics, hijra (Islamic political migration), and other non-violent means. This follows the example of Mohammed and can be found in the primary Islamic doctrine. The story of Abu Basir is informative. After the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, Mohammed was bound by a truce with the Quraysh but covertly benefited from Abu Basir’s independent raids. Many Islamic organizations that operate inside non-Islamic societies work in this way. Like Mohammed, who claimed he was not responsible for Abu Basir’s violent attacks, they can claim to not be related to outside jihadis who do use violence.

ANIC rejects the use of the term “Islamic State” and rejects any attempt to connect ISIS or its members to Islam. But ISIS and ANIC are bound to the same doctrine. This doctrine cannot be disputed nor changed. Therefore, it contradicts the statement of ANIC in full. Islamic doctrine sits at the core of both ISIS and ANIC.

The Koranic references above only scratch the surface. The following following report extensively explores the subject of violent jihad in the Islamic primary doctrine: https://www.cspii.org/methodology/research-reports/violent-jihad/