Importing imams by Aftab Ahmad Malik


Common Ground News Service
Partners in Humanity
for constructive & vibrant Muslim-Western relations

29 April - 05 May 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) Importing imams by Aftab Ahmad Malik
Aftab Ahmad Malik, a visiting fellow at the Centre for the Study of
Ethnicity and Culture at the University of Birmingham, assesses the
recent initiative by the British government to bring Pakistani imams
to England as a means of combating radicalism at home, and considers
why young Muslims are feeling alienated from British mosques in the
first place.
(Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 29 April 2008)

2) Iran is not the enemy by Ellen Francis
Through first-hand accounts of interaction between Americans and
Iranians in Iran, Episcopal priest and sister of the Order of St.
Helena, Ellen Francis describes why the term "axis of evil" is
irrelevant when it comes to this country.
(Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 29 April 2008)

3) Redefining the US-Pakistan partnership by Arif Rafiq
In light of a recent request by US Senate Democrats to President Bush
to "embark on a new relationship with Pakistan", Arif Rafiq, a policy
and communications consultant and editor of the Pakistan Policy Blog,
offers four recommendations to US policymakers to redefine the US
relationship with Pakistan at this critical time.
(Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 29 April 2008)

4) What is a vote worth in Iran? by Ahmad Sadri
Analysing the March 2008 parliamentary elections in Iran, Ahmad Sadri,
a professor of sociology and the Gorter Chair of Islamic World Studies
at Lake Forest College, considers whether real change can result from
elections in Iran, and why Iranians continue to vote in "manipulated"
elections.
(Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 29 April 2008)

5) From Dubai to Doha by John Defterios
John Defterios, an anchor for CNN's Marketplace Middle East and
participant in the recent Doha Forum on Democracy, Development and
Free Trade, reports on the latest developments in the booming Gulf
economies as they shape their business plans for the next quarter
century.
(Source: Khaleej Times, 21 April 2008)


1) Importing imams
Aftab Ahmad Malik

Bristol, England - While it is commendable and encouraging that the
British government is making a concerted effort to work with Muslims
to combat the scourge of radicalisation, its recent proposal to draft
moderate imams from Pakistan indicates that there is still much to
learn.

Far from being breeding centres of radicalisation, mosques have failed
to cater to British Muslims precisely by employing imams from "back
home". The consequence of such actions has been the continued
alienation of young Muslims, who increasingly cannot speak or
understand their mother tongue, which is generally the first language
of most imams.

Undeniably, while there are exceptions, the fact remains that despite
their knowledge of Islam, many "imported" imams tend to have a limited
understanding of the complexities of modern secular life and the
challenges faced by young Muslims. Very rarely do they attempt to make
sense of the political climate or equip themselves to do so; they
prefer instead to focus on matters of piety and faith.

The young radicals I have spoken to over the past six years typically
have become more and more alienated by this general attitude in
mosques and so have looked elsewhere to acquire Islamic "values".

For example, Hizb ut-Tahrir, a group whose goal is to establish an
Islamic caliphate, proved to be immensely popular in Britain during
the 1990s not only because it addressed very serious issues (often
leading to radical solutions) but also because its members were both
linguistically and culturally conversant with British Muslims. They
spoke fluent English, which proved to be a compelling and fresh
alternative from imams and preachers who spoke English only as their
second or third language.

While the overwhelming majority of Muslims in Britain are of Pakistani
origin, few actually look to Pakistan for religious guidance. Even the
youth living in Pakistan don't relate to what is being preached there.
The trouble is that many young Pakistanis in the heartland have grown
tired of the way Islam is being presented and taught, with many
limiting their participation to attending the communal Friday prayer
as a result.

Indeed, if you were to ask young Muslims here in Britain to cite some
of the scholars they relate to and respect, most will list converts as
exemplars and role models. The same is true in Pakistan, where bootleg
recordings of lectures of Western converts to Islam are readily
available.

In short, young Muslims are increasingly looking West – not East – to
make sense of the world and the challenges they've inherited in a
post-9/11 world.

Despite controversy among Muslims in Britain, it is clear that the
government proposes to tackle radicalisation through challenging the
paucity of both the theological and legal knowledge of these young
radicals. But this is only half of the battle.

To assert that radicalisation among young Muslims has little to do
with British foreign policy is to deny one of the very root causes of
radicalisation, rendering any genuine attempt to eliminate it
impotent. While two of the 7/7 suicide bombers left recorded messages
blaming British policy in Iraq for their actions, a Home Office and
Foreign Office dossier ordered by Tony Blair in 2004 confirmed that
Iraq was a "recruiting sergeant" for extremism.

While Muslims are increasingly waking up to and challenging the
internal threat of extremism, our politicians need to realise that
denying any linkage between an unethical foreign policy and
radicalisation will further infuriate critical partners and serve to
bolster the armoury of grievances and double standards cited to prove
to others that this is a war against Islam.

Whatever one believes to be the root cause or causes of the
radicalisation of young Muslims, we all need to work together as this
disease is indiscriminate: it attacks both Muslims and non-Muslims
alike. Blaming the "other" for all the ills in the world is easy, but
taking a long, hard, introspective look in the mirror – now that's the
way of the prophets.

###

* Aftab Ahmad Malik is a visiting fellow at the Centre for the Study
of Ethnicity and Culture at the University of Birmingham and editor of
The State We Are In: Identity, Terror and the Law of Jihad (Amal
Press). This article was written for the Common Ground News Service
(CGNews) and originally appeared in The Birmingham Post.

Source: Common Ground News Service, 29 April 2008, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.


2) Iran is not the enemy
Ellen Francis

Augusta, Georgia - The "axis of evil" has no relevance for me when I
think of Iran, a country I've found to have a human, loving,
hospitable face throughout 40 years of encounters. I lived in Iran
between 1968 and 1978, and started returning again, this time with
peace delegations, in 2005. It is one of the great joys of my life to
see the layers of misunderstanding and fear gradually fall away from
those who visit Iran today for the first time.

One delegate recently said, "I met a mullah [clergyman] on the street
and he was so sweet! Who would think of a mullah being sweet?" Another
delegate, well-travelled in the Middle East, said, "Iranians are the
most hospitable people I have ever met."

A Jewish delegate said he had been told to be careful: "They might
shoot you if they find out you're Jewish." He was amazed to see Jews
worshipping openly and walking down a street in Tehran wearing their
yarmulkes. He wasn't shot, but was mobbed by the worshippers at a
synagogue who were delighted to find a Jew among us.

The younger people on our delegations have been surprised to see the
variety of fashions on the street, as well as learn that young
Iranians find ways to meet and to date. The artists in our delegation
were thrilled to see the throngs of Iranians gathered at the tombs of
the famous poets, Hafez and Sa'adi, and we witnessed Iran's great love
for music. In Isfahan, one young man with a shopping bag stopped to
sing a love song below a pedestrian bridge. He sang as though the
mournful and exquisite song was not a performance but just a normal
part of everyday life.

These images contrasted vividly with the Western media's portrayals of
Iran, often showing only a sea of black and waving fists.

When Iranians learn that we are from the United States, the consistent
response is: "We really like American people; we just don't like your
government." This is usually followed by the question, "Why does Bush
want to bomb us?" Some ask why there are sanctions against Iran, and
why the United States wants to change their government. "If there's to
be any change," they say, "we want to do it ourselves."

We also know that life in Iran can be difficult, especially in the
political sphere. Reform candidates are often vetoed before the
elections, and still there are hundreds of candidates who run for a
very few slots. The parliamentary elections were looming when we went.
Some people said they would not bother to vote; one woman said she
would rely on her studious father for his own analysis of the
candidates. The official religious minorities (Christians, Jews and
Zoroastrians), on the other hand, were proud to tell us they have
their own representatives in the Majlis, the Iranian parliament.

A few days before the election, we met with former President Khatami,
and it was easy to sense his continued commitment to the reform
movement, as well as his deep disappointment that he had been unable
to do more during his term in office. He said that peace is what's
most needed in the world today, yet it is rare to find in
international relations. He noted that war has been glorified in our
cultures and histories, by everyone from Homer to the revered Persian
poet, Ferdowsi.

Iranians have a deep and persistent memory of history: they remember
the 1953 coup and removal of Prime Minister Mossadegh by the CIA,
while Americans recall the photos of the US embassy officials in
blindfolds. We have two distinct historical memories and have not had
diplomatic relations for 30 years, leaving no opportunity to get
reacquainted and work towards reconciliation.

Iran is not perfect, and there continue to be human rights abuses and
curtailment of freedom of speech. But based on my experiences, I
believe there is absolutely no justification or rational cause for
military intervention or sanctions against Iran. External efforts
toward "regime change" are counterproductive for building trust and
for reform.

I believe that Iran is ready to enter diplomatic negotiations, on the
condition that all parties be respectful and sincere in their efforts
to bring about reconciliation and thus start building a more peaceful
world.

###

* Ellen Francis is an Episcopal priest and sister of the Order of St.
Helena and has co-led delegations to Iran sponsored by the Fellowship
of Reconciliation (www.forusa.org). This article was written for the
Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and originally appeared in
Washington Post/Newsweek's On Faith.

Source: Common Ground News Service, 29 April 2008, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.


3) Redefining the US-Pakistan partnership
Arif Rafiq

Greenvale, New York - The need to redefine our relationship with
Pakistan – a nuclear-armed, frontline state in the war on terror – has
never been greater. Now there is considerable opportunity to do so.

US Senate Democrats issued a letter to President George W. Bush this
month urging him to "embark on a new relationship with Pakistan based
on cooperation with institutions rather than individuals, and to
support the will of the Pakistani people as expressed in the February
18 parliamentary elections."

Historically, ties between the United States and Pakistan have been
strongest with a Republican in the White House and an army general in
power in Islamabad, the political goodwill usually ending when
Democrats start governing in Washington and elected representatives
take power in Islamabad. This has been the story of the on-again, off-
again US-Pakistan relationship since the 1950s.

US Democrats could break this cycle by supporting the new civilian
government in Islamabad during this period of transition, in which
democracy and nationalism are being renewed. But the Bush
administration must also follow suit. The policy of relying heavily on
one general (in this case, Pervez Musharraf) has proven short-sighted.
What is needed now to fulfil long-term mutual interests are strong
ties with the people, nation and state of Pakistan.

Failure to do so in the Bush administration's remaining months could
cause irreparable harm to our relationship with Pakistan. In a
democratic Pakistan, decision-making will be less centralised and more
representative of public opinion. But the current US Administration is
increasingly acting unilaterally in Pakistan's tribal areas and has
aggressively tried to ensure a pliant government in Islamabad.

And so, amidst the opportunity for US-Pakistan ties to grow also lies
the seeds for their unravelling. Sustained bilateral cooperation is in
the interest of both countries and needs to be secured. This requires
recasting the US-Pakistan partnership as one between sovereign
democracies.

Toward this end, here are four recommendations for US policymakers:

1) Don't interfere in Pakistan's internal politics. Washington has
tried to assemble a coalition government to its liking, excluding
Pakistan's second largest party, the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-
N). Such an approach has backfired, rewarding those who are seen as
standing up to the United States. If Washington continues to overplay
its hand, it could find such parties in power and itself, partner-less
in Islamabad.

2) Engage the Pakistani people. The United States should, however,
still make its voice heard in Pakistan. US officials visit Pakistan on
an almost weekly basis, but rarely speak to the local media. American
generals and diplomats appear on the pan-Arab Al Jazeera with
regularity, but their Pakistan outreach is scant. There's no excuse
for avoiding Pakistan's news outlets, two of which are exclusively
English-language (DawnNews and GEO English).

Instead of making their case to the Pakistani people, US officials
deal with their Pakistani counterparts behind closed doors. As a
result, Pakistanis see the United States not as a friend, but a bully.
And the good that Washington does in Pakistan, such as providing
Fulbright grants and funding civil society groups, goes vastly under-
appreciated.

3) Provide a sizable democracy dividend. Pakistan's two previous
democratic periods, in the 1970s and 1990s, were met with massive
reductions in US aid, facilitating their demise in a perpetually cash-
strapped Pakistan. This time around, the United States should maintain
military aid and follow Senator Joseph Biden's proposal to triple non-
military assistance to $1.5 billion.

Pakistan, though deeply impoverished, is an emerging market. Yet its
recent economic surge has produced few jobs. Washington's help would
be most effective in educational and infrastructural development. And
it should actively consider a free trade agreement. Pakistan's major
industries – agriculture and textiles – are in a state of crisis.
Eliminating trade barriers will make Pakistani exports more
competitive, spur job growth, and easily win Pakistani hearts.

4) Forge a comprehensive Pakistan-Afghanistan policy. Unilateralism
and military force cannot defeat the insurgencies in Pakistan and
Afghanistan. But a comprehensive, regional solution can. It would
require wedging local militants from al Qaeda, integrating Pakistani
and Afghan insurgents into their respective political systems, and
repairing Pakistan-Afghanistan ties.

Ending the insurgencies might also necessitate replacing US and NATO
forces with troops from non-neighbouring Muslim states such as
Indonesia and Turkey. No occupying power has lasted this long in
Afghanistan.

Our relations with Pakistan are at a decisive juncture. The current
and next US Administration and Congress have an opportunity to strike
a new deal with this nascent Muslim democracy, nuclear power and
pivotal country in a critical region. We cannot afford to let it pass
by.

###

* Arif Rafiq is a policy and communications consultant and editor of
the Pakistan Policy Blog (www.pakistanpolicy.com). This article was
written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and originally
appeared in Washington Post/Newsweek's Post Global.

Source: Common Ground News Service, 29 April 2008, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.


4) What is a vote worth in Iran?
Ahmad Sadri

Chicago, Illinois - Real change can result from elections in Iran as
long as there is a home grown democratic heart beating within the
theocratic Republic. But for how long will that be the case?

Iran may not be a liberal democracy but it is certainly a far cry from
those fake Democratic Republics that littered the world before 1989. A
representative democracy grafted onto a theocracy, the Islamic
Republic is a unique specimen in the menagerie of political systems
from Uruk, Constantinople and Geneva to Athens, Philadelphia and
Moscow.

The Iranian parliamentary elections of 14 March 2008 perpetuated the
fractious pattern of the presidential elections of 2005, with splinter
groups growing within both "principalist" and reformist camps.

The "principalists" were unable to keep a powerful triumvirate of
pragmatic conservatives (the mayor of Tehran, Mohammad Bagher
Ghalibaf, the former nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani and the former
Revolutionary Guard Commander, Mohsen Rezaie) from leaving the strict
conservative coalition that included President Ahmedinajad. The
reformist camp was also cleaved into the eponymous followers of former
President Khatami and the National Confidence party of the former
Speaker of the Parliament, Mahdi Karrubi.

Given the good showing of the reformist camp, this group can choose to
join forces with "independents" (candidates who chose not to affiliate
themselves with existing camps) and pragmatic conservatives to shovel
sand in the gears of President Ahmadinejad's polarising economic
practices, management style and foreign policy.

The Iranian theocracy runs on the legitimating fuel of annual
democratic elections. Of course the democratic component of the
Islamic polity has to be kept in check. A theocratic Supreme Court
(Guardian Council) vets the candidates before and selectively
adjudicates voting irregularities after each election. During
elections the state militias of Basij campaign for the personal choice
of the theocratic Supreme Leader.

In the recent elections, the disqualification of reformers removed
well-known challengers from more than one-third of the 290 seats at
the parliament and replaced them on the ballot with less-known
reformist candidates with little chance of winning. After the
elections, both reformist factions vociferously objected to the
results.

The question is why Iranians participate in a "manipulated" election.
The answer is simple. Voting is a rational choice: the benefits of
participation outweigh its costs. Procedurally speaking, participation
in elections prevents total domination by the theocrats, increases
transparency and ensures a modicum of circulation of elites at the
lower rungs of the system.

Of course there is always an outside (but real) chance of a sudden
upset. It is true that the system is altered to benefit theocracy, but
a bit of luck and a huge landslide can overwhelm the theocratic
stopgaps and lead to historical victories, such as that enjoyed by
Mohammad Khatami in 1997 and 2001.

Lack of alternatives is another factor in the calculus of voting in
Iran. Revolution against the regime is out of the question for a
nation that trod upon that perilous path a generation ago. Nor is it
possible to deny legitimacy to the system by an electoral boycott –
which requires a campaign that may never be allowed in Iran. In short,
Iranians calculate that exercising their right to vote is worth
imparting a patina of legitimacy to the system, at least for the time
being.

But what about in the long run?

Trends in voting don't seem to favour the current symbiosis between
democracy and theocracy. Natural democratic processes erode strict
theocratic rule requiring ever-stricter legal and extra legal measures
and "election engineering". An increase in such interventions will
discourage mass participation, which currently hovers around 55
percent.

In the cities where voting is a political act rather than an
expression of ethnic solidarity or procurement of cash for local
projects, participation has fallen to 30 percent. It is true that low
participation favours the right wing which relies on its steady 20
percent population base.

But the recent election shows that in the cities even the supposedly
solid conservative base has been thinning. It is therefore possible to
extrapolate that Iran is facing increasing voter apathy that will
likely disrupt the delicate balance of theocracy and democracy,
possibly unleashing a crisis of legitimacy in the Islamic Republic.
This is a great liability in a nation that only three decades ago
overthrew another powerful but unpopular regime.

Reason and recent regional experience suggest that sustainable
political change cannot be dictated to the Middle East from without.
There are two survival scenarios for the Islamic Republic and both of
them are stories of slow transubstantiation: in one version reformers
will prevail, and, having learned their lessons from the Khatami
years, rigorously carry through their transformative democratic
changes. In another, gradual democratisation, and its inevitable
concomitant – the increasing ceremonialisation of theocracy – will
result from the acumen of a Supreme Leader who finds reigning as the
symbol of the unity of church and state preferable to radical
destabilisation.

###

* Ahmad Sadri is a professor of sociology and the Gorter Chair of
Islamic World Studies at Lake Forest College. This article was written
for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at
www.commongroundnews.org.

Source: Common Ground News Service, 29 April 2008, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.


5) From Dubai to Doha
John Defterios

Dubai - There is a rich history of trading in Dubai that stretches
back to the 1850s. And it is this mindset which is at the heart of the
Emirate's business plan for the next quarter century.

Take DP World, the trading division of the company, Dubai World. It
has forged 23 different deals stretching from China to Djibouti. This
allows Dubai Inc. to place a corporate flag in each country, planting
the seeds for future relationships and growth.

This sounds simple, but it may be the key differentiating factor for
the United Arab Emirates vis-à-vis its competitors in the Gulf.

This week I had a chance to take an in-depth look at some of the
building blocks for the future and to take in some high-level analysis
from some of the top political and business leaders in the region at
two forums — the Doha Forum on Democracy, Development and Free Trade
and Business Week's Middle East-China Leadership Forum in Dubai.

Over the weekend, I sat in a few business plan briefings at three
divisions of Tatweer, a division of Dubai Holdings, the key
development vehicle of the government. Dubai Land, Dubai Healthcare
City and Dubai Industrial City fit into the next stage of growth. To
be candid, it was hard to appreciate the scale of these projects. You
might have seen the brands on the many flags, which flutter in the
Arabian winds, but to see where they fit into the puzzle of this
economy takes quite a different perspective.

I could write a column on each of these projects, but simply put, one
represents sizable theme parks and residential real estate; another is
a new approach to integrated healthcare — which is sorely needed — and
the final piece is the development of an industrial hub to support the
growth which is underway.

The industrial city is under construction. 55 square kilometres of
real estate hosts logistics facilities, land available for global and
regional manufacturers to lease space and even low income housing for
labourers to address one of the thorniest issues facing the
governments in the region — to take care of the thousands of workers,
primarily from South Asia who have been imported into the UAE.

If you take a step back, you can see the logic of all the blueprints
and buildings to come. Hotels, golf courses and villas are built to
attract visitors and residents. The largest airport in the world is
being constructed to bring tourists in and the industrial city will be
there to support light industry which has expanded to accommodate this
growth. The division managers of these projects smile when asked about
the original feasibility studies presented by consultants for all
these projects. They were rejected, I am told, by His Highness Shaikh
Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, the Ruler of Dubai and now Vice-
President and Prime Minister of the UAE. It is obvious after this week
in the region that the bar is set very high.

Dubai seems to be sprinting to stay ahead of its Gulf neighbours who
are now constructing their own visions of the future. On the final
approach after a 40-minute flight to Doha from Dubai, one can witness
how Qataris plan to expand. Like Dubai, Qatar realises that trained
workers and graduates will be needed to fill the buildings and map out
the strategies for the future. The first graduates from the Qatar
Foundation campus, comprised of four university programmes with links
to the West, will commence on 6 May. This is encouraging.

While the small but wealthy Gulf emirates expand, the sizable players
of the Middle East are benefiting from what Turkish Prime Minister
Recep Erdogan called "the new culture of globalisation". Since his
coming to power in 2003, foreign direct investment (FDI) has surged
from $1 billion to $22 billion. Turkey not only has a large
population, but is able to look East and West as an export hub for
Europe and the Middle East. Egypt is enjoying similar FDI growth. This
is the benefit of greater integration.

UAE officials say they mapped out their blueprints based not on the 40
million people of the Gulf, but on the 310 million people of the
Greater Middle East Free Trade Area (GAFTA). They have tapped into
years of pent up demand, especially as many residents repatriated
their savings and assets after 9/11. While consultants may want to be
conservative with the project studies presented to their clients in
the Gulf, the leaders in the region have no plans to heed that advice.

With oil at $110 or more per barrel, it is full steam ahead.

###

* John Defterios is an anchor for CNN's Marketplace Middle East (MME).
This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews)
and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org.

Source: Khaleej Times, 21 April 2008, www.khaleejtimes.com
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)


.