Common Ground News Service - Partners in Humanity (CGNews-PiH)
15 August 2006

The Common Ground News Service – Partners in Humanity (CGNews-PiH) aims to promote constructive perspectives and dialogue about Muslim–Western relations. CGNews-PiH is available in Arabic, English, French and Indonesian.
For an archive of past CGNews articles and other information, please visit our website at www.commongroundnews.org.
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).

Inside this edition

1) by HRH El Hassan bin Talal
Prince Hassan bin Talal, brother of the late King Hussein of Jordan and president of the Arab Thought Forum, challenges the idea that Western interests are at such great risk that they justify aggression in the Middle East. Concerned that “disproportionate reprisal and abuse of humanitarian norms can only beget further violence”, he commends those Arab moderates who continue to “battle for the hearts of those millions for whom this war on terror is an offence to their existential realities …..With the ever-increasing polarisation of hate, we should be grateful that exasperation has not stifled the protest of moderates.”
(Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 15 August 2006)

2) by Patricia Martinez
Patricia Martinez, associate professor at the Asia-Europe Institute of the University of Malaya, analyses the survey results of over 1000 phone interviews with Malaysian Muslims. “The results of the survey indicate that the majority of Muslims in Peninsular Malaysia are defined primarily by Islam rather than by their national identity as Malaysians, but are comfortable with living alongside people of other faiths. 79.5 per cent said that Muslims should learn about other religions in Malaysia and 83.8 per cent responded that Muslims could participate in dialogues with people of other faiths.” Although the opinions towards the United States and Europe were quite negative, “what the survey results do confirm, hearteningly, is that Muslims are able to live with the diversity that is Malaysia, and the reality that is our world.”
(Source: New Strait Times, 10 August 2006)

3) by Yusuf Mansur
Yusuf Mansur, Managing Partner of the Envision Consulting Group (EnConsult) and Former CEO of the Jordan Agency for Enterprise and Investment Development (JAED), takes the provocative position that public opinion does not matter in the United States. Instead, he explains how domestic interests come into play in determining foreign policy decision-making and looks at the Jewish lobby in the United States as a model for a future Arab-American lobby.
(Source: Jordan Times, 08 August 2006)

4) by Fawaz A. Gerges
Fawaz A. Gerges, author of "Journey of the Jihadist: Inside Muslim Militancy” and a professor at Sarah Lawrence College, describes who and what Hizbollah really is. Stating that it is neither a milita nor a conventional army, he explains that Hizbollah also “provides the Shi‘a community, historically disadvantaged and marginalised in Lebanon, with a sense of identity and pride.” As a result, he adds, “the route to peace is not to militarily defeat Hezbollah - an impossible task - but to broker a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace treaty and enables the Shi‘a community to fully integrate within Lebanese institutions.”
(Source: Newsday, 06 August 2006)

5) by Jane Perlez
New York Times writer, Jane Perlez, talks about how Nia Dinata, an Indonesian filmmaker, is has brought the controversial topic of polygamy to the cinema: "Unlike most families in Indonesia where they try to cope, I was trying to say what I felt." Bringing the honest stories of women to the big screen for the first time, she is met with hostility from men and silence from women, demonstrating the ongoing sensitivity towards this topic while also increasing public awareness on the topic.
(Source: International Herald Tribune, 09 August 2006)

1) Let the voice of moderation speak
HRH El Hassan bin Talal

Amman - How much aggression in our region has been justified by the mantra that Western interests are under threat? The battle cries claim that all is at stake and every strike is a final defence of freedom and stability. But the premise behind this thinking has become all too obvious. Arabs and Muslims of whatever race or hue are not to be trusted. They are not to be dealt with fairly and the "liberal values" that protect the righteous of Israel or the United States are not for our defence or our protection. It seems that even the moderates in Arab societies lack the fibre that would grant them equality under international law. We are all as one, barbarians at the gate to be cowed and bullied into silent submission.

But we should be thankful that Arab moderation fights on with stoicism. Moderation will continue to battle for the hearts of those millions for whom this war on terror is an offence to their existential realities. Boaz Ganor, the prominent Israeli thinker, addressed the question of terrorism and demanded that there be "no prohibition without definition." Terrorism must be defined objectively, based upon accepted international laws and principles regarding what behaviour is permitted in conventional wars between nations.

The roots of that Arab anger and disillusionment which allows legitimacy to be handed over to extremists cannot be ignored. Terrorism is a tactic borne out of a perversion of lines of representation. If we do not allow the many to speak, then the violent few will scream to be heard. It may be difficult for most Israelis to admit, but the Shi'a of southern Lebanon became politicised and militarised only in response to repeated Israeli aggression. The citizens of Israel and the other states in the Middle East must be honest about the effects of decades of abuse of people and of international law, unless you believe that we Arabs possess a unique terrorist gene, which has ignited our responses in recent decades. If this is the case, then throw firewood on the blaze and let our region burn until you have killed or exiled every last Arab in your neighbourhood.

The founders of Israel and, indeed, the United States, fought what they perceived as an occupation. Recently, Israelis commemorated the bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946 as a landmark act in ending the British Mandate. But surely this must be defined as an act of terror. A statement in the British House of Commons at the time described the attack, in which 92 people were murdered, as "one of the most dastardly and cowardly crimes in recorded history."

The Lebanese have been damned to repeat this phrase to describe attacks on their country. But in our world, righteousness belongs to the victor. If this is the way of the new world order, and international law no longer has a place - then, by all means, the extremists on all sides must fight to the death. The question is what can usefully be won in such a scenario? The evils of pain, suffering and moral bankruptcy are all the spoils of our new-world fighters.

The traumatic effects of the collective punishment of civilian populations will be felt for generations to come. The Israeli Defence Force has made terror a daily reality for the civilian populations of Palestine and Lebanon, populations who have lived and continue to live during illegal occupation. For the other side of this global war on terror, violence is most often something to read about. The threat of terror is fetishised by media and politicians, and provides a scant excuse for policies that make terror a daily reality in the lives of millions of people in the Middle East.

No one can ignore the pain and suffering of the Israeli people in recent weeks, but the policies of disproportionate reprisal and abuse of humanitarian norms can only beget further violence. Jordan is a country that fought two world wars on the side of the Allies. We have suffered from the shockwaves of aggression on all sides and we have endured threats and terror right up to Zarqawi's terrible attacks on Amman. So do not patronise us by dubbing us allies in the war on terror and then dismiss our words when we question your policies.

The politics you entertain in this region are the product of a false perception. Our regional perspective is being ignored and, all the while, empowered extremists are gaining greater control. We must not be fooled into thinking that a new Middle East can be devised by political strategists and imposed from top down. The promotion of participatory democracy has been curtailed by a fear of empowering moderate Arabs and moderate Islamists. Regimes within the region and powers outside attempt to stifle the protests of dismayed populations - protests that should be aired through banners and the ballot box. But the moderates are now shouting also. The evolution of freedoms cannot be controlled from above, nor blasted into alien forms that poorly represent the needs of those seeking freedom. With the ever-increasing polarisation of hate, we should be grateful that exasperation has not stifled the protest of moderates.

###
HRH El Hassan bin Talal is brother of the late King Hussein of Jordan and president of the Arab Thought Forum. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org (http://www.commongroundnews.org).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), August 15, 2006
Visit the website at www.commongroundnews.org (http://www.commongroundnews.org)
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.

2) Thumbs up to living in Malaysian diversity
Patricia Martinez

Kuala Lumpur - It is a fact of life that even in exemplary democracies, elites or those in leadership roles speak on behalf of the citizenry. Whether from government or civil society, or either side of the political divide, speaking on behalf of people in terms such as "Malaysians should...", "women need...", "Muslims want..." are often based on assumptions and generalisations about what ordinary people think, want and need.

However, assumptions are also simply presumptions based on conversations or one’s personal observation, without a method to gauge proportions or the intensity of such needs and wants. These assumptions can then be described as an appropriation of the voices of those on whose behalf one speaks.

Surveys — the technology of asking a numerically representative group of people questions in order to elicit information — are a useful tool for revealing the "voice" of a large group of people. Yet there are obvious limitations to this technology.

For example, there is an inherent bias in all questions, and surveys too are premised on projecting for the group from a representative sample. Despite these limitations, surveys can be fairly accurate indicators of what a large group of people feel, want and think about themselves.

Between December 15 and 18 of 2005, a survey of over 1,000 randomly selected Muslims was conducted across Peninsular Malaysia. The telephone survey sought to obtain information about identity, issues and concerns, as well as what Muslims thought about suicide bombing and the countries that are often described as constituting "the West", namely the United States, Europe and Australia.

The survey questionnaire, in Bahasa Malaysia, was devised through three focus groups in consultation with academics, policy-makers and civil society.

The survey was pre-tested before being administered by the Merdeka Centre.

The Merdeka Centre sampled respondents on the basis of the proportions of the Muslim population (by state and by gender) as indicated in the updated census published in 2003 by the Department of Statistics.

The results of the survey indicate that the majority of Muslims in Peninsular Malaysia are defined primarily by Islam rather than by their national identity as Malaysians, but are comfortable with living alongside people of other faiths.

The results also confirm what has been described as growing orthodoxy. For example, the majority feel that shari‘a in Malaysia is not strict enough, and 57.3 per cent want the hudud, the shari’a punishments for different crimes, to be implemented.

However, a majority, 63.3 per cent, also opted for the shari‘a to remain under the Constitution in Malaysia (the other answer or option given to the question was, "the shari‘a to replace the Constitution in Malaysia").

In terms of identity, when asked to choose which defined them most, being Malay, Muslim or Malaysian (ethnicity, religion or nationality), 72.7 per cent chose being Muslim as their primary identity. As their second choice of identity, more respondents chose being Malaysian (14.4 per cent) than being Malay (12.5 per cent).

When asked if they felt all three identities, 99.4 per cent replied "yes". In an effort to verify the answer to the question about which identity defined them the most, respondents were asked in a subsequent question to rank the components "Malay", "Muslim" and "Malaysian" in importance. Seventy-nine per cent again ranked being Muslim first.

One interpretation of this result is a heightened self-consciousness about being Muslim, since Islam dominates public discourse.

Another interpretation is that after 49 years of nationhood, Malaysians have adopted many aspects of Malay culture — food, dress and language — thus blurring the boundaries that differentiate Malays from the rest of the population of predominantly Chinese and Indian origins. Islam then becomes the defining element of Malay identity.

Therefore, since racial differentiation is all of politics, policy and a fact of life in Malaysia, perhaps the mostly-Malay respondents of the survey chose being Muslim as indicating the boundaries of their identity.

Another reason could also be the intense emotion that a love for one’s religion evokes, hence identifying oneself primarily by that religion rather than by nationality or ethnicity.

Whatever the reasons, most of our policies and programmes on nation-building and unity focus largely on overcoming the schisms of ethnicity. Perhaps we should note that it is not just race which differentiates us as Malaysians; religion is clearly confirmed as also a key factor.

However, this does not mean that Muslim respondents choose to be defined as Muslims rather than as Malaysians in order to be exclusive or separate.

In response to the question "Is it acceptable for Malaysian Muslims to live alongside people of other religions?" a resounding 97.1 per cent said "yes".

In response to other questions, 79.5 per cent said that Muslims should learn about other religions in Malaysia and 83.8 per cent responded that Muslims could participate in dialogues with people of other faiths.

These findings indicate a greater level of acceptance of the reality of Malaysia’s diversity than appears in current public discourse. The responses can also be interpreted as the security and confidence that Muslims have regarding their religious identity, and the innate tolerance and justice of Islam.

These results indicate also an outcome of the daily interaction of ordinary Malaysians who are not cocooned in their chauffeured cars but who travel, study, shop and work alongside each other.

In other words, Muslims are able to come to terms with what it actually means to live in a multi-religious nation, without detracting from their strong sense of identity as Muslims.

This is how Malaysia is unique among Muslim nations, and why Malaysian Muslims are often described as moderate because of their successful negotiation of the racial and religious diversity that is their context.

It is a diversity that reflects the reality of an increasingly globalised world with no nation able to claim that its population comprises only one racial or religious group, and with all of humanity having to find the skills and will to live together.

Other responses in the survey indicate that the strongest influence on them as Muslims are their parents (73 per cent), with religious teachers coming in a far second at 9.4 per cent, and religious lectures and sermons at 3.2 per cent.

Ninety-three per cent had heard about Islam Hadhari, but only 53.3 per cent were able to state that they understood it. Islam Hadhari is a mid-twentieth century theory of government based on the principles of Islam as derived from the Qur'an, currently being promoted by the Malaysian Prime Minister, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

A slim majority of only 53.7 per cent correctly identified the rulers as the heads of Islam in Malaysia, with over 40 per cent describing either the mufti, the director of a State department for Islam or the Prime Minister as the head of Islam.

A total of 77.3 per cent want stricter shari‘a laws in Malaysia, and 44.1 per cent feel that the authority to monitor and punish the immoral behaviour of Muslims should be with the State religious authorities, with the family coming second at 33.3 per cent.

However, if these results depict conservative attitudes, it should be noted that that 76.6 per cent answered "yes" to the question "In Islam, do men and women have equal rights?"

More men than women answered in the affirmative. But only a slim majority, 55.5 per cent, stated that women can be shari‘a court judges.

Finally, as for suicide bombing, 62.1 per cent chose the option that it was the "wrong action for Muslims", only11.6 per cent chose shaheed or martyr, and a high percentage — 24.8 per cent — chose "don’t know" (which, because of its significant size, can be interpreted as respondents not being willing to state their point of view).

In terms of their feelings regarding the US, Europe and Australia, the options of "like", "OK", "dislike" and "hate" were provided.

Thirty-nine per cent chose "hate" to describe their feelings towards the US, with 44.5 per cent choosing "dislike". In other words, 83.5 per cent of Muslims in Peninsular Malaysia have a negative attitude towards America.

For Europe, 18.8 per cent chose "hate" to describe their feelings, with 38.2 per cent choosing "dislike", so over 50 per cent have a negative attitude towards the continent.

However, 34.3 per cent chose the option "OK", more than double the number (13.4 per cent) who did so to describe their feelings towards the United States.

For Australia, 18.3 per cent chose "hate", 36.6 per cent chose "dislike" and 35.1 per cent chose "OK".

It is significant that negativity defines Malaysian Muslim attitudes towards what constitutes "the West", and this finding is in consonance with other global surveys on Muslim attitudes, such as those conducted by the Pew Research Centre (which does not poll Malaysians although it has studies on Indonesia).

The survey results show the complexity of Muslim attitudes in Peninsular Malaysia, and how this complexity reflects their real engagement with various aspects of national life.

The results also discredit some of the assumptions and generalisations about Malaysian Muslims.

As such, claims writ large about who Muslims in Malaysia are and what they want, feel and need, are sometimes exaggerations if not generalisations.

The results are mixed, neither confirming moderation alone nor indicating overwhelming conservatism. But what the survey results do confirm, hearteningly, is that Muslims are able to live with the diversity that is Malaysia, and the reality that is our world.

###
Patricia Martinez is an associate professor at the Asia-Europe Institute of the University of Malaya. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org (http://www.commongroundnews.org).
Source: New Strait Times, 10 August 2006
Visit the website at www.nst.com.my (http://www.nst.com.my)
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.

3) Why the US supports Israel
Yusuf Mansur

Amman - The US has vetoed many of the UN Security Council resolutions restricting Israeli hegemony, supplied the Jewish state with more aid per its capita than any other country in the world, armed it with weapons that are otherwise forbidden to any other country, and seems resolutely biased towards the Israelis. This blind love for Israel is driven neither by public opinion polls in the US, nor a deep understanding of citizens of the Middle East by the average American. It is a manifestation of the power of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, better known as AIPAC, or the Israeli lobby.

Unbeknown to Arabs almost everywhere, the average American knows very little about the Middle East, be it Palestine, Iraq or Lebanon. Prior to 9/11, the average American did not know much about the region at all and still does not know enough.

Americans elect their representatives to Congress and the Senate to speak on their behalf, and only care about domestic politics and policies. In democracies, unlike dictatorships where everyone is a political guru, people leave politics to the politicians and go on about their own lives. When electing a president, it is the economy that takes first consideration.

Arabs in general, who view the US as totally biased towards Israel, cannot understand this apparent disregard for causes they believe are just, and ultimately blame the American people. To explain the maligned US policy towards Israel, Arabs concoct American conspiracies and speak of America’s desire to control their oil and the region. The Arabs thus take a reductionist approach, calling the US people the great evil, an undeserved accusation.

What Arabs generally fail to understand is that public opinion in the US does not matter, the justice of their cause is insignificant, and that their every action and lobbying, if not directed at the US political machine, will not make a difference. The American public simply does not know, does not care to know and even if they did know, their attitude would be nonchalant as in Europe. This is a sad but correct conclusion. The EU countries, because of their proximity to the region among other things, know more about its problems and are usually less biased in their media coverage and views, but at most give lip service. European support has not manifested itself into support for just Arab causes such as the implementation of UN Resolution 242, withdrawal from occupied territories and cessation of hostilities against Lebanon. A pro-Arab public opinion in the US would at best produce similar results and sympathy.

What is needed, in fact, is a US administration that supports Arab causes. The answer can be found in something similar to AIPAC, Israel’s power behind the power. Founded in 1953 as the American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs, with the stated purpose of lobbying the US Congress on issues and legislation that are in the best interests of Israel and the United States, AIPAC, with a current membership of 100,000, meets regularly with members of Congress and holds events where it can share its views with them. It analyses the voting records of US federal representatives and senators with regard to how they voted on legislation related to Israel; it never forgets or forgives; and it only backs congressional candidates who support Israel. Between 1978 and 2000, AIPAC directly donated almost $35 million to 1,732 congressional candidates. Official aid from the US to Israel since 1948 has exceeded $103 billion.

The power of AIPAC is manifested in the support it gained for Israel among members of Congress and White House administrations since the 1960s. Congressional candidates and incumbents who are pro-Israel receive campaign funding and favourable publicity through a myriad of AIPAC affiliates, organisations and media outlets, while politicians who do not favour policies benefiting Israel are targeted for replacement by pro-Israel supporters. AIPAC does not forget; to be black listed all one needs is an unfavourable vote on a pro-Israeli policy. Its support in tight campaigns can determine the outcome. Congressmen know this and they listen and act accordingly. The public does not care about how their representatives voted on Middle Eastern issues simply because such issues are not important to them and do not affect their daily lives.

Aware of the power of AIPAC and its ability to mobilise Congress members, the White House tows the line otherwise important domestic bills are never passed. When margins are tight, every congressional vote becomes important. When a US president has an agenda on an issue in the Middle East, he knows that congressional support can be garnered through AIPAC. When a president takes a tough stand on Israel, he knows that his domestic agenda will meet more hurdles than he can deal with in Congress. Worse still, come re-election year, he will definitely suffer if he does not support Israel. In short, it is political suicide to go against AIPAC, especially when the White House administration is weak.

Therefore, Arabs should not be surprised that on July 18 the Senate unanimously approved a non-binding resolution “condemning Hamas and Hizbollah and their state sponsors and supporting Israel’s exercise of its right to self-defence.” According to former Carter administration National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, AIPAC basically wrote the resolution.

The upshot is if Arabs want a fairer stance from the US administration they have to have their own effective and equally strong lobby in Washington, instead of counting on public opinion. Public opinion in the US is irrelevant -- it does not matter, and it never did.

###
Yusuf Mansur is the Managing Partner of the Envision Consulting Group (EnConsult) and Former CEO of the Jordan Agency for Enterprise and Investment Development (JAED). This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org (http://www.commongroundnews.org).
Source: Jordan Times, 08 August 2006
Visit the website at www.jordantimes.com (http://www.jordantimes.com)
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.

4) Hezbollah has risen to fill a social need
Fawaz A. Gerges

Beirut - There is a misunderstanding in Israel and the United States that Israel can militarily rid Lebanon of Hezbollah, or the Party of God.

In the first place, Hezbollah is not just a militia or a conventional army, but a social and political movement deeply rooted in its society, with a big constituency within the Lebanese Shi‘a community that comprises about 40 percent of the country's 4 million people. Hezbollah has a welfare system that provides schools, clinics, day-care centres and jobs to hundreds of thousands of poor Shi‘a. Hezbollah provides the Shi‘a community, historically disadvantaged and marginalised in Lebanon, with a sense of identity and pride.

Second, Hezbollah is falsely portrayed as a rotten tooth that can easily be plucked out - a terrorist organisation that must be wiped out. In fact, it is one of the most pivotal political players on the Lebanese landscape. More than a million men and women vote for its candidates in elections. It has two ministers in the Cabinet, 14 seats in Lebanon's 128-seat parliament and a large base of support in Lebanon and the Muslim world.

Third, since the early 1980s Hezbollah has proved itself on the battlefield against Israeli military might. By 2000 it forced Israel to withdraw under fire from a small strip of land in southern Lebanon. This time, even weeks into the fighting, Hezbollah was proving resilient.

It is naive for President George W. Bush to view Lebanon as just another front in the war on terror. The root causes of the Israeli-Hezbollah confrontation lie in the unresolved Arab-Israeli conflict and stalled peace process. And it is unrealistic for Israel to think that it can destroy Hezbollah for good.

Before this war started, there was no shortage of men willing to join the fight against Israel. Israel's displacement of more than 1 million Lebanese people (most of whom are Shi‘a) and the killing of more than 900 civilians should guarantee an endless flow of recruits for years.

Another misunderstanding is that this is a proxy war against Iran and Syria. This is nonsense. Although armed and financed by Iran and Syria, Hezbollah has become more autonomous since Israel's 2000 withdrawal from Lebanon.

Not only has the charismatic leader Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah succeeded with an agenda inside Lebanon, he has made Hezbollah into the new vanguard of armed resistance to Israel and America in the eyes of tens of millions of Arabs and Muslims. A national poll conducted in Lebanon about two weeks ago by the Beirut Center for Research and Information showed a sharp rise in support for Hezbollah since the Israeli invasion. Eighty-seven percent of all respondents supported Hezbollah's military response (including 89 percent of Sunnis and 80 percent of Christians). Five months ago, just 58
percent supported Hezbollah's right to remain armed.

The carnage in Lebanon is also weakening pro-Western elements throughout the region. "The Arab people see Hezbollah as a hero because it is fighting Israel's aggression," said Jordan's King Abdullah II, a key U.S. ally who initially blamed Hezbollah for provoking the crisis.

The route to peace is not to militarily defeat Hezbollah - an impossible task - but to broker a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace treaty and enable the Shi‘a community to fully integrate within Lebanese institutions. As long as a large segment of the Shi‘a community remains socially and politically marginalized in Lebanon, Hezbollah's radical vision will
prevail.

The best hope for a settlement rooted in reality is the plan from Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Siniora, which has been approved by the Cabinet, including the two Hezbollah ministers. This calls for a cease-fire, which will keep the Lebanese government from crumbling and effectively widen its authority, and for a multinational force in southern Lebanon to supplement the Lebanese army. The plan resolves the status of a tiny piece of land held by Israel and claimed by Lebanon, the Shab‘a Farms, and envisions a dialogue to integrate Hezbollah fighters into the Lebanese army, thus disarming the organization. A similar package has been floated by France and debated at the United Nations.

Instead of inaccurately dismissing the revolutionary organization as nothing but "terrorist" and relying solely on military muscle, Israel and the United States need to back negotiations that are rooted in a more nuanced understanding of the force they are out to destroy.

###
Fawaz A. Gerges is the author of "Journey of the Jihadist: Inside Muslim Militancy” and is a professor at Sarah Lawrence College. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org (http://www.commongroundnews.org).
Source: Newsday, 06 August 2006
Visit the website at www.newsday.com (http://www.newsday.com)
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.

5) Cinéma vérité: Portrait of Indonesian polygamy
Jane Perlez

Jakarta - Nia Dinata is, without much doubt, Indonesia's most talented new filmmaker: packed screenings of her latest movie on polygamy at Cannes attest to that.

More art-house than Hollywood, her success springs from a fearless drive to address issues of the day with poignancy, and touches of humour. In "Love for Share", viewers can also detect something else -- an authenticity bred of experience.

For Dinata, 36, a movie that showed the behind the scenes anguish of polygamous marriages, most particularly for women, was an obvious thing to do.

As more conservative strands of Islam take hold in Indonesia, polygamy is on the rise, flaunted in public by princesses and politicians. Dinata grasped the moment to show what she calls the sadness and denials behind the smiles of wives who say they accept being one of a crowd.

When she was 18, just starting her freshman year at college in the United States, she was unexpectedly called home: her father was taking a second wife.

"When my mother broke the news, I was shocked," said Dinata, sitting at a café terrace here, a cigarette in hand, at the end of a long day of shooting her fourth movie about the aftermath of a terror attack. "I asked them to get a divorce."

The parents, in turn, were shocked at her reaction, she recalled, because they assumed that all children wanted their parents to stay together, even if under different circumstances.

"Unlike most families in Indonesia where they try to cope, I was trying to say what I felt." Dinata's father married the second woman anyway, and her mother, who had trained as a doctor, adopted an outward facade of calm.

Most telling for Dinata was not only her mother's inner turmoil and outward bravery, but also the brevity of her father's second marriage. It lasted four years.

"For men, they have to divide their time, they lose all the fun." Many of the second and third marriages, torn by the tensions of the husband trying to accommodate all his wives, do not last, and those that do often result in domestic abuse, she said.

The underlying threads and emotions of her mother and father's relationship, combined with two years of research around Indonesia - interviewing women from different class backgrounds, visiting women's shelters - served as the backbone of "Love for Share". The movie deals with three polygamous Indonesian marriages: in a well-to-do family (representing, with variations, the Dinata situation), in a poor urban family and in a bourgeois Chinese household.

Some of the scenes that are loosely based on her family background reveal raw emotions. The first wife in the movie, Salma, a gynaecologist, is humiliated early on when she meets her husband's second wife at a public function. "Why did I have to meet her in front of so many people?" Salma asks her husband when the couple get home. "It means what people have been saying is true. It would have been better if I didn't know."

Her husband, a politician with all the trappings of an observant Muslim - he is referred to as Pak Haji, a title that indicates he has been to Mecca - says quite blandly: "You're perfect. I just wanted to avoid adultery."

Stoically, Salma goes about her life as a busy doctor, designing a new clinic, attending to women giving birth. "I try to act as though nothing has changed," she says.

But 10 years on, plenty has changed. Salma has adapted by wearing a Muslim headscarf, and by the end of the movie, Pak Haji has two more wives, each one younger than the last.

When he suffers a stroke, all three women turn up at the hospital, and the disapproving teenage son says scornfully: "Dad got his wish, all three wives are together."

To drive her point home, Dinata portrays Pak Haji on his death bed as remorseful. "It's a terrible mess," he tells his son. "When you marry, promise: only one wife."

For an irresistible finale, Dinata has a fourth wife turn up at the funeral, bearing a small child.

The backdrop to "Love for Share" is far broader than a personal tale of torment and sorrow.

No one keeps a tally of the numbers, but Dinata estimates that about 30 percent of Indonesian marriages are polygamous, significantly more than before the fall of the authoritarian regime of Suharto nearly 10 years ago.

In 1974, under the influence of his wife who was against polygamy, Suharto ruled that civil servants could not take extra wives without permission from the government, consent that was rarely granted.

But as Islam becomes a more powerful force here and the number of polygamous marriages increases, Dinata says the government is too afraid of increasingly-powerful religious leaders to do anything about it.

A recent vice president, Hamzah Haz, bragged about his polygamy, taking his three wives on trips to Mecca. A well-known entrepreneur, Puspo Wardoyo, calls polygamy a responsibility of wealthy Muslim men. He has four wives and serves "polygamy juice", a mixture of four tropical fruits, at his chain of chicken restaurants.

A princess in the House of Yogyakarta, Sitoresmi Trabuningrat, who is also a businesswoman, spoke recently about how being a member of a "team" of wives gave her more independence because they could share the chores.

"Love for Share" was well received in Jakarta and in Bandung nearby, although many in the audience were expatriates. In the rest of the country, the audiences were small. "They don't want to know," Dinata said. Those who did attend were mostly women sneaking covert viewings. "Women came with women in the middle of the day. They didn't want their husbands to know."

During her promotion tour around Indonesia, the callers on radio talk shows were maddeningly predictable, she said. "The men were so rude. They said: 'How dare you criticise us. We are doing good for women by marrying more than one.'" For the most part, she said, the women were too timid to touch the subject.

###
Jane Perlez is a writer for the New York Times. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org (http://www.commongroundnews.org).
Source: International Herald Tribune, 09 August 2006
Visit the website at www.iht.com (http://www.iht.com)
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.

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 Chris Binkley (cbinkley@sfcg.org) for more information on contributing.

About CGNews-PiH
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.
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: www.commongroundnews.org (http://www.commongroundnews.org/index.php?sid=1&lang=en)

Editors
Emad Khalil (Amman)
Juliette Schmidt (Beirut)
Chris Binkley (Dakar)
Medhy Hidayat (Jakarta)
Leena El-Ali (Washington)
Emmanuelle Hazan (Washington)
Andrew Kessinger (Washington)

CGNews is a not-for-profit news service.

Posted by Evelin at August 16, 2006 07:05 AM