Melbourne preacher row exposes Australia’s unfinished fight over hate speech

Australia has a habit of discovering, with ceremonial surprise, that words can travel faster than institutions can tidy them up. This time the spark came from Melbourne, where reports about a July sermon by Abu Ahmad have pushed the Australian National Imams’ Council into a public rebuke and dragged the argument over hate speech back into view.

ANIC said it was deeply concerned after Nine newspapers reported that the preacher called on followers to take up arms against his enemies and not take Jews and Christians for friends. The council then went further, saying it strongly and unequivocally condemned any call by any religious or non-religious preacher, leader or individual to take up arms against civilians, religious communities or the Australian people.

The remarks were said to have been made in a video posted in July to the social media feed of Melbourne-based Al Bayyinah Islamic Centre. In the clip, Ahmad was reading from a book chapter and spoke of declaring enmity for the sake of Allah, opposing the enemies of Islam and taking up arms against them. The language was not merely clumsy; it was the sort that predictably invites alarm, especially when delivered from a pulpit and then preserved online for later inspection.

Ahmad’s response, posted on Instagram on Monday by the centre, was that the article had attributed to him statements taken from a passage he was reading during a lesson on al-Walāʾ wal-Barāʾ. He said they were not a personal call for Muslims to attack Christians, Jews or other non-Muslims. The post also said a video attached to it explained the same passage and that the lesson did not permit harming, oppressing or being unjust towards peaceful non-Muslims.

ANIC said it would not make findings about the individual or the precise context of the reported remarks until it had properly reviewed the material. That caution is sensible enough; the alternative would be to hand out verdicts as quickly as social media hands out outrage. The council also reiterated that it categorically rejects incitement to violence, hatred or harm against any person or community.

It added that the safety, security and wellbeing of Australia and the Australian people are fundamental responsibilities that Australian Muslims, imams and religious leaders must uphold. Islamic teachings, it said, require Muslims to honour the sanctity of human life, fulfil their responsibilities to society and contribute positively to the communities and country in which they live. It also called on religious leaders of all faiths to exercise responsibility in their public statements, while warning that the conduct of one individual should not be used to condemn an entire faith or community.

The political context is hardly new. The Albanese government was forced to abandon anti-vilification laws that would have given authorities greater powers to crack down on religious leaders who promote hatred on the basis of religion, race, gender or sexuality after it failed to win support from the Nationals and the Greens. The issue has not vanished; it has simply waited for another incident to remind Canberra why the argument was never settled in the first place.

On Tuesday, independent federal MP Allegra Spender told Nine newspapers that the comments showed why stronger and nationally consistent hate-speech legislation was needed. That is the part politicians now know how to say. The harder task is drawing a line that protects open debate without pretending that incitement is just another opinion with bad manners.

Written by Thomas Nussbaumer thomas.nussbaumer@alpineweekly.com