This article originally appeared in the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, (2023).
Abstract
On January 1, 1915, Gool Badsha Muhammad and Mullah Abdullah shot at a picnic train as it left Broken Hill, headed towards Silverton, killing four and wounding seven. Had it not been for this horrific act and tragic loss of life, it is likely that little would be remembered of the perpetrators. This paper does not intend to revisit the events known as the Battle of Broken Hill, nor does it purport to examine the motivations for the actions that led to this event. Rather, the focus of this paper is to provide a reassessment of the often reiterated claim that Mullah Abdullah was the mullah, imam, or “Islamic priest” of the Cameleer community in Broken Hill. After showing the extent this claim is made within scholarly literature, evidence will be drawn primarily from newspaper reports of the period to assess what, if any, support there is for this claim. The paper will utilise some of the comments made within the newspaper reports regarding Mullah Abdullah in order to examine the extent to which he could have been considered a religious leader amongst his community.
Keywords: Australian Cameleers; Battle of Broken Hill; Mullah Abdullah; colonialism; Australia
Introduction
The revelry of the New Year’s Day celebrations in 1915 were halted shortly after the picnic train left Broken Hill station. Fear and confusion quickly spread as two gunmen shot at the men, women, and children in the open cart train, indiscriminately killing four and wounding seven. The perpetrators fled the scene only to be later pinned down by gunfire behind a rocky outcrop by a group consisting of police, military, and locals. Here one of the perpetrators was killed and the other wounded so severely he later died in hospital. This is a brief summary of the events that etched Gool Badsha Muhammad and Mullah Abdullah into Australian history. Aside from Mullah Abdullah’s involvement in what came to be remembered as the battle of Broken Hill, scholars record him as being a halal butcher and mullah, or religious leader, of the northern camel camp. Yet, a closer examination of newspaper reports following the attack appear to present a picture of Abdullah that is inconsistent with the scholars’ view he held a position of standing within the Cameleer community. That he has been deemed to hold a respected position within the Cameleer community by scholars indicates there are some potentially significant flaws in current approaches to, and the understanding of, the history of Islam in Australia.
The Assertions
The assertions that Abdullah was the mullah or spiritual leader of the north camel camp at Broken Hill can perhaps be traced to Pamela Rajkowski and Christine Stevens. Rajkowski wrote “sixty-year-old Mullah Abdullah had spent sixteen years around Broken Hill before becoming the religious head of the community” and that “one of his obligations was to see to the slaughtering of animals for meat.”[1] Stevens wrote “Mullah Abdullah was born either in India or Afghanistan … was a sixty-year-old priest, the northern Ghantown’s mullah and as such acted as butcher for the community there, killing their meat in the correct and stipulated Muslim manner.”[2] Later, in short biographies on both Mullah Abdallah and Gool Badsha Mahomed, Stevens writes that Abdullah was a “camel-driver and Islamic priest,” that “he may have come from a family of mullahs, a profession generally handed from father to son; the title was conferred after training in Islamic spiritual teachings and law at a madrassa school,” and “as spiritual head of a group of Cameleers he led the daily prayers, presided at burials and killed animals al halal [sic.] for food consumption.”[3] Stevens further states Abdullah’s attack on the picnic train was, in part, “avenging his malice against the sanitary inspector and his honour as Islamic priest.”[4] The attribution of a position of respect is continued throughout the existent literature mentioning Mullah Abdullah, such as Jones and Kenny’s statement Mullah Abdullah was the “religious leader of the Broken Hill Muslim community,”[5] Cleland’s comment that “Mulla Abdullah … was about 60 years old and acted as imam at the Broken Hill Mosque,”[6] Ilhan stating Abdullah “was known to the Australians as an imam as he was leading the prayer for the Afghans a the local ‘Ghantown’,”[7] and Diamadis mentioning Mullah Abdullah as “a local imam and halal butcher.”[8] Yet, despite the oft repeated assertion that Mullah Abdullah was the mullah at the Broken Hill north camel camp, there are no references offered in support of this claim.
The Role of the Mullah
A mullah is considered a religious leader amongst their community. The title “mullah” derives “from the Arabic term ‘mawla’, which means ‘master’ or ‘the one in charge’.”[9] They are often “teachers or scholars of Islamic learning or the leaders of mosques.”[10] They are often leaders and teachers because those entitled to the title have “gone through the designated number of years in the madaris under different religious scholars.”[11] The importance of the rigorous study in the Islamic sciences is to ensure such individuals “have a firm understanding of all things Islam, especially as it pertains to the contemporary society wherein the hadith (traditions) and fiqh (law) are equally important.”[12] The title “mullah” is prevalent “in Iran, Turkey, central Asia, and the Indian subcontinent” and is equivalent to the title “imam,” which is prevalent “in the Maghreb,”[13] which denotes the western Muslim majority countries. A brief outline of the requirements for the “Office of Mullah” were printed in newspapers in 1927, stating
In the first place a true Moslem priest, under no circumstances, should shave his beard. Secondly, he must be efficient in reading and translating our Holy Koran, which is always in Arabic. Thirdly, he must be well aware of all the laws and regulations of our religion and be strictly impartial and not prejudiced in any way.[14]
Despite some variations across time and location in the exact role a mullah plays within an Islamic community, consistent amongst these understandings is that a mullah must be knowledgeable of Islamic practice and rulings and has a position of authority and respect within their community.
While there exists a formal process to ensure that people have the requisite knowledge for conducting religious acts required by the community, there are instances where some individuals or groups bypass this process. For instance, “many of those who call themselves mullah amongst the Taliban do not really qualify for this title as they are only half educated and are not fully conversant with the injunctions of Islam and the correct interpretations of the Holy Koran and the Sunna.”[15] Such a dispute occurred in Australia in 1927 between Goolam Rasoul and Sheik Abdul Kader. Goolam Rasoul “described himself as the Mullha [sic.] or priest.”[16] Sheik Abdul Kader disputed this, stating Rasoul “was really not a Mullha [sic.], but only the caretaker”[17] and that he is a “caretaker and cleaner.”[18] Goolam Rasoul’s response, via his solicitor, is such remarks are “highly defamatory … in that it reflects upon him in his office of Mullah.”[19] In light of this, it is not unprecedented that individuals would take on titles that were not earnt and bestowed through formal processes. Such may be the case with Abdullah being known as Mullah.
Both Rajkowski and Stevens understood the importance of a mullah within the Islamic community. Rajkowski acknowledges “the title ‘mullah’, meaning priest,” denoted importance amongst the Cameleers.[20] Stevens provides further details, writing “to become a mullah a man must complete religious studies as a ‘talep’ (pupil) studying under a qualified teacher.”[21] By asserting that Mullah Abdullah was a mullah, it is implied he had a place of importance amongst the Cameleers in Broken Hill and that he was educated in the religious laws of Islam, more than just those required for undertaking the halal slaughter of animals for meat. Yet, neither of these traits are apparent in either Rajkowski’s or Stevens’ accounts of Mullah Abdullah, nor is it apparent in any of the subsequent discussions of Mullah Abdullah. Furthermore, it was known “Afghan migrants supported mullahs (such as Hajji[22] Mulla Mirban of Coolgardie) who performed marriage ceremonies, mediated in disputes, and encouraged them to invest in larger mosques,”[23] and there is no evidence in the available sources of Abdullah undertaking these responsibilities. Beyond the lack of referenced evidence, Stevens admits that amongst European Australians the term was not widely understood, stating “Abdur Ackman [was known] as ‘Mullah’ also, all Afghans being ‘Mullah’ to them just as all Chinese were called ‘John’ and all Aborigines ‘Tommy’ or ‘Jacky’.”[24] Stevens admits the title of “mullah” was often used out of ignorance, laziness, or bigotry. The remainder of this paper will explore the available evidence in an attempt to better determine if Abdullah fulfilled the role of mullah.
It has been noted previously that Islamic titles caused some confusion when conflated with Christian naming practices by European Australians.[25] The most common instances of this are when titles are conflated with first names. In the case of Mullah Abdullah, it appears the use of “mullah” might be an instance where a first name or nickname has been utilised by scholars as a title. In some instances, “honorific names can be inherited from the tribe and then be added to the two-part name.”[26] While it is possible Abdullah’s religious education record has been lost and evidence of him undertaking the full gamut of responsibilities of the role of mullah going unrecorded, from the available evidence it is also possible that the name “Mullah” was either inherited or was a nickname by which Abdullah was commonly known, becoming his first name on entering Australia. Aside from being known as Mullah, there is a dearth of specific evidence referenced in existing scholarly literature in support of Abdullah being a mullah. Furthermore, there is also a lack of discussion within the available scholarly literature outlining possible alternative reasons for Abdullah being known as “Mullah” without necessitating him having been a mullah.
The Evidence
What, if any, evidence is there in support of Abdullah being considered a mullah? It was reported “for the past few years he had been butcher for the camp at North Broken Hill, vested with priest’s rights in order to kill according to the Mahommedan religion.”[27] While this passage seems to indicate that Abdullah had the authority of a “priest” within Islam, Islamic practice does not require formal qualifications for the halal slaughter of meat. Islamic slaughtering practice has more to say about the types of animals that can be deemed halal, and their treatment prior to slaughter, than it does about the individual involved in the slaughter.[28] For meat to be considered halal, the animal “must be slaughtered by a Muslim, nominating Allah’s name while slaughtering”[29] and the individual is required to be “a sane, adult Muslim” and follow the requirements outlined with the Qur’an and the practices of the Prophet Muhammad, such as keeping the animal calm prior to severing the trachea, using a sharp knife, facing towards the Ka’ba, and a short prayer, amongst others.[30] No formal position or title is required within Islamic orthopraxy in order to undertake the production of halal meat. Rather than being documented evidence that Abdullah was a mullah, it appears the report of being “vested with priest’s rights” is more likely to be a lack of knowledge of Islamic practice on the part of the reporter. This same misunderstanding of Islamic practice is evident in Stevens’ statement Abdullah was “the northern Ghantown’s mullah and as such acted as butcher for the community there,”[31] implying there is a causative connection between the position of mullah and the ability to be butcher to the Cameleer community.
Another piece of evidence for Abdullah being a mullah was presented at the inquest into the picnic train shooting. The documents presented included translations of papers found at “the scene of the fight” wherein “part was an application for enlistment in the Turkish army, part was a private letter, further documents were copies of extracts from the Koran and a priest’s visiting card.”[32] Again there is an allusion to the possibility that Abdullah was in some way an Islamic “priest,” though without further clarification as to what function a “priest’s visiting card” served and to whom it belonged it is of little supporting evidence for the assertions made. Having “priest’s rights” and possibly a “priest’s visiting card” are the two strongest pieces in support of Abdullah being a mullah, though in both cases there is insufficient evidence for this conclusion.
Of note is a comment that is made by Mullah Abdullah in the handwritten letter found amongst the papers at the scene of the fight. An early translation of the relevant line reads “I gave another name for my own purpose”[33] and a later translation reads “Mala (Molla) was added to my name for lenience.”[34] From the context of either translation it is unclear what was the “purpose” or “lenience” given in being known as “mullah.” Furthermore, little has been made of this comment by scholars. It is possible, irrespective of it being self-appointed in the earlier translation and other-appointed in the later translation, to read in this statement an admission the title of “mullah” was not earnt. Both translations lend themselves to an interpretation that the title of “mullah” did not rightfully apply to Abdullah. The self-attributed title being done so with “purpose,” rather than being bestowed in recognition of formal qualifications. Alternatively, the bestowal of the title by others for “lenience” can be read as an attempt to soften others towards Abdullah. It is possible, in light of the connection between newspaper reports of Abdullah’s “priests rights” and position as butcher, that the “purpose” of being known as Mullah was to gain “lenience” in gaining his butcher’s licence. While there is some evidence that can be read as connecting Abdullah with the role of mullah, it is, at best, tenuous, ambiguous, and without sufficient context.
Unlike the assertions that Abdullah was a mullah, which were not reported in the media, it is recorded that he was a licenced butcher. The “health committee recommended the granting of the following applications for licences and registrations … Butchers – Mullah Abdullah” in 1912.[35] Later, in 1914, Abdullah was charged on two separate occasions. In April 1914 he pled not guilty and was fined for “slaughtering sheep intended for public sale, at Stephens Creek instead of at the abattoirs.”[36] In December 1914, he pled guilty to slaughtering sheep “in a yard at North Broken Hill, such a yard not being a properly authorised slaughtering place under the municipal regulations.”[37] While he was issued his Butchers Licence in 1912, it is unclear if this remained his primary occupation as Abdullah was issued a Collector’s Licence in January 1914, months prior to his fines.[38] It is conceivable that the media had no reason in these early newspaper reports to mention he was a local spiritual leader amongst the Cameleers. However, given the media scrutiny of Abdullah post attack, if he had been considered a mullah by either the local Cameleers or those that knew him and were interviewed, it is highly likely that it would have been reported. One report identifying the “outlaws” states simply “Mulla Abdulla [sic.], who was killed outright, was a butcher,” adding “some days ago he was convicted and fined for slaughtering sheep on premises not licenced for slaughtering.[39] The omission of being acknowledged as a mullah, Imam, or Islamic “priest” within the newspaper reports further weakens the claim of scholars who assert that Abdullah was a mullah.
Abdullah’s Disposition
Much can be gleaned from the newspaper reports regarding the disposition of Abdullah. From interviews with the Cameleers, it was reported he “generally kept away from the other residents of the North camel camp and his customs and ways were always different to those of the Hindus in the camp”[40] and was of “a very reserved disposition, rarely speaking to anyone … always childish and simple in his ways.”[41] Even prior to the events of New Year’s Day 1915, Abdullah did not reside close to the other Cameleers, living for a time “in a two-roomed wood-and-iron house in Williams street North beyond the camel camp,” at least until it was destroyed by fire.[42] A Broken Hill shop owner reported Abdullah “was always found to be honest” and “he was a very quiet old man, and seemed to be quite inoffensive.”[43] Quiet, isolated, and simple are not qualities that would generally be associated with someone who had religious and social responsibilities, such as delivering the Friday sermons at the mosque, settling disputes, providing religious ruling, performing marriages, or undertaking burial proceeding. The newspaper reports of Abdullah’s disposition, and the response other Cameleers had to him, does not depict him as an individual who would be well placed in the role of a mullah.
An Act of War
The picnic train left Broken Hill at about 10 o’clock in the morning. It consistent of “40 ore trucks of the usual sort used for Barrier picnics” and was filled with “some 1200 picknickers.”[44] It was attacked “when the train was about two miles on the way to Silverton.”[45] Abdullah’s letter of intention stated he acted “for my faith, in obedience to the order of the Sultan and the order of the Koran”[46] or “I have acted (against you?) in the name of my religion/faith only and by means of the decree of the Sultan and that of [the] Qur’an.”[47] It is evident from Abdullah’s letter of intent that he felt his actions to concur with his understanding of Islam and was, in his eyes, religiously permissible to undertake this as an act of war. However, it is arguable that Abdullah’s understanding of Islam is inconsistent with widely acknowledged understanding of Islamic orthopraxy.
What is permissible as an act of war within Islamic discourses have been extensively debated and are heavily regulated. Without delving too far into this complex discourse, it should be noted “several hadiths are attributed to the Prophet in which he prohibits targeting five specific categories of enemy non-combatants, namely, women, children, the aged, the clergy and al-‘Asif (any fired man)”[48] and that “civilians and non-combatants must not be directly harmed during the course of hostilities.”[49] Yet, amongst those killed and wounded were women and children. It was not a train full of armed military personnel, but “picknickers” on their way to New Year’s Day celebrations. From a military perspective these “picknickers” would have been considered non-combatants. The Cameleers of Broken Hill seem to acknowledge this view, stating there were “defenceless women and children”[50] aboard the picnic train. Some scholars have suggested “today, all those persons who are not in the army, that is, regular members or reservists, who do not fight alongside the army shall be considered as civilians and shall have non-combatant immunity.”[51] Even if there were trained reservists amongst the picknickers, it would have been Islamically impermissible to attack them as they were not actively fighting in the war at the time. Furthermore, “according to the laws of qital (holy war), those who had not received the da’wah had to be invited to embrace Islam before the Muslims began war,”[52] something there is no indication Abdullah attempted before attacking the picknick train. Abdullah’s actions clearly contravene the Islamic rules of war, something a sufficiently trained mullah would be aware of, making his actions impermissible according to Islamic law.
Drug Use
Following the attack on the picnic train, the earliest newspaper reports on Mullah Abdullah and Gool Badsha Muhammad discussed their use of illicit substances. Many newspaper reports indicate “they smoked together Indian hemp, known to the natives by the name of gungha [sic.] – this is said to be even more potent than opium.”[53] Interviews with Muslims in Adelaide “at the Mohammedan Mosque, off Sturt Street,” state “several of the Indians interviewed stated they were personally acquainted with both perpetrators” and that “the probable cause of the Broken Hill tragedy was the use of a drug which has the same effect as intoxicating liquor,” identified as “an Indian herb called ‘ganga’.”[54] These same interviewees stated that Abdullah and Gool Badsha Muhammad “used to smoke opium,” which had become “impossible to procure,” and “they began to smoke ‘ganga’ mixed with laudanum.”[55] Another report from “statements made by mosque worshippers who knew the desperadoes well” commented “they were addicted to a certain form of drug taking, combined with generous pinches of laudanum when obtainable, [and] as a result of which they became irresponsible, and, in police language, ‘ran amok’.”[56] Laudanum is a tincture that was available at the chemist with a 10% opium content. It was suggested, from “inquiries at the Mohammedan mosque in Adelaide” that the “probable cause” of the tragedy at Broken Hill “was the smoking of the Indian herb ‘ganga’.”[57] Kodaram, a Cameleer who lived at the North Camel Camp and knew the two perpetrators, gave evidence into the inquest that “someone at the camp told him that day that Abdullah had been smoking gungha [sic.]” prior to the attack.[58] It is apparent Abdullah’s use of illicit substances was widely known and not just known locally in Broken Hill.
The history of cannabis use within Islam is extensive. Without moving too far afield, it is noted “Moslem jurists, historians, theologians, poets, and storytellers discussed for centuries the merits and evils of the herb.”[59] The result of these debates amongst the jurists were “three of the four schools of Islamic law, Maliki, Shafi’i, and Hanbali, classified hashish as an intoxicant and finally outlawed its use by any true Sunni Moslem believer,” while the Hanafi school of Islamic law ruled it “could be consumed in small quantities or for medical reasons.”[60] Newspaper reports state Abdullah and Gool Badsha Muhammad were witnessed smoking cannabis to the point where “one of the men was unable to get up for three days as the result of excessive smoking”[61] indicates they were not imbibing small quantities, making it impermissible irrespective of the school of law they adhered to. “Studies show that people who believe religion is important are less likely to use tobacco, alcohol, and illicit drugs”[62] and this gives weight to the position that religion was possibly not important to Abdullah. It would be unthinkable the community mullah would openly engage in sin, and it being common knowledge for them to engage in such practices, especially if they are to preach the importance of religion in their role as spiritual leader of the community. Furthermore, the Qur’anic injunction against praying while intoxicated (Qur’an 4:43) would have prohibited Abdullah from leading the congregational prayer, especially if he was engaged in the consumption of cannabis that made him incapacitated for days on end. Abdullah’s use of illicit substances contravenes Islamic orthopraxy, which, in turn, weakens the assertion that he was mullah of the north camel camp.
Support from the Cameleers
There are many reports in the newspaper articles mentioning the support the Cameleers gave to the wider community rather than supporting the alleged religious leader of the Cameleer community. For instance, Khan Bahader, “camel owner and driver,” is considered to have “contributed largely to the defeat” of the perpetrators by allowing his residence to be “used by the police as cover to shoot from through the windows”[63] and “Walshama Assou, a Punjab from Peshawar, when one of the police was shot, carried water to him” and did so “at no little risk to himself, for he was at times a target for the Turks.”[64] If Abdullah held any position of respect amongst the Cameleer community it would be unthinkable for other Cameleers to side with the wider Broken Hill community, doing so at risk to their own life. This is especially so if the Cameleers were not aware of Abdullah’s intentions, as is recorded in his confessional letter “we informed nobody”[65] or “I have informed no one,”[66] and saw two from their community being shot at by a large mob. Following the deaths of the perpetrators, the Cameleers were offered the bodies so they could be buried according to Islamic burial rites. However, the local Cameleers refused to accept them as “the men at the camel camp are very bitter against the perpetrators of yesterday’s raid, and say they will have nothing to do with the bodies”[67] such that “the Mohammedan section of the community … raised their voices in protest at their burial place being utilised for the internment of cowardly slaughterers of defenceless women and children, and directed the caretaker of the cemetery to allow no burials in the Mohammedan section without special order,” adding “they would not allow the two bodies in their ground.”[68] This is a significant statement from the Cameleer community of Broken Hill. If, as scholars assert, Abdullah held the position of mullah, then it is possible the community would have undertaken the burial rites out of respect for the position he held. In denying the perpetrators the opportunity to an Islamic burial, the Cameleers can be seen to be implicitly saying they did not consider these individuals to be Muslims.
Several years prior to the Battle of Broken Hill, Abdullah was assaulted by Sheer Gool. Sheer Gool was charged with grievous bodily harm[69] and convicted of common assault after assaulting Abdullah with a walking-cane, which resulted in “severe injuries about the head, as well as a broken arm.”[70] Not much is known about the cause of their disagreement, with “an Afghan in Court said the matter had been settled privately.”[71] While not inconceivable, it is unlikely that someone would assault a community leader, such as a mullah, to the extent reported of Sheer Gool. Such an incident indicates that Mullah Abdullah was not held in the esteem by his community one would expect a community to hold their mullah.
The Other “Muhammadan Priests”
When police and armed military approached the North Camel Camp Mosque in the evening after the attack, they were approached by two of the Cameleers. Newspaper reports state “two venerable figures appeared, picturesque in the moonlight, turbaned, robed, like bearded ancients, typical priests of Islam” who were “calm, silent, unperturbed at the invasion of the sacred precincts of their place of worship, they stood there impassive and unmoved.”[72] It was alleged “the Asiatics had constables imprisoned within the building [mosque]” with “enquires of the priests elicited a calm denial.”[73] The intrusion into the mosque that disproved the allegations caused some concern, as it was reported “the Mohammedan mosque at the North camel camp was desecrated on the night of January 1 by the entry of soldiers and police without first removing their boots,” with both a military captain and a police inspector later paying “a ‘conciliatory visit to the mosque’ … and, after a talk and explanation with the chief priest, left the latter apparently satisfied.”[74] Interestingly, Stevens reports those Cameleers that attended the mosque as “two turbaned, robed figures,”[75] leaving out the references to these individuals being Islamic “priests.” While nothing more is recorded about these robed figures at the mosque, it does open questions regarding if these individuals were “typical priests of Islam” or if such reporting is indicative of a lack of knowledge of Islam, a play on Islamic stereotypes, or possibly both. It is interesting these two anonymous figures are reported as being Islamic priests and there being a “chief priest” at the mosque when none of the newspaper reports mention Abdullah in similar terms.
Conclusion
Despite oft repeated assertions within the scholarly literature, comments recorded in newspaper articles from those who knew him, along with other possible causes for Abdullah being called mullah, it is unlikely that Mullah Abdullah was a religious leader amongst the Broken Hill Cameleers. His disposition as an isolated, simple, and childlike individual makes it unlikely he could have undertaken all the social requirements of a mullah. Abdullah was well-known for using cannabis, opium when procurable, and laudanum to the point of madness and running amok places his behaviour outside of accepted Islamic norms. Such behaviour is contrary to the expected behaviour of someone occupying the position of mullah in that they are meant to act as a guidepost for the embodiment of Islamic norms. The support given to the European Australians against Abdullah and Gool Badsha Muhammad indicates Abdullah did not hold a position of respect within the Broken Hill Cameleer community and was not given the support one would expect a spiritual leader to receive from their community. The newspaper reports of Islamic priests at the mosque further supports the idea Abdullah was not considered the local mullah. While there is some evidence linking Abdullah with the position of mullah, these require further substantiation for them to carry enough weight to support the assertions that Mullah Abdullah was mullah of Broken Hill.
So, how is it that such an important detail, one that is reported with almost every modern mention of Mullah Abdullah, be incorrect? One possible reason for this is that academics researching Australia’s Cameleer heritage have, at best, a limited understanding of Islam and, as a result, fail to read the available evidence through an Islamic lens to better support the claims that are made about a group that occupy an important place within the history of Islam in Australia. Yet, while ignorance of Islam by scholars of the Cameleers does highlight part of the issue, it is not the whole issue. For instance, Cleland, who has a good understating of Islam, blindly follows the assertions of Pamela Rajkowski and Christine Stevens in claiming Abdullah as the mullah of Broken Hill. Cleland is not the only Islamic scholar to misreport aspects of his own faith. For instance, Dzavid Haveric takes an isolated report of a zawiya in Broken Hill as evidence of the existence of Broken Hill’s Sufi heritage.[76] While the term is indicative of such a heritage,[77] Haveric offers no further evidence that substantiates his reading on an isolated report. Instances such as these highlight lack of scholarly rigor pertaining to studies of the history of Islam in Australia.
While newspaper reports are important primary sources and provide valuable insight into events of the past, they also too often carry the bias of their period. Misunderstanding on the part of both reporters of the period and later scholars seems to go both ways. An example is Drewery’s comment “Mullah Abdulla was a Hundu” and “to be able to butcher Mullah Abdulla had to convert to Mohammedanism.”[78] Despite newspaper reports that Gool Badsha Muhammad “talked Abdalla, who is a Hindu, into it”[79] and Abdullah was his “Hindoo [sic.] companion,”[80] Dewery is the only secondary literature to make something of these newspaper reports. While it is possible Drewery is aware of materials that support these claims that have been inaccessible to other scholars, it is more likely the newspaper reports labelling Abdullah a Hindu indicate a racial claim rather than a religious claim. By not taking into account the bias of the period within which the newspaper reports were written or providing possible alternative interpretations evinces a lack of academic caution that is liable to lead to unsubstantiated conclusions.
[1] Pamela Rajkowski, In the Track of the Camelmen (St Marys: Openbook Howden Print & Design, 2021): 157.
[2] Christine Stevens, Tin Mosques and Ghantowns (Alice Springs: Paul Fitzsimons, 2002): 161 – 162.
[3] Christine Stevens, “Abdullah, Mullah (c. 1855–1915),” Australian Dictionary of Biography, National Centre of Biography, Australian National University, published first in hardcopy 2005, accessed online 20 May 2022. https://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/abdullah-mullah-12763/text23021; Christine Stevens, “Mahomed, Gool Badsha (1875–1915),” Australian Dictionary of Biography, National Centre of Biography, Australian National University, published first in hardcopy 2005, accessed online 20 May 2022. https://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/mahomed-gool-badsha-13288/text23021
[4] Christine Stevens, “Abdullah, Mullah (c. 1855–1915),” Australian Dictionary of Biography, National Centre of Biography, Australian National University, published first in hardcopy 2005, accessed online 20 May 2022. https://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/abdullah-mullah-12763/text23021; Christine Stevens, “Mahomed, Gool Badsha (1875–1915),” Australian Dictionary of Biography, National Centre of Biography, Australian National University, published first in hardcopy 2005, accessed online 20 May 2022. https://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/mahomed-gool-badsha-13288/text23021
[5] Philip Jones and Anna Kenny, Australia’s Muslim Cameleers (Kent Town: Wakefield Press, 2007): 182.
[6] Bilal Cleland, The Muslims in Australia A Brief History (Victoria: Gill Miller Press, 2002): 47.
[7] Mehmet Mehdi Ilhan, “Broken Hill Attack 1915 – Revisited: A Battle Fought for Gallipoli on Australia Soil,” in Gallipoli Campaign 1915: History, Economy, Literature and Art,ed. Mehmet Mehdi Ilhan, Mehmet Bulut, and Ibrahim G. Yumusak (Istanbul: Istanbul Sabahattin Zaim Üniversitesi Yayinlari, 2017), 136.
[8] Panayiotis Diamadis, “History Repeating: From the Battle of Broken Hill to the Sands of Syria,” The Conversation, October 3, 2014. Accessed May 11, 2022. https://theconversation.com/history-repeating-from-the-battle-of-broken-hill-to-the-sands-of-syria-32146
[9] Kallie Szczepanski, “Islamic Mullah,” ThoughtCo, October 16, 2019. Accessed May 11, 2022. https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-a-mullah-195356
[10] Kallie Szczepanski, “Islamic Mullah,” ThoughtCo, October 16, 2019. Accessed May 11, 2022. https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-a-mullah-195356
[11] Kamal Matinuddin, The Taliban Phenomenon: Afghanistan 1994 – 1997 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 15 – 16.
[12] Kallie Szczepanski, “Islamic Mullah,” ThoughtCo, October 16, 2019. Accessed May 11, 2022. https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-a-mullah-195356
[13] Oliver Roy, The Failure of Political Islam, trans. Carol Volk (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994), 29.
[14] “The Office of Mullah,” Advertiser, August 18, 1927, 14.
[15] Kamal Matinuddin, The Taliban Phenomenon: Afghanistan 1994 – 1997 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 16.
[16] “News in Brief,” Western Star and Roma Advertiser, August 20, 1927, 1.
[17] “Mosque Defiled,” The Register, August 12, 1927, 12.
[18] “The Office of Mullah,” Advertiser, August 18, 1927, 14.
[19] “The Office of Mullah,” Advertiser, August 20, 1927, 17.
[20] Pamela Rajkowski, In the Track of the Camelmen (St Marys: Openbook Howden Print & Design, 2021): 63.
[21] Christine Stevens, Tin Mosques and Ghantowns (Alice Springs: Paul Fitzsimons, 2002): 184.
[22] “Hajji” being a title indicating an individual who has completed the pilgrimage to Mecca.
[23] Nile Green, “Afghanistan’s Islam: A History and Its Scholarship,” in Afghanistan’s Islam: From Conversion to the Taliban, ed. Nile Green (Oakland: University of California Press, 2017), 19 – 20.
[24] Christine Stevens, Tin Mosques and Ghantowns (Alice Springs: Paul Fitzsimons, 2002): 155 – 156.
[25] Abu Bakr Sirajuddin Cook, “Tasawwuf ‘Usturaliya: Prolegomena to a History of Sufism in Australia,” Australian Journal of Islamic Studies, Iss 3 (2018): 72 – 73.
[26] Karine Megerdoomain, The Structure of Afghan Names (MITRE, 2009): 4.
[27] “The New Year’s Day Massacre. Thrilling Experiences. The Murderers: Who and What They Were. A Night of Riot. German Club Premises Fired. Asiatic Camp Threatened. Inquest on the Victims Opened. The Turk Attackers: Who and What They Were,” Barrier Miner, January 2, 1915, 4. Reported again in “The Broken Hill Sensation. Story of the Tragedy. The Two Murderers Smoked Indian Hemp,” Express Telegraph, January 4, 1915, 4, and “Wild Scenes at Broken Hill. Furious Crowds. Result of Train Outrage German Club Burned. The Fisht with the Turks,” Sydney Morning Herald, January 4, 1915, 10.
[28] Karijn Bonne and Wim Verbeke, “Religious Values Informing Halah Meat Production and the Control and Delivery of Halal Credence Quality,” Agriculture and Human Values 25 (2008): 38.
[29] Ali Abdallah, Mohammed Abdel Rahem, and Antonella Pasqualone, “The multiplicity of halal Standards: A Case Study of Application to Slaughterhouses,” Journal of Ethnic Foods 8:7 (2021): 3.
[30] Karijn Bonne and Wim Verbeke, “Religious Values Informing Halah Meat Production and the Control and Delivery of Halal Credence Quality,” Agriculture and Human Values 25 (2008): 41; Muslim World League and the World Health Organization, Islamic Ruling on Animal Slaughter (Alexandria: World Health Organisation, 1997), 10.
[31] Christine Stevens, Tin Mosques and Ghantowns (Alice Springs: Paul Fitzsimons, 2002): 161 – 162.
[32] “Inquest on the Turks. Today’s Proceedings. The Alleged Confessions. Translations Presented in Court. The Verdict. Shot Justifiably in Self-Defence,” Barrier Miner, January 12, 1915, 2.
[33] “Inquest on the Turks. Today’s Proceedings. The Alleged Confessions. Translations Presented in Court. The Verdict. Shot Justifiably in Self-Defence,” Barrier Miner, January 12, 1915, 2.
[34] Mehmet Mehdi Ilhan, “Broken Hill Attack 1915 – Revisited: A Battle Fought for Gallipoli on Australia Soil,” in Gallipoli Campaign 1915: History, Economy, Literature and Art,ed. Mehmet Mehdi Ilhan, Mehmet Bulut, and Ibrahim G. Yumusak (Istanbul: Istanbul Sabahattin Zaim Üniversitesi Yayinlari, 2017), 150.
[35] “Licenses and Registrations,” Barrier Miner, January 26, 1912, 5.
[36] “Bylaw Broken,” Barrier Miner, April 27, 1914, 8.
[37] “Butcher Fined,” Barrier Miner, December 18, 1914, 3.
[38] “Licences under the ‘Second-Hand Dealers and Collectors Act, 1906’,” Government Gazette of the State of New South Wales, February 18, 1914, 1083.
[39] “Outlawry. Train Attacked by Turks. Four Passengers Killed. Seven Wounded. Fight with the Police Assailants Shot. Broken Hill,” Sydney Morning Herald, January 2, 1915, 11.
[40] “Mullah Abdullah’s Nationality,” Barrier Miner, January 7, 1915, 2.
[41] “The New Year’s Day Massacre. Thrilling Experiences. The Murderers: Who and What They Were. A Night of Riot. German Club Premises Fired. Asiatic Camp Threatened. Inquest on the Victims Opened. The Turk Attackers: Who and What They Were,” Barrier Miner, January 2, 1915, 4.
[42] “Two Rooms Destroyed,” Barrier Miner, January 1913, 4.
[43] “The New Year’s Day Tragedy. The Cartridges Used. Where They Came From. Leading Storekeeper’s Statement,” Barrier Miner, January 7, 1.
[44] “Outlawry. Train Attacked by Turks. Four Passengers Killed. Seven Wounded. Fight with the Police Assailants Shot. Broken Hill,” Sydney Morning Herald, January 2, 1915, 11.
[45] “Outlawry. Train Attacked by Turks. Four Passengers Killed. Seven Wounded. Fight with the Police Assailants Shot. Broken Hill,” Sydney Morning Herald, January 2, 1915, 11.
[46] “Inquest on the Turks. Today’s Proceedings. The Alleged Confessions. Translations Presented in Court. The Verdict. Shot Justifiably in Self-Defence,” Barrier Miner, January 12, 1915, 2.
[47] Mehmet Mehdi Ilhan, “Broken Hill Attack 1915 – Revisited: A Battle Fought for Gallipoli on Australia Soil,” in Gallipoli Campaign 1915: History, Economy, Literature and Art,ed. Mehmet Mehdi Ilhan, Mehmet Bulut, and Ibrahim G. Yumusak (Istanbul: Istanbul Sabahattin Zaim Üniversitesi Yayinlari, 2017), 150.
[48] Ahmed Mohsen al-Dawoody, “War in Islamic Law: Justifications and Regulations,” (PhD Thesis, University of Birmingham, 2009), 201.
[49] Ahmed al-Dawoody, “Islamic Law and International Humanitarian Law: An Introduction to the Main Principles,” International Review of the Red Cross 99:3 (2017): 1002.
[50] “Assassin’s Bodies. Grave-Digging Stopped. But Disposed of,” Barrier Miner, January 4, 1915, 2.
[51] Muhammad Munir, “The Prophet (Peace Ben on Him)’s Merciful Reforms in the Conduct of War: The Prohibited Acts,” Insights 2:2-3 (2010): 208.
[52] Tauseef Ahmad Parray, “The Legal Methodology of ‘Fiqh al-Aqalliyyat’ and its Critics: An Analytical Study,” Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs 32:1 (2012): 92.
[53] “The New Year’s Day Massacre. Thrilling Experiences. The Murderers: Who and What They Were. A Night of Riot. German Club Premises Fired. Asiatic Camp Threatened. Inquest on the Victims Opened. The Turk Attackers: Who and What They Were (By ‘One Who Knew Them’.),” Barrier Miner, January 2, 1915, 4; “The Broken Hill Sensation. Story of the Tragedy. The Two Murderers Smoked Indian Hemp,” Express Telegraph, January 4, 1915, 4.
[54] “Outside the Mosque. Cause of the Barrier Tragedy. A Strange Story. Probably the Result of Using Drugs,” The Mail, January 2, 1915, 1.
[55] “Outside the Mosque. Cause of the Barrier Tragedy. A Strange Story. Probably the Result of Using Drugs,” The Mail, January 2, 1915, 1.
[56] “Barrier Tragedy. Evidence from the Mosque. ‘Ganga’, A Vile Drug, Causes Indians to Run Amok. Remarkable Theory Supported by Medical Men. Burning of the German Club. Union Jack Hoisted,” The Mail, January 2, 1915, 1.
[57] “Murderers Addicted to Drugs,” Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners’ Advocate, January 4, 1915, 4.
[58] “New Year’s Day Tragedy. Inquest On the Turks,” Barrier Miner, January 8, 1915, 4.
[59] Gabriel G. Nahas, “Hashish in Islam: 9th to 18th Century,” Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 58:9 (1982): 824.
[60] Gabriel G. Nahas, “Hashish in Islam: 9th to 18th Century,” Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 58:9 (1982): 825.
[61] “Outside the Mosque. Cause of the Barrier Tragedy. A Strange Story. Probably the Result of Using Drugs,” The Mail, January 2, 1915, 1.
[62] Mansur Ali, “Perspectives on Drug Addiction in Islamic History and Theology,” Religions 5 (2014): 913.
[63] “Outlawry. Train Attacked by Turks. Four Passengers Killed. Seven Wounded. Fight with the Police Assailants Shot. Broken Hill,” Sydney Morning Herald, January 2, 1915, 11.
[64] “Outlawry. Train Attacked by Turks. Four Passengers Killed. Seven Wounded. Fight with the Police Assailants Shot. Broken Hill,” Sydney Morning Herald, January 2, 1915, 11.
[65] “Inquest on the Turks. Today’s Proceedings. The Alleged Confessions. Translations Presented in Court. The Verdict. Shot Justifiably in Self-Defence,” Barrier Miner, January 12, 1915, 2.
[66] Mehmet Mehdi Ilhan, “Broken Hill Attack 1915 – Revisited: A Battle Fought for Gallipoli on Australia Soil,” in Gallipoli Campaign 1915: History, Economy, Literature and Art,ed. Mehmet Mehdi Ilhan, Mehmet Bulut, and Ibrahim G. Yumusak (Istanbul: Istanbul Sabahattin Zaim Üniversitesi Yayinlari, 2017), 150.
[67] “The New Year’s Day Massacre. Thrilling Experiences. The Murderers: Who and What They Were. A Night of Riot. German Club Premises Fired. Asiatic Camp Threatened. Inquest on the Victims Opened. The Turk Attackers: Who and What They Were (By ‘One Who Knew Them’.),” Barrier Miner, January 2, 1915, 4; “The Broken Hill Sensation. Story of the Tragedy. The Two Murderers Smoked Indian Hemp,” Express Telegraph, January 4, 1915, 4.
[68] “Assassin’s Bodies. Grave-Digging Stopped. But Disposed of,” Barrier Miner, January 4, 1915, 2.
[69] “The Barrier,” The Sydney Morning Herald, September 1, 1910, 7.
[70] “Camel-Driver’s Quarrel,” The Sydney Morning Herald, August 25, 1910, 10.
[71] “The Barrier,” The Register, September 2, 1910, 6.
[72] “At the North Camel Camp. A Demonstration and a Check. Police and Military First on the Spot,” Barrier Miner, January 2, 1915, 5.
[73] Reported again in “The Broken Hill Sensation. Story of the Tragedy. The Two Murderers Smoked Indian Hemp,” Express Telegraph, January 4, 1915, 4
[74] “The Mohammedan Mosque Desecrated at Broken Hill,” Port Pirie Recorder and North Western Mail, January 8, 1915, 4.
[75] Christine Stevens, Tin Mosques and Ghantowns (Alice Springs: Paul Fitzsimons, 2002): 164.
[76] Dzavid Haveric, Muslims Making Australia Home (Carlton: Melbourne University Press, 2019): 226. For a stronger case for the history of Sufism in Australia, and particularly Broken Hill, see Abu Bakr Sirajuddin Cook and Rami Dawood, “On the History of Sufism in Australia: A Manuscript from the Broken Hill Mosque,” Journal of Sufi Studies 11 (2022): 115 – 135.
[77] See Abu Bakr Sirajuddin Cook, “The Role of the Sufi Centre Within the Muslim World,” Australian Journal of Islamic Studies 2:3 (2017): 77.
[78] Roberta J. Drewery, Treks, Camps and Camels: Afghan Cameleers, Their Contribution to Australia (Rockhampton: R.J. Bolton, 2008): 14.
[79] “The Broken Hill Sensation. Story of the Tragedy. The Two Murderers Smoked Indian Hemp,” Express Telegraph, January 4, 1915, 4.
[80] “The New Year’s Day Tragedy. The Battlefield Now a Scene of Peaceful Quiet. Bullet-Scarred Rocks,” Barrier Miner, January 6, 1915, 2.