"ABDULLAH, MULLAH (c.1855-1915), camel-driver and Islamic priest, was born probably in Afghanistan or a nearby region of India (Pakistan), as he was literate in Dari, the formal language of Afghanistan.
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 madrasa school, usually within a mosque.
Arriving in South Australia about 1890, from about 1899 he worked at Broken Hill, New South Wales, probably as a camel-driver and certainly as mullah to the Afghans at the local 'Ghantown'.
As spiritual head of a group of cameleers, he led the daily prayers, presided at burials and killed animals al halal for food consumption.
A sanitary inspector twice prosecuted him for killing meat illegally and for not belonging to the butchers' union.
By 1915 Abdullah was a grey-bearded zealot, fiery when insulted.
Also in Broken Hill was Gool Badsha Mahomed (c.1875-1915), camel-driver, soldier and labourer.
He had been born near the North-West Frontier of India, in the mountainous Tirah region of Afghanistan, an area that operated under local tribal law and was never governed by the powers of Kabul.
An Afridi tribesman, whose characteristics were fieriness and feuding, he spoke Pushtu. Gool came to Australia in his youth and probably worked as a cameleer before going home to enlist in the Turkish Army. After fighting in four campaigns under Sultan Abdul Mohammed Rasheed, he returned to Australia about 1912, but the camel carrying-business was beginning to decline.
After working in the silver-mines at Broken Hill he was retrenched. He became an ice-cream vendor, pushing his cart around the streets.
In World War I his religious and nationalistic fervour increased as he became incensed by the conflict and by the many unemployed miners enlisting in the services.
He and Abdullah smoked marihuana together as they discussed their mutual grievances and intentions.
On the morning of 1 January 1915 the two men raised the Turkish flag on the ice-cream cart and, using the cart to carry their weapons, set out on a terrorist-suicide mission: an attack on a train carrying holiday-makers to Silverton for the annual Manchester Unity Order of Oddfellows picnic.
Gool (fighting for the Turks against the British allies) and Abdullah (avenging his malice against the butchers' union sanitary inspector and his honour as Islamic priest) opened fire on the moving, open carriages.
Four citizens were killed and seven others severely wounded.
The sanitary inspector, though on the train, was not among the victims. The two Afghans then moved to higher ground where, after a lengthy exchange of fire, a posse of local rifle-club members, civilians and police rushed them. Abdullah was shot dead.
Gool, wounded, was taken to the Broken Hill hospital where he died of gunshot wounds. A letter bearing the seal of the sultan, honouring his services to the Turkish Army, was found in his waist-belt.
In suicide notes left at the scene of the battle, found three days later, they had written of their grievances and stated that they acted alone. Gool was illiterate; his letter, written by the mullah, was in a mixture of Dari and simple Urdu.
On the night of New Year's Day the two bodies were buried secretly and hurriedly below the floor of a public building used for storing mine explosives.
Police employed an Aboriginal tracker to dig the graves; the townspeople, wanting their own revenge, had refused to bury the Afghans.
Select Bibliography
P. Rajkowski, In the Tracks of the Camel-Men (Syd, 1987); C. Stevens, Tin Mosques & Ghantowns (Melb, 1989); Barrier Miner, 1, 2, 4, 5, 12 Jan 1915; Mr B. Carlton, correspondence, 30 Sept 1979 (Broken Hill Library archives).
Author: Christine Stevens
Print Publication Details: Christine Stevens, 'Abdullah, Mullah (c. 1855 - 1915)', Australian Dictionary of Biography, Supplementary Volume, Melbourne University Press, 2005, pp 1-2.

http://www.adb.online.anu.edu.au/biogs/AS10002b.htm

very interesting! I've never heard of that.

A horrible tragedy.

to be fair though sprint- if they were smoking a joint they'd hardly 'gone islamic' as you put it (not to mention murdering innocent civilians).

and it also sounds like their motives were much more political and national than religious. if it were a matter of religion they wouldn't have needed the war to motivate them.


http://books.google.com.au/books?id=tzrOqE9JjjIC&pg=PA192&lpg=PA192&dq=Abdullah,+Mullah+australia&source=web&ots=_S5lXuX8pL&sig=3A_SwrvJXbCkTizDudkzxqvBgxM&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result#PPA192,M1

nice excuse for them gaybriel.
good to know where your loyalities lie

Sprintcyclist wrote on Oct 29^th, 2008 at 10:14pm:

nice excuse for them gaybriel. good to know where your loyalities lie

what did I excuse?

did I excuse the behaviour? no. I saw it as motivated by something other than religion, at least in part.

how is this excusing anything? does it change my mind about what they actually did? um no, obviously not.

you read my posts as you wish to read them. I think you need to take a breather and come back with some perspective

Quote:

after training in Islamic spiritual teachings and law at a madrasa school, usually within a mosque.

Quote:

certainly as mullah to the Afghans at the local 'Ghantown'. As spiritual head of a group of cameleers, he led the daily prayers, presided at burials and killed animals al halal for food consumption. A sanitary inspector twice prosecuted him for killing meat illegally and for not belonging to the butchers' union. By 1915 Abdullah was a grey-bearded zealot, fiery when insulted.

Quote:

set out on a terrorist-suicide mission: an attack on a train carrying holiday-makers to Silverton for the annual Manchester Unity Order of Oddfellows picnic.

Quote:

avenging his malice against the butchers' union sanitary inspector and his honour as Islamic priest

Sounds like modern day islamics to me.
you'ld think it'ld change after 95 odd years
guess arabs are still the donkeys of men.

Quote:

if they were smoking a joint they'd hardly 'gone islamic' as you put it (not to mention murdering innocent civilians).

I appreciate that you want to be fair to all people, and as individuals, no-one would argue that point, but some groups deserve disdain.

Would you be defensive of these men if their affiliation was to the KKK, and they shot black people?

Come on, be honest, you know you never would.

Well I agree that all people deserve the opportunity to be respected, until their actions cost them that right.

As for your statement about dope and killing, well it does show a decided lack of knowledge of what muslims do, it was more likely hashish, than marijuana they were smoking, and it has been a part of their culture for thousands of years, as has been, exacting violent retribution for any real or imagined sleight.

Islam sucks big time, it has far too much preaching of violence, bigotry and hatred, to be deserving of respect, and certainly not just because they call it a religion.

I think you will find that all the decent muslims you wish to defend, are decent, good people, in spite of their religion, not because of it.

are you trying to say gaybriel is an apologist Mozz...  just say it...  apparently she likes it.

Not really Grendel, I think she is confusing attacks on the teachings of Islam, with personal attacks against muslims, and it is most certainly not the same thing.

I think of it as like somebody defending the behaviour of medieval inquisitionists, and saying that what they did was nothing to do with christianity, when clearly it was.
Of course there were other factors, but the extremism got it's base support, from pious religious people, who chose to interpret christianity, in that way, at that time.
We have seen christianity progress from that horror, we would like Islam to try and progress as well, but the ones who say it is perfect, and cannot be changed, lead us to conclude, it is a seemingly impossible task, as it stands.

face it Mozz...  if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...  chances are it is a duck.

Whatever her misplaced motivation the outcome is the same...  apologist.

I disagree Grendel, to be an apologist, implies understanding, I don't think she has that yet.

I think she just is focusing on the fact that most people are good, and decent, irrespective of the doctrine they follow, and sees attacks against Islamic teachings, as attacks against muslims, simple as that.

I would disagree with that, while I think most muslims are decent people, I think what they are taught, and encouraged to do, is wrong.

Oh I'm sure she doesn't but she wouldn't agree to that.
Ignorance is moot.
Need I remind you I have Muslim friends?
That I haven't attacked a Muslim for being a Muslim, nor the religion.
Mind you questioning and dissent is seen by the Muslims here and gaybriel as attacking Islam and Muslims apparently.

Apologist...  A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution. At any level she steps in and provides excuses or does what the Muslims do makes a spurious argument or attack on the messenger.

Mind you some deserve to be seen as obsessive and biased.  But that doesn't excuse her actions, which so far show very little if any balance.

Quote:

After fighting in four campaigns under Sultan Abdul Mohammed Rasheed, he returned to Australia about 1912

There was never any Sultan by this name, and in fact this name would be strictly forbidden in Islam, and anyone knowing the slightest bit of Arabic or anything about Islam would know this, as "Abdul Mohammed" means "worshipper of Mohammed". Sounds like an invention by the same people who use terms like "Mohammedan".

I've heard this story before, but I'm inclined to think it was a double murder that got covered up by inventing the train-shooting story. They most likely just murdered these two poor guys for being different (something that happened fairly regularly in Australia's history) and then invented the story to justify it. Wouldn't be the first time lies had been told to justify the murder of innocent Muslims.

Oh now I get it, you mean like Akerman and Albrechtsen were for the excesses of Howard, yes, I can't believe anyone would not see through that.  ;) (I couldn't help myself)

Well that's your own personal problem.  ::)
Not one you are likely to get over it seems.  :P
In regards to me not a true picture at all.  :)
Posted as many articles from LW as from RW.

Wow, your ability to convince yourself of anything without any valid reason is right up there Abu.

I cannot imagine you even considering alternate possibilities if muslims were not involved.
So if someone got a name foreign to them wrong, then it negates the efficacy of the whole story?

I think, unlike your assertions about there being aboriginal muslims before europeans arrived, that there will be historical records to confirm the events mentioned, people tend to notice being killed.

I don't recall any Muslim Aboriginal settlements.
Nor Korans found in aboriginal camps.
Nor Aboriginals speaking arabic.
Nor...  well you get my drift.

Wasn't that a myth Hilali tried to spread?

mozzaok wrote on Oct 30^th, 2008 at 7:46am:

Quote: if they were smoking a joint they'd hardly 'gone islamic' as you put it (not to mention murdering innocent civilians). I appreciate that you want to be fair to all people, and as individuals, no-one would argue that point, but some groups deserve disdain. Would you be defensive of these men if their affiliation was to the KKK, and they shot black people? Come on, be honest, you know you never would. Well I agree that all people deserve the opportunity to be respected, until their actions cost them that right. As for your statement about dope and killing, well it does show a decided lack of knowledge of what muslims do, it was more likely hashish, than marijuana they were smoking, and it has been a part of their culture for thousands of years, as has been, exacting violent retribution for any real or imagined sleight. Islam sucks big time, it has far too much preaching of violence, bigotry and hatred, to be deserving of respect, and certainly not just because they call it a religion. I think you will find that all the decent muslims you wish to defend, are decent, good people, in spite of their religion, not because of it.

when did I defend them?

will reply more this evening in case ppl think I'm ignoring their posts

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 30^th, 2008 at 9:55am:

Quote: After fighting in four campaigns under Sultan Abdul Mohammed Rasheed, he returned to Australia about 1912 There was never any Sultan by this name, and in fact this name would be strictly forbidden in Islam, and anyone knowing the slightest bit of Arabic or anything about Islam would know this, as "Abdul Mohammed" means "worshipper of Mohammed". Sounds like an invention by the same people who use terms like "Mohammedan". I've heard this story before, but I'm inclined to think it was a double murder that got covered up by inventing the train-shooting story. They most likely just murdered these two poor guys for being different (something that happened fairly regularly in Australia's history) and then invented the story to justify it. Wouldn't be the first time lies had been told to justify the murder of innocent Muslims.

I think you're reaching quite a bit on that one Abu- seriously.

Think back to that time- do you seriously think they would have had to invent a train massacre to justify the killing of a couple of afghanis anyway?

honestly- that really just is silly

Afghans  were not considered quite as low as Aboriginals, so yeh they would've had to have some kind of justification for it. They were linked to foreign entities, and therefore there's some kind of responsibility to explain why they were killed if it became a widely known event.

Aboriginals on the other hand were only affiliated with kangaroos and emus, so killing them was just like culling native fauna, there was nobody to ask questions or answer to.

Also thee claims they were smoking Marihuana add weight to the idea that it was probably quite a propagandist report. Reminds me of those typical orientalist myths like homosexuality being allowed in the "Turkish empire"...

The site that came form is the "Australian dictionary of biography online edition."
published by The Australian University


Who cares if they were smoking pot ???
Why do you want to sidestep history ???
How do you know this abiout Aborigines?
What makes you think this of Afghans?
Was the "turkish empire" tolerant enough to allow homos ??

Quote:

Sounds like modern day islamics to me. you'ld think it'ld change after 95 odd years guess arabs are still the donkeys of men

I was referring more to this:

“In World War I his religious and nationalistic fervour increased as he became incensed by the conflict and by the many unemployed miners enlisting in the services…

On the morning of 1 January 1915 the two men raised the Turkish flag on the ice-cream cart and…”

“A letter bearing the seal of the sultan, honouring his services to the Turkish Army, was found in his waist-belt.”

And in the link I provided
“felt the Turkish Empire was under attack from Christian Western powers. One had been mulling over his humiliation for butchering sheep for the Moslem community, one was fanatical in his allegiance to the Turkish Empire. Together they came to the belief that they had a religious and patriotic obligation to take up arms on behalf of their faith and their homeland.”

so like I said- it wasn't merely religious- it was at least in part patriotism and politics.

if it were just religion, why did they not spaz out earlier and kill a whole bunch of people?


Quote:

I appreciate that you want to be fair to all people, and as individuals, no-one would argue that point, but some groups deserve disdain. Would you be defensive of these men if their affiliation was to the KKK, and they shot black people? Come on, be honest, you know you never would.

No I wouldn’t. Nor was I defensive of these men. I merely pointed out that religion was not the only factor in this. If it were wouldn’t they have launched from attack against the ‘kuffar’ without the war as a motivator?


Quote:

Well I agree that all people deserve the opportunity to be respected, until their actions cost them that right.

Show me where I said I respected them


Quote:

As for your statement about dope and killing, well it does show a decided lack of knowledge of what muslims do, it was more likely hashish, than marijuana they were smoking, and it has been a part of their culture for thousands of years, as has been, exacting violent retribution for any real or imagined sleight.

My point was that if they ‘went islamic’ as sprint put it- indicating some kind of reversion to a greater focus upon Islam, they would not be using drugs. If he meant gone Islamic in another sense then obviously I was interpreting it differently.


Quote:

Islam sucks big time, it has far too much preaching of violence, bigotry and hatred, to be deserving of respect, and certainly not just because they call it a religion. I think you will find that all the decent muslims you wish to defend, are decent, good people, in spite of their religion, not because of it.

No that is not what I have found. Try again.


Quote:

Not really Grendel, I think she is confusing attacks on the teachings of Islam, with personal attacks against muslims, and it is most certainly not the same thing.

I do not confuse the two however I am aware that such sentiments towards Islam can in fact lead to those sentiments being manifested in interactions with muslims- often in a violent or abusive way. There are some who are able to disconnect their dislike of a religion from the people who follow it- but many are unable to. This does not mean I don’t think people should be critical of Islam- by all means do it. My problem is when people ‘get their hate on’ cause on the street that can turn into nastiness.


Quote:

I think of it as like somebody defending the behaviour of medieval inquisitionists, and saying that what they did was nothing to do with christianity, when clearly it was. Of course there were other factors, but the extremism got it's base support, from pious religious people, who chose to interpret christianity, in that way, at that time.

When have I excused equivalent behaviours?


Quote:

We have seen christianity progress from that horror, we would like Islam to try and progress as well, but the ones who say it is perfect, and cannot be changed, lead us to conclude, it is a seemingly impossible task, as it stands.

People say it is perfect and cannot be changed because it is the word of God. I understand this perspective, however what I think should be changed is 1) interpretation of this word and who’s doing the interpreting and 2) people using Islam as a justification for cultural practices and political actions by essentially cherry picking what they want from the quran and ignoring everything else

Quote:

I disagree Grendel, to be an apologist, implies understanding, I don't think she has that yet. I think she just is focusing on the fact that most people are good, and decent, irrespective of the doctrine they follow, and sees attacks against Islamic teachings, as attacks against muslims, simple as that.[quote] That is incorrect but I appreciate the condescension. [quote]Oh I'm sure she doesn't but she wouldn't agree to that. Ignorance is moot. Need I remind you I have Muslim friends? That I haven't attacked a Muslim for being a Muslim, nor the religion.

I think it’s great that you can be critical of a religion but accepting of individuals you know who follow it. Many can’t make that distinction.


Quote:

Mind you questioning and dissent is seen by the Muslims here and gaybriel as attacking Islam and Muslims apparently.

No- I have no problem with question and dissent as I have said many times. I do have a problem with abuse and disrespect (in the way of common manners and consideration). Constraining such things does not inhibit criticism. It just makes it more constructive.


Quote:

Apologist...  A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution. At any level she steps in and provides excuses or does what the Muslims do makes a spurious argument or attack on the messenger.

You misconstrue my attempts to understand the complexity of certain issues as attempts to defend them. And then at other times I just disagree with you.


Quote:

Mind you some deserve to be seen as obsessive and biased.  But that doesn't excuse her actions, which so far show very little if any balance.

I could and will say the same of you.

Grendel wrote on Oct 30^th, 2008 at 10:04am:

I don't recall any Muslim Aboriginal settlements. Nor Korans found in aboriginal camps. Nor Aboriginals speaking arabic. Nor...  well you get my drift. Wasn't that a myth Hilali tried to spread?

http://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/58316/Stephenson.pdf

http://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/58309/Ganter.pdf