By Fulya Celik

Good evening, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen,

The title for this presentation is loaded.  It suggests that Muslims are at a critical juncture and are presented with two options: isolate or be alienated.  The term assimilation is not factored in.  The connotations of assimilation are all too frightening.  In the past, if groups of people did not lose their identities, their ideas and beliefs, in order to mould themselves in their respective communities, they had to face dire consequences: notwithstanding the historical or cultural context we speak of, we can see that all that changes is the form of the persecution: whether you were burnt at the stake, taken to concentration camps or exiled, it was clear that, and I borrow the title of Rabbi Jonathon Sacks’ book, there was no ‘dignity of difference’.  What all such attempts scattered throughout history share is an assumption that same equals good – this is where the concept of assimilation lies. 

I believe the challenge is much more complex than that.  This is where a more profound understanding of one another is required.

In this presentation I intend to do three things.  Firstly, I will attempt to illustrate some of the challenges to integration. 

I would then like to suggest some important steps that need to be taken on the path of establishing a common understanding, and finally, I would like to suggest a possible paradigm on which the integration of Muslims into the Australian community can be based and so, propose  corresponding elements that remain pertinent within the Australian context.

In our day, it is almost impossible to avoid discussion about Muslims and the Islamic world, and notably, in Australia as witnessed recently, not to hear the rhetoric of political and religious leaders, as well as academics about the position of Muslims within wider society.

Western academics and commentators continue to construct their paradigms with which to explain the connections between and within nations and societies in the modern world.  Two of the more influential attempts to construct ways of understanding the aspirations of non-Western societies are from Francis Fukuyama and Samuel P. Huntington.  The idea of an end to history, which was first put forward by Hegel and later publicised by Fukuyama, is a theory which posits that history comes to a close when the world is one: that is, when an absolute, rational form of society become victorious.  Huntington’s ‘Clash of Civilisations’ will characterise the future, with ‘the West’ pitted against ‘the rest’.  Such prophecies raise a number of central issues, including those relating to the increasing presence of non-Western societies in the modern world, the role of religion in civilisational consciousness, the supposed homogenous nature of cultures and the self-actualising potential of such prophecies.

The extent to which Fukuyama and Huntington’s attempts to formulate ways of understanding the non-Western world, in general, and the Muslim world, in particular, are constructive is in their function as a deterrence factor.  They serve to underscore, in a manner equal to the degree of their infiltration of “mainstream policy analyses and influential journals in powerful countries”[1] the urgent need for intercultural and interreligious dialogue: a dialogue of civilisations.

In order for such meaningful exchange to occur within the Australian context thus enabling the integration of Muslims in broader Australian society, there are a few elements that need to be factored into the equation.  Firstly, the primary references of Islam, which all Muslims accept, contain innumerable references to the importance of peace, justice, rule of law and mercy.  As with any religious text, the interpretation of these verses and their relative priority are a matter of interpretation. For Muslim scholars, the primary sources of Islam are the primary sources for formulating and staging their argument. While the sources themselves are unchanging, the chief dilemma which has been overlooked in much of the discussion about Islam and Muslims is the ‘culture of Islam’ or the ‘human factor’.  That is, the way these interpretations have been translated in regions differing geographically, culturally and politically.  I have previously suggested the existence of distinct ‘Muslim mindsets’.  These relate to Nineteenth Century imperialism and colonialism which have characterised the Muslim world and constitute one of the greatest impediments to the integration of Muslims in the West.

Prior to about the 1950s, leaders and scholars in many Muslim nations, feeling the need to motivate their populations to rid themselves of the grip of Colonialist powers, tailored their messages accordingly and ingrained in their followers a rejection of all things Western.  The primary duty was seen to be defending one’s land from occupation and assault.  Faced with these threats, this approach was constructed upon a deep mistrust of Western powers and the need to define a common enemy in order to foster deep-seated feelings of nationalism.

Post WWII, with the independence of these nations from Colonialist rule, leaders and scholars omitted a key element: namely, to repair the relationship between the Muslim world and the West.  The terminology and references that the Muslims were using prior to independence was not revised and became somewhat anachronistic.  The problem with many parts of the Muslim world today is that they fail to see that such a ‘struggle’ is obsolete and that this terminology is no longer relevant.  The ‘theological sustenance’ of the pre-independence mindset is what constitutes an impediment to the integration of Muslims.

It is at this point where the importance of education can be seen.  One of the great illnesses plaguing the Muslim world is ignorance.  Fethullah Gulen, a contemporary Islamic scholar, is the inspirational head of an international movement that strives to counter ignorance, prejudice and misunderstanding through education and the ‘dialogue of civilisations’; this is achieved via the establishment of intercultural centres.

 The irony is that many Muslims do not have a sufficient knowledge of their own faith and primary sources.  The fact that the very first interfaith and intercultural organisation established by the Muslim community, namely the Australian Intercultural Society, was established in just the year 2000 is testament to this.  It is astonishing that while many Muslims do not have the knowledge of Islam, thinking, that it is a sin (of which there is no basis in the primary sources) to enter a Church, for instance, the AIS continued its yearly visits to Easter Mass in churches across Melbourne.  The underlying philosophy behind such activity is that for healthy integration and social cohesion, human beings need to develop a deeper, more profound understanding of one another.  It is just as important for Muslims to understand the dominant cultural and religious context in which they live as it is for non-Muslims to understand Islam.  This is what is meant by the ‘Dialogue of Civilisations’ mentioned earlier.  The Prophet Muhammad, his life and actions constituting a primary source in Islam, laid the groundwork for this acceptance and understanding inviting a delegation of Christians from the neighbouring town of Najran, to perform mass in the second-most holy place of worship in the world for Muslims: the Mosque of the Prophet.

The fact that Muslim communities in the West, and in Australia, are relatively new is another important consideration.  The two main Muslim ethnic groups, the Turkish community and the Lebanese community, migrated to Australia not more than 40 years ago.  The time it took for these communities to settle, find employment and educate their children, coupled with the lack of language has meant that they have remained distant from the social and cultural realms of broader Australian society.  Such adjustment of communities is a crucial social process which takes time.  Diverse ethnic communities which came before were afforded the time and tolerance to make such adjustments and to integrate.  It is imperative that the Muslim community, passing through the adjustment phase, is empowered and positively driven to allow their healthy integration also.

It is also important to note that the Western, or the Judeo-Christian world, has not lived or coexisted with Muslim communities on this scale before.  The Orientalist experience of the Muslim world, together with the prejudices that have filtered through history may in fact serve to halt this process of integration.  That is why key institutions, such as universities, churches and the media, within the Australian community have a key role to play to play.  There is a lot that they can contribute to helping Muslims with this process.  Most Muslims want to contribute in the best way possible to the community of which they are part and parcel.  If institutions, such as the media, continue to marginalise and demean members of the Muslim community, this can only have a detrimental effect.  Alienating the Muslim community is not the answer.  As a teacher, I can readily see the effects of such an approach: Muslim youth feel increasingly ostracised and powerless to engage in positive action.  These key institutions, in working with such organisations as the Australian Intercultural society, will offer new archetypes for Australian Muslims to be formed and provide the site for positive action and social integration.  I like to think about an Islam with an ‘Aussie accent’; this is a significant phenomenon that is occurring within Australia with the formation of a distinct shade of Islam whereby Muslims who have been born and raised in the West are adding their unique flavour to Islam.  I believe they will play a pivotal role in reflecting their experience back to Muslim nations.

I have heard Muslims described as the ‘new Catholics’.  I would like to suggest that the Australian Catholic experience can provide a possible paradigm in the discourse of the integration of Muslims in Australia.  The parallels are striking.  I was fortunate enough to hear Peter Manning, Senior Lecturer in journalism at UTS and former Director of the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism, speak in Sydney last year.  He discussed his recent book fittingly entitled Us and Them.  As a Catholic himself, he talked about the ‘us’ and ‘them’ feelings separating Catholics and Protestants in the 1950s.  Today, there is no “us” and “them” in this way anymore.

So what broke the barrier?  He says:

 “But what happened in my time between Catholic and other Christians was that the false differences were eliminated through discussions, meetings, closeness, negotiation and friendship. The myths about each other – the conceptions that make for dehumanising your enemy – were gradually broken down. In this process, the literal differences were left as bedrock beliefs and these were found to be far smaller than the things that united us.”

I would like to end my words with the words of Western academic, Robert L. Bartley, taken from his paper entitled, ‘The Case for Optimism: The West Should Believe in Itself’.  Going against the grain of Huntington’s Determinism, and providing a room for causality amidst the backdrop of Fukuyama and Huntington’s self-fulfilling prophecies, Bartley is very clear about the options available ahead:

The future is of course no sure thing.  Perhaps Huntington’s forces of disintegration will in the end prevail, but that is no sure thing either.  The West, above all the United States, and above even that the elites who read this journal, have the capacity to influence which of these futures is more likely.  If the fears prevail, it will be in no small part because they lacked the will and wit to bring the hopes to reality.[2]

I would like to think that the presence of so many here today is testament to the fact that we lack neither ‘the will’, nor ‘the wit’ to realise our hopes and dreams.

I greet each and every one of you with my deepest respects.  Thank you.