Common Ground News Service - Partners in Humanity (CGNews-PiH)
for constructive & vibrant Muslim-Western relations
10 - 16 October 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 Kathryn Joyce

In this fifth article in a series on religious revivalism and Muslim-Western relations, Kathryn Joyce, a New York-based writer, describes some of the messages and activities with which young people are being lured to Christian fundamentalism. Making a comparison across faiths, she argues that “It’s this fervour of submission, obedience and self-sacrifice taken to the level of self-annihilation that informs youth fundamentalist movements across the religious spectrum…”, and argues that “parents and community leaders share a joint responsibility in steering our youth away from robotic commitment, to a life of more meaningful choices.”
(Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 10 October 2006)

2) by Ibrahim N. Abusharif

Ibrahim N. Abusharif, a Chicago area writer, tries to answer the question posed in the Pope’s recent controversial speech: what did Muhammad bring that was new? He adds that “when people of various sacred traditions earnestly seek to know more about each other, about our rituals and what’s important to us, we all become the better for it…We all need to be humbled by the fact that nobody has an advanced ledger with the names of who will be admitted into Paradise, or its antithesis.”
(Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 10 October 2006)

3) by Samuel Huntington

In an interview with Islamica Magazine, Samuel Huntington, Albert J. Weatherhead III University Professor at Harvard University, clarifies what the clash of civilisations means to him: “that the relations between countries in the coming decade are most likely to reflect their cultural commitments, their cultural ties and antagonism with other countries.” Perhaps surprisingly, he explains that this is a general theme and does not preclude ties between the Muslim world and the West which do occasionally result in cross-cultural alliances based on common interests, nor does it ignore the divisions that exist within the Muslim world and within the West.
(Source: Islamica Magazine, September 2006)

4) by Ayman El-Amir

Former Washington correspondent for Al-Ahram, Ayman El-Amir, tells Muslims and Arabs that the message is more important than owning the medium when it comes to changing Western perceptions. “Muslims will have to do more to coin a credible image of their universal value system…” and underlines that “Even within the extremes of a diverse and contradictory Muslim world, there is a certain unity of purpose and cultural identity. Compassion, tolerance and faith remain both Muslim and universal values.”
(Source: Al-Ahram Weekly, 28 September – 4 October, 2006)

5) by Daniel Barenboim

Pianist and conductor, Daniel Barenboim, considers the difference between “substance and perception” in the context of the recent decision by Deutsche Oper to cancel its performance of Mozart’s Idomeneo. “By censoring ourselves artistically out of fear of insulting a certain group of people, we not only limit rather than enlarge human thought in general, but in fact insult the intelligence of a large group of Muslims and deprive them of the opportunity to demonstrate their maturity of thought.” He concludes that the cancellation in fact “isolates all Muslims, making out of them part of the problem rather than partners in search of a solution.”
(Source: International Herald Tribune, 2 October, 2006)

1) America’s youth and holy war
Kathryn Joyce

New York, New York - “This is war,” declared Ron Luce, author of the evangelical youth manifesto Battle Cry for a Generation and founder of the Teen Mania movement. He was speaking to a stadium audience of young Christian activists who’d gathered for one of Luce’s high-gloss faith events, held across the country: part rock concert, part altar-call confession and part anti-gay marriage rally -- topped off with a large and unsettling militant call to arms. “Jesus invites us to get into the action, telling us that the violent – the ‘forceful ones’ – will lay hold of the kingdom…You don’t have to know much about Jesus, just enough to surrender your whole life…Welcome to the reign of total submission to the Lord.”

Couched between pyrotechnics and war stories was the deeper message administered to the teens: that real rebellion was not to be found in acting out or independent thinking, but in full submission and obedience to Christ and his authorities on earth. This is a counter-intuitive truism about radical obedience that has become a staple of fundamentalist Christian restoration movements whose strategy is to challenge the remnants of 60s-era individualism and self-determination.

Luce’s message has a blunter counterpart in the writing of Mary Pride, a self-described former feminist turned fundamentalist Christian who became one of the leading grassroots advocates for the conservative home-schooling movement in the mid-1980s with her book, The Way Home: Away from Feminism, Back to Reality. The book is an anti-feminist instruction manual for restoring biblical, patriarchal, self-contained families which helped direct the energies of a ground-level Christian restoration movement. And unlike earlier cultural revolutions which emphasised individualism and independence as the keys to social change, Pride promotes obedience to authority and tradition, and an utter submission to God that was displayed by knowing one’s place and keeping to it with the diligence of a soldier.

“Submission”, she writes, “has a military air.” Describing the proper biblical roles for husband and father, wife and mother, she explains the martial analogy. “For the greater good, the soldier is subject to his commanding officer, even if he disagrees with him…This generation is in danger of forgetting that the Christian life is still a war…When the private is committed to the war, and is willing to subject his personal desires to the goal of winning, and is willing to follow the leader his Commander has put over him, that army stands a good chance of winning.”

In this metaphor, and in the theology of the pro-natalist, large family movements which flourish within the home-schooling community, the rankings are as follows: God as Commander, the husband as God’s designated authority on earth and leader of the family, and his wife as a soldier beneath him. The children, spoken of in scriptural metaphors as arrows filling their father’s quiver, are to be employed against the enemies of their parents -- a sacrifice, but one made willingly by an army mobilised against a common enemy, raised and taught to place obedience to a higher goalabove its own interests.

It’s this fervour of submission, obedience and self-sacrifice taken to the level of self-annihilation that informs youth fundamentalist movements across the religious spectrum, from the young Christian warriors of Ron Luce’s Battle Cry generation, to the Muslim adolescents recruited to serve as human weapons for a different system’s holy war.

In his book, The Use and Abuse of Holy War, scholar of Islam James Turner Johnson suggests that historical differences between the Western and Muslim worlds have led to contrasting cultural positions on “holy war.” The secularised West viewed wars fought on religious grounds as disheartening, while in Muslim countries, religious warfare is unifying for the culture, overriding secular differences between people now joined in submission to their God.

But among more constructive youth movements, service programs like Habitat for Humanity, activist organisations like Teen Peace and the Sierra Student Coalition, or inner-city outreaches like Homies Unidos, obedience as a virtue takes a second place to the development of individual consciences, informed activism and dedication to a goal. Similarly, stadium rock shows for God are bypassed for the quieter, more adult lesson that social change takes time and work, not frenzied enthusiasm. And the focus on war as a cause that can bind youth together is traded in for a more thoughtful commitment to peace. Parents and community leaders share a joint responsibility in steering our youth away from robotic commitment, to a life of more meaningful choices.

###

* Kathryn Joyce is a writer living in New York City. This is the fifth of six articles in a series on religious revivalism and Muslim-Western relations commissioned by the Common Ground News Service (www.commongroundnews.org).

Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 10 October 2006, www.commongroundnews.org.
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.

2) Tradition, Ramadan and the Pope
Ibrahim N. Abusharif

Chicago, Illinois - Despite public apologies and retractions, we may never know why Pope Benedict XVI decided to dip into the retention pond of Medieval Catholic polemics against Islam. The query would be equally urgent had the Pontiff pulled juicy quotes, readily available, about Protestants or Jews.

But there is one question in that 14th century screed the Pope quoted from that isn’t offensive when taken alone: what did Muhammad bring that was new?

Now this is a question that should be answered, especially when considering the spread of neologisms of the political marketing imagination (“Islamo-fascism”, “Radical-Islam”, “Islamists”, “Jihadis”, etc). Their mere repetition appears to be the method of choice to sedate a public into accepting, without rigour, important national policies and political candidacies. But these words have also thickened the veil of mythology hovering over Islam in the West and have turned Muslims abroad into a convenient abstraction, a monolith to fear.

So I’ll answer the Pope’s question, taking cue from the Qur’an itself. The Prophet Muhammad was not sent to innovate but to reinstate, to confirm and to complete the Abrahamic message that upholds the chief emphasis of the entire religion project: no god but the one God, He’s the Creator and everything else is created, and God alone is worthy of worship. This was the inner message of all the pre-Abrahamic Emissaries, of the Israelite Prophets (Jacob to Jesus), and of the Ishmaelite Prophet, Muhammad - the final prophet, as Muslims believe.

What differed between these luminaries was a matter of detail in sacred law that conformed to variant climes and times. But their core message never departed from the essence of the Abrahamic Meaning. Islam’s obsession had nothing to do with innovation, but with the restoration and protection of that original message because without it, the very meaning and purpose of life are severely diminished, if not extinguished, leaving a wintry, post-modern ethos to curl up to.

Islam and Christianity do share many common beliefs, but they are also separated by divergent salvation narratives. How one attains to Heaven in the Hereafter is not a small matter in religion, I know. But the issue of who’s right or wrong was never meant to be settled here on earth, nor was it ever meant to produce rancour for the "other". We all need to be humbled by the fact that nobody has an advanced ledger with the names of who will be admitted into Paradise, or its antithesis. So our responsibility in this life is to come down from our thrones and search for common ground, not because it is a new liberal philosophy, but because it is one of the core purposes of religion, namely, to set aright the affairs of humanity and to live as harmoniously as possible. This is godly work; this is jihad.

The arrival of Ramadan, the Muslim month of fasting and nightly prayer vigils, underscores the point of this editorial. The Qur’an introduces the ritual fast of Ramadan like this: “O Believers, fasting is prescribed for you as it has been prescribed for those before you.” This is quintessential Religion, as Muslims hold, a continuation of a message that by all logic and intuition should not change at an essential level. The path of salvation for the first man, a sage once said, is identical to that for the last, an unbroken narrative with a good ending that depends entirely on God's mercy.

Among the aspects common to most religions is the fact that seasons of fasting have been a part of their spiritual regimen. We each have a body with needs, a fact we're constantly reminded of. But to submit to the curriculum that "body" defines humanity is a dereliction that revealed religion has always warned of. For millennia, sages of diverse experiences have offered insights, esoteric and practical, on the benefits associated with voluntary deprivation for a specific time and for a transcendent purpose. They have expanded on how the molecular realm of food and drink, for example, connects with the intangible realm of will and choice, and of gratitude and conscience, and how certain sublime knowledge comes only to those who have mastered their desires.

The modern ridicule of “abstinence” notwithstanding, to refrain from food and drink and spousal intimacy from dawn to dusk (for 29 or 30 days straight, as is required during Ramadan) is meant to restore our sense of soul by reminding us, first and foremost, that we have one, for the soul is the bezel of human spirituality. It’s that simple.

When people of various sacred traditions earnestly seek to know more about each other, about our rituals and what’s important to us, we all become the better for it. Pope John Paul II knew this well and was profoundly respected in the Muslim world and deeply mourned when he passed away. We hope Pope Benedict XVI will look to build upon his legacy.

###

* Ibrahim N. Abusharif is a Chicago-area writer. He is currently working on a concise dictionary of Qur’anic vocabulary. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org.

Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 10 October 2006
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.

3) Samuel Huntington interview – he speaks on the ‘clash’ identity
Samuel Huntington

Cambridge, Massachusetts - For 13 years, three words have dominated the discourse on cultural, international, and religious affairs as they relate to foreign policy in our times. The “clash of civilizations,” as argued by Harvard University Professor Samuel Huntington, has stirred heated debate across the globe, but particularly among many Muslim nations. His theory is often interpreted to proclaim a fundamental incompatibility between the “Christian West” and the “Muslim World.” The scale of impact it has had on global politics is sometimes difficult to comprehend. Islamica Magazine spoke to Samuel Huntington about the ‘clash’ identity and the Israel lobby.

Islamica: I’d like to begin with a general question on your book “The Clash of Civilizations.” Your theory on the clash of civilizations argues that “current global politics should be understood as the result of deep-seated conflicts between the great cultures and religions of the world.” This thesis gained momentum as a result of Sept. 11, and now the war against terrorism is often defined in terms of the West against Islam as a fundamental clash between these two civilizations. Do you feel that your thesis is accurately used when describing the war against terrorism as a war of the West against Islam? If not, what modifications to that application of your theory would you make?

SH: The argument in my book on the clash of civilization was well reflected in that short quote saying that the relations between countries in the coming decade are most likely to reflect their cultural commitments, their cultural ties and antagonism with other countries. Quite obviously power will continue to play a central role in global politics as it always does. But usually there is something else. In the 18th century in Europe, the issues to a large extent involved questions of monarchy and monarchy versus the emerging republican movements, first in America and then in France. In the 19th century it was basically nationality and people trying to define their nationalism and create states which would reflect their nationalism. In the 20th century, ideology came to the fore, largely, but not exclusively, as a result of the Russian Revolution and we have fascism, communism and liberal democracy competing with each other. Well that’s pretty much over. The other two (fascism and communism) have not entirely disappeared but have been sidelined certainly, and liberal democracy has come to be accepted, in theory at least, around the world, if not always in practice. So the question really is what will be the central focus of global politics in the coming decades and my argument is that cultural identities and cultural antagonisms and affiliations will play not the only role but a major role. Countries will cooperate with each other, and are more likely to cooperate with each other when they share a common culture, as is most dramatically illustrated in the European Union. But other groupings of countries are emerging in East Asia and in South America. Basically, as I said, these politics will be oriented around, in large part, cultural similarities and cultural antagonism.

Islamica: So, if your thesis entirely explains relations between states post 9/11, then how do you situate the alliance between, for example, Pakistan and the United States against Afghanistan for example, or similar types of relationships?

SM: Well, obviously Pakistan and the U.S. are very different countries, but we have common geopolitical interests in preventing communist take over in Afghanistan and hence, now that Pakistan has a government that we can cooperate with, even though it is a military government, we are working together with them in order to promote our common interests. But obviously we also differ with Pakistan on a number of issues.

Islamica: You said in your book, “For 45 years, the Iron Curtain was the central dividing line in Europe. That line has moved several hundred miles east. It is now the line separating the peoples of Western Christianity, on the one hand, from Muslim and Orthodox peoples on the other.” Some scholars have reacted to such an analysis by stating that making such a dichotomous distinction between the West and Islam implies that there is a great uniformity within those two categories. Additionally some argue that such a distinction implies that Islam does not exist within the Western world. I understand that this is a criticism you have often received. In general, how do you react to such an analysis?

SH:The implication, which you say some people draw, is totally wrong. I don’t say that the West is united, I don’t suggest that. Obviously there are divisions within the West and divisions within Islam — there are different sects, different communities, different countries. So neither one is homogenous at all. But they do have things in common. People everywhere talk about Islam and the West. Presumably that has some relationship to reality, that these are entities that have some meaning and they do. Of course the core of that reality is differences in religion.

Islamica: Is there any reconciliation or point of convergence between, as is often described, both sides of this “Iron Curtain”?

SH: First, you say “both sides,” but as I said, both sides are divided and Western countries collaborate with Muslim countries and vice versa. I think it’s a mistake, let me just repeat, to think in terms of two homogenous sides starkly confronting each other. Global politics remains extremely complex and countries have different interests, which will also lead them to make what might seem as rather bizarre friends and allies. The U.S. has and still is cooperating with various military dictatorships around the world. Obviously we would prefer to see them democratized, but we are doing it because we have national interests, whether it’s working with Pakistan on Afghanistan or whatever.

###

Samuel Huntington is the Albert J. Weatherhead III University Professor at Harvard University and author of many renowned books including “The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order” (1996). The full article is available on Islamica Magazine's website on www.islamicamagazine.com. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org.

Source: Islamica Magazine, September 2006, www.islamicamagazine.com
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.

4) How to buy image
Ayman El-Amir

Cairo - Arabs and Muslims should think twice before believing that simply owning media outlets in the West would change Western perceptions

Moviemakers, fashion houses, corporations, food retailer chains, tycoons and even politicians pay lavishly to buy a positive image that would impress target audiences. Like cosmetics, image making is a multi-billion dollar industry where the payback could be enormous, if only the image could be sold. Advertisers in the US and European markets admit that consumers are driven to buy an image, not a product. Of course, the competing product has to have quality to sell: toothpaste has to polish teeth and washing powder has to clean clothes. But do Muslims want to market a positive image of Islam in the West in the same way?

This question was raised indirectly at the just-concluded meeting of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The OIC secretary-general, Turkey's Ekmeledin Ihsanoglu, suggested that "Muslim investors must invest in the large media institutions of the world, which generally make considerable profits, so that they have the ability to affect their policies via their administrative boards." He cited the example of multibillionaire Saudi Prince Al-Waleed Bin Talal who holds an estimated 5.46 per cent share in Rupert Murdoch's News Corp, which owns the notorious anti-Arab Fox News TV channel.

The fact is that to have a controlling share in a conglomerate like Colgate-Palmolive is one thing but to have even a visible share in a media organisation is completely different. Media organisations are people shapers and who owns how much of them is a rather sensitive issue. A small but meaningful example to cite is the hue and cry raised in the US Congress over the successful bid earlier this year by Dubai Ports World for the management of seven US port terminals. Under pressure of the controversy, the Dubai government had to withdraw its bid. Not to mention another $1.2 billion deal by Dubai International Capital to buy the London-based Doncasters Corporation which operates in nine US locations, making precision parts for US military aircraft and tanks for contractors such as Boeing, Honeywell, Pratt and Whitney and General Electric.

Ownership of a media corporation determines the editorial policy of the medium to the extent that editorial opinion is concerned, whether liberal, conservative or mainstream. But what ownership cares about, above all, is profit and loss, which is determined by advertisers and the ratings. Even Prince Al-Waleed would acknowledge this. In Western liberal democracies, piping out propaganda does not win an audience but poor ratings and financial losses. The US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has set out three fundamental, albeit esoteric, rules for broadcast industry licensees: fairness, equal time, and public interest. But it is really the public, and advertisers, who determine the credibility of a TV channel, a radio station or a newspaper. Ratings are conditioned by credibility and popularity, and advertising follows. And credibility is determined by the degree of independence a medium enjoys, or seems to have.

A successful media venture has to be an integral part of the socio-economic and political fabric of the nation. French readers and viewers will read Le Monde, Le Figaro or l'Humanité rather than The Washington Post or The Boston Globe. They will view TV5 rather than CNN or the BBC in French. It is a matter of proximity to local and national interests. Moreover, countries of the world protect their national broadcasting dominion as jealously as they guard their territorial waters. That is one of the difficulties the much-touted Al-Jazeera International ran into when it was scheduled to start broadcasting globally, and particularly to Western viewers, last May. Negotiations with cable carriers that would accept to include the signal into their programming schedule and thus allow Al-Jazeera to penetrate national markets proved more difficult than initially envisaged.

At question is also: to what extent do Arabs and Muslims share a common value system with the West? Western interest in the continued and generous flow of Arab oil, the colonial past and curio fragments of ancient civilisations that have been more of a tourist attraction than a subject of serious, in-depth study can hardly constitute a common value system. Compare this to the Judeo-Christian tradition that the Jewish lobby in the US has been cultivating for four decades since the years of the civil rights movement, and which the neo-conservatives have turned into an anti-Muslim, anti-Arab frenzy in favour of Israel. It was this dichotomy of the value systems that terminated the short-lived partnership between MBC and the BBC (BBC Arabic) in 1996 over editorial differences. If some should take the current mad drive towards market economy and consumerism as a standard of common values, we might just as well find more in common with China or Singapore than with the West.

What about other universal values? Of all the moral and material goods the Arab/Muslim regimes import from the West, democracy, fundamental human rights, individual freedom of thought and expression, justice and equality before the law are among the least desired or cherished ones. Some Arab officials have even gone to the extent of considering the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a Western invention and that its provisions are not always compatible with the specificity of our tradition and value system -- a protective mechanism against universally -- acknowledged human rights.

At a time when the architects of the decade-old Barcelona process are still struggling to build the foundations of a dialogue among Euro-Mediterranean cultures, Pope Benedict XVI touched a raw nerve at a tense moment in inter-cultural relations. His remarks, quoting a specific text by a certain mediaeval Byzantine emperor, Manuel II, that characterised the Prophet Muhammad and the nature of Islam as evil and violent, was ill-timed and in bad taste. Coming at the heals of the insulting cartoons carried by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten depicting the Prophet as a terrorist, the unwise reference by the Pope may have managed to set back Muslim-Christian relations to the decades of the Crusades -- fulfilment of the prophecy of US President George W Bush. The Muslim backlash could have been more violent had the Pope not offered his couched apology.

The image Arabs and Muslims want to project does not depend on the medium but on the message. Even within the extremes of a diverse and contradictory Muslim world, there is a certain unity of purpose and cultural identity. Compassion, tolerance and faith remain both Muslim and universal values. Islamic scholarly, scientific and cultural contributions to the rise of medieval Europe from the dark ages to the Renaissance are a common heritage that has not been adequately documented or acknowledged. The golden age of world Jewry flourished during Muslim rule of Andalusia where, in latter years, the Spanish Inquisition under Isabelle and Ferdinand persecuted both Muslims and Jews.

To pretend that Islam and the Western world are not on a collision course is only self-denial by apologists for the dialogue between cultures. As Islam has its Osama bin Ladens, the West has its equivalents in the neo-cons. Both are leading the world to a confrontation of catastrophic proportions. The dialogue among civilisations has so far produced little more than bilateral endeavours to stem the tide of illegal immigrants from Africa and the Middle East to Europe, as well as the exchange of intelligence information about the agents and plots of terrorism.

So far the two value systems have proved incompatible. Muslims will have to do more to coin a credible image of their universal value system before deciding if it should be communicated through the incredulous idea of controlled boards of media conglomerates, by satellite broadcasting or through broadband TV streaming on the Internet.

###

* Ayman El-Amir is former Al-Ahram correspondent in Washington, DC. He also served as director of United Nations Radio and Television in New York. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org.

Source: Al-Ahram Weekly, 28 September – 4 October, 2006, www.ahram.org.eg/weekly
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.

5) Silencing dialogue
Daniel Barenboim

Jerusalem - The cancellation of performances of Mozart's "Idomeneo" in Berlin raises the very important question of our perception of the Muslim world, an issue which has not been addressed in any satisfactory way.

The production, which I have not seen and am therefore unable to comment upon, was temporarily removed from the Deutsche Oper's repertoire this season because of elements in it which could offend or insult people who are in fact not even required to see it.

It is the duty of a government to protect its citizens from the threat of violence and terrorism. But is it the duty of a theatre to protect its audience from artistic expressions that might be interpreted as offensive?

The link between artistic expression and the associations it evokes is not unlike the link between substance and perception. Much too often we alter the substance to suit its perception. There is, of course, no way to determine the associations evoked by art, because it is an individual's prerogative.

In music, the difference between content and perception is provided by the printed page. In theatre or opera, where there is no score for the stage direction, it is the exclusive responsibility of the director.

The very essence of the role of theatre in society is its ability to remain in constant dialogue with reality regardless of its impact on real events. This form of dialogue is neither a sign of courage nor of cowardice, but must come of the inner necessity of an individual or an institution to express itself.

Limiting one's freedom of expression as a response to fear is as ineffective as imposing one's point of view through military force.

Art is neither moral nor immoral, neither edifying nor offensive; it is our reaction to it that makes it one or the other in our minds. Our society sees controversy more and more as a negative attribute, yet difference of opinion and the difference between content and the perception of it lie at the very essence of creativity.

If content can be manipulated, perception can be doubly so. By censoring ourselves artistically out of fear of insulting a certain group of people, we not only limit rather than enlarge human thought in general but in fact insult the intelligence of a large group of Muslims and deprive them of the opportunity to demonstrate their maturity of thought.

This is the exact opposite of dialogue and a consequence of the inability to discern between the many different points of view existent in the vast Muslim world.

Art has nothing to do with a society that rejects what I would call publicly accepted standards of intelligence and takes the easy way out with political correctness, which is in fact not different in essence from fundamentalism in its various manifestations.

Both political correctness and fundamentalism give answers not in order to further understanding, but in order to avoid questions. Acting out of fear does not appease the fundamentalists, who in any case have no intention of being appeased, and does not encourage the enlightened Muslims whose aim is progress and dialogue.

Instead, it isolates all Muslims, making out of them part of the problem rather than partners in search of a solution.

By depriving our society of this essential dialogue we continue to alienate people whose peaceful cooperation is indispensable for a future without violence.

Maybe the Muslim world needs a modern equivalent of Spinoza who would be able to express the very nature of Islam in the same way that Spinoza expressed the very nature of the Judeo-Christian way of thought, at once remaining outside of it and even negating it.

The decision not to perform "Idomeneo" is, finally, a decision not to differentiate between enlightened and extremist, between intellectual and dogmatic, between culturally interested and narrow- minded people of any origin or religion. The refusal to let this image be seen is precisely the fear that the violent elements of the Muslim world want us to have.

As I said above, I have not seen this production. I can only hope that Hans Neuenfels, the director of Deutsche Oper, found the display of the severed heads of Jesus, Muhammad and the Buddha an absolute inner necessity dictated by Mozart's score.

Maybe he should have allowed the severed heads to speak so that they could have pled for acknowledgment of the great wisdom and power of thought they collectively represent.

###

* Daniel Barenboim is a pianist and conductor. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org.

Source: International Herald Tribune, 2 October, 2006, 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 constructive, offer hope and promote dialogue and mutual understanding, 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 Common Ground News Service also commissions and distributes solution-oriented articles by local and international experts to promote constructive perspectives and encourage dialogue about current Middle East issues. This service, Common Ground News Service - Middle East (CGNews-ME), is available in Arabic, English, and Hebrew. To subscribe, click here. (http://www.sfcg.org/template/lists.cfm?list=cgnews)
The views expressed in these articles are those of the authors, not of CGNews 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

Email : 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)
Emmanuelle Hazan (Geneva)
Nuruddin Asyhadie (Jakarta)
Leena El-Ali (Washington)
Andrew Kessinger (Washington)

Translators
Olivia Qusaibaty (Washington)
Rio Rinaldo (Jakarta)
Zeina Safa (Beirut)

CGNews is a not-for-profit news service.

Posted by Evelin at October 12, 2006 07:28 PM