Common Ground News Service – February 14, 2006
Common Ground News Service – Partners in Humanity
(CGNews-PiH)
February 14, 2006
Common Ground News Service – Partners in Humanity (CGNews-PiH) is distributing the enclosed articles to build bridges of understanding between the West and the Muslim world. Unless otherwise noted, copyright permission has been obtained and the articles may be reproduced by any news outlet or publication, free of charge.
* If publishing, please acknowledge both the original source and Common Ground News Service, and notify us at cgnewspih@sfcg.org.
* To subscribe, send an email to subscribe-cgnewspih@sfcg.org with “subscribe” in the subject line.
**********
ARTICLES IN THIS EDITION:
1. The heart of the matter by Leena El-Ali
Leena El-Ali, director of the Partners in Humanity programme for Search for Common Ground, discusses the cartoon controversy in the broader terms of an intersection between “traditional” and “individualist” societies. She commends the actions of Muslim clerics who have tried to stop violent responses and the Western leaders who have spoken out against the cartoons and insists that, even at the grassroots, “Muslims and Westerners who can leave anger and defiance at the door and come together to learn about one another’s distress and bewilderment must do so.”
(Source: Common Ground News Services February 14, 2006)
2. Before reconciliation with Muslims, things will get worse by David Ignatius
Washington-based journalist, David Ignatius, compares the Muslim reaction to the cartoons to the African-American experience and the hesitancy even to utter the “N-word.” Just as the legacy of slavery has left a residue of anger, so has the sense of victimisation remained raw in the Muslim and Arab world. However Ignatius does not justify the violent response and looks to the American civil rights movement as a success story of the tolerance, sense of humour and reconciliation that can come after this period of rage.
(Source: Daily Star, February 11, 2006)
3. Need for dialog silenced amid competing voices by Ati Nurbaiti
“The main question in the newsroom when mulling over the release of controversial material is always whether the expected excess would be worthy of the decision,” writes
Ati Nurbaiti, staff writer for the Jakarta Post. Nurbaiti is discouraged to find that “any attempt at a fruitful exchange coming from the decisions to print and reprint the [Danish] cartoons is yet to materialise” and highlights the numerous issues that have been raised by the cartoons that could lead to insightful and constructive dialogue.
(Source: The Jakarta Post, February 3, 2006)
4. ~YOUTH VIEWS~
A holy alliance: the relationship of religion and politics in Senegal by Ndiaga Diouf
Ndiaga Diouf, a consultant and trainer for Radio Gune, discusses how religion and politics come together under democracy in Senegal. Citing positive examples of how these two parties work together, such as the role of religious leaders in fighting against AIDS, Diouf demonstrates that “there are possibilities for cooperation and partnership between the worlds of religion and politics that are not harmful, and that functional civil societies can exist that are not mirror images of Western ones.”
(Source: Common Ground News Service, February 14, 2006)
5. Islam and the West: can interfaith dialogue perform a miracle? By Mohammed Abu-Nimer
Mohammed Abu-Nimer, Associate Professor of International Peace and Conflict Resolution at American University’s School of International Service, raises some of the many criticisms of interfaith dialogue. Acknowledging that dialogue does in fact face some obstacles, he also reminds us of the very real impact it can have: “Thousands of stories of hope and transformation have been documented by people who have attended these interfaith meetings, and in many cases such individuals have acted in their own personal sphere to change the images and negative stereotypes which exist about Muslims and non-Muslims alike.”
(Source: Common Ground News Service, February 14, 2006)
**********
ARTICLE 1
The heart of the matter
Leena El-Ali
Washington, D.C. - Over the past two and a half weeks, the world’s attention has once again been sharply focused on the relationship between the Muslim world and the West. Some view the now-famous cartoons depicting the prophet of Islam, Muhammad, as gravely insulting, while others view them as merely satirical, as caricatures are meant to be.
Whether the Danish editor who commissioned these cartoons did so to make a point about self-censorship of the press in his country out of fear of Muslim reaction or not, these depictions, once published, were bound to be met with outrage. The republication of these cartoons in several European papers, in defence of free speech, has only served to stir emotions and counter-emotions so strong that the heart of the matter is in danger of being lost.
It is worth pausing for a moment here to remark that all major U.S. newspapers chose not to show the drawings in question, arguing that the story could be told well enough without offending the religious sensibilities of Muslims, as did the vast majority of U.S. network television stations. As a program director at a conflict transformation organisation which believes in ‘understanding the differences’ rather than forcing homogeneity, I salute this decision to respect others’ sensibilities.
Tempting as it might be to wring one’s hands in despair at the seemingly ever-widening chasm between Muslims and (non-Muslim) Westerners, we have a moral responsibility to snap out of it and get to the bottom of what is really going on – and then act upon this comprehension. This is not so much a confrontation between Islam and the West as it is an uncomfortable intersection between a world where ‘traditional’ values remain of paramount importance, and one where the values of a modern, ‘individualist’ society reign supreme.
From a traditional perspective, movements like the Protestant Reformation, the Renaissance and the Enlightenment may have brought about much that is good, but they also brought rejection of sacred ideas and, generally speaking, dismissal of all that is not generated by man alone. Modern individualism, on the other hand, deems itself to have been liberated from these "shackles," though from a traditional point of view it merely took on a different set of prejudices.
Eighteen years ago, most Arab and Muslim countries banned Martin Scorsese’s film, The Last Temptation of Christ, because the traditional values of these societies would not allow Christ, a revered figure in Islam, to be shown in a disrespectful light. More recently, Lebanon’s Christian authorities – part of the broader traditional landscape - banned The Da Vinci Code from the country despite its fictional status. Thus this is not an Islam-West clash, but a close encounter between traditionalism and non-traditionalism of the most uncomfortable kind.
To be clear, this is not intended to mean that Muslims do not care about individualist values as such, that traditionalism is inherently violent, or that Westerners reject outright all deference to religious symbols. But it is a fact that barely fifty years ago, before the West made its final break with the past in the post-Darwinian and Vatican II ambience of the decades following World War II, most of what is not tolerated in the East today would, by and large, not have been tolerated in the West either.
Yet there is undoubtedly a second dimension to what is unfolding before us at present. To many Muslims, the publication and republication of these drawings only confirms what they have suspected all along, particularly since the invasion of Iraq: that the Western world is waging a war against Islam itself. Prior to September 11th, it was primarily the Middle East that had nurtured a sense of paranoia and been a fertile ground for conspiracy theories, driven primarily by observation of US-Israel and US-oil dynamics. Since that fateful day, however, with the ensuing invasions of Afghanistan and, particularly, Iraq, such feelings about ill-will harboured towards Islam and Muslim communities has been much more widespread throughout Asia.
A myriad of emotions have been unleashed during this affair, especially those of distress, anger, bewilderment and defiance. We must rise to the occasion: not all Muslims who are distressed are angry, and not all non-Muslim Westerners who are bewildered are defiant. Muslims and Westerners who can leave anger and defiance at the door and come together to learn about one another’s distress and bewilderment must do so.
On a civic level, we need to learn about one another’s value systems - systems that have much in common yet also differ - without judgment, so we can better understand the principles that drive us. On a political level, we need to build upon such understanding to better interact, and even collaborate, with one another.
It was heartening to see clerics in Beirut and elsewhere try so hard to calm protesters in their respective cities and explain the inappropriateness of their reactions. It was equally reassuring to read and hear several prominent Western figures express their sympathy for Muslim feelings. By doing our bit as good citizens of the world on a grassroots level, we can help put things in perspective and make the likes of such voices of reason and compassion better-heard by a more ready-to-listen audience.
###
* Leena El-Ali directs the Muslim-Western relations programme for Search for Common Ground (www.sfcg.org).
Source: Common Ground News Service, February 14, 2006
Visit the website at www.commongroundnews.org
Distributed by the Common Ground News Service – Partners in Humanity.
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.
**********
ARTICLE 2
Before reconciliation with Muslims, things will get worse
David Ignatius
Washington, D.C. - Looking at the cartoons, a non-Muslim wonders how they could possibly have given such offence. How could a few juvenile, satirical drawings of the prophet Muhammad have created a global crisis? It seems inexplicable; until you think about American reactions to a word we hesitate even to write for fear of giving offence, calling it instead the "N-word."
The African-American experience reminds us that there is a rage so deep and abiding that it can be triggered by a small comment, an unintended slight, a remark perhaps meant as a joke but heard as a grievous insult. The legacy of slavery left behind that residue of anger. It created taboos that protect what Sigmund Freud described as the sacred totems of cultural identity. It established boundaries where outsiders - in this case, white people - are not allowed to venture. That's why the N-word is so powerful - it is the symbol for the suffering that a people experienced at the hands of others.
By drawing this comparison, I don't mean to condone what Muslims are doing in their violent, deadly over-reaction to a provocation by a foolish newspaper editor in Denmark. And I think the Muslim world could learn something about tolerance from African-Americans. The United States still abounds with racist images, but blacks are no longer rioting in the streets or burning down buildings. With time, people have learned to deal with their anger in less self-destructive ways - even, sometimes, to laugh about it.
This week, the African-American cartoonist Aaron McGruder is running a series in his taboo-busting strip "The Boondocks," making fun of civil rights leader Al Sharpton's protests about racism. In Monday's strip, Huey Freeman muses to his friend: "Give me news of hope, Caesar. Tell me of the leaders who dare to stand against the grave dangers faced by this world. I crave inspiration." His pal Caesar looks up from his newspaper: "Says here Al Sharpton is protesting a cartoon for using the N-word." To which Huey responds: "I'm going back to bed."
Maybe the Muslim world will someday be able to laugh off slurs against the prophet Muhammad, but not now. The wounds are too raw; the sense of victimisation is too immediate. I travel often to Muslim countries, and I am sometimes astonished at how hundreds of years of history can seem condensed into the present, so that every current injustice is magnified by the weight of every past one. I don't understand it, but then, I have to remind myself, I'm not a Muslim. I haven't lived it.
Hoping to understand this blood-knot of rage and intolerance, I called Randall Kennedy, a prominent African-American professor of law at Harvard University. He is the author of a 2002 book that explores the intense emotions aroused by the N-word, which he actually dares to spell out in the book's title. He says he's not surprised that a cartoon, like a taboo word, can become a focus for rage. For African-Americans, he explains, "there are all sorts of indignities and insults, but they're momentary and ambiguous." But when white people say the hateful word, "it crystallises something that's often hard to discern."
"When people feel they're being disrespected, they respond in all sorts of ways, including very self-destructive ways," Kennedy observes. That said, he finds the Muslim reaction to the Danish cartoons unacceptable - just as he thinks people over-react to the N-word. "Are we going to bleep out Richard Pryor's album? Are we going to scratch out every reference to the word in "Huckleberry Finn"? I would say with respect that's what is happening here with the reaction to the cartoons."
Whenever I'm feeling really pessimistic about the world, I remind myself of the American civil rights movement. In the space of my lifetime, America has gone from a country of brutal racism and outright segregation to a place where black folks and white folks pretty much get along. We haven't abolished racism, but by working honestly at the problem, we've made real progress. Along the way, we experienced rage and violence: Our cities burned; our nation sometimes felt at war with itself. But we passed through that dark period into a brighter one.
I want to believe that Muslims and the West are now in that kind of transition. We're in the rage phase - the part of the story where black folks are torching cities, white governors are sending in the National Guard, and the problems seem insoluble. But if people keep their heads, we will eventually pass from this crazy moment into a different one where a genuine reconciliation is possible. Let's face it: We are living the clash of civilisations, and it's likely that things won't get much better until they get a bit worse.
###
*David Ignatius is a Washington-based journalist who has worked for such publications as the Washington Post and the International Herald Tribune.
Source: Daily Star, February 11, 2006
Visit the website at www.dailystar.com.lb
Distributed by the Common Ground News Service – Partners in Humanity.
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.
**********
ARTICLE 3
Need for dialogue silenced amid competing voices
Ati Nurbaiti
Jakarta - Freedom of expression is surely a great thing to have. At the end of the day, this uproar over the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in European newspapers should at least make millions of non-Muslims understand that Islam categorically proscribes any depiction of the Prophet, insulting or not.
But Muslims have also seen how freedom can be used as a petty excuse for getting away with the republication of the cartoons (either in solidarity with the Danish press or as a "necessary" illustration in each report), even though Muslims had expressed their anger and even though the first newspaper that had printed them, Jyllands-Posten, apologised for the offence that the 12 caricatures caused. They were first published in September.
Embarrassingly, it was European diplomats who had to remind the press of journalistic ethics, which basically state that publication of offensive material is to be avoided. The main question in the newsroom when mulling over the release of controversial material is always whether the expected excess would be worthy of the decision.
The leader of the Paris-based press organisation Reporters Without Borders (RSF) said Muslims' reactions show they had "no idea of how democracy works." And the feeling of Muslims of being "shocked", said RSF secretary-general Robert Menard, while regrettable, "is the price of being informed."
Indeed, thanks to freedom of the press and to being informed, Muslims have hopefully acquired some idea as to how democracy works. An editor in Denmark said that offended readers should understand that you do not burn flags or attack embassies when you are shocked by media content; you take them to court!
This is the same message that the Indonesian media has been trying to get across to its sometimes unpredictable public all along, whatever their religion. However, this civilised, and perhaps most relevant piece of advice, was drowned out in the continuing uproar as the cartoons got reprinted elsewhere. A newspaper closer to the Muslim heartland in Jordan also reprinted the cartoon and urged Muslim readers to consider whether it was more insulting to Islam than the video footage aired on Arab TV of innocent Westerners getting beheaded in the name of Allah.
Once the violence stops, one might see some fruitful dialogue attempting to answer that question posed by the Jordanian paper; and also on other questions.
Some might want to engage in discussions on the reason for the ban on depictions of the Prophet (Muslims are told that it is God's way of discouraging idolatry), or even a debate on the ban itself ("liberal" Muslims are known to debate almost any religious taboo).
Another more interesting dialogue would be one involving the cartoonists and editors of the Danish publication on why they deemed the images fit to print in the first place. The editors may reiterate that the caricatures were used to illustrate articles on self-censorship.
Earlier, a leading Danish writer reportedly expressed alarm at the fact that an author couldn't find any cartoonist to depict Muhammad because the illustrators feared for their lives; this was considered alarm for Denmark which supposedly upholds freedom of expression, and the newspaper took up the challenge as an exercise in free speech.
Also, maybe they had no idea of the Islamic ban on depicting the prophet -- but the editors may have also shared a nagging question among the Western non-Muslim public on why there is so much display of intolerance and cruelty against innocent people in the name of Islam if they claim Muhammad preached peace -- a question also shared by Muslims.
Yet another dialog could be held on the urgency to preserve freedom of expression, for if we attacked all Western media incapable of making wise judgments, surely the entire Muslim world would be deprived of information and a vital means to interact with others.
Such a dialogue would further need to discuss the line between religious prohibitions and freedom of expression; those who are "in defence of secularism" say the line is free to cross, while others say it is a pretty obvious no-no because though you might be an atheist, secularist or liberal, you might want to respect some clear beliefs.
The only difficulty is that when we in the media have successfully provoked the audience we might only belatedly see that we failed to calculate all of the impacts. Any attempt at a fruitful exchange coming from the decisions to print and reprint the cartoons is yet to materialise. Is the current chaos in a number of countries, involving many who jump at any excuse to engage in violence, worthy of those decisions?
Once again Muslims are being "represented" only by the violence-prone Islamists. To balance those who give both freedom of expression and Islam a bad name, we could engage in dialogues between civilisations.
###
* Ati Nurbaiti is a staff writer for The Jakarta Post.
Source: The Jakarta Post, February 3, 2006
Visit the website at www.thejakartapost.com
Distributed by the Common Ground News Service – Partners in Humanity.
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.
**********
ARTICLE 4
~YOUTH VIEWS~
A holy alliance: the relationship of religion and politics in Senegal
Ndiaga Diouf
Dakar, Senegal -- In certain parts of the world, religion is often the source of social and political tensions. The consequences are often dramatic: hundreds or thousands of people lose their lives. It’s the opposite of what is presently happening in Senegal, a country with great poverty, but with a functioning democracy nonetheless. With Muslims comprising 95% of the population, politics cannot ignore the presence of so many devout Muslims and today, an informal alliance exists between politician and religious leaders, whereby each party looks after the interests of the other. Religious leaders are playing an important part in the country’s development having, for instance, contributed greatly to the fight against AIDS, so much so that Senegal has one of the lowest incidences of AIDS mortality in sub-Saharan Africa. For Westerners who wonder whether democracy and overt religiosity are compatible, it may well be worth taking a closer look at Senegal.
The intertwining of religion and politics in Senegal is long-standing, and certain observers consider it to have begun with the country’s French, colonial administrators. The various governments in power since independence in 1960 have maintained it, to such an extent that today there is even an oft-repeated saying to describe the state of affairs here: “The marabouts [religious scholars and leaders with strong social standing in West Africa] manage the people, and the politicians manage the machinery of the state.”
This relationship is the result of the existence of several Sufi brotherhoods in Senegal, most of which date from the late 19th century. Sufism is often referred to as ‘Islamic mysticism’, and is the name given to a tradition of ‘inwardness’ in Islam which emphasises an esoteric interpretation of doctrine to complement the more prevalent exoteric one, which tends to veer more toward the literal. The most important are the Mourides and Tidiane brotherhoods, founded by leaders whose descendants have inherited the title of Khalif, and whose families play an important part in Senegalese society. The Khalifs draw their political power from their thousands of followers, and wield great influence, both culturally and economically. For example, Serigne Salio Mbacké, a leader in the Mouride brotherhood, is known for his work in the Qur’anic instruction of children in the Diourbel region, where the famous pilgrimage site of Touba is located. Mbacké also owns thousands of acres of land, where he raises peanuts and millet.
Beyond the religious convictions of politicians, great attention at election time is paid to the views of marabouts on the candidates. In Senegal, it is frequently remembered that Serigne Abdoul Ahad MBacké, the Khalif of the Mourides at the time, threw all the weight of his organisation behind getting Abou Diouf re-elected President in 1988. At the time of the elections, there was much debate in Senegal over whether the Republic was not in fact threatened by such overt religious influence on the political process. Given the fact that the fundamental character of the state was not changed despite Diouf’s re-election showed that Senegalese people have reached a degree of maturity that shows that the process remains unadulterated, however. In general, the people are confident in the guidance of their religious leaders, but they also engage in political life in accordance with their own interests or political convictions.
Indeed, more recently, when individuals from these religious families began entering the political arena, for the most part their parties failed to make much headway, despite being well-organised and well-financed. Thus far, the Senegalese have shown a strong willingness to maintain a firm division between the worlds of religion and politics. Nevertheless, the government depends on religious leaders to provide the social framework that allows the country to remain stable, to a degree not often found in Africa. Politicians must inevitably gain the support of religious leaders to win votes, and in turn, religious leaders, who wield vast influence in the country’s rural provinces, gain because policy-makers will often return the favour, such as by seeing that certain development projects are executed in their territories. On a day-to-day level, the partnership functions well, as citizens often make recourse to the Khalifs even for relatively small issues. For example, mobile street vendors, who sell small goods in many cities, were frequently being hassled by the police, and went to the Khalif of the Mourides, who intervened with the political authorities on their behalf. Indeed, workers in many sectors do not hesitate to go to their religious leaders with work-related problems. In the end, it is something of a holy alliance that benefits everyone, in a way not so different from the give-and-take between interest groups in the more developed West. Compromises are worked out, favours exchanged and democracy, by dint of actual practice, becomes stronger – though in a uniquely Senegalese context.
Unfortunately, in the West, little is known of these developments, which show that there are possibilities for cooperation and partnership between the worlds of religion and politics that are not harmful, and that functional civil societies can exist that are not mirror images of Western ones. There might be less consternation among Western policy-makers about the possibilities of democracy in predominantly Muslim countries if there were.
###
* Ndiaga Diouf is a consultant and trainer for Radio Gune – Yi, a project of Plan International, which conducts radio journalism workshops for children in Senegal and other West African countries, who then produce and broadcast their own programmes on health, nutrition and children’s rights. He is also a part-time journalist for Info 7, a Dakar newspaper.
Source: Common Ground New Service, February 14, 2006
Visit the website at www.commongroundnews.org
Distributed by the Common Ground News Service – Partners in Humanity.
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.
**********
ARTICLE 5
Islam and the West: can interfaith dialogue perform a miracle?
Mohammed Abu-Nimer
Washington, D.C. - One of the lessons or developments that emerged from the tragedy of 9/11 was the realisation among many people, especially NGOs, policy makers and educators in Western societies, that they had little knowledge of Islam and Muslims. Another was the realisation by Muslims in Europe and the USA of how secluded and enclaved their lives had been in such societies.
As a remedy for such mutual ignorance, many organisations, both public and private (including universities and NGOs), began offering introductory 101 classes on Islam and its basic practices. In many cases some of these organisations initiated face-to-face interaction with Muslim communities, especially with certain Muslim leaders or figures who were willing to converse and assume the role of representing Islam and Muslims. Unfortunately, fewer initiatives were launched in Muslims societies to deepen learning about European and American societies.
These interfaith, intercultural, or intercivilisational dialogue meetings initiated in the West have been gaining more and more support from both government and private individuals. Even ex-presidents Clinton, Carter and Rafsanjani, and Prince Hassan bin Talal of Jordan (who is among the champions of this dialogue), among others, have declared their interest and led some of these meetings.
What can such meetings accomplish?
For Muslims, interfaith dialogue can offer an opportunity to accurately present their faith and correct some of the basic stereotypes and misperceptions regarding its practices and principles. For example, non-Muslims will learn that Islam and Muslims have contributed greatly to human civilisation: many of the modern world’s sciences and humanities benefited from Muslims and from Islamic science and philosophy during the Middle Ages when Europe was in the dark age of its internal wars.
Other participants often express their surprise when they learn that Islam spread outside of the Middle East and into the likes of Indonesia, India and Malaysia through persuasion and invitation (da’awa) rather than by the sword - a widespread misconception. Even when it comes to the sensitive issue of terrorism, many discover that most Muslims are against the use of violence and the destruction of innocent life. Other benefits of these face-to-face dialogues include the re-humanising of Muslims for many Western participants. For many Muslims, they are also an opportunity to strengthen interaction with other members of society and with local communities.
The interfaith dialogue circles help in breaking the enclave mentality of the closed communities in which many Muslims live in “self-imposed social and cultural isolation”. This isolation increases the likelihood of a violent backlash when there is a terrorist attack on a European or American city. The more bridges Muslims build with their communities, the less likely they will be attacked and accused of supporting or harbouring terrorist elements.
Despite the above benefits of interfaith dialogue, there are sharp voices (both Muslim and non-Muslim), which express doubt about its effectiveness and necessity. Some Muslim groups mistakenly view these professional, interfaith dialogues as an attempt to convert or threaten their beliefs, and have therefore launched attacks against them as ’kufr’ or non-belief. Others have argued that interfaith dialogue cannot fix structural problems in the relationship between Islam and Western governments. The main cause of tension between Muslims and the West is not necessarily one of communication as implied by those who repeat the phrase “we do not need to love them or become friends with them...”.
The problem rather relates to Western policies with regard to Palestine, Iraq and the Muslim world in general. Interfaith dialogue cannot offer a remedy for any economic exploitation carried out by European and American private corporations and government-owned concerns. It can do nothing about the oil and other natural resources being extracted on a daily basis from the Muslim world. Critical voices will add that interfaith dialogue is reminiscent of a gravely ill person receiving cosmetic surgery: even if we give that person the most beautiful new face, how would that help in stopping the cancer invading that body?
Another major critique of interfaith meetings, especially those of short duration with no follow-up, is that they provide participants with the illusion of being “activist.” People do feel good after a meeting and have less need to act or do something against the structural policy of their governments. Such a shortcoming is true of those meetings that focus on learning about the basic principles and rituals of the other religion while participants are not expected to commit to further action. These processes and models obviously cannot counter terrorism and its causes, nor deter perpetrators.
Moreover, some critics of this type of interfaith effort suggest the funds spent on these interfaith meetings be donated to economic and social development projects that systematically counter poverty, especially in Muslim countries where poverty and illiteracy often attract violent strategies for change.
As someone who has researched and led many of these interfaith meetings, I must admit that there is truth to some of the above criticism. But such a critique fails to consider the fact that personal and individual change is essential to any desired larger, social and political change in any relationship. Thousands of stories of hope and transformation have been documented by people who have attended these interfaith meetings, and in many cases such individuals have acted in their own personal sphere to change the images and negative stereotypes which exist about Muslims and non-Muslims alike. In addition, efforts in interfaith dialogue are like any long-term educational investment in building a global and local culture of peace, in that its fruits will only be seen and felt by future generations which will be better-equipped to counter all forms of violence more effectively.
Making such efforts more effective requires more sincere involvement by a wider circle of Muslim and non-Muslim religious leadership; the linking of these efforts to practical and concrete outcomes; and the systematic engagement of policy-makers in these efforts.
###
* Mohammed Abu-Nimer is Associate Professor of International Peace and Conflict Resolution at American University’s School of International Service in Washington, DC, and is the Director of the Peacebuilding and Development Institute.
Source: Common Ground News Service, February 14, 2006.
Visit the website at www.commongroundnews.org
Distributed by the Common Ground News Service – Partners in Humanity.
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.
**********
Common Ground News - Partners in Humanity, brought to you by Search for Common Ground, seeks to build bridges of understanding between the West, on the one hand, and the Arab and Muslim worlds, on the other. This service is one outcome of a set of working meetings held in partnership with His Royal Highness Prince El Hassan bin Talal in June 2003.
Every week, CGNews-PiH distributes 5 news articles, op-eds, features, and analyses that aid in developing the current and future relationship of the West and the Arab & Muslim worlds. Articles are chosen based on accuracy, balance, and their ability to improve understanding and communication across borders and regions. They also reflect the need for constructive dialogue around issues of global importance. Selections are authored by local and international experts and leaders who analyse and discuss a broad range of relevant issues. We invite you to submit any articles you feel are compatible with the goals of this news service.
CGNews-PiH also regularly publishes the work of student leaders and journalists whose articles strengthen intercultural understanding and promote constructive perspectives and dialogue in their own communities through its Youth Views column. Student journalists and writers under the age of 27 are encouraged to write to cbinkley@sfcg.org for more information on contributing.
We look forward to hearing from you, and welcome any questions, concerns, or comments you may have about this service. Please forward this message to colleagues and friends who may also wish to subscribe to the service.
To subscribe, send an email to subscribe-cgnewspih@sfcg.org with subscribe in the subject line.
If you are a member of the media, please join us in promoting constructive dialogue to improve understanding and perceptions. Unless otherwise noted, copyright permission has been obtained and the articles may be reproduced free of charge. If you choose to republish any of the articles, please acknowledge both the original source and Common Ground News, and notify us at cgnewspih@sfcg.org
The views expressed in these articles are those of the authors, not of CGNew-PiH or its affiliates.
Common Ground News
1601 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite #200
Washington, DC 20009 USA
Ph: +1(202) 777-2207
Fax: +1(202) 232-6718
Rue Belliard 205 bte 13
B-1040 Brussels, Belgium
Ph: +32 (02) 736-7262
Fax: +32(02) 732-3033
E-mail: cgnewspih@sfcg.org
Website: http://www.commongroundnews.org
Editors:
Emad Khalil
Amman Editor
Juliette Schmidt
Beirut Editor
Elyte Baykun & Leena El-Ali
Washington Editors
Chris Binkley
Youth Views Editor
**********
This is a not-for-profit list serve.
Please feel free to forward this message to anyone you think would like to see these articles.
To subscribe, send an email to subscribe-cgnewspih@sfcg.org with subscribe in the subject line.
Posted by Evelin at February 16, 2006 06:39 AM