Money for Nothing?
Author:Allon Lee27/05/2008
By Allon Lee
A series of articles by the Australian newspaper’s investigative reporter Richard Kerbaj in April drew back the veil on Saudi funding in Australia to reveal that Griffith University’s Islamic Research Unit proactively solicited and received $100,000 from the Saudi Government in anticipation of a total $1.37 million donation.
Much ink was spent on news stories and opinion pieces focusing on whether the Saudis gifted the money on a conditional basis.
Griffith University in Queensland (along with Western Sydney University and the University of Melbourne) was included in the Howard Government’s proposed National Centre for Excellence in Islamic Studies, established with an $8 million grant in 2007, and was intended to be a showcase for a multiplicity of Muslim voices in Australian academia.
Despite denials by Griffith University’s Vice-Chancellor Professor Ian O’Connor and the Unit’s Director Dr. Mohamad Abdalla that the Saudis expected any consideration for the $100,000, documents obtained by the Australian show that the university welcomed Saudi input into the centre and offered the Saudis anonymity if they so desired.
Writing in the Australian on April 24, Vice-Chancellor O’Connor denied that there was any problem with accepting the money and stated: “The Saudi Government seeks to moderate reactionary elements in its own society by funding Islamic research centres in prominent Western universities to develop a form of progressive Islam that has credibility and legitimacy.”
Prof. O’Connor compared the Saudi funding to a donation made in 2002 to Griffith University’s Multi-faith Centre by the Amitabha Buddhist Association of Singapore. But, unlike the Saudi Government, the Amitabha Buddhist Association has never been linked to the promotion of extremist or terrorist ideologies.
It is a plain fact that in recent decades Saudi Arabia has been using its oil wealth to export Wahhabism across the world, and this is generally regarded as one of the major reasons for the growth of Islamic extremism in Europe, the Balkans, Southeast Asia, the former Soviet Union, Africa and elsewhere. This is why the US Under Secretary of Treasury for Terrorism & Financial Intelligence, Stuart Levy, stated last year, “If I could somehow snap my fingers and cut off the funding [for terrorism and Islamic extremism] from one country, it would be Saudi Arabia.”
The Vice-Chancellor also described Saudi Arabia’s brand of Islam as “Unitarian”.
In a devastating critique of Prof. O’Connor’s op-ed, ABC Radio’s Rachael Kohn, John Cleary and Stephen Crittenden wrote in the Australian on April 25:
“Unitarianism emerged as a liberal Christian movement and gained ground in the early years of American democracy. Its foundational beliefs include that man has the ability to exercise free will in a responsible and ethical manner… and that no religion can claim a monopoly on the Holy Spirit of theological truth.
“These humanist and inclusive beliefs are in no way expressed by the Wahhabist and Salafist versions of Islam. Indeed, the home of Wahhabism and Salafism, Saudi Arabia, not only continues to outlaw conversion to religions other than Islam, it does not even permit public worship of other faiths.”
In a solo piece the following day, Crittenden added: “What the Saudi Government really wants is the legitimacy that comes from being associated with a Western university. There is not a shred of evidence that it has any interest in progressive reform and anyone who has any doubt about this should sober themselves by consulting the latest country report on human rights in Saudi Arabia published by the US State Department.”
One has to say that Vice-Chancellor O’Connor’s protest went a long way toward proving the point of his critics. He was arguing that the Saudi money came with no strings attached and would in no way affect the work of Griffith University’s centre. Yet there he was in the Australian, engaging in what can only be called ill-informed whitewashing of the Saudi regime’s ideology, record and goals.
The story took another twist on April 29 when the Australian reported Muslim leader Fadi Rahman’s claim that Dr. Abdalla is regarded as the Brisbane leader of Tablighi Jamaat.
Tablighi Jamaat’s platform includes a commitment to reinstating the Caliphate, ostensibly through peaceful means, but members of the group participated in the July 7, 2005 London bombings.
In response to the allegation against Dr. Abdalla, Griffith University issued a statement of support on April 29, stating that “Tabligh Jamaat is not a sect, is not secretive, is not political, is not violent.”
The statement was co-signed by 14 Muslim organisations. The statement also claimed that Dr. Abdalla had received “strong support” from “leaders from the Jewish and Christian communities of Brisbane.” However as far as the AIR has been able to ascertain, the Brisbane Jewish community has not expressed any public support for Dr. Abdalla.
Meanwhile, ABC Radio’s “PM” program presented a segment on the controversy on April 29, with Australian National University’s Amin Saikal. Given that his own Centre for Arab and Islamic Studies relies significantly on funding from Iran and especially the United Arab Emirates, it is not surprising that he defended Saudi funding for Griffith.
But of interest is the example he chose to illustrate his point: “I mean there are also certain academic institutions which have received for example funding from Israeli sources, and of course not many people have made any bone about that. But as soon as some funding really comes from a number of Muslim sources, then of course that becomes an issue.”
Only one problem with Saikal’s example - as far as the AIR has been able to ascertain, there is no Israeli funding for any Australian university in any area where conflicts of interest may be an issue - such as Middle East studies, Jewish Studies, or other social sciences or humanities. (We suspect there is no funding at all, but we cannot absolutely confirm this with respect to areas like medicine or hi-tech.) There is certainly funding from Australian Jews, but this is hardly the same thing (and no one would object if Griffith took donations from Australian Muslims). The fact that Dr. Saikal so blithely asserted such funding exists says something about his worldview.
Dr. Abdalla has now announced he will not seek any additional funding from the Saudi Government, but will not return the initial $100,000 grant.