A pioneer of non-violence
- From: CGNews-PiH Jakarta <nuruddin.asyhadie@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 03:00:46 -0800 (PST)
Common Ground News Service
Partners in Humanity
for constructive & vibrant Muslim-Western relations
19 - 25 February 2008
If this email is not displaying properly, click here.
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,
Indonesian and Urdu. To subscribe, click here.
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) Controversy can lead to change by Marie Korpe
In this fifth article in our series on freedom of expression, Marie
Korpe, the executive director of Freemuse, looks at provocative art as
an opportunity for dialogue between censors and their targets, and
considers the conditions under which it can serve as a possible
impetus for greater understanding between communities.
(Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 19 February 2008)
2) Scrap "battle of ideas" talk by Aysha Chowdhry and Andrew Masloski
Aysha Chowdhry and Andrew Masloski, research assistants for the Saban
Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, question
the effectiveness of the "battle of ideas" approach in fighting
extremism and suggest an alternative strategy to protect the United
States from future terrorist acts.
(Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 19 February 2008)
3) Re-examining French-style secularism - An interview with Catherine
Kintzler by Rachid Boutayeb
In light of President Nicolas Sarkozy's recent comments about religion
and state in France, Catherine Kintzler, a professor of philosophy at
the University of Lille, considers in her interview with freelance
writer Rachid Boutayeb whether laicism is a concept that needs to be
re-examined.
(Source: Qantara.de, 12 February 2008)
4) Reinventing shari'a by Asim Siddiqui
The Archbishop of Canterbury's comments about incorporating parts of
shari'a into Britain's civil law caused a flurry of excitement in the
media. Asim Siddiqui, chairman and a founding trustee of the City
Circle, a network of young British Muslim professionals, considers the
practical implications of these comments.
(Source: The Guardian, 8 February 2008)
5) A pioneer of non-violence by Nasim Saber
Nasim Saber, a freelance journalist based in Germany, reflects on the
life and non-violent philosophy of Pashtun leader Abdul Ghaffar Khan,
friend of Mahatma Gandhi, on the 20th anniversary of his death this
year.
(Source: Qantara.de, 8 February 2008)
1) Controversy can lead to change
Marie Korpe
Copenhagen - About ten years ago, a Swedish photographer held an
exhibition entitled "Ecce Homo", a collection of provocative photos
portraying Jesus as a homosexual. The reaction from some conservative
church clerics was swift and strong: "This is barbarian, not biblical"
read one of the newspaper headlines, and a heated discussion followed.
The photographer said the series was inspired by the deaths of many of
her homosexual friends by AIDS, and by church publications that
claimed the disease was God's punishment. The collection of
"offensive" art was not created to hurt others, but rather to provoke
dialogue and enlighten the public about AIDS and homosexuality, the
artist said.
Homosexuals in Sweden were eventually allowed to have civil marriages
and request their partnership be blessed in a church, while AIDS
patients can now speak openly about their disease.
Similarly, the Danish cartoons portraying the Prophet Muhammad were
indeed a provocation, and in turn, the media focused primarily on the
responses from ultra-conservative Muslims, many of them self-taught
Muslim clerics. The debate between those on both sides seeking to
sensationalise the issue was not constructive.
A more productive approach would have been to explore the context
under which this event occurred, especially in light of recent events
like the arrest of those allegedly plotting to kill the Danish
cartoonist, Kurt Westergaard. And the next step would have been to
address the frustration of marginalised Muslims who feel unable to
voice their anger and disappointment through the proper channels, such
as the media or government.
Before the 1980s, Danish society did not make distinctions among
immigrant groups. More recently, however, nationality and religious
belief have been increasingly used to identify newcomers, perhaps as
these individuals have begun to assert their identity in their new
homeland to a greater extent than in the past. In the years leading up
to the cartoon controversy, major immigrant communities from Pakistan
and the Middle East were collectively referred to as "Muslims"; their
country of origin was of no interest, and they were thus
differentiated from other new Danes.
After 9/11 and following President Bush's efforts against Al Qaeda,
the Danish government became one of the most dedicated allies
supporting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Soon thereafter, Muslims
felt besieged in major Danish newspapers and by the ruling government,
which introduced harsher immigration laws. This was not directly a
result of the global crackdown on terrorism, but rather the
culmination of many years of discussion on immigration, which
coincided with 9/11 and further marginalised the Muslim minority in
Denmark. The cartoon controversy could have been the impetus for state-
wide dialogue on these important issues but instead became a missed
opportunity.
The cartoons were perceived to be a brutal intellectual and emotional
attack on the hearts of already marginalised Danish Muslims. Ultra-
conservative Muslims around the world used this incident to promote
their own agendas.
The violent reactions that followed in some Muslim countries may have
been appeased had the Danish prime minister chosen the path of
dialogue, instead of refusing to meet with the delegation of
ambassadors from various Middle Eastern countries. Perhaps engaging in
discussion at that time could have prevented the controversy from
spreading, reduced the violence that ensued, and resulted in a
constructive intercultural conversation.
A few years before the provocative cartoons were published, a Danish
company began selling summer sandals with a depiction of the Virgin
Mary. This led to strong protests in Denmark and the shoes were soon
taken off the market. This time society censored itself to avoid
offence and further protests.
It took several initiatives by domestic and international groups to
calm the post-cartoon atmosphere, allowing for some positive gains.
The publications of the cartoons ultimately led to animated and vivid
debates in Denmark, and a growing interest in Islam among the Danish
population. The eyes of the Danish people were opened to the issues
surrounding Muslims and the immigrant population. Furthermore,
mainstream Muslims within the Danish community were convinced of their
need to enter politics, not only to speak for Muslims, but also to
educate others about Muslims in their new homeland.
When access is blocked to media or political channels through which
people can vent their frustrations, disenfranchised individuals
sometimes make their opinions known through violent or destructive
means. Rather than highlighting the sensational incidents, media could
focus instead on filling this gap, providing a rational forum for
discussion on controversial events or art.
The right to freely express oneself does not always have to mean
making use of that right. Dialogue alone can lead to some interesting
and challenging discussions between censors and their targets,
inspiring deeper thought and possibly greater understanding. However,
occasionally we also need the avant-garde - those who provoke us and
force us to reflect and think through their art, their writing and/or
their music - to spark constructive debate in healthy forums, at a
time when change and growth are desperately needed for intercultural
understanding.
###
* Marie Korpe is the executive director of Freemuse (Freedom of
Musical Expression, www.freemuse.org). This article is part of a
series on freedom of expression written for the Common Ground News
Service.
Source: Common Ground News Service, 19 February 2008, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
2) Scrap "battle of ideas" talk
Aysha Chowdhry and Andrew Masloski
Washington, DC - Notably absent from the presidential primary campaign
is serious discussion on how to implement an effective long-term
strategy for protecting the United States from future terrorist acts.
Many political leaders in the past have embraced winning "the battle
of ideas" against Muslim extremists as the most important component of
any strategy, yet this ubiquitous catchphrase stems from an erroneous
and counterproductive framework for understanding extremists like Bin
Laden.
The framework assumes that groups like Al Qaeda possess a coherent and
compelling interpretation of Islam that the United States must counter
to prevent Muslims from adopting it. This flawed understanding should
be replaced with a more nuanced approach based on the true nature of
the terrorist threat.
The "battle of ideas" approach is counterproductive for two important
reasons: first, it encourages the concept of a Manichean struggle
raging between two equally powerful and opposing world views, in
effect legitimising the extremists' understanding of the struggle; and
second, it overstates the extent to which Bin Laden's world view
constitutes a viable theological alternative for the world's 1.3
billion Muslims. These zealous religious views are not only alien to
most Muslims living today, but have also earned a place on the fringe
of the history of Islamic intellectual thought.
For an effective strategy, the United States needs to take three
important steps. The first is de-coupling Islam and terrorism. The
9/11 Commission Report states that "the enemy is not just 'terrorism'...
it is the threat posed by Islamist terrorism." While it is true that
America faces a significant threat from people who identify themselves
as Muslims and dress their grievances in religious terms, this does
not mean that such people are perpetrators of "Islamist terrorism".
The phrase implies that Islam sanctions terrorism and that Muslims are
more likely to commit terrorist acts. "Terrorism in the name of Islam"
is more accurate.
The second step requires recognition that most grievances expressed by
extremists like Bin Laden are secular and political in nature. They
are angry about what they perceive as the exploitation of Muslims at
the hands of the United States. They enjoy sympathy from Muslims who
perceive the United States - and the West in general - as perpetuators
of an unjust global political-economic system. As many have already
noted, the attacks of 9/11 targeted American financial and military
complexes and not Western religious symbols. Though the United States
should not accept at face value the legitimacy of Al Qaeda grievances,
we cannot effectively prevent terrorist acts from taking place without
a better understanding of their ultimately profane roots.
The third step involves ensuring the United States actively works for
the promotion of human dignity. US policy makers should make a
concerted effort to understand the circumstances of the countries of
the Muslim world that cause a sense of deprivation and humiliation
among their populations, as these factors contribute to sympathy for
Al Qaeda's political aims. Washington conventional wisdom maintains
that Muslims need to believe in an alternative vision for their
economic and political future, though the vast majority of Muslims
need no convincing that economic prosperity and political freedom are
good things.
Muslims share the same vision held by humanity everywhere - a secure
future for their children and a life defined by dignity and liberty.
Thus, policy makers should approach Muslims as partners on the path
toward bettering livelihoods in Muslim societies. If the United States
continues to be implicated in the social, political and economic
underdevelopment of much of the Muslim world, Al Qaeda will continue
to gain followers who are blind to everything but the perceived
destructive effects of US hegemony.
In the end, focusing on winning the "battle of ideas" obscures our
view of what must be done to prevent future terrorist attacks. The
United States should recognise the true nature of the terrorist
threat, identify its root causes, and partner with Muslims to
eliminate them.
###
*Aysha Chowdhry and Andrew Masloski work for the Saban Center for
Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. Chowdhry is a
research assistant with the Project on U.S. Relations with the Islamic
World, and Masloski is a senior research assistant with the Middle
East Democracy and Development Project. This article was written for
the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and first printed in the San
Francisco Chronicle.
Source: Common Ground News Service, 19 February 2008, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
3) Re-examining French-style secularism - An interview with Catherine
Kintzler
Rachid Boutayeb
Bonn, Germany - Responding to French President Nicolas Sarkozy's
vigorous challenge to the principle of separation of religion and
state, Catherine Kintzler, a professor of philosophy at the University
of Lille and author of Qu'est-ce que la laïcité? (What is Laicism? )
defends French-style secularism as the only true protectorate of
religious rights and individual freedom.
Is laicism, or French-style secularism, a dogma that needs to be
revisited?
Kintzler: In my book, What is Laicism?, I explain that laicism is not
a doctrine in which one believes or does not believe. One can be a
Muslim, a Catholic or an atheist, and still be a laicist. Laicism is a
philosophical concept which, unlike "tolerance", does not ask how
antagonistic freedoms can coexist in a society where diverse
communities live side by side. Laicism is about constructing a space a
priori that will allow every individual to enjoy freedom of opinion.
This space is defined by the public authority. It produces and
enforces the law. And the individual does not need to be a member of a
specific group to enjoy freedom of opinion within civil society,
because the public authority is entirely impervious in its approach to
religious and non-religious forms of belief.
This principle is of enormous contemporary relevance, and is a
response to the urgent questions of the day. In my view, any attempt
to qualify or revise this principle, would be a political error.
Why isn't simple tolerance enough, as is the case in many liberal
countries?
Kintzler: I could give historical reasons why France developed a
laicist system in order to enforce tolerance. But I'd rather give a
conceptual answer: tolerance is present in French civil society. To
that extent, it is no different than other systems. But laicism allows
for the establishment of a polity without reference to religion.
It is a system where there is no room for an official religion. This
principle is blind to individual religious beliefs and practices
(except where they run counter to the law). It is a principle that
gives prominence to the individual. There is no requirement for people
to belong to a religious group.
Do you believe that laicism is bound to remain a French idiosyncrasy,
or do you think that the concept can be exported?
Kintzler: In recent years, those countries that have traditionally
relied on the principle of tolerance - mainly the United Kingdom, the
Netherlands and the United States - have been looking at the French
model with interest, because a political system which relies solely on
the merit of tolerance is too weak to compete with a hard-line,
fundamentalist dogmatism with hegemonic ambitions.
Laicism is much better equipped for this because it establishes its
polity on a basis which requires no profession of faith. In a laicist
state, political commitment requires no act of faith.
Is laicism anti-religious?
Kintzler: French-style secularism has often been misrepresented. There
have been attempts to show that it is a kind of anti-religious
position. But the principle of laicism promotes the free expression of
opinion in civil society.
In no way does laicism stand in opposition to religion. It only
rejects the claim of religion as a basis for law or political
membership. The opposite of laicism is "civic religion", i.e., turning
faith into civil law, or conversely, turning civil law into an article
of faith. An extreme anti-religious attitude would consist of imposing
on civil society a non-committal stance that must prevail in the
sphere of public authority. This would result in confining religious
expression to the private sphere, which blatantly contradicts the aim
of laicism - to uphold freedom of expression.
###
* Rachid Boutayeb is a freelance writer based in Berlin. Catherine
Kintzler is a professor of philosophy and aesthetics at the University
of Lille-III and author of Qu'est-ce que la laïcité? (What is
Laicism?). This article is distributed by the Common Ground News
Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org.
Source: Qantara.de, 12 February 2008, www.qantara.de
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
4) Reinventing shari'a
Asim Siddiqui
London - The Archbishop of Canterbury is an immensely intelligent and
thoughtful figure. His comments on 7 February were his contribution to
the difficult issues surrounding community cohesion and how to quell
the feeling of alienation among some quarters of British Muslim
communities so they feel more a part of this country.
While the tabloids have gone haywire, it is important that we don't
get carried away here. The difficulty with the term shari'a (Islamic
principles of jurisprudence) is that it is such a broad notion which
encapsulates both personal and public matters. It is also open to such
varied interpretations. I would argue that the basic objectives of
shari'a - protection of life, family, dignity, intellect and property
- are all covered by British law. The fundamental purpose of shari'a
is to achieve justice. This country is more just than most. So what
more shari'a do people want?
The aspects of shari'a being considered by the Archbishop are
restricted to matters of family and finance law, i.e., civil matters.
No one is suggesting introducing the so-called Islamic penal code - so
let's not waste time debating something most of us don't want to see
in the Muslim world, let alone Britain.
As for family and finance law: let's deal with the latter first, the
United Kingdom is already amending its finance laws to allow shari'a-
compliant products such as halal (permissible according to Islamic
principles) mortgages and Islamic bonds. Why? In part to attract the
billions of petro-dollars floating in the cash-rich Gulf. That's a law
driven by the commercial global realities to keep London as a premier
financial capital; it's hardly the makings of Londonistan.
As for family law, there can be no consideration for it to be
incorporated into UK law unless there has been extensive consultation
with human rights groups, women's groups, civil liberties groups and
other stakeholders over what exactly it is they feel needs to be
incorporated. There is currently zero consensus on this issue,
therefore its incorporation into statute is academic. There is also
the important principle that we are all equal before one law.
It is perfectly fine for consenting Muslim adults to resolve their
disputes according to Islamic law within the framework of UK civil law
and provided that either party has recourse to it (as is currently the
case). Wherever English law and "Islamic law" differ, "Islamic law"
must give way.
The Archbishop is right to suggest ways to integrate alienated Muslims
into the mainstream. Part of that is to educate more religiously and/
or culturally assertive Muslims on what shari'a actually should mean
in a modern context. This is the work for Muslim scholars to
reinterpret practices considered by some to be "Islamic"; such as a
woman witness' testimony being worth half that of a man's, men having
up to four wives, custody of children transferring to the father,
inheritance, etc. In each case, there are multiple interpretations.
It is for progressive Muslim scholars to ensure the more liberal and
tolerant interpretations that are rooted in the Islamic tradition and
part of Britain's libertarian heritage become dominant over time. That
would do far more to aid Muslim integration than introducing a work in
progress into statute.
###
* Asim Siddiqui is chairman and a founding trustee of the City Circle,
a network of young British Muslim professionals, and member of the
Iraq Commission and the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews)
and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org.
Source: The Guardian, 8 February 2008, www.guardian.co.uk
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
5) A pioneer of non-violence
Nasim Saber
Bonn, Germany - To mark the 20th anniversary of his death this year,
no more than a handful of Afghan intellectuals held a memorial service
at the grave of Abdul Ghaffar Khan. But cultural associations in the
region and in Europe are planning numerous ceremonies in the memory of
the non-violent Pashtun leader.
Professor of Indian literature Eknath Easwaran, who has written a book
about Mahatma Gandhi and Abdul Ghaffar Khan, describes the two men as
"allies in a revolution of the human spirit and pioneers of a culture
of peace."
And in fact, Khan's philosophy of a non-violent Islam appears to have
lost nothing of its appeal and pertinence today - not only in this war-
torn region, but all over the world.
Abdul Ghaffar Khan was born in 1890 in Charsadda near Peshawar in the
British-occupied northwest sector of the Indian subcontinent. He was a
member of the Mohammadzai family, a respected Pashtun dynasty, to
which Zahir Shah, the last king of Afghanistan, also belonged.
Abdul Ghaffar Khan grew up to become a pioneer of non-violence in a
region plagued by wars. The Pashtuns still revere him today as
"Badshah Khan" (King of Chiefs).
In 1910, when he was only 20 years old, Abdul Ghaffar Khan already
built a school near Utmanzai in the northwest region of what is today
Pakistan. He went on to found the "Anjuman-e islah ul Afghana" (Afghan
Reform Association) and to publish the magazine Pashtoon in order to
reach the masses under British domination.
These efforts culminated in the establishment of the Khudai
Khidmatgaran (Servants of God) in the 1920s, an army of tens of
thousands of unarmed Pashtuns who limited themselves to passive
resistance through civil disobedience. They wore bright red as a sign
of protest, prompting the British to dub them the "Red Shirts."
At the climax of the protests against British sovereignty in northwest
India, British troops shot at a crowd of unarmed demonstrators on 23
April 1930, killing hundreds.
Later, however, the British soldiers chose to rebel rather than
causing another bloodbath. At Peshawar's Qissa Khwani, or
storytellers' bazaar, they ignored the order to fire. This event is
today considered the turning point in the fight for Indian
independence. None other than King George VI himself ordered an
investigation of the incident.
"Amal, yaqeen, muhabbat" - selfless action, faith and love are the
essence of Islam, preached Badshah Khan. As Khudai Khidmatgar (Servant
of God) he believed that God himself was not in the need of services;
rather, serving his creation meant serving God.
When joining the movement, members swore "to forgive anyone who
oppressed them or treated them cruelly." Moreover, every member was
enjoined to "lead a simple life" and perform social services for at
least two hours a day.
Badshah Khan lived by this credo. Zarin Anzor, a renowned Afghan
publicist who once met Badshah Khan and later attended his funeral,
describes him as "a personality with principles who stayed true to
those principles until the day he died."
In addition to fighting for the unity and freedom of the Pashtuns, he
also devoted his energies to achieving social and cultural reforms and
believed that "the Pashtuns should go to school so that they can
learn, and should be able to do so in their own language."
Because of his principles and his close association with the movement
for Indian independence under Mahatma Gandhi, Badshah Khan was
repeatedly imprisoned by both the British and Pakistani governments.
He thus spent several decades of his 98 years in British and Pakistani
prisons. Amnesty International even nominated Abdul Ghaffar Khan
"Prisoner of the Year" in 1962.
He is still revered today by many in Afghanistan, Pakistan and India.
In Afghanistan, he is often called Fakhr-e Afghan (Pride of the
Afghans). India distinguished him in 1987 as the first non-Indian to
receive the highest civilian honour, the Bharat Ratna Award.
Badshah Khan died on January 20, 1988, under house arrest in Peshawar,
and was buried according to his wishes in the city of Jalalabad in
Afghanistan. For one last time, tens of thousands of his followers
marched on his behalf, in a funeral procession over the historic
Khyber Pass from Peshawar to Jalalabad.
###
* Nasim Saber is a freelance 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, 8 February 2008, www.qantara.de
Copyright permission is granted 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 Nancy Batakji (nancybatakji@xxxxxxxxx) 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@xxxxxxxx
Website : www.commongroundnews.org
Editors
Leena El-Ali (Washington)
Juliette Schmidt (Canada)
Diya Agha (Washington)
Emmanuelle Hazan (Geneva)
Nuruddin Asyhadie (Jakarta)
Andrew Kessinger (Washington)
Mahmoud Zawawi (Amman)
Rashad Bukhari (Islamabad)
Translators
Françoise Globa (Geneva)
Rio Rinaldo (Jakarta)
Azmi Tubbeh (Washington)
Amer Khan (Islamabad)
CGNews is a not-for-profit news service.
You are currently subscribed as %%emailaddr%%
To unsubscribe, click here.
.
- Prev by Date: Invitation to take university online survey of tourist experiences in Thailand
- Next by Date: Military leaders of Burma are above the law
- Previous by thread: Invitation to take university online survey of tourist experiences in Thailand
- Next by thread: Military leaders of Burma are above the law
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
