Dear HumanDHS network friends
Please find below the Common Ground News Bulletin - 25 September 2007.
Kind regards
Brian Ward
Common Ground News Service
Partners in Humanity (CGNews-PiH)
for constructive & vibrant Muslim-Western relations
25 September - 01 October 2007
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) Message from the Prophet is clear: coexist by Hisham al-Zoubeir
In this second article of a series on apostasy and proselytism, Hisham al-Zoubeir, a writer and researcher of classical Islamic thought, looks within Islam and Muslim history to find a precedent for religious co-existence. Though the Prophet Muhammad did not call for the reconciliation of different faiths so that they are melded into one, al-Zoubeir argues that there was a call “to respect the religious other by respectfully engaging this other”.
(Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 25 September 2007)
2) The importance of meeting face-to-face by Susan Harrison
Using the example of student and scholar exchanges between North American Christians and Iranian Muslims, Susan Harrison, a PhD candidate at the Toronto School of Theology, asks how important face-to-face meetings are in developing constructive relationships between two communities, especially in light of current difficulty in obtaining visas for travel between these countries.
(Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 25 September 2007)
3) Yes to Israel-Syria talks, but talk “Lebanon” first by Michael Young
Michael Young, opinion editor of the Daily Star newspaper in Lebanon, asks what risks there are for Lebanon in the current push for Syrian involvement in regional peace negotiations. Looking at all the moving parts, Young outlines the conditions under which Syria’s role in the peace talks can be constructive for the stability and security of its neighbours.
(Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 25 September 2007)
4) ~Youth Views~ Humanity doesn’t change with geography by Pensee Afifi and Jane Slusark
Pensee Afifi, a student at the American University in Cairo, and Jane Slusark, who studies at the University of Iowa, highlight the common elements of humanity that comprise a global culture. Taking the example of the family, Afifi and Slusark identify some differences in “family” as experienced in the Arab world and in the West, but see these as minor under the overarching umbrella of commonalities.
(Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 25 September 2007)
5) A common European migration policy by Petra Tabeling
Petra Tabeling, a freelance print and radio journalist based in Germany, interviews Swedish Migration Minister, Tobias Billström, on Sweden’s policies regarding Iraqi refugees, and his call for a common EU asylum strategy. Having accepted the largest number of Iraqi refugees of any European country, Billström comments on Sweden’s plans to address any resulting social problems - current or future – and on the need to support Arab countries struggling with similarly-related issues.
(Source: Qantara.de, 19 September 2007)
1) Message from the Prophet is clear: coexist
Hisham al-Zoubeir
Washington, DC – As the world watches the terrible eruption of violence between Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq and is subjected to sporadic communiqués by vigilantes calling for violence against their opponents both within the Muslim community and without, many who are unfamiliar with Islam and Muslims may be forgiven for thinking the worst of both the religion and its followers. Yet in Islam and Muslim history, the precedent for religious co-existence is primordial.
The Qur’anic view of the carpenter from Nazareth is clear: Jesus is called the Spirit of God, and the Messiah. Moses is described as the prophet to whom God spoke directly, without any veil. Muslims still revere those men, and their followers are accorded special places within the book of Islam.
The Arabian Prophet, Muhammad, sent according to Islamic tradition as a “mercy to all the worlds”, showed us how these theological abstractions were exemplified in practice in the first interfaith meeting between Muslims and Christians - held some 14 centuries ago.
A delegation of sixty Christians from a community about 450 miles south of the Prophet’s city, Medina, visited him in the year 631. During this three-day meeting between representatives of one faith-community with the founder of another, the model of Muslim ethics vis-à-vis the religious “other” was made explicit for all time. There are many lessons to be drawn from this encounter, but three stand out.
The first is that neither the Christians nor the Muslims pretended to be other than what they were. The Christians insisted on Trinitarianism, and the Prophet rejected it as a matter of faith. Both sides believed that Christ was the Messiah, that he had been born without a father, and that he received revelation from God. There was no shying away from difference, but the search for common ground was primary. Remember the culture of the time - the Prophet held the upper hand as the leader of a powerful community - but he did not disrespect his guests, who were politically powerless.
The second was that difference was not a cause of religious conflict. When the Christians suggested they go out into the desert to perform mass, the Prophet invited them to carry out their rituals within his mosque. He did not partake of their rituals, but he invited them into his own place of worship to carry them out. This was not mere tolerance: this was respect, if not acceptance. He met them with what he considered to be absolute truths, but not as a bigot.
Later generations of Muslims took his practice very seriously: when he said that the rights of non-Muslims under the protection of the Islamic polity were sacrosanct, that he would be a witness for them on the Day of Judgement, Muslims listened. The millions of non-Muslims who are still very much a part of the Muslim world are testimony to that. The situation was not perfect, but non-Muslim historians record that it was the best model of its time.
The third lesson was that difference did not mean that co-existence on a social and political level was impossible. The Christians nonetheless accepted the Prophet as their guarantor in the political realm, and for 14 centuries other Christian communities have accepted Muslim rulers as their guarantors, with their lives, property and religion safeguarded in exchange for a tax, similar to the tax Muslims paid to their temporal authorities.
The above encounter with the Christians of Najran was by no means an isolated event in the life of the Prophet which points to ongoing interfaith relations. An earlier treaty, the documentation of which is still in existence, with Christians of Sinai bore this practice out:
“This is a message from Muhammad son of Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far: we are with them. Verily I, the servants, the helpers (people of Medina), and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by God! I hold out against anything that displeases them. No compulsion is to be on them. Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries. No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims’ houses. Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God’s covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate.”
None of the above was a medieval call for syncretism, nor should it be understood to be a denial that Islam, a universal religion, did call for Muslims to be fully committed to their faith. Rather, this was placing into Muslim ethics the need to respect the religious other, by respectfully engaging this other.
The Prophet is known to have claimed that he was not sent “except to perfect good manners”, and his display of respect and co-existence is a model that has become sorely lacking in many parts of the world. While some may have forgotten his example, his practice nonetheless established precedents that we would do well to heed today with renewed commitment.
###
* Hisham al-Zoubeir is a researcher of classical Islamic thought. He holds a Ph.D. in the history of European Muslims, and writes on Islam-West relations. This article is part of a series on apostasy and proselytism distributed by the Common Ground News Service and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org .
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 25 September 2007, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.
2) The importance of meeting face-to-face
Susan Harrison
Toronto - Does it matter if we meet face-to-face?
In 2004 I went to Qom, Iran to participate in a conference called “Revelation and Authority”, a dialogue between North American Christian Mennonite scholars and local Muslim Shiite scholars. A few months ago, we met again - this time in Waterloo in Ontario, Canada. It was a joyful, collegial reunion and, in addition, a nonverbal connection seemed to occur when we looked at each other again, face-to-face.
Each time we gather for dialogue, there is a kind of audible relief in realising that we both really exist, that we are dedicated to making this dialogue happen.
Face-to-face meetings are the moment when the research and media-informed opinions we hold are measured against the experience of the encounter with the other. There is something profound about meeting face-to-face: noticing that someone limps or has a hard time staying awake in a long lecture, seeing the way someone’s eyes light up when they hear a new idea, or watching the quizzical looks on a Muslim’s face when a Mennonite explains the worship of a triune God (a God in 3 forms).
People are like “living books”, but unlike a published paperback, our plots are constantly changing. And, as living books, our stories interact with each other when we meet; they take account of the new characters, who in turn affect the plot line and the ensuing chapters.
However, these kinds of meetings are becoming increasingly more difficult to arrange these days because travel visas are regularly denied on both sides. Tense political relations in past months and tighter borders in the wake of 9/11 have resulted in stringent travel restrictions and have made such face-to-face visits more difficult.
The Mennonite Central Committee (MCC), a religion-based non-profit development organisation, first became involved in Iran following the 1990 earthquake. A friendship formed between Ed Martin, the then-director of MCC’s Asia desk and the Director General of International Affairs in Iran, Sadreddin Sadr. Working together in disaster relief, they shared a vision to build relationships that would un-demonise Iranians for North Americans and vice versa. A student exchange program was proposed and Toronto, Canada, where a sizeable Mennonite graduate student community could be found, became the venue. The Imam Khomeini Education and Research Institute (IKERI) volunteered to host Christian Mennonite students in Qom.
In addition to the student exchange program, which began in 1998, the MCC developed “learning tours” that brought groups to Iran on itinerated programs. Two tours of 10 days each allowed Mennonites and Muslims to meet and learn about each other first hand.
An example of the power of first hand meetings is captured in the remark of an Iranian Muslim, attending a Canadian school: “meeting face-to-face works as a source of miraculous mutual understanding. I can say that people who are afraid of you, as a Muslim or as an Iranian, after 10 to 30 minutes of conversation begin to recognise you as a human being.”
As I write this, I am aware that I had been planning on attending a conference, “One God of Abraham, Different Traditions”, at Eastern Mennonite University in September 2007. The participants were Mennonite scholars and a guest delegation from the Islamic Republic of Iran led by Ayatollah Araqi, head of the Organization of Culture and Islamic Relations. The delegation included Iranian religious leaders and scholars, Morris Motamed, a Jewish member of Iran’s Parliament and Archbishop Sarkissian of the Armenian Church in Iran.
One week before the guests were due to arrive, 4 out of 15 visas were refused for “security reasons”, though the US State Department did not send this message in writing. Since Ayatollah Araqi was among those refused entry, the visit was unfortunately called off.
This is not only a US-specific problem. In May 2007, 15 North American Mennonites were denied entry into Iran for a fully itinerated learning tour. During this same time, the Western media accused the institute of having a direct line to President Ahmadinejad’s government, and critics accused the MCC of therefore supporting Ahmadinejad’s government by association with IKERI.
The notion that dialogue between people of different faiths poses a security risk to their home countries continues to be the underlying theme of this ongoing problem of blocked encounters. N. Gerald Shenk, a professor at Eastern Mennonite University, wonders “whether the freedom protected by ’security’ overrides the freedom to build better understanding across these dangerous divides.”
Face-to-face encounters, according to contact theories, will break down stereotypes and build the understanding and trust that is greatly needed between the West and Iran. Yet as Martin remarked when the visas were refused, “It is back to ’square one’ to figure out how to develop relationships of understanding, trust and friendship between Iranians and Americans that will prevent war between our countries.”
While people can criticise the MCC for engaging with IKERI as Muslim dialogue partners, the fact remains that a constructive relationship has developed between the two communities, and if allowed to grow it could influence the stories of those individuals who are touched by it.
###
* Susan Kennel Harrison is a PhD candidate at the Toronto School of Theology and has been coordinating the Toronto side of the MCC student exchange with Iran since 1998. 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), 25 September 2007, www.commongroundnews.org Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.
3) Yes to Israel-Syria talks, but talk “Lebanon” first
Michael Young
Beirut - For many Lebanese, Syrian involvement in regional peace negotiations is only desirable if its practical outcome is increased respect for Lebanese sovereignty and independence.
However, the Lebanese are not that optimistic. They fear that once negotiations begin between Syria and Israel, the international community will have little mind to support the international court prosecuting those involved in the February 2005 assassination of the former Lebanese Prime Minister, Rafiq Hariri. Syria remains a prime suspect in that crime and has systematically sought to derail efforts to establish the tribunal in Lebanon. And though the UN Security Council approved the tribunal under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, Syria’s peace talks with Israel could earn Damascus a reprieve.
Advocates of Syrian-Israeli talks have underlined the importance of a breakthrough, arguing that Syria and Israel are much closer to a settlement than the Palestinians and Israelis, thanks largely to negotiations throughout the 1990’s and unofficial agreements reached in recent years. However, these advocates routinely fail to address the possibility that Syria may not be able to afford peace. President Assad’s regime may benefit from a negotiating process, but not necessarily from a peace agreement. After all, peace with Israel would oblige the regime to largely dismantle the military and security apparatus used to prop up its authority. Could Assad, who heads a minority regime, accept a peace that would undermine his Arab nationalist credentials domestically and regionally, and also threaten his burgeoning strategic alliance with Iran?
While many maintain that Syria’s interest in negotiations with Israel is to reclaim the Golan Heights, its leadership has shown in recent years that its true aim is to preserve control over Lebanon. As the late Yitzhak Rabin once put it, “Better Syrian troops in Lebanon than on the Golan.” It was his indirect way of admitting that though Syria was negotiating a return of the Golan, the late Hafez Assad was also keen to ensure that Syria maintained its hold over Lebanon. And in fact, that was exactly what happened. Lebanon’s negotiating track with Israel was fully absorbed into the Syrian track, a move approved by the Clinton administration and all of the main Arab and European states.
Lastly, the promoters of a Syrian-Israeli negotiating track have failed to provide options to protect Lebanon from persistent efforts by Damascus to re-impose its hegemony over its smaller neighbour. The Hariri tribunal remains a major obstacle, so that international conflict resolution institutions have offered convoluted solutions that respect the tribunal but also ensure the protection of Syria’s leadership. Their casuistry has failed to take into consideration that a thorough and legitimate trial process might very well point the finger at the same Syrian leaders whom the promoters of negotiations want to spare.
Lebanon should not pay the price for a Syrian-Israeli dialogue, nor should Syria be denied an opportunity to talk to Israel in goodwill. That is why the international community should impose certain conditions on regional peace talks, which can test Syrian intentions while also guaranteeing Syria’s respect for Lebanese sovereignty and independence.
The first condition for international backing for Syrian-Israeli talks has to be Syria’s formal acceptance of all UN resolutions relating to Lebanon, particularly Resolutions 1559 and 1701, which Damascus has repeatedly violated. Syria must specifically agree to end its interference in Lebanon and its arming of Lebanese parties. It must also agree to open an embassy in Beirut, something it has never done on the grounds that Lebanese and Syrians are “one people in two countries”, and it must agree on final borders with Lebanon.
Syria must also make a clear statement that it will collaborate with the Hariri tribunal and send any Syrian suspects to Holland, where the court is to be set up, not try them in Syrian courts, as Syrian officials have repeatedly insisted. These conditions are now part of international legislation, since Chapter VII authority obliges all parties to obey the tribunal’s requests.
Once these conditions are met, a Syrian-Israeli peace track would be eminently desirable. But there is no reason for Lebanon to be Syria’s ticket to a settlement. Until this issue is resolved, Syria and Israel are likely to tiptoe around without going very far.
###
* Michael Young is opinion editor of the Daily Star newspaper in Lebanon. 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), 25 September 2007, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.
4) ~Youth Views~ Humanity doesn’t change with geography
Pensee Afifi and Jane Slusark
Cairo/Iowa City, Iowa - The Arab world and the West represent two sides of the same coin. Though we are from different parts of the globe, we are two parts that make up a whole: we live in the same world. In that respect, though we all have our distinct cultures, it is worth remembering and strengthening our universal culture.
The most basic roots of global culture are derived from the fact that we, as humans, experience the same basic feelings pain, love, anger, fear, etc. We all aspire to avoid pain and maximise pleasure. It is the existence of fear that holds us back from forming relationships or trusting another person, especially one we perceive as different from us. Our mutual understanding of how death, life, war and tragedy affect a person should be a platform upon which we can foster respect and friendship. No one wants to lose a son, a mother or a grandfather, so we should all be able to see the insanity of needless violence.
We also understand the personal connection a person has with his or her home or village it would pain us to see it destroyed. But the shared culture of the world can become clouded through dehumanisation. War is only possible when we perceive the enemy as being less than human. The rhetoric of politics and overzealous leaders allows the mass populous to forget that they have the same heart as the person they “hate” across the border. If you strip away the external factors, what you have left is the same basic individual with the same basic needs.
There are also values, morals and traditions that are respected and appreciated around the globe, such as the role of the family. The form may differ, but the relationship between family members is important in all communities and cultures. In the Arab world, the family represents the past, present and future. It is believed in the Arab world that individuals are not only educated in schools, but also in the home. With that belief, families exert tremendous effort in shaping their children’s personalities. Kinship ties also often bring considerable responsibilities; an Arab individual would be considered less of a person without his or her family’s ongoing support and guidance.
In the Western world, the independence of individuals plays a larger role in the development of family ties. In that regard, Western families provide education, guidance and support but also teach independence and responsibility to allow individuals to form their own lives outside the family boundaries.
In both cases, the importance of the family is apparent. Although Arab and American students sometimes argue over the level of responsibility and independence expected by the family in their respective cultures, it is easy to realise that though we differ, we still agree that the family plays an important role in education and support.
Countries define their culture by their history. But one may ask, “The history of what?” Most of what is found in schools’ textbooks is the history of politics, the history of conflict. Yet, every country has a period they look back on as a darkened era, in which grave mistakes were made, or as “the good old days” when everything was simple and people were happy. Each has had its share of triumphs and trials. It is important to remember the histories, but it is also important not to read too much into them. The grudges of the past should not prevent two nations from respecting each other in the present, or from working together toward a common goal. By focusing on events, we forget the collective feelings, the human aspects that led to the eventual settlement of the conflict.
To achieve true respect and understanding on a global scale, we must interact and focus on our common human characteristics. We are all human beings, and share the same feelings, needs and values. What we forget most of the time is that even though we disagree, we can’t separate ourselves from the other side of the coin; we all have something in common. At the very least, we can share in our thirst to understand one another.
###
* Pensee Afifi is a student at the American University in Cairo and Jane Slusark studies at the University of Iowa in Iowa City. They co-wrote this article as part of the Soliya Connect Program’s West-Muslim World intercultural dialogue program. 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), 25 September 2007, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.
5) A common European migration policy
Petra Tabeling
Berlin - Mr. Billström, Sweden has the highest number of Iraqi refugees of all countries in the European Union. What is the reason for this?
Billström: There are several reasons for this. One is that a large group of Iraqis, mainly Kurds, have been living in Sweden since the 1970s and 1980s. In all, there are between 80,000 and 100,000 Iraqis living in Sweden. They communicate with people back home and tell their relatives and other people about Sweden’s ability to provide them with a safe haven.
Another reason is that last year, the former left-wing government put in place a temporary law that gave thousands of Iraqi people, who had previously received negative responses to their asylum applications, a second chance. Their applications were heard again and many of them received positive responses. Together, this has created a “signal” effect.
A signal that is now causing Sweden quite a few problems?
Billström: In recent months, some parts of Sweden have experienced a higher influx of asylum seekers from Iraq than others. This is something which the government is concerned about. We have to find ways of handling this situation because it puts a burden on the schools, the labour market, and ultimately also on the ability of people to be integrated into Swedish society.
But there is no sign in Sweden of the serious social problems that have developed in other EU countries.
Billström: Right now, there is relatively little annoyance and protest at the influx of Iraqi people. That will come in a few years time. Then we will see the results in the schools or problems on the labour market and all the challenges to society. But we are trying to work ahead. Right now, the economy is doing well. This is a great advantage.
In some cases, we will be able to get them into industry and find jobs for them on the labour market, but for others, re-education and all that will be the core issue. Then we have the members of the middle class who have left Iraq. The Iraqi government has said it and we agree: the majority of the Iraqis who have left will have to go back when security and safety have returned to Iraq in order to rebuild the country.
Doctors, engineers, nurses, lawyers – even a few politicians perhaps – are needed there. This is also something we have to talk about. We will offer them a safe haven, but only for a certain period. At the end of the day they will have to go back. Otherwise, how can Iraq be re-created as a functioning state?
Does this mean that Sweden is slowly turning away from its much-lauded, liberal Swedish immigration policy?
Billström: We do not have immigration laws that are more liberal than any other European country. However, the effect of our laws was, unfortunately, that people who left Iraq and came to Sweden were given a resident’s permit sooner or later.
This was an unfortunate signal because it meant that the shared responsibility – which I think is so important in the European Union, namely that all countries take responsibility – also means that we have to have the same set of rules and the same kind of practice in applying these rules.
And this is something that Sweden works hard for in the EU. I never go to a Council of Ministers’ meeting in Brussels without speaking about the importance of creating this common asylum policy for Europe.
And are you making any progress? You have already called on other Member States of the EU several times not to leave Sweden alone with this refugee problem. You have often said that the EU must share the burden of the crisis.
Billström: Yes and No. Sometimes I think it is an irony that Sweden – a country that did not take part in the Iraq War, was not part of the alliance, did everything it could in order to speak for peace, and is farthest away from the conflict in geographical terms – receives the most refugees. To my mind that is rather strange.
What solutions do you see within the EU? Are first steps already being taken?
Billström: The debate is constantly flowing and always in motion. Now we are finally sitting down and looking at the European Commission’s Green Paper – it was presented in June – a Green Paper with 35 questions to all the Member States regarding how to create a common asylum policy.
In some ways we have made progress. But the next thing – and that is important – is to try and bring aid to Syria and to Jordan, the two countries in the region that have received a combined total of more than two million Iraqi refugees.
If we don’t do that, sooner or later there will be a political destabilisation of Syria and Jordan, which will lead to even more problems. We must ensure that the refugees receive aid and that they can sustain themselves.
###
* Petra Tabeling is a freelance print and radio journalist based in Germany. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org .
Source: Qantara.de, 19 September 2007, www.qantara.de
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 British, Norwegian, Swedish and US Governments, the United States Institute of Peace, the National Endowment for Democracy and private donors, the service is a non-profit initiative of Search for Common Ground, an international NGO working in the fields of conflict transformation and media production.
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.
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