Jun 25, 2014

Crikey Clarifier: what’s so dangerous about Uthman Badar?

The Festival of Dangerous Ideas has scrapped a lecture on "honour killings" -- murder of women said to have brought shame on their families. The talk's author now says the cancellation was due to racism, and he would never defend honour killings. Crikey intern Rachel Clayton looks at the facts.

Crikey Intern — The next generation of <em>Crikey</em> journalists.

Crikey Intern

The next generation of Crikey journalists.

Some ideas are considered too dangerous even for the Festival of Dangerous Ideas. After widespread condemnation, the Sydney Opera House has cancelled Uthman Badar’s planned controversial talk “Honour Killings are Morally Justified”, which was to be presented at FODI in late August. But Badar now says his talk was cancelled because of racism and Islamophobia. What's the story here? What was the talk supposed to be about? The Sydney Opera House has distanced itself from the title of the talk, saying it never was meant to be about honour killings, or the murder of women who have shamed or dishonoured their families. In a statement the Opera House has said:
"It is clear from the public reaction that the title has given the wrong impression of what Mr Badar intended to discuss. Neither Mr Badar, the St James Ethics Centre, nor Sydney Opera House in any way advocates honour killings or condones any form of violence against women."
Badar also says people got the wrong impression, telling Fairfax Media the session’s cancellation was due to the extent and influence of Islamophobia in Australia and the suggestion he would advocate for honour killings is ludicrous. It's worth noting that Badar says he didn't choose the title of the speech -- the organisers did -- but he did consent to it. Who is Uthman Badar anyway? Badar is a spokesperson for Hizb ut-Tahrir, a political group whose aim is to resume the Islamic way of life and establish an Islamic state. The group is banned in many countries, including in some in the Middle East, south Asia and central Asia, as well as in a few European states. What are some of Hizb ut-Tahrir's positions? In February this year Hizb ut-Tahrir published an article supporting the marriage of a 12-year-old girl to a 26-year-old Muslim man in New South Wales. The group condemned the arrest of the man and the girl’s father as Islamophobic and stated Islamic law could not be judged by Australia’s "law of the land". “Something being illegal according to Western law does not make it immoral,” the article stated. The Guardian reported in 2002 that the British website of Hizb ut-Tahrir posted a passage from the Koran saying, "kill them [Jews] wherever you find them", followed by material arguing Jews were liars. And Badar himself? What are his recent positions? On Monday Badar published a press release on the site supporting the current violent action taken by ISIS, the militant Islamic group fighting in Iraq. The release states:
“This time the ‘Islamic state of Iraq and Sham’ (ISIS) is the primary object through which … Islamic ideals such as Jihad and the Caliphate [an Islamic state] are being demonised and attacked.”
It further condemns Western media for portraying ISIS “in fantastical Hollywood style, as evil incarnate on Earth, having seemingly taken over from al-Qaeda who previously fulfilled this bogeyman role”. Badar was a speaker at a Sydney workshop in April earlier this year that challenged the Australian government’s de-radicalisation policies and, in a press release for Hizb ut-Tahrir, writes that "Any Muslim who sacrifices his time, wealth and life to assist his fellow Muslims engages in a deed beloved to Allah, and [is] worthy of only praise". In November 2013 Badar debated “God and Prophet’s should be protected from insult”. He described free speech as “an ideological liberal position and not some logical, universal position”. Badar describes the cancellation of his speech as an example of freedom of speech being nothing more than a tool of power.

Free Trial

You've hit members-only content.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions


Leave a comment

14 thoughts on “Crikey Clarifier: what’s so dangerous about Uthman Badar?

  1. Chris Hartwell

    “My sky-fairy said THIS therefore I don’t have to listen to anyone else!”

    Yawn. God-botherers of any stripe need a new line.

  2. Mark out West

    Reasoned questions to this type of Religious based idealism and posting that on the net is the best way to disrobe the King.

  3. AR

    Religion ceases to be a personal pathology when the sufferer demands, not just the right to be deluded, but that others conform to their delusion.

  4. Irfan Yusuf

    “Badar is a spokesperson for Hizb ut-Tahrir, a political group whose aim is to resume the Islamic way of life and establish an Islamic state.”

    With respect, this is just plain wrong.

  5. AR

    Irfan – with no respect, how about ‘apologist’?

  6. CML

    If you believe in free speech, then you should believe in it for everyone.
    Besides, isn’t it better to know what nonsense these fundamentalists are sprouting in our society, than not?
    Also agree with leon knight’s comments.

  7. fractious

    Badar describes the cancellation of his speech as an example of freedom of speech being nothing more than a tool of power

    Leaving aside his assumption that “others” are suppressing him and his point of view, I think he’s right to be quite pi$$ed off at the way his proposed discussion has been treated. After all, he may be right that he didn’t choose the title and that the thrust of his did not support “honour killings”. He may well have conducted an intelligent discourse that challenged the preconceptions of most of us on Islam, including those who think of themselves as being as far from bigoted as it is possible to be.

    But now, thanks to the Opera House and the FODI mounting a volte-face, we’ll never know. At some point in the recent past, both the SOH and FODI must have read Badar’s proposal, assessed it and thought it both worthy and appropriate. But now, “OMG public reaction! Questioning!! WTF!!!”, and I sigh and wonder: what is this a festival of if the instant a real “Dangerous Idea” presents itself the organisers suddenly fight shy? If the intent is to hold a series of lectures and debates that challenge assumptions and preconceptions, then it cannot be beyond the wit of the initiators and organisers to realise that the whole gig will create a lot of heat, Shirley.

  8. fractious

    Oh . Moderation again? Why? Where’s the offence??

  9. AR

    Fractious – and, even IF there were offence, so what?

  10. fractious

    AR, it’s becoming more than a little what Kafka wrote about, not to mention a thing not entirely unlike Matryoshka dolls. If Crikey wants to start articles like this up it should not be beyond their capacity to imagine they might attract comments, some of which may question assumptions made. Yes, litigation, I know…

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details