Some in the media have decried the response of Ibrahim Abu Mohamed to the Paris terrorist attacks. Here is what he said, what he didn’t say and what they said that meant

Five things Australia's grand mufti may or may not have said about the Paris attacks

They say 93% of communication is non-verbal. No one understands this better than Australia’s grand mufti, Dr Ibrahim Abu Mohamed.

Jacqui Lambie says grand mufti should be forced to wear ankle monitor Read more

On Sunday he released a statement and a Facebook post expressing sorrow for the deaths of 129 people in the Paris terrorist attacks.

Unsaid, but apparently embedded in his statements, were a range of outrageous ideas.

Here, according to this week’s media reports, are some of the enraging things Mohamed had to communicate (and some clarifications).

1. Nothing about Paris

Seven News reporter Bryan Seymour traipsed to the far western Sydney suburb of Fairfield on Tuesday to visit the radio station where the grand mufti ordinarily works.

But Mohamed, reportedly suffering health problems, was not there. At the door instead was one of his staff, Habib Masri.



Just to be sure, Seymour asked him what he thought of the Paris attacks: “I am against what happened, these are innocent people. It’s terrible,” Masri said.

Outside, Seymour solemnly turned to the camera. “And there we have Habib Masri, who works for the grand mufti, and broadcasts a radio station in his name,” he said.

“He’s just told us he thinks the attacks in Paris were terrible. The question everyone wants answered is: what does the grand mufti think?”

(From Monday’s statement: “The grand mufti of Australia … mourn[s] the loss of innocent lives due to the recent terrorist attacks in France. We would like to convey our deepest condolences to the families and friends of the deceased. We reiterate that the sanctity of human life is guaranteed in Islam.”)

2. Stubbornly refused to condemn the Paris attacks

Ever since political correctness went mad, it’s been rare to see African or Middle Eastern men portrayed in poses usually reserved for monkeys.

But that’s how Sydney’s Daily Telegraph illustrated its “see no evil” front page on Wednesday, featuring this breathless take on Mohamed’s statement.

It opened: “Australia’s grand mufti faced widespread criticism yesterday for his stubborn refusal to condemn the Paris terror attacks.”

Erin Bouda (@ErinBouda) Front page of the @dailytelegraph today: #Grandmufti "sees no problems, hears no concerns, speaks no English" 🙈🙉🙊 pic.twitter.com/N5H1vCS5Y7

(From the mufti’s Facebook page on Sunday: “Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims, families and people of Paris and Beirut at this time of unspeakable horror. We will continually stand united in peace with them against such heinous attacks of cowardice. There are no words to truly describe the devastation of these acts but we will continue in solidarity and pray for peace.”)

3. Condemned the attacks, but not without reservation

A variation on the theme above was delivered by the immigration minister, Peter Dutton, who told Sydney’s 2GB: “There is no excuse and there is no qualification and the opportunity is there for the grand mufti to … make it very clear that he condemns these acts of terrorism, these murderous acts, without reservation.”

Australia's imams council denies grand mufti justified Paris attacks Read more

The problem was Mohamed had referred to “causative factors”, including racism, foreign policy, military intervention and increased powers for police and intelligence services.

It’s one thing to question whether it was appropriate to include this discussion in a statement expressing condolences for France’s dead. But Mohamed would not be the first to say these factors have helped spark the latest spate of Islam-inspired terrorism.

The former head of Britain’s security agency, MI5, said as much in 2010, telling the Chilcot inquiry into the UK’s role in Iraq: “Our involvement in Iraq radicalised, for want of a better word, a whole generation of young people – not a whole generation, a few among a generation – who saw our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan as being an attack upon Islam.”

4. Used the word “condemn”, but not in the present tense, and not directly in connection with the Paris attacks

Yet another variation on the theme of condemnation was delivered, then deleted, by an AAP reporter in Canberra, who tweeted a second statement by the mufti on Wednesday, intended to address his critics.

“Grand Mufti and Imams Council clarify Sunday’s statement on Paris attacks. Still don’t condemn attacks,” the reporter tweeted.

(From the new statement: “Dr Ibrahim Abu Mohamed and ANIC have consistently and unequivocally condemned all forms of terrorist violence.”)

Mariam Veiszadeh (@MariamVeiszadeh) Breaking: Press Release from the Grand #Mufti clarifying his statement re #ParisAttacks pic.twitter.com/uA7ZmNqAo5

5. Left dangling whose side he was on

According to the Australian’s Janet Albrechtsen, “it’s not good enough that the grand mufti … said racism and Islamophobia must be addressed”.

Nor should he have said the world’s anti-terrorism strategies were failing, or called for “people of goodwill to stand against fear mongering and injustice”.

You might disagree, but so far, fair criticism. Then things escalated: “This is not just ineffective leadership, it’s counter-productive. And it’s dangerous. We are in a battle against Islamist terrorists. Whose side is the grand mufti on?”

(From the mufti’s September 2014 statement about regarding Isis: “As we have repeatedly preached in private and in public in Arabic and in English, the horrors conducted overseas in the name of religion are crimes against humanity and sins against God.”)