Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Prime Minister's motion on Iraq. And I say right at the outset that we talk often about how this is not a political matter or a partisan matter, but there has been no end to partisan commentary to date. So, I would like to go back and talk a little bit about how this is considerably more complex than what the member for Sydney or the member for Denison have suggested. The situation in Iraq and Syria is no doubt dire, and I agree with many who have said that the Islamic State needs to be defeated. But it also needs to be defeated philosophically—defeated through a war of weapons, a war of ideas, a war of principles and therefore a war of courage and resilience. As a consequence, I cannot see this ending any time soon; it is going to go on for a long while.

But when we look back—and a lot of people are just glossing over what Iraq was like before the previous war—everything that Saddam Hussein did and the doubt about where the weapons of mass destruction were, what the capabilities were, his cover-ups and his resistance to full access to weapons inspectors are forgotten with the passage of time. I would suggest that particularly in Iraq and also to a degree in Syria there have been two problems. Firstly, there was a lack of control over the new government in Iraq. There was a lack of supervision, an interest to get out of Iraq as quickly as possible without providing the proper guidance for the Shiah-led government of Prime Minister Maliki to create a system, a government, that had true balance and representation between the Sunni and the Shiah people, whether in the military or within government. I think there was this haste to get out, as public concern about the conflict in Iraq was one of the big issues.

But, above all, the biggest issue—and this is where we need to understand what the Islamic State is about and that this is not some new development—is that to fully understand IS we must first understand the original Wahhabism of Sunni Islam and how it changed early in the last century, because prior to the 1920s Wahhabism was a violent and hate-filled revolution. It was designed to purge Islam of what were deemed heresies and idolatries and, in effect, to bring all of Islam under one voice and their so-called pure Sunni teachings.

It was around the 1920s that the Saudi king changed Wahhabism to become a cultural revolution rather than a violent revolution. That was done in order to court the British and the Americans for their help in developing the fairly recently discovered oil riches of that country. Until that time, Wahhabists believed in the excommunication of Shiites and in fact anyone who did not subscribe to their form of Sunni Islam. Wahhabism also enshrined the Saudi king as the Sunni leader of the world; and, since that change, the cultural revolution has been advanced by spending billions of dollars of Saudi money to promote Wahhabist doctrine all around the world. The money is spent on mosques, imams, general promotion of the Sunni teachings and somewhat softer diplomacy, public relations. I say again that this cultural revolution, this PR campaign, was a big departure from the violent course of Wahhabism that existed before the 1920s.

Of course, not everyone agreed with this departure from violence. Before this change in the 1920s, the Ikhwan were at the forefront of the violent Wahhabist period, using murder, brutality, rape and fear as part of the traditionalist Wahhabist doctrine. It all sounds rather familiar. That had been going on for hundreds of years. The Ikhwan were a fighting, militant and puritanical moralistic movement that always believed in the right to kill, violate and take anything from heretics or non-purist Sunnis and of course nonbelievers. They strongly disagreed with the cultural revolution or, as some may say, the evolution of Wahhabism by the Saudi king. The Saudi king, however, defeated the Ikhwan at that time and killed many. Sadly, many escaped.

The Ikhwan movement or philosophy was never destroyed and its successor is the Islamic State. But, instead of the Wahhabist belief in the Saudi king as the head of Sunni Islam, IS believe in following a single Muslim leader, the caliph—in fact, their caliph now. Those Muslims who disagree are heretics and all others are nonbelievers, to be dealt with in the same violent way. Their strategy is to create fear and seek the subservience of all, and they do so by killing the men, raping the wives and daughters of those who do not follow them and then taking all of their property. We see this being played out right now.

IS finds sympathy with some in Saudi Arabia and across Sunni Islam—sympathy from those who still believe that violence to purge all who oppose the single voice of Sunni Islam is the right path. IS has essentially returned to the violent and brutal Ikhwan movement, the vanguard of the original Wahhabism, with the same brutality and fear tactics that see the same fate for other sects of Islam and nonbelievers. They will not stop at borders, and the establishment of the IS or the caliphate is only the first step towards domination of the entire world.

I believe that the appeal that IS has for young Sunni Muslims here in Australia and elsewhere in the West is that they see it as something of an exciting cause where they feel powerful. Sadly, that power is the power over life and death, the power to sexually abuse women and children, while at the same time being told they are doing God's work. I say that what they are is a group of people who have failed to take the legitimate advantages, the very real opportunities, that this and other countries have provided to them; they are all about excuses for that failure. There is no persecution of them in Australia or elsewhere in the West, only a lack of effort by them. The Islamic State gives them a false and warped philosophy, telling them that they can look down on others, including women and those of other religions. Where the risk is compounded is that those who take up this cause will undoubtedly follow the doctrine where murder, rape and stealing are seen as a religious duty. Let us not beat around the bush: regardless of other interpretations of Islam, these things are being done right now in the name of Islam. 'IS' does stand for Islamic State.

I am nevertheless encouraged by the actions of the Perth Iraqi community in opposing the Islamic State and radicalism. We should also remember that planned acts of terrorism in Australia have been thwarted with the assistance and information provided by moderate Muslims within the community, and I encourage them to continue to do so. The truth remains that we do have traitors in this country. They are Australians who believe in IS and violent Wahhabism. These people, and their supporters, must be stopped and prosecuted before they leave Australia or provide support. Dual citizens must have their citizenship revoked. Terrorists are traitors to this nation, they are a threat to this nation and they must be dealt with very firmly in order to protect this nation from terrorism.

See this speech in context