Dear HumanDHS network friends
Please find below the Common Ground News Bulletin: 22-28 July 2008.
Kind regards
Brian Ward
Website at www.commongroundnews.org .
Common Ground News Bulletin: 22-28 July 2008
Inside this edition 22 - 28 July 2008
Website: www.commongroundnews.org
Somalia: Time to pay attention
by Frankie Martin
Frankie Martin, Ibn Khaldun Chair research fellow at American University’s School of International Service, sheds light on the US role in fuelling the conflict in Somalia as well as their potential part in resolving it.
(Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 22 July 2008)
US policy not a scapegoat for extremists
by Daniel Yankelovich
The chairman of the non-profit Public Agenda, Daniel Yankelovich, argues that current US foreign policy is strengthening the very groups that most threaten its security and explores strategies for dealing with extremism.
(Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 22 July 2008)
Religion 2.0: dialogue for the masses
by Jude Townend
Jude Townend, a UK-based journalist, takes inventory of online faith initiatives, highlighting the implications of social networking sites on interfaith dialogue.
(Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 22 July 2008)
Opening address at the World Conference on Dialogue
by King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz
On 16 July 2008, Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz opened the World Conference on Dialogue in Madrid with a speech highlighting the opportunities for a more tolerant future among the followers of the world’s religions.
(Source: Saudi-US Relations Information Service, 16 July 2008)
Straightening the pictures
by Aygül Cizmecioglu
Aygül Cizmecioglu, a freelance writer, talks to four Afghan female artists visiting Berlin about freedom of artistic expression in post-Taliban Afghanistan.
(Source: Qantara.de, 10 July 2008)
Somalia: Time to pay attention
Frankie Martin
Washington, DC - While the world looks elsewhere, Somalia is in flames. The nation just topped a list of the world’s most unstable countries by Foreign Policy magazine, and the United Nations has declared the humanitarian situation there “worse than Darfur.”
In the next three months the number of people requiring immediate food aid will reach 3.5 million. Over one million refugees have fled their homes. Due to a raging insurgency against the current transitional government – which has support from both the West and Ethiopia – Somalia’s capital, Mogadishu, has earned the nickname “Baghdad on the sea.”
In Somalia, there are no diplomatic superstars like Condoleezza Rice or Kofi Annan, who rushed to Kenya to settle its election crisis; there are no celebrities like Mia Farrow, Stephen Spielberg, or Jim Carrey to urge international action and awareness as they did in Sudan and Burma.
Instead, Somalia has elicited a collective yawn of indifference. Just mentioning the country’s name is enough to cause even the most dedicated diplomat or aid worker to throw up their hands in desperation.
Ironically, unlike the conflicts in Kenya, Burma or Sudan, the current crisis in Somalia has developed in part due to America’s “war on terror” and failure to grasp some of the nuances of Islam.
The Muslim world is not a monolith; there is an ongoing struggle among Muslims with differing interpretations of the religion. Somalia is a traditionally Sufi country – the mystic, open form of Islam distinct from more conservative interpretations such as those seen in places like Saudi Arabia.
But in Somalia, a more conservative movement developed under the secular dictatorship of President Siad Barre and during the anarchy that followed his ouster in 1991. The resulting Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) implemented shari’a law (based on Islamic principles) and although its stricter tenants were opposed by many Somalis, the grassroots movement gained strength because people sought order and justice in a country marred by starvation, warlord violence, and tribal conflict.
Despite internal differences in the interpretation of Islam, the UIC created a state of relative stability that led to the return of Somali businesses. It also united conflicting tribes and ended piracy off Somalia’s perilous shores.
But the ascension of the UIC worried the United States, which believed the group was sheltering al Qaeda members seeking a safe haven in Somalia. The United States intervened by backing secular warlords – reportedly some of the same individuals it had fought during 1993’s “Black Hawk Down” incident – against the UIC. The result was a strengthening, rather than isolation, of extremism in Somalia.
And despite their ample firepower, the warlords, dubbed the “Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counter-Terrorism”, were defeated by the UIC in mid-2006.
In December 2006, UIC extremists threatened Somalia’s traditional archrival Ethiopia, which they accused of intervening in Somali affairs. Already concerned the UIC would support a domestic ethnic Somali insurgency, Ethiopia invaded.
The United States backed Ethiopia’s invasion and its ensuing occupation with intelligence, air strikes, Special Forces, and rendition of terror suspects to Guantanamo Bay.
An Iraq-style insurgency soon began inside Somalia, mainly drawn from UIC elements but also members of the Hawiye clan, the tribal base of the UIC. These tribesmen believe the United States and Ethiopians are attacking them by supporting the Somali transitional government, run largely by tribal rivals, the Daarood. Because they are Muslim, they believe Islam is under attack and seek to defend it.
Somalia faces many profound challenges, but a recent ceasefire – which calls for an end to the insurgency ahead of an eventual Ethiopian troop withdrawal in favour of UN troops – has brought some optimism and hope.
The recent momentum in Somalia for a shift to religious conservatism – and sometimes militant extremism – mirrors similar shifts around the Muslim world. However, with quick and responsible action, the United States can still help shift it back.
The United States should first pressure Ethiopia to withdraw and bring all Somali factions to the negotiating table.
It can also work within traditional tribal structures to reach out to Somalia’s people, effect political change and distribute aid. By reaching out to Somali moderates who would be happy to challenge the extremists themselves, and funding development programs that show a renewed respect for local customs and religion, the United States can help swing the pendulum away from extremists who preach that Islam is under attack from the West.
To do this, the United States must immediately change a failed policy. Instead of fighting those individuals who wish America harm in a smart, effective manner, it has taken on the Somali people. The United States should learn from its disasters in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan that using force to myopically crush “terrorists” at the expense of entire populations only strengthens extremists.
These days any attention given to Somalia is encouraging. But to create a stable society that would alleviate the suffering of Somalis and address Western security concerns, something more is required: a true understanding of what has gone wrong and the will to effect positive change.
###
* Frankie Martin is the Ibn Khaldun Chair research fellow at American University’s School of International Service in Washington, DC. He did field work among Somalis in Kenya for the book, Journey into Islam: The Crisis of Globalization by Akbar Ahmed (Brookings, 2007). This article first appeared in Washington Post/Newsweek’s Post Global and was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service, 22 July 2008, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
US policy not a scapegoat for extremists
Daniel Yankelovich
La Jolla, California - As the competition for the US presidency heats up, the threat of Muslim extremism is bound to become a major issue in the campaign. The reason is its link to the war in Iraq. Public polling shows that Iraq is the top foreign policy issue for most Americans, with many seeing the war as increasing the risk of future terrorism against the United States and its allies. The presumptive Republican nominee John McCain has called the threat of Muslim extremism “the transcendent challenge of our times.”
How the candidates – and the electorate – respond to this challenge will determine whether or not the United States can escape the scapegoat trap into which we have fallen, and whether the campaign will unify the nation on a vital foreign policy issue or polarise it even further.
Over the past 18 months, I have been working with a group of leaders to develop new strategies for dealing with Muslim extremism, looking into the core causes of tension with Muslims around the world, and finding ways to improve our own security by reducing those tensions.
We’ve seen that US military occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan have played into the hands of Muslim extremists, who have successfully made us scapegoats for the failure of so many Muslim nations to build just and prosperous societies.
Without broader support, the extremists are not in and of themselves a serious threat, as they represent a tiny minority among the world’s 1.4 billion Muslims. Gallup public opinion data show clearly that the great majority of Muslims disapprove of attacks on civilians and venerate their Abrahamic faith as a guide to righteousness and morality.
Our use of military force in two Muslim countries and our threats against a third (Iran), only give credibility to the extremists’ claim that the United States is at war with Islam, has no respect for Muslim values and beliefs, and is trying to impose our alien culture on the Muslim world. These claims inflame Muslim public opinion and undermine the efforts of mainstream clerics and political leaders to rein in extremism.
If we could somehow extricate ourselves from an active military role in Iraq, build bridges of understanding to peaceful leaders in the Muslim world (like those currently in power in Turkey), and provide assistance to Muslim communities, as we did to great effect after the tsunami devastated coastal areas of Indonesia, the extremists would find themselves increasingly isolated, and our ability to gather intelligence and disrupt their operations would gain immeasurably.
A successful strategy for isolating extremists cannot rely mainly on military force. A recent Rand study for the Department of Defence drives this point home. “It would be a profound mistake”, writes the report’s main author, David C. Gompert, “to conclude… that all the United States needs is more military force to defeat Islamist insurgencies.”
When the same US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan who help to build wells and schools then bomb the insurgents, accidentally killing civilians, our intentions are certain to be mistrusted. Over the past few years, more and more Americans (now up to 65 percent) have come to realise that we have placed too much emphasis on military force and not enough on political, diplomatic, and economic initiatives.
For Americans and for people throughout the world who long for peace, prosperity, and justice, the really transcendent challenge of our time is to overcome the fears and distrust that are leading all too many people, here and elsewhere, to suppose that we are locked in a war of civilisations. A constructive bipartisan policy would acknowledge that the Muslim extremist threat is serious and urgent, but that the right political and economic strategies would combat it far more effectively than military engagement in Iraq.
The West managed to win the Cold War by patiently practicing containment and setting an example of the benefits of free society that eventually overcame ideological fanaticism. In different ways, that is what we must now do to defeat terrorism, prevent states ruled by unstable dictators from acquiring and spreading the means of mass destruction, and restore our standing as a leading global democracy.
###
* Daniel Yankelovich is chair of the non-profit organisation Public Agenda and a member of the Leadership Group on US-Muslim Engagement. This article first appeared in the Minneapolis Star Tribune and was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service, 22 July 2008, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Return to top
Religion 2.0: dialogue for the masses
Jude Townend
Leeds, England - Interfaith dialogue is nothing new, but new technology is changing the way it’s done. Before, the average Muslim Pakistani might never have crossed paths with a Jewish Israeli; a Nepali Buddhist might never dialogue with a Christian American. On the World Wide Web, however, social interactions that before were limited are now commonplace. It’s like internet dating for the world religions.
Religious communities have been testing the online waters gradually, having already created e-church services, places of worship built in the virtual world Second Life and countless social networking groups dedicated to promoting beliefs. Clergy have also learned to use the web to amplify their messages – Sunday sermons are now a mouse-click away from being downloaded onto an iPod. But these ventures limit religious dialogue to one’s own community, and highlight doctrinal differences rather than interfaith co-operation.
However, over the last few years, the internet has undergone a transformation from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0. Whereas the former model consolidated publishing power in the hands of a few editors, Web 2.0 has empowered bloggers to directly publish their own content and online users to start their own conversations. This evolution from top-down communication to people-to-people interaction has implications for the interfaith community as well.
Early last month emerged Faithbook, a social page launched on Facebook, the widely popular social networking platform. The brainchild of a British Jewish organisation, the Movement for Reform Judaism, Faithbook was designed to bring people from different beliefs together on the internet, leveraging such Web 2.0 technologies as social networking.
In traditional media, collaborations between religions are often limited to those in positions of responsibility – such as religious representatives meeting on television panel discussions. Now, the internet opens a forum for dialogue to the masses. Church, mosque, temple and synagogue goers can talk to each other directly without the mediation of their leaders.
Supported in turn by the Muslim Institute, London, the UK’s oldest Muslim think-tank, Faithbook promises “to spark responsible interfaith dialogue across the UK and the rest of the world”, using images, videos and commentary from people of all the major faiths. The director of the Muslim Institute, Ghayasuddin Siddiqui, added: “Irrespective of whatever cultural baggage we carry, racial background or faith that we follow, we have to recognise that our creator is the same whatever we call him.”
The purpose of Faithbook is to counter religious extremism, which has the tendency to spread in the largely unmoderated virtual sphere. “We have got to combat that, and create a space where people who may not meet face-to-face can have a constructive debate”, said Rabbi Shoshana Boyd Gelfand, executive director of the Movement for Reform Judaism.
The alternative to constructive debate is clear elsewhere, even on Facebook. On the “Boycott Islam and all things Muslim” group, one finds none of the gentle niceties of Faithbook. The potential for online religious discussion, while present, is often in a very raw and emotional form.
So far, the Faithbook page does seem to be meeting its constructive mission: abuse doesn’t litter its pages, and its content is positive. Images on the site range from the Dalai Lama (one of the most prominent advocates of interfaith dialogue in the world today), to the Siddur, a Jewish prayer book. On the downside, the page claims only some 640 fans, which isn’t very many given its recent publicity and Facebook’s enormous reach. (By contrast, the group to “stop Facebook closing down” now has close to 2 million members.)
Among the biggest challenges to growth is the fact that the Faithbook page, like many interfaith initiatives, has been implemented by the upper tier of religious organisations. The discrepancy between the views “at the top” and those of the masses was recently demonstrated by the widespread discussion provoked when Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams commented that shari’a law (based on Islamic principles) should be integrated, to some extent, into British law – a view not necessarily shared by his congregations. One of the lessons from Web 2.0 is that some of the most effective movements grow from the bottom up with word of mouth taking place via blogs and emails.
In spite of this, positive and cooperative online social networking between the faiths looks likely. The online religion sections of national newspapers in various countries are fast gaining popularity (there’s even a blog called Faithbook on the Washington Post/Newsweek website ), and the comments that follow faith-based articles are increasingly animated. Interfaith groups are expanding their online presence. The will to exchange ideas and find common ground is there.
###
* Jude Townend is a journalist currently working in the UK. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org .
Source: Common Ground News Service, 22 July 2008, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Return to top
Opening address at the World Conference on Dialogue
King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz
Madrid - In the name of God, most merciful, most compassionate.
Praise be to God Almighty, who revealed in his Holy Book: “O mankind! We have created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other. Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of [God] is (he who is) the most righteous of you.”
And peace and blessings be upon our Prophet Mohammad and on all the prophets and messengers.
Your Majesty, my friend, Juan Carlos, King of Spain:
Distinguished friends: I greet you, and I thank you for responding to our invitation to this dialogue. I appreciate the efforts you are making in the service of humanity. I extend my deep appreciation to my friend, His Majesty King Juan Carlos, and the Kingdom of Spain and its friendly people for welcoming the convening of this conference on their land, a land that has a historic and civilised heritage among the followers of religions, and which has witnessed co-existence between people of differing ethnicities and religions and cultures, and contributed, with other civilisations, to the advancement of humanity.
Dear friends: I came to you from the place dearest to the hearts of all Muslims, the land of the Two Holy Mosques, bearing with me a message from the Islamic world, representing its scholars and thinkers who recently met in the confines of the House of God. This message declares that Islam is a religion of moderation and tolerance; a message that calls for constructive dialogue among followers of religions; a message that promises to open a new page for humanity in which – God willing – concord will replace conflict.
Dear friends: We all believe in one God, who sent messengers for the good of humanity in this world and the hereafter. His will, praise be to Him, was that people should differ in their faiths. If the Almighty had so desired, all mankind would have shared the same religion. We are meeting today to affirm that the religions that God Almighty desired for the happiness of man should be a means to ensure that happiness.
It is therefore incumbent upon us to declare to the world that difference must not lead to conflict and confrontation, and to state that the tragedies that have occurred in human history were not attributable to religion, but were the result of extremism with which some adherents of every divinely revealed religion, and of every political ideology, have been afflicted.
Mankind is suffering today from a loss of values and conceptual confusion, and is passing through a critical phase which, in spite of all the scientific progress, is witnessing a proliferation of crime, an increase in terrorism, the disintegration of the family, subversion of the minds of the young by drug abuse, exploitation of the poor by the strong, and odious racist tendencies. This is all a consequence of the spiritual void from which people suffer when they forget God, and God causes them to forget themselves. There is no solution for us other than to agree on a united approach, through dialogue among religions and civilisations.
Dear friends: Most of the past dialogues have failed because they have deteriorated into mutual recrimination focusing on and exaggerating differences in a sterile endeavour that exacerbated rather than mitigated tensions, or because they attempted to fuse religions and creeds on the pretext of bringing them closer together.
This is likewise a fruitless effort, since the adherents of every religion are deeply convinced in their faith, and will not accept any alternative thereto. If we wish this historic meeting to succeed, we must focus on the common denominators that unite us, namely, deep faith in God, noble principles, and lofty moral values, which constitute the essence of religion.
Dear friends: Man could be the cause of the destruction of this planet and everything in it. He is also capable of turning it into an oasis of peace and tranquillity in which adherents of religions, creeds and philosophies could co-exist, and in which people could cooperate with each other in a respectful manner, and address problems through dialogue rather than violence.
Man is also capable – by the grace of God – of vanquishing hatred through love, and bigotry through tolerance, thereby enabling all mankind to enjoy the dignity that the Almighty has bestowed upon all of them.
Dear friends: Let our dialogue be a triumph of belief over disbelief, of virtue over vice, of justice over iniquity, of peace over conflicts and wars, and of human brotherhood over racism.
Thus, with God we began, and through Him we seek assistance. I offer you my sincere greetings and appreciation.
Thank you and peace be upon you.
###
* King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz is the current King of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The World Conference on Dialogue took place in Madrid from 16-18 July 2008. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org .
Source: Saudi-US Relations Information Service, 19 July 2008, www.saudi-us-relations.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Straightening the pictures
Aygül Cizmecioglu
Berlin - Perfect weather in Berlin – the sky is a brilliant blue, and it is pleasantly warm. Rather than enjoying the sun at one of the street cafes, however, dozens of camera people, photographers, and politicians push their way through Saxony’s State Mission.
A whitewashed hall, exquisite parquet flooring, and walls covered with huge paintings. In the midst of it all are four young women. They listen to the innumerable questions somewhat shyly and look away from the cameras with embarrassment. Some of them cover their dark hair with filmy silk scarves. It is an absolute premiere for the four young artists. They are presenting their works outside their native country of Afghanistan for the first time.
“I have become much more self-assured through painting. Women in my society used to be invisible,” says 19-year-old Sheenkai Alam Stanikazai. Because of art, she now feels much freer.
Above all, it is rage that is expressed in the artists’ paintings. Women’s faces are squeezed into confining squares; shadowy silhouettes are lost in the crowd. Burqas, garments that fully cover a woman’s body, head and face, are pasted all over with eyes and mouths.
Almost all the artists are in their early 20s. They were born shortly after the Taliban seized power. War and insecurity have characterised their lives until now. Education and self-determination have always been a struggle.
Today they seek their identity with brushstrokes, show themselves and their fears through paint. They have studied at the Center for Contemporary Arts, Afghanistan. It is a private art school intended especially for women, which was founded by artists in 2004.
“We are not state-financed but have to arrange everything ourselves”, says co-founder Rahraw Omarzad. That is something entirely new in Afghanistan, because in the past art was often misused as a means of propaganda. “But only through diversity can a society grow and establish a democratic culture. And that is precisely what we are attempting to do here.”
Twenty-three young women from liberal families are now studying at the academy of arts in Kabul. They have boundless curiosity and a tremendous need to make up for lost time. Under the Taliban, the depiction of humans and animals was punishable by whipping – a strict prohibition of images in the name of God. Only idyllic landscapes and calligraphies were allowed. These motifs are entirely absent from the works of the young artists today.
Although that was a break with radicalism for them, it was not a break with their roots. Sheenkai Alam Stanikazai and the others describe themselves as devout Muslims. “Islam and art are not contradictions for me. Painting has a long tradition in my religion. We simply have to develop it further and show that our point of view can also be part of Islam.”
That is why the four artists have come to Berlin. They have had discussions with German art students here and visited countless museums and galleries. Khadija Hashemi’s almond eyes light up when she talks about it – art everywhere, it is like Ramadan and a birthday at the same time.
Yet the 21-year-old has observed that her homeland is not the only place where they are pigeonholed. “Many people here in the West smile condescendingly at us and think that we are not really talented, particularly since women in Afghanistan are constantly oppressed anyway. Perhaps the exhibition can help straighten this picture a bit, because we are not that different from the women here at all.”
Khadija Hashemi, Sheenkai Alam Stanikazai and the others want to break down clichés – on the German river Spree, just as in the Hindu Kush mountains. That is why they are not only studying, but are also teaching art classes and visiting girls in the Afghan provinces, in order to pass on a little of their pioneering spirit. After all, it is not only possible to change things with words and politics, but with brush and paint as well.
###
* Aygül Cizmecioglu is a freelance writer based in Germany. This article, translated from German, is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org .
Source: Qantara.de, 10 July 2008, www.qantara.de
Copyright permission is granted for publication.