Common Ground News Service – Partners in Humanity (CGNews-PiH)
May 9, 2006

**********

The Common Ground News Service – Partners in Humanity (CGNews-PiH) aims to promote constructive perspectives and dialogue about Muslim-Western relations.

*This service is also available in Arabic, Bahasa Indonesia and French. You can subscribe by sending an email to cgnewspih@sfcg.org [cgnewspih@sfcg.orgcgnewspih@sfcg.org], specifying your choice of language.

*Unless otherwise noted, copyright permission has been obtained and articles may be reprinted by any news outlet or publication. Please acknowledge both the original source and the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).

*For an archive of CGNews articles and other information, please visit our website at www.commongroundnews.org (http://www.commongroundnews.org/).

**********

ARTICLES IN THIS EDITION:

1. The responsibility of leadership by Claude Salhani
International Editor with United Press International, Claude Salhani, looks for a new maturity in Hamas leaders that must come with taking power after years in the role of rebellious opposition. Despite its troubling financial dilemma, with this new power also comes the responsibility to make decisions. Hamas can choose to “negotiate from a position of strength” and to “go down in history as the party which revives the dead peace process, and in so doing, being remembered as the party that extricated the Palestinian people from decades of misery and conflict.” Or it can be remembered as the party “that dragged the Palestinians deeper into the abyss.”
(Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), May 9, 2006)

2. YOUTH VIEWS A conference about business, a conversation across cultures by Bill Glucroft
Bill Glucroft, a student of journalism at Emerson College in Boston, Massachusetts, is inspired by the proactive collaboration between individual business people from around the word at a recent conference. He considers the history of Middle Eastern civilisation and concludes that business has a significant role to play not only in bringing about liberal democracies, but also in furthering inter-faith and inter-civilisational dialogue. He argues that with commerce comes cross-cultural conversation, thus disputing the theory that socio-political change can only come through social upheaval.
(Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), May 9, 2006)

3. The lessons of a predominantly Middle Eastern Turkey by Rami G. Khouri
Regular contributor to the Daily Star, Rami G. Khouri, believes that “Turkey can teach several important lessons to two groups of people who seem to be increasingly at odds with one another: nationally distressed and wobbly Arabs, and a United States-led West that views Arab Islamist parties that have triumphed in elections with perplexity and hostility.” Outlining its ongoing, gradual process of civilianisation and democratisation, he holds Turkey up as an example for the rest of the world.
(Source: Daily Star, May 3, 2006)

4. America needs to pick its fights carefully by James Dobbins
James Dobbins, director of the International Security and Defense Policy Center at the Rand Corporation, provides some guidelines to help the United States determine which Muslim causes should be feared, which should be supported and which should be allowed to continue undisturbed. Explaining how the current universal policy to oppose Muslim interests or activities that are supported by Al Qaeda, whatever they may be, can actually harm U.S. interests, he argues that “Washington needs to evaluate each actual insurgency on its own merits and on its relevance to American interests.”
(Source: International Herald Tribune, May 2, 2006)

5. What really makes a chicken “halal”?
The author of Sex, Power and Nation, Julia Suryakusuma, contemplates the intersection of common sense and religious doctrine when her mother receives a gift of smoked chicken whose halal status (whether it has been prepared in accordance with Islamic doctrine on the slaughter of animals) is uncertain. She considers the various sides of the argument and worries that “religious formalism often overrides common sense, empathy, compassion, tolerance, respect for others, truth, integrity, solidarity and, not least, faith in and oneness with God, which is, in the end, the essence of religion.”
(Source: Jakarta Post, May 3, 2006)

**********

ARTICLE 1
The responsibility of leadership
Claude Salhani

Washington, D.C. - When a revolutionary movement is transformed from a resistance group into a legitimate government thanks to having won the trust of the people through the process of democratic elections, along with that trust comes the far greater responsibility of running the affairs of state. It’s a heavy task that demands bold initiative -- one that can be compared to the rite of passage of a teenager into adulthood.

As a teenager, one is permitted mistakes every now and then. But with adulthood come new responsibilities and challenges. That is the situation Hamas finds itself in today.

As long as the Islamic movement was the opposition, the active resistance, like a teenager it was expected to err. But since it won the majority vote in the last legislative elections, Hamas has suddenly found itself propelled into the world of governance and leadership –a very different world from the one it was born into and became used to -- and expected to behave as such.

Hamas no longer holds the responsibility of managing a few dozen mosques, schools and clinics in Gaza. Today, the Hamas leadership finds itself directly responsible for the lives and the well-being of the entire population of Gaza and the West Bank. It’s a rude awakening.

To complicate matters further, Hamas and the Palestinian Authority (PA) find themselves in a deep financial crisis after being chastised by the European Union and the United States for continuing to refuse to recognise Israel’s right to exist, and for continuing to refuse to reject terrorism.

Adding to their financial woes is the withholding of about $50 million Israel levies on behalf of the PA in the form of import duties collected monthly. The result is that the new Hamas-led government is unable to meet the payroll of its 140,000 state employees. Iran, Saudi Arabia and Qatar have stepped in to help with offers of several tens of millions of dollars each to bail out Hamas. It has solved the problem for this month. They may well repeat their generous gesture once, twice or ten more times, but this is by no means a long-term solution.

What Hamas needs, what the PA needs, what Israel needs, indeed what the whole region needs, is a long-term solution that will finally pull the Middle East out of this infernal cycle of never-ending violence.

Despite its financial troubles, Hamas is, for the moment, in a position of power, having won the majority vote. This gives the Islamic group a legitimate mandate from the people. As such, Hamas can negotiate from a position of strength, giving it the opportunity of going down in history as the party which revives the dead peace process, and in so doing, being remembered as the party that extricated the Palestinian people from decades of misery and conflict.

Alternatively, Hamas can continue to play the role of the teenager, in which case as soon as the honeymoon period ends – and that will come about far sooner than it expects once hardships brought about by the new financial crunch begins to crystallise -- it will be remembered as the party that dragged the Palestinians deeper into the abyss.

Let Hamas recognise Israel’s right to exist, let it renounce terrorism, let it embrace the peace process. Let it place the ball in Israel’s court. It takes great courage to move toward peace after being stuck in decades of hate. To be able to do so – and succeed – one must be in a position of strength. Hamas finds itself in that position today. That will change once the Palestinian people realise that the political impasse translates as many more years of lean hardship.

These are by no means easy changes for Hamas to make. These difficulties, however, are part of the natural growing process of a revolutionary movement that matures enough to make the lateral move from a guerrilla group to a responsible government.

Yasser Arafat, the long-time leader of the Palestinian resistance, failed to make that transition from revolutionary leader to statesman, and for that, both he and the Palestinian people suffered greatly. Arafat knew how to be a resistance chief. He excelled at it. He lived for it and knew how to manipulate the various factions within the Palestine Liberation Organization to his advantage. Arafat was a master at that game. But when it came to diplomacy, he failed drastically. He should have retired and gone on to become the father of the nation. Instead… well, we know the rest. Hamas should learn from his mistakes.

###
* Claude Salhani is International Editor and a political analyst with United Press International in Washington, DC. This article was distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), May 9, 2006
Visit the website at www.commongroundnews.org
Distributed by the Common Ground News Service – Partners in Humanity (CGNews-PiH).
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.

**********

ARTICLE 2
A conference about business, a conversation across cultures
Bill Glucroft

Boston, Massachusetts - What is this nonsense about Arabs and Muslims being incapable of democracy, incapable of modernisation and incapable of conversing with those dubbed “infidels”? At a recent business conference, I witnessed all that Arabs and Muslims are “incapable” of.

During the second weekend in April, I participated in the annual conference of the International Academy of Business Disciplines in San Diego. The IABD is an organisation that since 1989 has brought together businesspeople from around the world to discuss economic issues, emerging technologies and political and social communication. Unlike similar but more competitive forums, IABD prides itself on its collaborative, as opposed to combative, nature.

The president of this year’s conference was Dr. J. Gregory Payne of Emerson College. He invited 15 Emerson students, myself included, to the conference to both take part in and report on the event (www.iabdpress.com). The group worked closely with the founder of IABD, Abbass Alkhafaji, a professor at Slippery Rock University.

Alkhafaji is a man of great warmth and impressive character who carries a remarkable life story. After serving as a conscript in Saddam’s army, Alkhafaji fled Iraq in the 1970s and arrived in America without the luxury of knowing English. Since then he has not only mastered the language but also his field. Today, Alkhafaji is a prominent figure in the world of business management, and is a popular keynote speaker and bestselling author.

Alkhafaji is not unique. In fact, of the approximately 300 people in attendance at the conference, as many as half did not fit the typical white, male profile. Participants included a mix of African-Americans, Indians and Arabs; Hindus, Muslims and Christians; and both men and women.

In other words, here were rooms full of people who could well have been fighting one another. Instead, this intelligent group was conversing, thanks to prior access to education and subsequent economic success. And that – education and economy (or rather, the lack thereof) – is the rub.

Consider for a moment early Muslim history. While “civilised” Europe was busy bludgeoning itself with feudal wars, the Muslim world was at a social and cultural zenith. The arts and education thrived and trade flourished wherever Islam spread.

Certainly, this was not a period of democracy, and Islam played a leading role. But with commerce came cross-cultural conversation. The economy was sound and non-Muslims were treated well. This was especially the case for Jews, whose relationship with Muslims may very well rival the current Judeo-Christian relationship (the Prophet Muhammad designated the followers of Moses and Christ as “protected peoples”).

Unfortunately, from the East came invasion, and then from the West came colonisation, followed by a dubious decolonisation process that resulted in dangerously undiversified, slow-moving economies completely dependent on oil exports for growth in many cases. Over time, this assault replaced agreeable aristocracies with autocracies, and instigated a centuries’ long tumble from a cultural and economic peak, crushing the region’s potential.

Through such a wide historical lens it becomes clear that violent, Arab-Muslim extremism is not in the genes, but in the politics, and politics can change if we make the effort. The IABD conference was a perfect prototype because it allowed for both intra- and inter-cultural communication.

The focus of the conference was neither democracy nor Western-Arab relations: rather, the pragmatic conference-goers were interested in learning from each other how to grow their businesses and navigate the complex world of international commerce and economics. In so doing, the participants were following the same route as those traders and merchants from millennia ago, indirectly acting as agents of change by linking different nations and cultures.

Ultimately, one of the best ways to achieve greater international understanding and inter-cultural dialogue is through global business. After all, many historians cite the emergence of a merchant middle class in Europe, resentful of rule by an untouchable aristocracy, as a primary catalyst for the development of liberal-democratic conceptions of individual rights and government by the people.

Democracy begins small, at non-governmental and apolitical forums like IABD that bring people together to discuss ideas and alternatives, problems and prospects. Contrary to received wisdom, socio-political progress can occur without revolutionary upheaval. It can occur just as well during a quiet conversation over coffee, or during a PowerPoint presentation on accounting standards.

It begins not with a bang, but with a whisper.

###
* Bill Glucroft is a student of journalism at Emerson College in Boston, Massachusetts. This article was distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), May 9, 2006
Visit the website at www.commongroundnews.org
Distributed by the Common Ground News Service – Partners in Humanity (CGNews-PiH).
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.

**********

ARTICLE 3
The lessons of a predominantly Middle Eastern Turkey
Rami G. Khouri

Beirut - Full disclosure from the start: I am a great admirer of Turkey. Of course I am glad that four centuries of Ottoman control over the Arab world ended after World War I, yet I wish that Turks and Arabs had more regular encounters so that the modern Turkish experience could rub off on us and inspire us. I admire not only the history, power and astounding rhythms of Istanbul, which twice ruled pivotal regions of the world in the Byzantine and Ottoman eras. I also admire its ongoing trajectory to modernity.

Turkey can teach several important lessons to two groups of people who seem to be increasingly at odds with one another: nationally distressed and wobbly Arabs, and a United States-led West that views Arab Islamist parties that have triumphed in elections with perplexity and hostility.

I am a Turkey fan because the Arab world's large, predominantly Middle Eastern and Muslim northern neighbour is seriously addressing all those core issues of nationhood, citizenship and modernity that the countries of the Middle East generally avoid. These include important challenges like making a full democratic transformation, deepening Turkey's secular tradition, coming to terms with a pluralistic identity, integrating Islamists into the political system, fostering civilian control over the military, grappling with the status of minorities and historical traumas, strengthening human rights guarantees, promoting a truly productive economy, maintaining a vibrant civil society, steadily reforming a country to become eligible for European Union membership while not losing sight of Turkey's links with the Middle East and Central Asia, and forging a new, more dignified, less servile and mutually beneficial relationship with the U.S. Any country that does all this simultaneously, as Turkey is doing, is impressive in my book.

For those Turks who dispute my description of their country as predominantly Middle Eastern, and who prefer to be called European, I offer as compelling anecdotal evidence just one experience: I was in a taxi in the centre of Istanbul at rush hour when the driver suddenly reversed at high speed, drove backwards against one-way traffic, inside a major roundabout, in order to avoid going through a few congested streets. Not only did the driver act like a Middle Eastern maniac, but all the other drivers seemed to understand and tolerate this behaviour and facilitated his lawless and reckless reverse journey against the oncoming traffic. Pretty spectacular, and distinctly Middle Eastern.

Modern Turkey has always had a core of democratic and secular values since the birth of the modern state after World War I. Yet it has also mirrored the rest of the Middle East in keeping all major national and strategic decisions in the hands of the armed forces. This made every issue a security issue, and allowed military leaders to step in and run the state at their whim. This is changing rapidly.

Turkey's experience since 1997-1998 has been impressive because it revolves around three related dynamics that also challenge the Arabs. The first is development of a deeper, more pluralistic and inclusive, democracy that can accommodate the participation, and even the victory, of Islamist parties. Several Islamist surges in the last decade were voided by the armed forces and ruling elite, but more mature attitudes prevailed finally when the current government was formed in late 2002 by the mildly Islamist Justice and Development Party headed by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. This government has enthusiastically championed reforms to bring Turkey into Europe, and has taken bold steps to resolve the Cyprus problem.

The second change has come in the fields of human rights and minority rights. This has especially affected the status of Turkey's large Kurdish minority and how to deal with the allegations of genocide against the Armenians in 1915-1916, which the world beyond Turkey widely acknowledges occurred. Turkish government and society are haunted by the prospect of Turkey shrinking again if Kurds seek independence or deep autonomy in their south-eastern provinces. But the civilian and military leaders recognise there is no military solution, even as they open up formerly shut doors to public discussion of the Armenian issue.

The third, most important, issue has been the gradual expansion of civilian control over the military, in a political system "whose Constitution was written by and for the military in 1982," according to university professor and columnist Soli Ozel. The Constitution was recently amended in a more liberal and democratic manner, he told me, largely as a result of the terms of the EU accession process, which the public strongly supports. This, it seems, in contrast to what happened in Iraq, is one way to do external intervention in order to bring about Middle Eastern democracy.

The civilianisation and democratisation of Turkish politics are ongoing, gradual processes. They are crucial to allowing Turkey to deal with its substantial challenges in the vast arenas that are identity, history, economy, geography and nationalism - and instructive for the rest of us who watch this process close-up, even from the back seat of a lawless taxi driven by a loveable but modern maniac.
####
* Rami G. Khouri writes a regular commentary for the Daily Star. This article was distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Daily Star, May 3, 2006
Visit the website at www.dailystar.com.lb
Distributed by the Common Ground News Service – Partners in Humanity (CGNews-PiH).
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.

**********

ARTICLE 4
America needs to pick its fights carefully
James Dobbins

Washington, D.C. - If not handled carefully, the recently renamed "long war" on global terror could turn into an undifferentiated campaign against Muslim insurgencies, wherever they may emerge. This would be a great mistake. Just because Al Qaeda attaches itself to one Muslim cause or another should not necessarily make those insurgents America's enemies.

Some Muslim causes may be just, and deserve American support. Others may involve issues of little or no inherent interest to the United States. America will need to pick its fights carefully if it is not to be drawn into opposing every group that Al Qaeda or its ilk chooses to support.

Most terrorism experts have concluded that since Al Qaeda's expulsion from Afghanistan, it has transformed itself from a localised, centrally directed terrorist conspiracy into a globalised, decentralised terrorist insurgency. The difference here between simple terrorists and insurgents is that the former use violence to register grievances - often in the hope that it can lead to some type of change in the policies of their enemies - while the latter actually seek to overthrow and replace the governments they are attacking.

While not centrally controlled, the constituent elements of this new global insurgency are thought to share a common methodology (terrorism), a common inspiration (jihad or holy war), and a common objective (the unification of all Muslims under the religiously directed governance of a new Caliphate).

Impelled by a refined understanding of the enemy, the Bush administration has committed America to a war of indeterminate length against this global jihadist insurgency. The administration's intent is not to engage American troops in every jihadist-supported contest around the world, but rather, in most cases, to help local governments to suppress such groups with American advice, equipment and intelligence.

But if not conducted carefully, the United States could quickly find itself siding against the Muslim cause in every contest that pits Muslim insurgents against Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish or Communist governments, simply because Al Qaeda has chosen to support the other side.

In conducting this global campaign, therefore, it will be important to make a sharp distinction between the "virtual" insurgency being mounted by Al Qaeda, its subsidiaries, allies and imitators, often via the Internet, and the actual insurgencies being conducted by various Muslim groups around the world, usually for reasons that have nothing to do with the restoration of a Caliphate.

These local rebellions often arise from the desire of ethnically, linguistically or religiously distinct populations to achieve some greater level of cultural autonomy or self-government. Jihadist groups attach themselves like parasites to such movements in an effort to increase their own otherwise very limited appeal, garner new recruits, and destabilise moderate or secular Muslim governments. Only rarely can jihadist elements gain control of such insurgencies.

In several instances, the most effective way for the United States to marginalise jihadist influence has proved to be adopting the insurgent cause. It is a rare revolutionary who will not prefer American to Al Qaeda support if offered the choice.

In Bosnia, the United States supported the Muslim cause despite the fact that jihadist extremists were well established in the Bosnian ranks. In Kosovo, America supported the Muslim cause despite the fact that some Kosovars were employing terrorism to drive out the Serbs. In both cases, American support helped moderate Muslim leaders prevail and marginalise extremist influence.

This was also the approach the United States twice employed in Afghanistan, first by supporting Muslim insurgents against the Soviet Union and then, 12 years later, by supporting many of those same Muslim insurgents against the Taliban.

America's gravest mistake in Afghanistan was not that it supported religiously conservative Muslims, but rather that it cut off that support as soon the Soviet Union was defeated. Had the United States remained engaged through the 1990s, more moderate leadership would probably have prevailed, the Taliban would never have come to power, and Al Qaeda would never have been able to fasten itself to a compliant regime.

Rather than let Al Qaeda dictate America's alignment in any dispute by virtue of its own, Washington needs to evaluate each actual insurgency on its own merits and on its relevance to American interests.

In some cases, governments may not need U.S. support to prevail, in which case it may make sense not to take sides. In some cases governments may be employing abusive forms of repression with which the United States should be not be associated. And in some cases, the insurgents may have the more just cause, in which case the best means to marginalise jihadist influence may be to support that cause, as the United States did in Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan.

###
* James Dobbins is director of the International Security and Defense Policy Center at the Rand Corporation, a non-profit research organisation. This article was distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: International Herald Tribune, May 2, 2006
Visit the website at www.iht.com
Distributed by the Common Ground News Service – Partners in Humanity (CGNews-PiH).
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.

**********

ARTICLE 5
What really makes a chicken “halal”?
Julia Suryakusuma

Jakarta - When I returned from one of my frequent trips to Australia to visit Tim, my husband, I brought some smoked cheese back for my mother. She liked it very much, so I asked him to bring some more for her when it was his turn to visit me in Indonesia. Tim said he'd also bring his favourite smoked chicken, as he thought my mother would like it too.

A day or two after we had delivered the chicken to her, I called to ask if she liked it. She said she hadn't eaten it yet, as a very religious neighbour had questioned whether the foreign chicken was halal (considered clean to eat according to Muslim faith) or not.

Before I could help myself, I blurted out, "Of course Mamih, Tim eats it, of course it's halal", in a tone that implied how dare she question my husband's Islamic credentials? Tim had been Muslim for years, long before he married me, is deputy director of the Center for the Study of Contemporary Islam at Melbourne University (where he's a professor), and is currently finalising a book on shari'a in Indonesia.

He's pretty laid back about Islamic rituals like praying and fasting, but in terms of knowledge of Islam, I would say he knows as much, if not more than, many Muslims, whose knowledge of their own religion is often little more than bits and pieces they have picked up from friends or family -- and neighbours.

I've always wanted to have better knowledge of my own religion, especially in the context of present day Indonesia, and was extremely pleased when I married someone who studies the subject. It's ironic that I would be learning from a Westerner, but as far as knowledge and truth are concerned, even if it comes from an enemy, we should welcome it...not that my husband is my enemy!

I respect the religious beliefs of mother's neighbour, because they are what make him a good person, but sometimes I think a little flexibility would not be entirely out of place. I conveyed this to my mother. She said, "Well, he's is just trying to safeguard the family purity." I said, "Mamih, our purity is measured more by our thoughts, emotions and feelings than how a chicken died.

Why don't you just say Bismillah-irrahman-irrahim and leave the matter to God?" I left it at that, and didn't push my mum further -- I didn't even say to her, please Mum, have a bit of consideration also for Tim who lugged the (by now) jet-lagged chicken in his suitcase all the way from Melbourne to Jakarta, then from Cinere where we live, to Bekasi, where she lives, not to mention appreciating his effort to please his mother-in-law. I know she would have eaten the well-travelled chicken had her neighbour not questioned how it met its end, but she tends to defer to him on these matters, perhaps because he's a haji (someone who has made the proscribed pilgrimage to Mecca).

Formalistic adherence to Islam, or any religion for that matter, is something that bothers me, disturbs me, vexes me, pains me -- in varying degrees. And yet, this is the norm, in Indonesia, as in most parts of the world. Religious formalism often overrides common sense, empathy, compassion, tolerance, respect for others, truth, integrity, solidarity and, not least, faith in and oneness with God, which is, in the end, the essence of religion.

I was once interviewed on radio by Ulil Abrar-Abdalla, an Islamic scholar who had a fatwa issued against him by the Forum Ulema Umat Islam (Forum of Religious Scholars of the Islamic Community) for writing an article about a renewal of Islamic thought.

Asked about my spiritual beliefs, I answered that I believe a lot in God but not much in religion. Religion is merely a vehicle, but in too many instances, it's the vehicle that's being worshipped.

This is akin to embarking on a journey from, say, Jakarta to Bandung, but just staying in the car, pretending you're in Bandung and arguing about the technicalities of driving, or the features of the car. It means missing the whole point of the journey -- to be closer to God and to develop Godly traits in yourself. Simply put, that's what spirituality is about for me.

Bismillah-irrahman-irrahim, which Muslims utter to seek blessings for any undertaking (eating, travelling, working, etc.) means "in the name of God the Merciful and Compassionate", not "in the name of God, the angry, intolerant, unforgiving one".

In connection with the halal issue and the unforgiven chicken, I decided to consult a close friend of mine who has a degree in comparative religion from the State Islamic University. "Just say bismillah (in the name of God) and surrender the issue of the slaughtering of the animal to Allah", she said, just as I had said to my mum.

I mean, what do you do if you live in a non-Muslim country? Turning vegetarian is one option (which is probably the best option anyway), and the doctrine of necessity says you should eat what's available, rather than starve, but many Muslims would prefer to take the option of driving all the way to the other side of town to get their meat from a halal butcher, as do some Muslims who live in Melbourne, my husband says.

Historically, the practice of halal reflects the Prophet Muhammad's concern for cleanliness, and echoes Jewish kosher practices. In the 7th century, when modern concepts of hygiene were unknown, the strict Islamic rules of cleanliness made obvious sense. The way people live has changed a bit since then, however.

It is true that Islam is a religion that concerns itself with all aspects of life, both mundane and sacred, but it is contextual in many of its precepts and rules, and can also be very open and non-rigid. Even on the issue of religious freedom and belief in God, it is amazingly flexible. A vast array of Qur'anic verses specify that the question of faith and belief is a matter between the individual and God.

Rather than determining a worldly punishment for converting from Islam, many Qur’anic verses assert that all human beings are free to believe or not to believe in God or any particular religion: "Let him who wills believe in it (Islam), and let him who wills, reject it".

So, what happened to the heretical chicken? I don't know -- I was too scared to ask my mother about it. I suppose it just got thrown out, but I'd prefer to think the foul fowl made a quick get-away and took the next plane back to Melbourne, where people didn't care if it was halal or not!

###
* Julia Suryakusuma is the author of Sex, Power and Nation. This article was distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Jakarta Post, May 3, 2006
Visit the website at www.thejakartapost.com
Distributed by the Common Ground News Service – Partners in Humanity (CGNews-PiH).
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.

**********

The Common Ground News Service – Partners in Humanity (CGNews-PiH) provides news, op-eds, features and analysis by local and international experts on a broad range of issues affecting Muslim-Western relations. CGNews-PiH syndicates articles that are balanced and solution-oriented to news outlets worldwide. With support from the Norwegian government and the United States Institute of Peace, this news service is a non-profit initiative of Search for Common Ground, an international NGO working in the field of conflict transformation.

This news service is one outcome of a set of working meetings held in partnership with His Royal Highness Prince El Hassan bin Talal of Jordan in June 2003.

~YOUTH VIEWS~

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. Student journalists and writers under the age of 27 are encouraged to write to cbinkley@sfcg.org for more information on contributing.
*The views expressed in these articles are those of the authors, not of CGNews-PiH or its affiliates.

Common Ground News Service
1601 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite #200
Washington, DC 20009 USA
Ph: +1(202) 265-4300
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)
Juliette Schmidt (Beirut)
Chris Binkley (Dakar)
Medhy Hidayat (Jakarta)
Elyte Baykun (Washington)
Leena El-Ali (Washington)
Emmanuelle Hazan (Washington)

**********

To subscribe or unsubscribe, send an email to cgnewspih@sfcg.org with “subscribe” or “unsubscribe” in the subject line, indicating your language of choice among English, French, Arabic and Bahasa Indonesia.

Posted by Evelin at May 10, 2006 10:58 AM