Common Ground News Service
Partners in Humanity
for constructive & vibrant Muslim-Western relations
01 - 07 April 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) Ignoring Al Jazeera by Lawrence Pintak
The latest decision by Israel to boycott the Arab world's most
influential television station provoked director, author and co-
editor, Lawrence Pintak, to examine the role, controversy and
influence of Al Jazeera in the Middle East and beyond.
(Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 1 April 2008)
2) Dialogue of the deaf by J=F8rgen S. Nielsen
Following the debut of Geert Wilders' film, Fitna, J=F8rgen S. Nielsen,
professor of Islamic Studies at the University of Copenhagen, explores
the various ways European governments can achieve a balance between
freedom of expression and respect for religious feelings.
(Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 1 April 2008)
3) The Pakistan-Israel stalemate by Rehan Rafay Jamil
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict makes headlines the world over, but
the perspectives of Muslim countries outside the Middle East on the
issue are rarely heard. Karachi-based journalist and freelance writer,
Rehan Rafay Jamil analyses how resolving this conflict will impact
broader Jewish-Muslim co-existence.
(Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 1 April 2008)
4) Combating Fitna by Ibrahim el Houdaiby
According to Ibrahim el Houdaiby, board member of the Muslim
Brotherhood's official English-language website, movies like Geert
Wilder's Fitna inflame religious tensions and allow radicals on both
sides to promote their agenda. El Houdaiby appeals to moderates to
take the lead in fostering mutual understanding by developing a "code
of ethics" for intercultural relations.
(Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 1 April 2008)
5) Iranian-Canadian understanding over tea by Gladys Terichow
Gladys Terichow, a writer for the Mennonite Central Committee,
considers the commonalities and differences between different peace
theologies through the experience of Yousef Daneshvar, an Iranian
student participating in the North American-Iranian student exchange
program hosted by the Mennonite Central Committee.
(Source: Mennonite Central Committee, 19 March 2008)
1) Ignoring Al Jazeera
Lawrence Pintak
Cairo - It appears that Israel is taking a page from the George W.
Bush book of public diplomacy: attempting to influence coverage by
Arab media by boycotting the most influential television station in
the Arab world.
In the latest news from Jerusalem, it seems the Ehud Olmert government
has decided Al Jazeera favours Hamas over Israel in the Gaza conflict
and will now refuse to deal with its re****ters.
You have to admit, Israel and Al Jazeera were unlikely bedfellows. But
the fact that we are even discussing banning Al Jazeera re****ters from
the Knesset speaks volumes about what had previously been a very
pragmatic relation****p.
Israelis understood from the start what the Bush administration has
only lately come to realize - that it was better for Israeli officials
to use Al Jazeera to explain the country's policies to the Arab world
in their own words than to demonise the station and let its presenters
put their own spin on Israeli policy. Not only does Al Jazeera have a
bureau in Israel, but Israelis can watch both the Arabic channel and
Al Jazeera English, neither of which is readily accessible in the
United States.
It's not that Israelis are naive. They know the Qatar-based channel's
policy of presenting "the opinion, and the other opinion" does not
change the fact that it is - according to its own mission statement -
an "Arab media service". And that means it re****ts events in the
Occupied Territories through an Arab camera lens, just as it re****ted
the Afghan and Iraq invasions from an Arab perspective, incensing the
Bush administration.
Even so, successive Israeli governments have continued a policy of
engagement with Al Jazeera because it made good, strategic sense. The
new boycott was apparently sparked by the fact that, in the latest
round of Israeli attacks on Hamas in Gaza, Al Jazeera focused heavily
on Palestinian casualties - zooming in on the dead and wounded for
close-ups, a practice Israeli television has stopped doing with
Israeli victims to avoid exacerbating trauma and desire for revenge.
But should anyone be surprised? According to the Israeli daily
Haaretz, "Three Israelis and more than 120 Palestinians were killed,
including dozens of civilians, before the fighting subsided earlier
this month."
All this naturally raises the question, "What is balance?"
Various studies have found that US media gives substantially more
coverage to Israeli deaths than those of Palestinians, even though the
Palestinian death rates are much higher. That's true in spades for
Israeli television. Shouldn't we then expect that Arab journalists,
re****ting for an Arab audience, are going to focus on Arab casualties?
As Ahmed Mansour, Al Jazeera's correspondent in the Iraqi city of
Fallujah during the US siege, once told me, "When I was in Fallujah,
every girl I saw reminded me of my daughter. When I tried to [separate
myself from what was happening], sometimes I could not. I saw a child
injured or dead, and I'd remember my son. They are Arab like you,
Muslim like you."
Granted, Al Jazeera is far from perfect. It can be sensational,
opinionated and irresponsible. But, the same can be said about many
Western channels.
Lately, many observers - even inside Al Jazeera - say there has been a
decided tilt in favour of Hamas over the Fatah-led Palestinian
Authority. But Al Jazeera, like the Arab world, is no monolith. Its
newsroom is divided between pro-Hamas sup****ters of political Islam
and Arab nationalists, who tend to favour the Fatah-controlled
Palestinian Authority. At the moment, the pro-Hamas faction has the
upper hand.
The claim that Al Jazeera's coverage of events in Gaza builds sup****t
for Hamas is essentially true. But any time people see their own
dying, it tarnishes the attacker and helps whatever army happens to be
defending the attacked. We saw this most recently during the 2006
Israel-Hizbullah war in which Lebanese - and Arabs - of all political
stripes rallied to Hizbullah's cause.
The irony of this tempest is that Israel's ally in its attempt to
control Al Jazeera's message is none other than the Arab League. Arab
information ministers recently adopted a new Arab Satellite Charter
that gives them the right to pull the plug on channels that
"jeopardise social peace, national unity, public order and general
propriety," and those "broadcasting any materials that would incite
violence and terrorism [or] imply that [a] crime or its predators are
heroes or justify their motives."
The Qatari government, which funds Al Jazeera, abstained from the
vote. It knows the channel is about as popular in the palaces of the
Arab world as in the halls of the Knesset. Which is precisely why it
is so influential among the Arab public, and why non-Arab governments
- whether Israeli or American - seeking to influence Arabs ignore the
channel at their own peril.
###
* Lawrence Pintak is director of the Kamal Adham Center for Journalism
Training and Research at the American University in Cairo, publisher
and co-editor of the online journal Arab Media & Society, and author
of Reflections in a Bloodshot Lens: America, Islam & the War of Ideas.
This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews)
and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org.
Source: Common Ground News Service, 1 April 2008, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
2) Dialogue of the deaf
J=F8rgen S. Nielsen
Copenhagen, Denmark - Last week in Europe we waited with bated breath
for reactions to the controversial public showing of a film attacking
the Qur'an produced by the Dutch right-wing politician Geert Wilders.
This comes on top of trouble already brewing over the re-publication
in several Danish newspapers of the notorious Muhammad cartoons. Over
two years after the original publication, it seems we are back where
we started, with protests simmering and sometimes descending into
violence in various parts of the Muslim world.
Underlying the myriad reasons for these events appears to be a
fundamental inability of people holding varied positions to understand
how the other side thinks and feels. We have here a dialogue of the
deaf, although paradoxically both sides share the same motivation -
fear.
European culture and public discourse has become so secularised in
recent generations that there is little comprehension of people whose
religion holds a central place in their lives and identity. European
nation states were constructed through centuries of struggle and
conflict in which religious differences and oppression were often
explosive. People today fear that they are in danger of losing what
was won with so much suffering: their freedoms and their collective
sense of identity.
Behind these fears lie the rapid changes of globalisation, increased
powers of the European Union and the uncertainties of geopolitics and
climate change. But in Europe the fears focus on immigrants and ethnic
minorities, which in many places means Muslims.
Muslim demands to be taken seriously are interpreted as a threat to
the hard-won rights of freedom of expression. Those feeling threatened
fear not just the small minorities of Muslims in Europe - in most
countries less than three percent of the population - but also the
hundreds of millions of Muslims beyond their borders in the broader
Muslim world, where the so-called "new enemy" is to be found.
Many parts of the Muslim world also fear uncertainties such as
globalisation, international instability, and closer to home,
unemployment and arbitrary governments - not to mention random
violence. But there the fear is focused on the heirs of the old
imperial powers: the West, which is again seen as wi****ng to dominate,
and consequently, undermine Islam. In response, respect for the
religion and its symbols becomes a central focus.
One side is talking the language of freedoms and rights. The other
side is talking the language of respect for the sacred.
At the end of last month, in response to the re-publication of the
cartoons and the promised Dutch film, the ambassadors to the United
Nations of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) issued a
statement against Islamophobia. In it they affirm their sup****t for
freedom of expression, balanced by respect for religious feelings. The
question left unanswered is how that balance is to be achieved.
For its part, the Danish government responded to the initial
controversy with major investments in cultural and political dialogue,
as well as by expanding its efforts in sup****t of development,
especially among Palestinians in Jordan and the Occupied Territories.
The Dutch government is re****tedly considering a ban of the film,
prompting the producer to say he will broadcast it on the internet. In
Pakistan, YouTube was shut down in late February apparently for
showing clips of the film, but it re-opened within a few hours.
The OIC emphasised the need for dialogue and education at its summit
in December 2005. In light of the repeated incidents, the organisation
has now hardened its line and is demanding legislation, though
minimally in the form of additions or amendments to international
human rights statutes.
There is no way that European governments will accept any wording that
crosses the line into legal commitments. Not only would it compromise
those valued freedoms, it would also too closely resemble laws such as
Turkey's notorious paragraph 301, which criminalises "public
denigration of Turkishness, the Republic, the parliament, the courts,
the military or the security forces," or Pakistan's laws against
insulting the Prophet Muhammad. Both of these have been widely and
mischievously used to harass rivals and pursue personal vendettas.
But European governments could certainly do more to encourage dialogue
and education, which would make the gratuitous issuing of insults
against people's core beliefs unacceptable public behaviour. And
governments in the Muslim world could do more to show that their
expressed respect for freedom of expression is more than empty
rhetoric. Until then, the dialogue of the deaf is, sadly, set to
continue.
###
* J=F8rgen S. Nielsen is professor of Islamic Studies at the University
of Copenhagen in Denmark. This article was written for Common Ground
News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org.
Source: Common Ground News Service, 1 April 2008, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
3) The Pakistan-Israel stalemate
Rehan Rafay Jamil
Karachi, Pakistan - It seems not a day goes by in Pakistan without the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict making headlines. Entire generations have
grown up seeing the region on our television screens as synonymous
with perpetual conflict. From Ye****va students gunned down in
Jerusalem to the beleaguered residents of Gaza punished through
economic blockades, the immense human suffering never ceases to shock.
I live hundreds of miles away from Jerusalem, in Karachi. But like so
many people in Pakistan, I care about what happens in that part of the
world. I care, not because it is a "religious conflict" as many here
would like to believe, but because it is a human conflict, whose
repercussions extend beyond the borders of Israel-Palestine and have a
tangible impact on Jewish-Muslim co-existence elsewhere.
I don't claim to be an impartial observer in this conflict. Palestine
is something I have grown up hearing about. My father and his siblings
were leftists for whom Palestine represented a major third world
struggle for freedom. My uncle went to Jordan in the 1970s to receive
training with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.
By contrast, I studied at a liberal arts college in the United States,
where I forged friend****ps with Jewish students and self-identified
Zionists. It was while breaking bread at Shabbat that I truly
understood just how closely related the Abrahamic faiths of Judaism
and Islam really are.
Pakistan is not directly involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict, nor do
Israel and Pakistan have any direct reason to be at odds. Rather, it
is the occupation of Palestine that inhibits relations between the two
countries. In the past, many Israeli heads of state have called for
formal accords to be established and it is no secret both countries
have had informal relations stemming back several decades.
In 2003, President Musharraf called for a public debate concerning the
recognition of Israel. But public opinion in Pakistan was against any
reconciliation unless there were concrete efforts towards the
establishment of a Palestinian state. Two years later, in a move that
raised many eyebrows, Pakistan's Foreign Minister Khur****d Kasuri met
with his Israeli counterpart, Silvan Shalom, marking the first time a
Pakistani and Israeli official did so publicly. The meeting was
followed by protests in Gaza and across Pakistan. Since then,
President Musharraf has reverted to Pakistan's traditional stance that
there will be no recognition of Israel until the creation of a
Palestinian state.
In March 2002, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia proposed what has been
called the Arab Peace Initiative in Beirut. The proposal calls for the
establishment of a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders, with
Israel accorded full recognition by Arab countries in return. The
initiative, which was re-endorsed in Riyadh in 2007, makes clear that
security for Israel is inextricably dependent upon justice and a sense
of hope for the Palestinian people. It has been embraced by many
Muslim states, including Pakistan, and seems like one of the last
remaining hopes for peace in the region.
For those of us who reject apocalyptic theories of a clash of
civilisations but are alarmed by growing polarisation in the world,
the creation of a viable Palestinian state has become more critical
than ever. I am convinced that if there is to be reconciliation
between Israel and Pakistan, there must be an end to the occupation.
An independent Palestinian state is Israel's best bet for peace,
security and acceptance in the wider Muslim world.
###
* Rehan Rafay Jamil is a journalist and freelance writer living in
Karachi. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service
(CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org.
Source: Common Ground News Service, 1 April 2008, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
4) Combating Fitna
Ibrahim el Houdaiby
Cairo - Last week, Dutch MP Geert Wilders released his movie Fitna,
attacking Muslims and the Qur'an, amidst wide international worries
that airing the movie would only lead to further cross-cultural
tensions, and perhaps violence. Influential Muslim figures, including
some Salafi Saudi scholars, had threatened to boycott the Netherlands
while official figures in Iran threatened to review diplomatic
relations with the country if the film was aired. Once again, the
overall cross-cultural scene seemed less than promising.
Thankfully, the reaction of Danish Muslims was sedate. However, it is
clear that people like Wilders feed on the type of contentious
atmosphere leading up to the film's release. Opinion polls
demonstrated an all-time-high popularity of his political party after
the brutal assassination of Theo van Gogh, and again after the
Jyllands-Posten cartoon controversy.
Wilders opts for political gains that come at the cost of long-term
strategic interests, such as mutual understanding and peaceful co-
existence. Only a few days ago, a Danish teenage Muslim was insulted,
harassed and then beaten to death by teenage racists in a contentious
Islamophobic atmosphere, while Wilders' movie seems to be provoking
more violent reactions from Islamic political groups, who are also
feeding on the hype surrounding the film to advance their radical
ideas.
Moderates of both sides should make a quick move to prevent radicals
from determining the course of events surrounding this debate. The
Dutch Constitution prevents the government from banning the movie, and
I am personally sceptical towards any attempt to silence an idea. Such
subjective decisions open the door for totalitarian regimes to
restrict the freedom of expression of their opposition.
But sponsoring such provocations should be equally rejected. It is
true that boycotting the Danish economy or reviewing diplomatic
relations is irrational and both ethically and politically wrong
because it makes sweeping generalisations, overlooks constitutional
and legal realities, and inflames tensions.
Yet boycotting media outlets that choose to sponsor hatred, and
companies choosing to advertise and sponsor these outlets, is one
possible response. Selective boycotts could be championed by promoters
of tolerance on both sides to marginalise racism and hatred.
However, boycotts will not operate as stand-alone solutions for such
conflicts. In fact, boycotts are the red flags that send alarm signals
when things seem to be getting out of control. They also signal the
failure of sustaining a constructive dialogue that is based on mutual
respect and appreciation of diversity.
For such dialogues to succeed, Wilders' film and similar provocations
should be ignored. Highlighting these provocations in the media only
serves to feed radical sentiments.
Ignoring the provocative insults does not mean overlooking the
critique therein. Inquiries, misconceptions and critiques should be
dealt with in a healthy atmosphere, where common ground is identified
and different perspectives are scrutinised.
Instead of the long series of condemnations and denunciations
following each round of these insults, governments from both sides
should sponsor and promote initiatives that create this kind of
atmosphere.
A successful dialogue never takes place over a few days or weeks. In
fact, it would be impossible for such a discourse to cover the wide
range of contentious cross-cultural issues in a few sessions,
especially with mounting frustration and mutual mistrust. It should
therefore be ongoing and take different forms, including student
exchange programmes, seminars, lectures, conferences and exhibits,
while building self-sustaining institutions that scrutinise cross-
cultural issues and would guarantee continuous interaction.
One of the fruits of this dialogue should be a "code of ethics" for
intercultural relations sponsored by governments, academia, major
media, and cultural and religious institutions. While the code should
not necessarily be embedded in domestic legislation, it should draw
lines between constructive criticism and insults, and pave the way for
constructive responses.
Freedom of expression has been increasingly manipulated over the past
few years, and has been used as a pretext for insult, one that
contributes to widening the gap between different cultures and
civilisations. To ensure this freedom is not compromised, moderates on
both sides should step in and find a sustainable mechanism to bridge
the divides in our increasingly globalised world, in which racism and
radicalism have a devastating effect on everyone.
###
* Ibrahim el Houdaiby is a board member of IkhwanWeb.com, the Muslim
Brotherhood's official English-language website. He has a BA in
political science from the American University in Cairo and is working
towards an MA in Islamic studies at the High Institute of Islamic
Studies. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service
(CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org.
Source: Common Ground News Service, 1 April 2008, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
5) Iranian-Canadian understanding over tea
Gladys Terichow
Winnipeg, Manitoba - Getting to know people from other faith
communities goes a long way to breaking down barriers, said Yousef
Daneshvar, a ****'a Muslim completing his doctoral studies in Canada
under a student exchange program with Iran organised by the Mennonite
Central Committee (MCC), a relief, development and peace agency.
"Let's stop looking at each other through the eyes of the media," said
Daneshvar during a recent visit to Winnipeg. "Stop letting others
decide how we should think about each other. Let's talk to each other
-- have a couple cups of tea, and after that the sense of being
threatened should disappear."
Strengthening interfaith dialogue between Mennonites in North America
and ****'a Muslims in Iran is the primary objective of an unusual
student exchange program initiated in 1998 by MCC. The exchange
includes the Imam Khomeini Education and Research Institute in Qom,
Iran and the Toronto Mennonite Theological Centre, a part of the
Toronto School of Theology.
Daneshvar, the first Iranian selected to study in Canada under this
program, is completing his doctoral studies in Christian theology and
philosophy of religion at the Toronto School of Theology and will be
returning to Iran this summer.
This exchange program, along with other joint initiatives, is
promoting spirited discussion and debate over commonalities and
differences, said Daneshvar. There have also been three interfaith
dialogue conferences between Muslim and Mennonite scholars and
theologians, three MCC learning tours to Iran, and meetings between
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and US and Canadian religious
leaders, including Mennonites.
The objective of dialogue with people from other faith communities, he
said, is not to eliminate differences, convert people or be converted.
The objective is a better understanding of beliefs, values and
personal experiences.
One subject that is often discussed when Mennonites and Muslims meet
is commonalities and differences between peace theologies.
Both faith groups seek peace and justice but the primary difference,
he explained, is that the emphasis of Mennonites' peace theology is
peace and the emphasis of Islam's peace theology is justice. Another
difference is that the Mennonite peace theology is rooted in non-
resistance and pacifism.
"We are not pacifists," said Daneshvar, explaining that if all
peaceful attempts fail, the Qur'an permits Muslims to defend
themselves, or seek justice, with the use of force.
The word Islam, he explained, is derived from an Arabic root word,
salam, -- one of the names given to God in the Qur'an. Salam, he said,
is often translated in English as meaning "peace" or "peace be with
you".
These English translations, he explained, don't adequately describe
Islam or salam because salam ****trays a peaceful relation****p with God
and "a deep friendly relation****p" between individuals.
To maintain this peaceful relation****p with God, faithful Muslim
believers pray five times a day. "He is your creator and your
sustainer -- you owe everything to him," said Daneshvar. Faithful
Muslim believers are also expected to maintain peaceful relation****ps
with fellow human beings.
"My faith is all salam," he said. "I want to live in a community, a
country, a world that is governed by the principles of salam. Our
ideal world is the world of salam--where salam is the first and last
principle."
But the level of peace represented by the word salam only exists if
justice is maintained in society. "Peace without justice is not real
peace," he said. "If you are oppressed and silent you are not living
in peace. You are just keeping silent. That is not real peace."
During his 10 years in Canada, Daneshvar has presented a series of
lectures on Islam in churches and universities. He is now completing a
thesis that explores the relation****p between humanity and faith.
"As time passed my academic work became part of this dialogue," said
Daneshvar, who met with church leaders in Winnipeg in February to
promote interfaith understanding.
His visit to Winnipeg builds on MCC's interfaith peace building
initiatives to encourage dialogue between people from different faith
communities.
###
* Gladys Terichow is a writer for the Mennonite Central Committee
(MCC), a relief, development and peace agency. This article is
distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be
accessed at www.commongroundnews.org.
Source: Mennonite Central Committee, 19 March 2008, www.mcc.org
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@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
) 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 sup****t 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
partner****p 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
Wa****ngton, 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@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
: www.commongroundnews.org
Editors
Leena El-Ali (Wa****ngton)
Juliette Schmidt (Canada)
Diya Agha (Wa****ngton)
Emmanuelle Hazan (Geneva)
Nuruddin Asyhadie (Jakarta)
Andrew Kessinger (Wa****ngton)
Mahmoud Zawawi (Amman)
Rashad Bukhari (Islamabad)
Translators
Fran=E7oise Globa (Geneva)
Rio Rinaldo (Jakarta)
Azmi Tubbeh (Wa****ngton)
Amer Khan (Islamabad)
CGNews is a not-for-profit news service.
You are currently subscribed as %%emailaddr%%
To unsubscribe, click here.
|
