Griffith Uni's Professor of "Unity" needs more context and perhaps dialogue

Following the concerns raised by CWW, The Australian presented O'Connor with the issues relating to his use of 'Unitarianism', 'Tawhid', as well as the plagiarism. O'Connor conceded error on all accounts, but his justification and excuses raise even more suspicions. He defended charges he had flagrantly breached his own university's policy on plagiarism by insisting "it was not an academic article." However, O'Connor raises even more disturbing issues admitting his articles were "based on material provided by senior staff." Why are GU Islamic Studies scholars relying on copy and pastes from Wikipedia? Surely these basic issues should be at the tip of their tongues, like a Mathematics academic knowing her six times table?

Either way, O'Connor's excuses are lame and completely unacceptable.

On his using "Unitarianism" to describe Saudi Islam, O'Connor conceded "the more correct label is Muwahiddun, rather than the popular but problematic term Wahhabism." This is quite an ironic statement given how "problematic" O'Connor's use of "Unitarianism" has become. Even one of O'Connor's fellow academics and Griffith University council member Dwight Zakus, senior lecturer at the university's Department of Tourism, Leisure, Hotel and Sports Management described O'Connor's Wikipedia plagiarism as, you guessed it, "problematic."

O'Connor does not resile from his misunderstanding or misrepresentation of "Unitarianism." He still insists the Saudi government's "official religion" is

Unitarianism, which is the belief espoused by the unifiers of Islam or Muwahiddun.

He provides no reference for this extraordinary claim. The CIA Factbook states Saudi Arabia's religion as just "Muslim." On the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia website, once more the official religion is just "Islam."

So where would O'connor have got this bizarre idea about the 'Saudi government's official religion'? And what about Muwahiddun being "the unifiers of Islam"? But Muwahiddun were not a group of me "unifying" fractious Islamic sects. Muwahiddun has its etymological roots in Tawhid - "oneness of god."

Left's take a brief detour to get a full appreciation of just how 'off-piste' this '"Unitarianism" as official Saudi religion' narrative really is.

Around the blogosphere and media online sites, many have slammed critics of O'Connor, such as the ABC's Religion Team. One prominent left-wing culture war blog accused The Religion Report's Stephen Cittenden of "having a bit of a thing about Islam. He’s hardly rational about it Others defended O'Connor's use of "unitarian" as an English transliteration of Muwahiddun.

However, O'Connor does not use the lower case noun "unitarian." O'Connor explicitly and repeatedly uses "Unitarianism", which is a completely different concept. As I explained in a previous post "Unitarianism" is a Christian notion, which in the twentieth century has been adopted by universalist spiritual movements. As we now see not only is this statement plain wrong, it is not even what his plagiarised Wikipedia states! So we can see that Tawhid is THE central concept in Islam, and not "the primary doctrine of Unitarianism."

Memo to Professor O'Connor: Next time - should you be so unwise as to engage in Anglicisations ever again - you wheel out this, use "unitarian" not "Unitarianism"

It is true that "unitarian" is indeed one of the many words sometimes used loosely as synonymous with muwahiddun. Other English transliterations include "monotheist," "literalist," and so on. But when Saudis and other - mostly Sunni - Muslims use Tawhid what they are really talking about is the specific tradition of Koranic monotheism; a tradition that has been a constant in Islamic belief and ritual since the day Muhammad first emerged from the desert: the "oneness of god." There are naturally many theological implications of Tawhid, which do not accord with "Unitarianism", and which we do not need to explore here. All we need to note is the just how bizarre Professor O'Connor's claims about "Unitarianism" as Tahwid are.

On the other hand, the connection of Tawhid (and hence "unitarian") with Wahhabism dates back to the late eighteenth century as the Islamic empire was falling behind the rapidly ascending West. While there were many other Sunni Arabs seeking to revitalise Islam, the most prominent was Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab. Wahhab was a passionate follower of the ancient Hanbali school of Islamic jurisprudence which insisted the only sources of authority were The Koran and the hadiths. Wahhab's revivalist movement became associated with a reactionary puritanism.

But why by the late eighteenth century was there this perceived need to 'get back to the basics' of Tawhid? Wahhab believed that Islamic decline was caused by centuries of mainly Sufist encouragement of a syncretic strain of Islam. The amazing success of the transmission of Islam - across central and south Asia down to Indonesia - had largely been facilitated by accommodating local cults and rituals of the societies conquered, including toleration of idols, temples, and representational art. By the fourteenth century Suuni Arabs in particular had started to taken exception to Sufi laxity towards Sharia.


During the early fourteenth century, the leading Hanbali school jurist Ahmad ibn Taymiyya led a violent resistance to this Sufi 'liberalism' from Damascus. Decrying the 'Christian' appropriations of Sufis and Shia Muslims - in the form of the Shia class of imams and the Sufis relatively relaxed attitudes towards relics and mosques - Taymiyya taught violent jihad against all who followed man-made law rather the Koran. Much of the current sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shia is energised by the teachings of Taymiyya and their adoption by Wahhab.

Tellingly, in one paragraph O'Connor plagiarises from Wikipedia, he deletes a sentence which attributes the influence of Taymiyya on Wahhab. As my earlier article noted, Wikipedia says.

The primary doctrine of Wahhabism is Tawhid, or the uniqueness and unity of God. [4] Ibn Abdul Wahhab was influenced by the writings of scholars such as Ibn Taymiyya and rejected medieval interpretations of Islam, relying on Quran and hadith. [5] He preached against a "perceived moral decline and political weakness" in the Arabian peninsula and condemned idolatry, the popular cult of saints, and shrine and tomb visitation. [6] (bold added)

In both The Australian and the ABC's Unleashed O'Connor copies and pastes word for word from the Wikipedia paragraph except substituting the word “Unitarianism” for Wikipedia's “Wahhabism.”


The primary doctrine of Unitarianism is Tawhid, or the uniqueness and unity of God. Wahhab also preached against a perceived moral decline and political weakness in the Arabian peninsula and condemned idolatry, the popular cult of saints, and shrine and tomb visitation. (bold added)

So clearly, O'Connor and his "senior staff" were not so rushed that they could not carefully change a couple of words from Wikipedia to make their case seem scholarly credible. Even on his updated website version, O'Connor attributes to Wikipedia

The primary doctrine of Unitarianism ‘is Tawhid , or the uniqueness and unity of God’ (bold added).

Thus we see that by the eighteenth century Wahhab was merely the latest in a two century old push to banish both Sufism and the non-Koran-based rational sciences. Thus, we see the beginning of the Arab and wider Muslim world away from science, progress, and modernity. The inclusiveness, cosmopolitanism, and highly artistically and scientifically accomplished Islamic civilisation and empire at its peak - that people in the West quite rightly often need reminding of - was only possible by adopting a form of Islam that Islamic scholars (particularly Sunni Arab) considered blasphemous and idolatrous.

Ironically, all those calls we hear for an "Islam Reformation" miss the point. Wahhab was Islam's Martin Luther. Thus, the Islamic Reformation has been underway for two hundred years! It's most spectacular expression seen as the Twin Towers collapsed on September, 11, 2001.

It is hard not to smell the odour of a PR con job where the GU people are singing from the Saudi song-sheet trying to re-brand Saudi Islam as a warm and cuddly "Christian like" religion. Further suspicion is raised by the need to use this Anglicised term. What next? "Group Hug" as an English transliteration of jihad?

HOT LEAK

Radical Imams Pressure UWS for control over teaching Islam and Gender

As the scandal over the so-called Queensland "Professors of Terror" radiates increasingly sinister hues, Culture Warrior Watch has been sent a copy of a memo being circulated by the Australian National Imams Council.

On the same day, The Australian published the troubling photos of Saudi women covered top to toe - including the entire face - studying at Griffith University, 94 Men who comprise The Australian National Imams Council unveiled an astonishing secret campaign to control University of Western Sydney's course 'Women in Arabic and Islamic Literature’.




Here is the memo in full:



Australian National Imams Council
PO Box 145
Lakemba.NSW.2195



www.anic.org.au
info@anic.org.au


24.04.2008

Women In Arabic And Islamic Literature Subject
National Centre of Excellence in Islamic Studies

The Australian National Imams Council is a body that represents the Muslim Imams of Australia and through them the community of Muslims in Australia. Currently there are 94 Imams in the Council and they are drawn from all the States and Territories of Australia. We are responsible for a variety of matters including the Appointment of the Mufti of Australia and the issuance of legal rulings for the benefit of Muslim Australians.

The University of Western Sydney is a University of good repute amongst the mainstream and Muslim community, and therefore we would like to place on the record our deep concern with regards to a course taught at the University under the course name ‘Women in Arabic and Islamic Literature’.

The course structure and content has involved repeated and unjustified attacks upon Islam by the lecturer and a course reader that is seriously flawed. The reader promotes a very negative view of Islam and especially women in Islam. It does not represent normative, traditional Islam as practised by the overwhelming majority of the Muslim Population in the world today and through fourteen centuries of Islamic history.

We are concerned that the course does not provide a balanced view of Islam and that students will emerge with a very skewed understanding of the faith. The course is so biased that it does not draw upon the work of renowned academics whose writings would give the course a more moderate slant. Such an omission is not only serious but quite telling. It tells of the fact that this course was not constructed and is taught in a very negative manner with prejudices which are very obvious.

Even when there is a reference to a traditional source (and there is only one reference and that is to Bukhari) that source is taken out of context and not given explanation from the traditional sources on which there is an abundance written and recorded.

The two major sources for Islam are the Quran (Divine revelation) and Hadith (sayings of the Prophet) neither of these will convey their complete meaning if they are taken out of context or taken literally without appropriate explanation. And that is exactly what was done with the reference to Bukhari and the Hadith contained therein.

The subject’s emphasis on sexuality and it’s explicit sexual content is not reflective of normative Islam which is what we thought the National Centre of Excellence in Islamic Studies would attempt to portray.

We would appreciate a reassessment of this course, its content and the manner in which it is taught so that it more accurately reflects the actual and not imagined teachings of Islam. And to truly reflect the normative teachings of Islam which is best placed under the Centre of excellence in Islamic studies.

Yours Sincerely,
Shaykh Moez Nafti
President of ANIC
________________________________________________________________________
If you wish to petition the cause and make your concerns heard to the National Centre of Excellence of Islamic Studies and the University of Western Sydney, please show your support by Name: Contact (Mobile or email):
Organisation (if applicable).
Name
Contact Details (email or mobile) Organisation
Submission of Petition:
1. Fax completed form(s) to 1300 765 964 or
2. Email your name and organisation (if applicable) info@anic.org.au
Submission Deadline: Tuesday 29th April 5pm.

er

Queensland's Professors of Terror? Or just "contextualisers" and "dialoguers"?

Griffith University Professor's 'Scholarship' plagiarised from Wikipedia

A provincial Australian university is housing a Wahhabist Islamic “research centre” involved in the dissemination of misleading religious propaganda from the Saudi House of al-Saud.

Griffith University Vice Chancellor, Professor Ian O'Connor takes to the pages of The Australian to declare the research unit a step towards a “more sustainable pluralistic Australian society.” Yet the Vice Chancellor's very attempt to do so reveals a spectacular ignorance of even his own political agenda, let alone his gullibility to the Wahhabist Saudi regime, and an unfortunate dollop of plagiarism from Wikipedia.

O'Connor admits to Griffith's “solicitation and receipt” of Saudi government funds. This must be a first; the pimp also soliciting! The latest kick-in of $100,000 is designed to defeat what he Connor calls “reactionary,” “conservative” and violent forces opposed to the “progressive” Saudi regime. Progressive Wahhibists? Progressive Saudis? Talk about chutzpah!

The former Social Work academic claims that the “official religion” of the Saudi government is something he calls “Unitarianism.” This is an extraordinary claim. Unitarianism is a Christian notion that rejects the traditional "three natures" of The Blessed Trinity, whose origins stretch back to the Apostolic Age of the first century AD. Unitarianism – in the form of Arianism was declared a heresy of orthodox christianity at the Council of Nicene in 325 AD. Unitarianism in the form of Monophysitism was also declared heretical at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD. Theological conflict between Unitarianism and Trinitarianism have been a central feature of Christianity for 2,000 years.

To many, this might seem an arcane matter of ancient theology; and it is. That is why this use of “Unitarianism” by Griffith University is so bizarre. So bear with me for a second to see just how insidious this re-branding strategy really is.

There has never been any non-Unitarianist movement within Islam as Islam was born out of a rejection of the Christian Trinity. In Islam, Trinitarianism has always been rejected as a form of polytheism and any Muslim advocating such a view of god would be dealt with as a blasphemer and heretic. Indeed, this rejection of the Trinity was a major source of competitive advantage for Islam in the conversion of Christians in the Byzantine and Roman empires during Late Antiquity. Many of these Christian converts were followers of the anti-Trinitarian Arius. Arius a popular priest in Alexandria during the early fourth century AD.

Before the Protestant Reformation Muslims were often derided as 'followers of Arius.' Luther himself accused the prophet Muhammad of 'emerging from the sect of Arius.' The revived Unitarianism movement during the sixteenth century Protestant Reformation was a liberal and humanist Christian movement, while in the twentieth century “Universalist Unitarianism” is generally a creedless movement that combines aspects of all religions; the antithesis of the Islamic so-called “Unitarianism” being pimped by O'Connor.

Thus, to speak of Islamic 'Unitarianism' is not only wrong; it also shows a profound and worrying ignorance of the history of christianity and Islam's reaction to it. As the ABC's Religion editors Rachael Kohn, John Cleary and Stephen Crittenden state,

Ian O'Connor's equation of Wahhabism and Salafism with Unitarianism is utter nonsense.


This whole expose increasingly suggests that Griffith University simply does not have the scholarly smarts to run this research centre.

More worryingly, this attempt to rebrand the al-Sauds with the respectable and – more tellingly – Christian imprimatur of 'Unitarianism' is a PR campaign in urgent need of much more investigation, especially if public Australian universities are being co-opted to run the campaign.

And yet O'Connor sees no ethical problems or conflicts with scholarly standards in accepting Saudi money so the Saudi government can use Griffith “as a legitimate alternative to their country's more conservative policies and perspectives.” Since when did Vice Chancellors of Australian public universities see their role as pimping for foreign despotic regimes against the dissent of their own people!? O'Connor is positively giddy that 'no restriction or denmands' were placed on the Saudi donation. Why would they need to with a stooge as Vice Chancellor! It is crystal clear Professor O'Connor has no idead he has signed on to broadcast the religious propaganda of ther Wahhabist al-Sauds!

Where does Wahhabism fit into Griffith University's understanding of Islam and Saudi Arabia? O'Connor claims that "Wahhabism" is merely a pejorative term used by critics of Unitarianis. In other words, O'Connor claims that the Wahhibism known the world over is merely a slur word, but nevertheless the exact same thing as this “Unitarianism” that is the 'official religion of the Saudi government.' And from where has the former social work academic learnt this peculiar spin on Saudi and Islamic history?

Well, he doesn't really need to learn anything as he has plagiarised from Wikipedia, without any attribution. But he cannot even plagiarise without his Saudi paymasters. Where Wikipedia says

The primary doctrine of Wahhabism is Tawhid, or the uniqueness and unity of God. [4] Ibn Abdul Wahhab was influenced by the writings of scholars such as Ibn Taymiyya and rejected medieval interpretations of Islam, relying on Quran and hadith. [5] He preached against a "perceived moral decline and political weakness" in the Arabian peninsula and condemned idolatry, the popular cult of saints, and shrine and tomb visitation. [6] (bold added)

In both The Australian and the ABC's Unleashed O'Connor copies and pastes word for word from the Wikipedia paragraph except substituting the word “Unitarianism” for Wikipedia's “Wahhabism.”

The primary doctrine of Unitarianism is Tawhid, or the uniqueness and unity of God. Wahhab also preached against a perceived moral decline and political weakness in the Arabian peninsula and condemned idolatry, the popular cult of saints, and shrine and tomb visitation. (bold added)

However, Tahwid has nothing to do with Unitarianism. In fact, among its many other totalitarian notions, Tahwid is a declaration of the inseparability of church and state! No rendering unto both Ceasar and god for the Tahwidist! But wait there's more. From which Wikipedia article does the good professor plagiarise? “Wahhabism.” There is no article for Islamic “Unitarianism.” Ouch.

What is motivating O'Connor and the Griffith Islamic centre? It is hard to avoid the suggestion that O'Connor is a foot-soldier in the Leftist Culture War. Hostility towards Christianity and ignorance of basic world history are common features among the Leftist Culture Warriors. Unfortunately, so is gullibility towards Islamism.

For instance, O'Connor shows no awareness that Wahhabism is at war with secularism. And his comparison of past sectarian rifts between Catholics and Protestants with modern-day Christianity and Islam shows a blinkered view egarding current geopolitical machinations. They see their job to smoke out “Islamophobes” rather than watch for Islamist fifth columns taking root in vulnerable lower-tiered universities. Professor, the appropriate comparison is not a dispute between Islam and Christianity, but between Islam and secularism.

As well as ignorance of history, moral relativism naturally looms large. O'Connor directly equates the most reactionary elements of Wahhabism with Christianity. He contrasts what he describes as the Saudi's aim “to develop a form of progressive Islam that has credibility and legitimacy.” Once more he openly admits – probably unwittingly - that Griffith University is accepting money from the Saudis to do their religious and ideological pimping.

Perhaps most alarmingly, O'Connor states the donation 'followed standard practice' in soliciting the money! Clearly, investigation of this scandal needs to be extended to the whole of Griffith University.

And what does O'Conor hope to achieve? Why a “rapproachment between Christianity and Islam,” of course, now that “the violent animosity between Catholics and Protestants has finally been calmed.” By all means we should all champion greater exposure to scholarship in World Religions and History, but we must never accept scholarship plagiarised from Wikipedia or sourced from ethically-questionable foreign despotic regimes.

O'Connor claims the Griffith Islamic Research Unit mission is "to promote mutual understanding between all religions." Sadly, it is stillborn.


UPDATE: Following the concerns raised by CWW The Australian presented O'Connor with the issues relating to his use of 'Unitarianism', 'Tahwid', as well as the plagiarism. O'Connor conceded error on all accounts, but his justification and excuses raise even more suspicions. More later.