Today’s Australian reports of an Australian sheik named Ismail al-Wahwah (also known as “Abu Anas” or “Father of Anas”, following traditional Arab custom of naming someone after the name of their eldest child) whose organisation (Hizbut Tahrir or HT) “support[s] … military coups and revolutions to overthrow non-Muslim governments worldwide”. According to the report, he also “attacked the West’s lack of values and backed the use of suicide bombings in Iraq and Palestine, even if they killed Australians”

The evidence for this astounding claim is contained in an interview conducted in Arabic on SBS radio. Here’s what he said:

I say any occupied people have the responsibility to defend their country … The victim … should not be asked how he is defending himself … It is up to the Ummah (community) to sort out its own matter with these rulers and remove their ruler in a public manner … It could be such as a public revolution, public disobedience or a military coup … We are in the front line with the Ummah. We don’t engage in militant activities. Our case is to make the case of Islam the case of the Ummah.

These words were spoken in Arabic. Significantly, The Oz chose not to rely on the Arabic language skills of its usual reporter on Muslim matters, Richard Kerbaj, who recently won an award for his scoop on Sheik Hilaly’s catfood sermon. Instead, it obtained an independent translation.

There’s no doubt that HT’s message (as cited above) calls for radical action within Muslim-majority states. This in itself is somewhat disturbing, even if it is the case that many of these governments are dictatorships with little respect for human rights.

However, nowhere in these words is there any indication that HT supports the overthrow the governments of countries which do not have Muslim majorities. George Bush, John Howard, Helen Clarke etc can all rest easy.

Nor do Abu Anas’s words contain any support for terrorists attacking and killing Australians. Or perhaps they do. Perhaps I am missing something from the many occasions on which that meaningful phrase “…” appears.

And who is this “sheik”? Is he a religious scholar? An Imam? Is he based at any mosque or religious seminary? The Oz doesn’t say.

The term “sheik” can have a number of connotations. It can be used to refer to a religious scholar, an imam, a learned person, a teacher, a wealthy businessman or even an old man. Arabic-speakers take this for granted. The Oz’s typical reader doesn’t. Nor, dare I say, does the average Oz reporter.

Sources close to HT (which managed to attract hardly 400 Muslims to its last conference despite extensive media coverage) told Crikey that Abu Anas is not a religious scholar. He is given the title of “Sheik” because of his advanced years and the fact that he is a businessman. Yet the average reader would quickly presume that a prominent religious scholar is spreading seditious teaching to a wide audience.

Be alarmed but not alert. And certainly not informed!