The alleged FlyDubai plot demands serious investigation, but an individual’s reported association with a Melbourne mosque is not evidence that the institution or its leaders were involved in radicalisation or wrongdoing.
The controversy surrounding Melbourne’s Sheikh Abu Hamza and MyCentre following the alleged attempted FlyDubai hijacking raises serious questions about the line between legitimate security scrutiny and public stigmatisation. While the alleged plot demands thorough investigation, it must not become a licence for collective suspicion or guilt by association before wrongdoing has been established.
UAE authorities have alleged that Omani national Hamam al-Hammami moved towards extremism while studying in Melbourne and became acquainted with individuals associated with MyCentre. Australian authorities are investigating possible local connections.
Sheikh Abu Hamza has denied any connection with the suspect, stating that he had never met him and that MyCentre had no record of his attendance. The ABC has explicitly stated that its reporting does not suggest that either Sheikh Abu Hamza or MyCentre radicalised the suspect or was otherwise connected to the alleged plot. Australian authorities continue to investigate possible links.
Investigating possible connections is legitimate; implying culpability without evidence is not. Knowing someone, being associated with an organisation and knowingly facilitating criminal conduct are fundamentally different things. If mere association is enough to cast suspicion, any religious institution, university or community organisation could be judged by the alleged actions of someone who crossed its path. The question is not whether connections should be investigated, but what the evidence establishes.
Media outlets have every right to scrutinise religious institutions, but must distinguish fact from allegation and investigation from implication. Headlines linking an organisation to terrorism risk creating an impression of complicity without evidence.
Is an overseas incident being used to advance broader claims about Muslims, immigration or religious institutions beyond what the evidence establishes? Would we judge a university or political organisation by the alleged actions of someone associated with it, without evidence of knowledge or involvement? Muslim institutions deserve the same standard of fairness.
The suspect is reportedly 29, while allegations concerning his time in Melbourne date back to 2017, when he would have been around 20. Almost a decade separates that period from the alleged aviation plot. What happened during those intervening years? What influences and relationships shaped his subsequent trajectory?
These are questions an investigation must answer. Almost a decade of unanswered questions cannot be resolved simply by naming a mosque. Reducing a complex trajectory to religious association risks substituting a convenient narrative for evidence.
The language of being ‘linked to a mosque’ may make for a compelling headline, but it does not explain an individual’s life or establish responsibility for his alleged actions. Violent extremism demands serious investigation, not simplistic assumptions that place Muslim institutions under suspicion.
A mosque should not have to defend its existence by proving its usefulness in countering terrorism. Its value lies in the faith it nurtures, the knowledge it shares and the community it sustains. To turn ordinary religious association into an implied accusation risks making an entire community answer for the alleged conduct of one individual.
The controversy has also expanded to questions about Australian government grants, visa settings and public expenditure. One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has called for a review of grants associated with MyCentre, questioning whether appropriate security advice was sought before funding was awarded.
Such concerns warrant scrutiny. Governments must ensure public funds are properly allocated, funding agreements honoured and recipients held accountable. But accountability must be grounded in evidence, not merely an association between public funding, a community organisation and an individual accused of a serious crime.
The critical question is whether evidence shows that funds were misused, grant conditions breached or public money supported extremist activity. An alleged association between the suspect and individuals connected with MyCentre does not, in itself, establish any of these things. Reviewing a grant for compliance is legitimate; using its existence to imply involvement in terrorism is another matter.
The same principle applies to visa policy. Border security and migration settings are legitimate subjects of debate, but an individual case should not fuel generalised suspicion of migrants, Muslims or Islamic organisations. Policy responses must be proportionate to the evidence, not driven by association or political expediency.
Public suspicion can cause lasting damage long before an investigation concludes. A religious leader’s reputation, years of community work and the trust of families and young people can be undermined by an unproven allegation. If an allegation is later disproved, who repairs the damage to a person’s reputation and a community’s standing?
No institution should be shielded from scrutiny, but accountability must rest on evidence, not insinuation. The consequences are particularly damaging when minority community institutions become symbols in broader debates about immigration, integration and national identity.
The investigation must proceed without prejudgment, and any wrongdoing or security failures must be addressed. But political pressure cannot substitute for evidence of wrongdoing by MyCentre or its leadership.
Muslim institutions, like all community organisations, deserve equal fairness and must not be judged by the alleged actions of others. A mosque is not culpable by association, nor should a community bear the burden of an individual’s alleged conduct. In a fair society, the test is not who someone is associated with, but what the evidence establishes.
Nail Aykan
Nail Aykan is a respected Muslim community leader and former Executive Director of the Islamic Council of Victoria (ICV), with extensive experience across multicultural communities.