If I could say one thing that I have abundantly emphasised throughout every single community engagement that I have undertaken across Australia since assuming the role of the Special Envoy to combat Islamophobia it has been that I encourage constructive criticism.
Not only because at times, I will fall short of my own expectations, but also what the Muslim communities expect from me. Constructive criticism from peers, is what Imam al-Shafi’i (d. 204 AH) said he took very seriously, because it kept him in check, so to speak, and I earnestly endeavour to do the same.
In this light then, I welcome Ms Dover’s AMUST opinion piece (Published Friday 24 January online here and subsequently in AMUST Issue #231, Friday 7 February 2025).
I share most, if not all of Ms Dover’s frustrations that the Muslim community face, and which she articulates well. They serve as a stark reminder of the uphill struggle that many ordinary Muslims and community leaders have to overcome.
For example, many Muslims do feel that broadly the media is less interested in stories when Muslims are the victims of violence, and not its perpetrators, and that a strong perception exists with Muslim communities that they are only viewed as perpetrators of terrorism and never its victim.
These two implicit narratives fuel the metanarrative that something is wrong with Islam, and by extension, Muslims, who are almost invariably framed as extremists or terrorists. There is also the perception that mental health is never considered a factor when a violent crime is carried out by a Muslim, but is often explained as a cause in the case of a non-Muslim who has carried out a violent crime.
Finally, while many Islamophobic attacks continue, there is a strong perception within the Muslim community that our political leaders fail to condemn them. Looking at the lay of the land as presented by Ms Dover, Muslims then cannot escape from the inevitable conclusion that they face unequal treatment, and that their safety is not perceived as a priority.
It is unfortunate however, that Ms Dover did not attend the ISRA (Islamic Science Research Academy Australia) public forum in Auburn, Sydney convened on 10 January 2025. At this forum I addressed the criticisms she raises in her opinion piece regarding my efforts and role.
I am consciously transparent about my thinking as to how I aim to tackle the challenge of Islamophobia with community members. I do that so that the community can hear my conceptual thinking and interrogate it, rather than hypothesise what motivates me and then attribute clandestine motives to my efforts. In fact, I was later told by someone who attended the ISRA public forum, who is both openly sceptical of this role and me, that I was perhaps too transparent.
Keeping the channel of communication open with communities is extremely important to me, whether this is in writing, or in person, so much so that during March, I will be re-engaging with all the stakeholders I met across Australia to inform them how their inputs have shaped my priorities and determined the key focus of my work. Following community directions, I will also present what outcomes I will strive to achieve, for this Office to be deemed useful and effective for the community.
Mechanisms will be put into place that will ensure I can provide timely updates to the community, not only on my efforts, but also update them on their outcomes. It will place communities’ concerns at the heart of the work that I do, by ensuring that I have formal structures in place, where the community can discuss their concerns, and I utilise their expertise and experience. Ultimately, my aim is to strive for transparency and accountability, and all these things will be laid out on the Special Envoy website, when launched (the url will be: www.oseci.gov.au). I have spent the last month, mapping this all out.
I digress. Let me address some key criticisms specifically raised by Ms Dover in her opinion piece, which as I have said, were addressed at the ISRA public forum in greater detail:
1. My past work with countering violent extremism (CVE). Perhaps the cornerstone and primary bugbear of Ms Dover’s critique of me. That she implies I am unable to “unlearn” my CVE thinking and “Government CVE-speak,” denies personal agency: I am not an automaton. I have ideas that are formed outside of the CVE policy space; through divergent thinking, reasoning, experience and observation. I benefit from conceptual blending and iteration. I read widely, especially to better understand ideas that I may disagree with. I am acutely aware of all the controversies associated with CVE both in practice and theory. I have my own criticisms of CVE too. Only time will tell if I can make a success of this role, or that my CVE past will haunt my future.
2. My response to the attacks on Shaykh Wesam Cherkawi, and Mariam. My delayed response to both incidents wasn’t because of what Ms Dover asserts (elsewhere) is my closeness to “proximity of power.” It was simply because I made a series of assumptions that resulted in a slower response. I have no excuse to make other than to say moving forward, I will respond from an informed position and in as timely a manner as possible.
3. A one-man effort. This and the next point help to explain to answer the question that Ms Dover asks about the lack of my contact details. As soon as I commenced this role, I prioritised meeting Muslim communities across Australia. That was critical for me to understand the scope of Islamophobia, hear communities’ concerns, and to better understand what specialised staff I would require in my team to address these challenges. This has meant that I am still in the process of building my team.
4. Lack of social media presence. Due to the above, this also means that I have not been able to establish a social media presence, and no real channel to distribute my statements, or communicate what I have done, and am doing. As I said earlier, I am working to establish a website which will launch during March.
5. No contact details. I have already shared my email address with people, but if anyone wishes to contact me, they can do so on: info@oseci.gov.au. I encourage Ms Dover to reach out if she has any continuing concerns, or simply wants to chat. I will happily meet her.
Now, let’s get down to business
Ms Dover’s article, when considered in isolation, appears well-intentioned, which was my immediate impression. However, a cursory reading of her numerous social media messages about me in the Special Envoy role, changes that impression drastically. It is important to note that I was unaware of any of Ms Dover’s social media posts; they have been forwarded, unsolicited. My intention was to only respond to Ms Dover’s article, but following requests to respond to her social media posts for clarity, and after a great deal of deliberation,* I now turn my attention to them.
The rant disclaimer
“When I rant,” warns Ms Dover, “there is a reason for it.” She characterises my role as “useless” and recommends that I “might as well join the Special Envoy for Anti-Semitism and carry pom-poms.” Elsewhere, she labels me as the “Islamophobia Yes, Sir Envoy,” engaging in what she terms “double-speak.” She insists that I receive “zero” free passes, and perhaps is unaware of the six-weeks of robust questioning I received from Muslims across Australia.
They, like her, were sceptical, upset, and some were quite angry, and understandably so. Sometimes, I had to answer a slew of questions from individuals that lasted for an hour and a half, other times, an entire group of Muslims would put me in the dock. And why not? I was there to answer questions, and I encouraged everyone not to pull any punches. There were a few instances in which I actually thought people would walk out due to the sheer differences they had with me, but they didn’t.
None of these communities or individuals however, treated me in the manner that Ms Dover “rants” about me on social media; if by asserting such a disclaimer allows her to proceed in such a manner. If Ms Dover is genuinely troubled and concerned by my apparent Zombie-like performance in a time which Islamophobia is at a historic high, she can always reach me through mutual friends.
But, it appears it is much easier to be condescending from behind her keyboard or smart phone. As I have said many times in my past community lectures, our phones have now become weapons in our pockets. We shoot off words without acknowledging their devastating consequences, while we sip on our coffees, pleased with our accomplishments.
Ms Dover also asserts that “the Islamophobia envoy is dead,” unaware of the numerous ongoing calls and meetings I have to address Islamophobia with community members and students from across Australia, journalists, federal and state government officials, national experts on Islamophobia, academics, race discrimination experts, university officials, overseas stakeholders, social cohesion specialists, and many more besides.
I am not sitting idle, twiddling my thumbs, or even in hiding. Ms Dover also starkly fails to consider the sheer amount of effort, diligence and time that I have put into writing whole-of-Government policy recommendations to take and address Islamophobia seriously, distilling all the community feedback I have received from across Australia, converting them into actionable items, and then working with global experts to ensure they are robust.
I intend to present this to the Government in March. She also perhaps has not given any consideration to the time and thought I have put into mapping out how my Office will address the challenges of Islamophobia and carry out its key functions. I don’t only have to appear on media or write articles to be seen to be prosecuting my role: I thought that was obvious.
To a degree, I can’t blame Ms Dover for thinking that I have done nothing because I have been unable to relay to communities what I have been doing. However, this doesn’t appear to cross her mind, because maybe in Ms Dover’s world, I have lost the most basic right of a fellow coreligionist, and that is the right to a benefit of doubt (husn al-dhan).
Aftab Malik, the man from CVE
Perhaps why Ms Dover believes I don’t deserve this, is my work in the CVE space, and why too she asserts that “he harms us collectively.” Her frantic proclamation, “someone has to say it,” implies that she alone possesses the courage and insight to expose me as a “CVE-stooge.”
Rather than see this as a liability, this experience has actually provided me keen insights into the policy space: something I thought would be a distinct advantage in my work to advocate for policy change in tackling Islamophobia.
For example, I have a comprehensive understanding of policy frameworks, governance processes, and regulatory frameworks. This allows me to navigate complex policy landscapes, and to ensure that any recommendations I make to Government, consider such elements. In addition, throughout the years, I have cultivated critical relationships with government officials, and this sprawling network of critical stakeholders makes it that much easier to advocate for policy changes.
I also understand the practical challenges that come with policy implementation, and so this should allow me to have insights into potential pitfalls and design more effective, actionable recommendations for the government. In short, all of the above provides me with both the theoretical and practical aspects of policy development that one would assume allows me to make recommendations for policy change in a structured manner.
However, this is all discounted by Ms Dover, who nearly a decade ago, implied that not only did my “politics simply suck,” but that I was “throwing the community under the bus,” thus positioning herself as the purveyor of “uncomfortable truths,” as she reminds her audience time and time again.
These prescient warnings appear to be maternal in nature, but an inescapable observation is that they are for a Muslim community that is perhaps too transfixed by the white gaze, brainwashed by propaganda or distracted to think clearly, because “we are weak and have colonised minds.” Thus, perhaps it is not so much that I am threat to the community, but a counterpoint to Ms Dover’s worldview.
The consequence of ignoring safeguards in discourse
In Ms Dover’s meta-analysis of the community, one might extrapolate that we are in a crisis because we are a colonised folk, lost wondering (and wandering) who we are, searching for our identity, trying to reconfigure our language and rediscover our episteme. We are oppressed and perpetual victims. We are told to be suspicious of everything: even our very own thoughts can’t be trusted.
Above all, according to Ms Dover’s narrative, I can’t be trusted. In the culture of suspicion that Ms Dover’s narrative perpetuates, there are many victims. Chief among them are ihsan and husn al-dhan, and, I am going to say it: adab. This much maligned word can mean composure, comportment, the proper way to do things, or order, but is understood by its critics to mean censorship.
These virtues that are essential to infuse our bonds with warmth and ensure that a modicum of dignity are in place despite our passionate differences, are all considered vices. And as a consequence of their insignificance at best, their erosion has left us in a state which has been described as menefregismo.
It’s a conspiracy
Dotted across her social media postings, is a troubling observation. When Ms Dover criticises me for a statement, or lack thereof, or inaction, she attributes them to a conspiracy. It’s a conspiracy that forces me to avoid mentioning something or for speaking about something else, or not doing something. Let me be very clear: There is no conspiracy.
Naming antisemitic events that “easily rolled-off” my tongue.
Before I close, I do want to look at a very specific criticism made by Ms Dover about my apparent lack of ability to talk about the attacks on Shaykh Wesam and Mariam. But this does require some context.
In my first media interviews that took place before these attacks, I spoke about a number of Islamophobic attacks that had been provided to me. I also had victims of attacks ready to speak to the media. Unfortunately, some of the media I was engaging was not interested in those case studies.
Women who had been attacked were less inclined to speak with media and so I could not provide them with anyone they could interview. They decided not to run the interview because they wanted other victims to talk to and the timing did not work out. Another media organisation, who published an op-ed of mine, removed examples of Islamophobic attacks due to legal advice they received from their counsel.
After these two experiences, I did not mention any specific attacks, including that of Shaykh Wesam and Mariam. However, unless I am advised otherwise, henceforth I will speak about these two incidents to highlight Islamophobic rage.
I have also spoken to The Islamophobia Register Australia and Action Against Islamophobia to compile a comprehensive list of Islamophobic attacks that I can talk about without prejudicing any matter before the courts, and with consent of victims, or targets.
I will also reach out to both the Islamic Council of Victoria, and the Board of Imams Victoria, who have dedicated teams to support victims of Islamophobia, so we can streamline our efforts, If there any other organisations that do this, please get in touch with me.
Violence is never ordinary
Ms Dover quite rightfully asks if the attacks on Shaykh Wesam, an Islamic school bus in Adelaide, and “a Muslim-owned restaurant being bombed in Melbourne” can be characterised as ordinary – referring to an answer I gave to my SBS interview in which I stated “because of the ordinariness of Islamophobia, it does not elicit a visceral response.”
No, these examples that Ms Dover cites are not ordinary, they are exceptionally unacceptable. What I meant by my statement was that the sheer number of Islamophobic attacks alone should provoke disgust and a visceral response by the public, but they do not. I was also referring to the actual events themselves: being spat at, harassed, verbally abused, having your hijab ripped-off – experienced as ordinary, daily events for many Muslims, does not elicit a visceral response to the degree that “the torching of synagogues and of cars” do.
In that explanation, I did not include the torching of the Adelaide Islamic school bus (a decision made after their request), nor the Shaykh Wesam or Mariam attacks as explained above, and neither the firebombing of Burgertory, which I think Ms Dover is alluding to. My role is combat Islamophobia. In my engagements across this nation, I was asked multiple times not to blur the lines between anti-Palestinian racism and Islamophobia, while in my inaugural speech, I acknowledged that it too is increasing in severity, and there are moments when the two intersect.
In amongst juggling everything, on first glance, this incident appeared to be a case of anti-Palestinian racism, and in such cases, I work with the various anti-discrimination officials to ensure they are aware of the matter, and do what I can do to assist. Now, it may turn out that I was incorrect in my assessment, in which case, I will redress that wrong.
Words of advice to us all
In closing, I offer some general advice in relation to me or my role. I urge our community not to fall for conspiracy thinking. Most often enough, there is a simple explanation. Don’t contribute to a discourse that only spreads (and shares) lies, cynicism and malice. Verify before you share.
Apply the Socratic triple filter test, or simply heed the advice of the Prophet Muhammad, upon whom be blessings and peace, who warned of the consequences of people saying untrue things of others. This all brings to mind what Mark Twain once said: “A lie can travel halfway around the world, while the truth is putting on its shoes.”
We all need to do better
In my role, it will be critical to not only convey the community experiences as explained by Ms Dover in her article, but to work with all relevant stakeholders to address them, improve on their responses, and work to eradicate the disparities, either perceived or real.
How I do that may not be to the approval of some people, and that is fine. I do not have a monopoly on the community discourse or the shaping of agendas; anyone can speak about anything they are concerned about and go about tackling that in a manner they deem appropriate.
I am not the Muslim spokesperson, nor do I represent any organisation or community. The Government does not use me to speak to the Muslims of Australia. I am here to address and combat Islamophobia. In combatting Islamophobia, there are things that the Muslim community should not have to do, as Ms Dover rightfully states.
For example, the community should not have to place pressure on the police to make the arrest of the individual who allegedly tried to murder Shaykh Wesam, and who violently threatened Mariam.
However, as a community, Islamophobia should be something we are all concerned with. It cuts across all theological, ethnic and cultural communities and does not discriminate. We have to come to terms that people disagree on legitimate basis, and that we need the maturity to work with those disagreements.
I cannot do this work alone, and communities across Australia have told me that it won’t be achieved overnight. I am vested to represent the concerns of Australian Muslims as far as it relates to Islamophobia. I won’t get everything right – and that isn’t due to a conspiracy. I am not here to work against the community, or to maintain the status quo with Government.
I don’t represent the Government, nor speak on their behalf. I am not a public servant. Help me when I fail you, and assist me to advocate for you in the best way. Ms Dover has rightfully pointed out where I need to do more, but, I too have pointed out where she can do better. If the consequences of this article is that it provokes more criticism of me, but it raises the quality of our discourse around legitimate dissent and disagreement, that is a good outcome.
89 seconds to midnight
The title of my reply to Ms Dover, conveys the actual current status of the Doomsday Clock, which attempts to represent how close humanity is to self-destruction (=midnight). I am using this here, as a metaphor to indicate how close we are as a community to self-imploding because of the attitudes and behaviours exemplified on social media.
It is a landscape littered by trolls who gleefully torture their victims, and where criticising one another entails destroying people’s moral integrity. It has become a toxic space that amplifies the worst aspects within us, where “covert bullying” is carried out by everyday Muslims who take, as Tom Postmes argues, a “moral vacation.”
Quite possibly, we have witnessed the construction of parallel ummahs. In this context, it is deeply concerning, because as Jaron Lanier warns, social media is reprogramming how we think and feel.
Like the meaning behind the Clock, I don’t use it to invoke fear, but to motivate us to do better. We need to champion a critical discourse that moves all of us to do and be better. This discourse should elevate, not ridicule or cancel either the critiqued or the criticiser.
It should provide us all with an intellectual rigour and spiritual humility. It should not present one another as opponents, but as brothers and sisters in faith, who despite their passionate disagreements don’t undermine nor trample on the bonds of brotherhood and sisterhood.
This role is a work in progress. Far from being perfect, whether you agree with me or not, my success is actually the success of the community and this nation we call our home, while my mistakes are entirely mine.
*This article was written on 2 February 2025.
Beautifully said. Thank you
Allow me to digress, but there is a connection to my following comment. Our Federal Election is coming soon. The Liberal Party stands for ignoring Islamophobia, and their current heroes are Trump and Netanyahu. Labour party does not entirely ignore Islamophobia, did show some courage to support the Palestinians and muttered something about the obvious ongoing Genocide in Gaza. If only Penny Wong could be Pound Wong. She could be upfront about the brutal Genocide and give unconditional support for the two-state solution. Her currency would be more substantial then. Anyway, Labour has some taste of Trump’s wrecking ball and Netanyahu threat. To be on the wrong side of Trump and Netanyahu is to be on the right side of history. So the choice is stark. You can choose the party that worships social wreckage and Genocide or the party that is somewhat critical of it. Hopefully, if Labour wins, Penny Wong will show her sterling qualities and unequivocally say No to Genocide and Yes to the State of Palestine.