A spokesman for the Defence forces last Friday reiterated this truism: “Eligible people may join the ADF irrespective of their ethnicity, race or religion”. Alan Howe, executive editor of the Herald & Weekly Times, described this remark almost dismissively as “the strictly politically correct line”.
Howe’s column, also published in the Brisbane Courier Mail, began with these words: “There are 2006 Muslims in the Australian Defence Force.” He describes suggestions that none have been investigated after the Fort Hood massacre as “a bold call”. He claims allied Christian soldiers had no hesitation in killing German (presumably Christian) soldiers and civilians during the Second World War, despite Onward Christian Soldiers being the battle cry. He ends with this: “If the god in any soldier’s life looms larger than his or her responsibility to Australia, we have a problem.”
Meanwhile, one of Howe’s more hysterical colleagues, a certain Andrew Bolt, starts his column by what he sees as the first fact a “real journalist” would tell you to explain why the Fort Hood killer did what he did: “The Fort Hood killer, army psychiatrist Nidal Malik Hasan, was a Muslim. He shouted ‘God is great’ in Arabic as he opened fire.”
So why question the loyalties of Australian servicemen and women who happen to tick a particular box for religion on their census forms? Is Howe trying to do a Nile?
Perhaps the answer to my question can be found in a fatwa issued by Sheik Rupert bin Murdoch in 2006: “You have to be careful about Muslims, who have a very strong, in many ways a fine, but very strong, religion, which supersedes any sense of nationalism wherever they go.”
But how will we tell exactly who is a Muslim? By the colour of their skin? Will a white Bosnian with a Muslim mum and Orthodox dad count as Muslims? Or a white man married to a Muslim woman? Will we know Muslims by what language they speak at home? Most Arabic speakers in Australia are Christian. Again, a fatwa from Ayatollah Murdoch provides guidance: Muslims are the ones with genetic defects from marrying their cousins.
And the best refutation for this bigotry and stupidity comes from Feroze Khan, the father of fallen US soldier Kareem R Khan, who told a journalist: “My son’s Muslim faith did not make him not want to go. It never stopped him … He looked at it that he’s American and he has a job to do.”
Our troops have a job to do. We should allow them to do it and not waste their or our own time with moronic speculations based on isolated incidents.
I had an elderly uncle who believed that Catholics were all secretly keeping guns under their beds waiting for the order from the Pope – to overthrow Australia. They had loyalties greater than Australia, he believed. They were devoted to something outside our country and they were religious zealots.
Of course we laugh at such a misguided bigotry now. But others have the same misguided belief when they think that Australian Muslims are dangerous people. They are not. Overwhelmingly they are just like the rest of us living here: wanting to have a good life with their family, see their kids do well at school and then materially; and live a happy life.
When people have something to live for, they don’t go looking for something to die for.
Those questioning the patriotism of Muslims in the ADF they should first explain why the servicemen joined up, if not for patriotic reasons. While they are about it why don’t they also question the basic loyalty of say, Jewish servicemen; maybe there primary loyalty is to Israel.
People making assertions of this kind should remember the appalling treatment meted out to the Nissei in the USA during World War 2. We don’t need this sort witch hunting where people are presumed guilty by reason of their heritage.
Why question defence force loyalty because of religion?
Because a person in another military has just shot fellow soldiers and he is saying it is due to his religion. How irresponsible would it be to not ascertain if people who share the same religion share the same feelings as he did. If they do then refer them to ciounselling or have their superior officer discuss it with them and recommend action. If they dont then businesws as usual, but to ignore the incident to save peoples feelings seems idiotic and uncaring of the soldiers welfare.
Perhaps the headline could have been” Here we go again, all Muslims are one Muslim, NOT!”
It’s reported that the guy who shot the abortion doctor in the US recently said he did it for Jesus. And the bloke who stabbed the Egyptian lady in Dresden expressed some beliefs as well.
It would be negligent for investigators not to consider possible ideological overtones or expressions. But that is a job for investigators, not for pundits.
If Muslims were a new feature in the US military, it would make some sense to watch them in the current climate. Even if they were not (and they aren’t), one could mount an argument for some counselling and scrutinising. What form would that take? I have no idea.
But if we turn this incident into a trigger for the kind of thinking that led to the Dreyfus trial in armies across the Western world, we’re in trouble.
Irfan
Yes the other people you mentioned were also not in the military. My point is that for the benefit of the soldiers they should be questioned to see how they are feeling. Questioned by Army professionals. I never mentioned the pundits., I replied to another misleading crikey headline. Do you believe that Australians of German origin were not treated differently during the 40s?
Muslims are not a new feature anywhere. It is what we are supposed to believe but I imagine the Afghan camel drivers who came to Australia to open up the NT how many decades ago. I imagine they were Muslim. I would ask serving Muslim members if they had any problems or questions relating to service where they may face other Muslims. Get their answetr and proceed with professionals.
i imagine that in our military history we probably have quite a few people who have been punished for their race/religion. Without the publicity of Dreyfuss.