Cairo - Saudi Arabia has announced it will re-open its embassy in Egypt, after closing it in late April due to massive protests. The conflict began when Ahmed al-Gizawi, an Egyptian human rights lawyer, was arrested in April by Saudi security forces upon arriving in the country to take part in the umrah, an Islamic pilgrimage. He was later accused of smuggling drugs into the country, a claim that Egyptians rejected. His arrest struck a sensitive chord with Egyptians, sparked mass protests that led to the closing of the Saudi embassy and resulted in bitter online arguments between Egyptian and Saudi human rights activists.
What I think that both Egyptian and Saudi activists missed in the ensuing debate, however, is that ultimately we, as activists, are on the same side in trying to foster support for human rights in the Middle East.
Over the course of the online attacks, both sides employed angry, frustrated and emotional language. As an Egyptian, I understood the fury from my fellow citizens. I found myself angered by Saudi activists response, as well as al-Gizawis claims about mistreatment in custody.
The war of words between the two sides, both online and in print publications, was inflamed by focusing on perceived problems with the other side. Saudi writers criticised the chaos and political turmoil in Egypt. Egyptians responded by highlighting human rights violations against Egyptians working in Saudi Arabia, where the Egypt State Information Service estimates there at least 900,000 Egyptian workers.
Despite such bitter disagreements, I believe that we as human rights activists in both countries have the potential to change our approach. If we can begin to use respectful language and be tolerant with those who are natural allies, we can do more to fight injustice in both Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
Some activists attempted to calm the situation by posting positive things about the other side, which is a significant step. On Twitter, some Saudis used the hashtag "an Egyptian who influenced me" and mentioned Egyptians who had left a positive mark on a Saudi's life. Unfortunately, few Egyptians responded with the same warmth.
Those Saudis who began this hashtag campaign should be praised, and supported, by their fellow human rights defenders in Egypt. They can be powerful allies in the struggle for justice.
Ultimately, both countries are in the same boat. Voices opposing the governments human rights violations are suppressed in Saudi Arabia, just as in Egypt. Even though we Egyptians feel frustrated, we should be mindful of individual efforts to promote tolerance on both sides during the battle of words such as the brave activists who put forward a hashtag talking about which Egyptians had inspired them. This sort of action can help develop and push dialogue and understanding forward.
The quest for justice is global, yet we in the Middle East and elsewhere are often blinded by anger, and have trouble seeing beyond our borders. Human rights defenders in Egypt and Saudi Arabia both face grave dangers, including attacks on personal freedoms and speech, and the possibility of being arrested and charged for what they write on Twitter. Unifying both sides is critical to nurturing a region-wide culture that respects human rights. We should reach out to similar civil society activists and youth movements in Saudi Arabia and ask them to join with us in supporting human rights, instead of making generalisations and alienating them.
On-going dialogue, even when there is no crisis, can help to bring Saudi and Egyptian activists to the table on an on-going basis to understand each sides struggle and point of view and learn how we might work together. And by choosing tolerant and peaceful language as they relate to each other, both sides can help to foster inclusion rather than embolden the emotional responses that often create a sense of hate.
The human rights communities in both countries need to step up and speak in a unified tone. Al-Gizawis case should be an opportunity to reject injustice and a chance for activists on both sides to claim him as their own. Such actions are key to creating a better, more just Middle East and a better world, one based on tolerance, understanding and respect for human rights.
###
* Manar Ammar is a co-founder of Bikyamasr.com. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 15 May 2012, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Posts Tagged Common Ground News Service
Tunis - There are currently 59 women in the Tunisian National Constituent Assembly (NCA), out of the 217 deputies elected last fall to draft a new constitution. These 59 women were able to run in the elections as part of a political party either because they had demonstrated leadership in the past or because they negotiated with a particular party to be included on their list. The law governing the electoral process mandated that all candidate lists had to include an equal number of men and women, thereby establishing a baseline of equality.
Without the law on gender equality, however, would women have run for the NCA? The answer, I believe, is yes. It seems that Tunisian women are increasingly interested in actively entering the political sphere.
The final election results were mixed: 27 per cent of the members of the lower house of the NCA are women. This number is higher than many countries, but disappointing in light of Tunisians expectations about equality. Of the 1500 candidate lists, only 7 per cent had a female at the top, with men occupying the remaining 93 per cent top places. The head of the list was most likely to win a seat as Tunisias system is a proportional one the more votes a party receives, the more seats it gains in the NCA. However, the high number of parties running in the election resulted in the failure of many parties to win a spot for their head candidate at all, or in only winning a few seats. And because most female candidates didnt lead party lists, many found themselves squeezed out, despite their hard work.
But women are involved in the public sphere. Last February, for example, the Tunisian Association of Democratic Women (ATFD) held a short conference for women, where the attendees prepared and delivered a list of recommendations to Mustapha Ben Jaafar, president of the NCA. The AFTD requested, among other things, enshrining gender equality in the constitution. They also provided proposals for bettering several aspects of women's lives including increasing their presence in public life and politics; improving their access to health care, education, and job opportunities; and protecting them from violence.
Other womens projects have also emerged, including the Collectif 95 Maghreb Egalit, a group of 40 associations and NGOs focusing on gender equality. All these projects share the common theme of promoting womens rights to create a more just society.
Faiza Skandrani, president of an organisation called Equality and Parity, which advocates for these principles in Tunisia, held a contest on Facebook a month before the October elections. It was titled "1,000 Women's CVs for the Constituent Assembly", designed to show Tunisian womens active interest in politics. Skandrani received 800 resumes from women in many parts of the country who were interested in her project. The contest provided an opportunity for interested political parties to learn about potential female candidates as they created their candidate lists for the elections.
Women are also taking positions as political leaders. For instance, Maya Jribi, who was Secretary General of the Democratic Progressive Party (PDP) in 2006, was the first Tunisian woman in charge of a political party and is currently a member of the NCA. She says that she has never seen being a woman as a problem in the political world, nor has she considered it an asset. She simply positions herself as a labour activist and a politician. She is an inspiration to many who see her achievements as proof that women can succeed in politics through their own talent and skills.
Finally, women from different groups are starting to work together. The Vice President of the NCA, Meherzia Labidi, has proposed establishing a committee made up of women from different political backgrounds in order to draw on its members diverse perspectives to find solutions to problems facing women.
Gradually, Tunisian women are making their debut on the political scene, which is helping solidify their hard-won gains. And as these new realities help shape the expectations of future generations, it is likely that these committed women will pave the way for young women who may someday become policymakers without facing any obstacles because of their gender.
###
* Sana Sbouai writes for the blog Nawaat, with a particular focus on social issues. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 8 May 2012, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Without the law on gender equality, however, would women have run for the NCA? The answer, I believe, is yes. It seems that Tunisian women are increasingly interested in actively entering the political sphere.
The final election results were mixed: 27 per cent of the members of the lower house of the NCA are women. This number is higher than many countries, but disappointing in light of Tunisians expectations about equality. Of the 1500 candidate lists, only 7 per cent had a female at the top, with men occupying the remaining 93 per cent top places. The head of the list was most likely to win a seat as Tunisias system is a proportional one the more votes a party receives, the more seats it gains in the NCA. However, the high number of parties running in the election resulted in the failure of many parties to win a spot for their head candidate at all, or in only winning a few seats. And because most female candidates didnt lead party lists, many found themselves squeezed out, despite their hard work.
But women are involved in the public sphere. Last February, for example, the Tunisian Association of Democratic Women (ATFD) held a short conference for women, where the attendees prepared and delivered a list of recommendations to Mustapha Ben Jaafar, president of the NCA. The AFTD requested, among other things, enshrining gender equality in the constitution. They also provided proposals for bettering several aspects of women's lives including increasing their presence in public life and politics; improving their access to health care, education, and job opportunities; and protecting them from violence.
Other womens projects have also emerged, including the Collectif 95 Maghreb Egalit, a group of 40 associations and NGOs focusing on gender equality. All these projects share the common theme of promoting womens rights to create a more just society.
Faiza Skandrani, president of an organisation called Equality and Parity, which advocates for these principles in Tunisia, held a contest on Facebook a month before the October elections. It was titled "1,000 Women's CVs for the Constituent Assembly", designed to show Tunisian womens active interest in politics. Skandrani received 800 resumes from women in many parts of the country who were interested in her project. The contest provided an opportunity for interested political parties to learn about potential female candidates as they created their candidate lists for the elections.
Women are also taking positions as political leaders. For instance, Maya Jribi, who was Secretary General of the Democratic Progressive Party (PDP) in 2006, was the first Tunisian woman in charge of a political party and is currently a member of the NCA. She says that she has never seen being a woman as a problem in the political world, nor has she considered it an asset. She simply positions herself as a labour activist and a politician. She is an inspiration to many who see her achievements as proof that women can succeed in politics through their own talent and skills.
Finally, women from different groups are starting to work together. The Vice President of the NCA, Meherzia Labidi, has proposed establishing a committee made up of women from different political backgrounds in order to draw on its members diverse perspectives to find solutions to problems facing women.
Gradually, Tunisian women are making their debut on the political scene, which is helping solidify their hard-won gains. And as these new realities help shape the expectations of future generations, it is likely that these committed women will pave the way for young women who may someday become policymakers without facing any obstacles because of their gender.
###
* Sana Sbouai writes for the blog Nawaat, with a particular focus on social issues. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 8 May 2012, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
London - Egyptian journalist Mona Eltahawy unleashed a veritable media storm on Arab gender relations with her recent article for Foreign Policy magazine, provocatively titled, Why Do They Hate Us? referring to male attitudes towards women.
Amid the controversy, however, important questions risk being overlooked. Instead of dwelling on whether Arab men really do hate women, our attention might be better focused on formulating strategies to achieve gender equality.
Eltahawy may be doing gender relations a great service by raising awareness about the need for supporting womens rights, but the articles tone is controversial. The article, illustrated with photographs of a naked woman covered in black body paint suggestive of a niqab, is an impassioned diatribe against the poor condition of womens rights in the Arab world. Eltahawy lists a catalogue of abuses women suffer, including her own beating and sexual assault at a protest in Cairo last year, attributing such attitudes to a toxic mix of culture and religion. The crux of her argument is that Arab women live as second-class citizens because they are hated by men. Our political revolutions will not succeed unless they are accompanied by revolutions of thought social, sexual, and cultural revolutions that topple the Mubaraks in our minds as well as our bedrooms, she writes.
Her critique immediately led to a crescendo of emotionally charged responses, with some lauding the Egyptian writer for her bravery. Her detractors have been more vocal, accusing her of promoting simplistic views that pander to Western stereotypes of Arab women as victims in need of rescuing from a misogynistic Islam.
Eltahawys article certainly did not start the debate on womens rights in the Arab world, but it has helped popularise it. On social media websites and in cafes, Arabs of different economic and religious backgrounds are busy contemplating the status of the regions women.
But ignored in the debate is the existence of many Arab men working in solidarity and partnership with women to exorcise the scourge of gender inequality from their communities. A sizeable number of men are equally or increasingly involved in family duties traditionally seen as womens work, such as child-raising, cooking and housework. We would do well to consider ways to further improve mens involvement in the struggle for gender parity.
More and more Arab men are joining in womens struggle for greater freedoms, accompanying them on demonstrations and viewing gender equality as integral to their vision of a better society. Some, like the Egyptian writer Ahmed Kadry, have taken to the blogosphere to call for an end to sexual harassment of women. Indeed, Arab feminism has found supporters among men throughout its long history- men who realise that they are equally held captive by strict interpretations of gender expectations.
Loaded language about hate has the advantage of drawing attention to an issue, but risks alienating the very audience that needs to be engaged with. Viewing men as hateful does little to promote the end goal of all gender activists, which is greater freedom and dignity for women. Instead, initiatives that increase mens involvement in and sense of ownership of gender equality must be fostered. Grassroots projects to rehabilitate male perpetrators of gender-based violence, such as those run by the Lebanese organisations KAFA (Enough), an organisation working to end violence and exploitation, and the ABAAD Resource Center for Gender Equality, are doing just that, helping transform misogynistic attitudes towards women.
As Arab women and men, we must harness the angry indictments of inequality that Eltahawy has rightfully brought to our attention into proactive action. Rather than laying the blame for womens disempowerment at the doorstep of men or culture, we should use peaceful and inclusive dialogue to reinforce the idea that womens rights are everyones concern.
To paraphrase the physicist Albert Einstein, one cannot solve a problem with the same mind that created it. Finger-pointing and blame games will only create further antagonism. Until women and men unite to throw off the chains of strictly dichotomous gender roles and identities, we are all culpable in perpetuating the disempowerment of our societies as a whole. The so-called Arab Spring may have disappointed many, but it is not over yet. These tumultuous times present an important opportunity for the region, and indeed the world, to engage in an inclusive and peaceful battle for greater freedoms for all.
Let Eltahawys article be a rallying cry to improve the communication lines between women and men. Their lives, as the United Nations Population Fund has noted, are interdependent and the empowerment of women benefits everyone.
###
* Dalila Mahdawi is a human rights journalist based in Beirut and London. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 8 May 2012, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Amid the controversy, however, important questions risk being overlooked. Instead of dwelling on whether Arab men really do hate women, our attention might be better focused on formulating strategies to achieve gender equality.
Eltahawy may be doing gender relations a great service by raising awareness about the need for supporting womens rights, but the articles tone is controversial. The article, illustrated with photographs of a naked woman covered in black body paint suggestive of a niqab, is an impassioned diatribe against the poor condition of womens rights in the Arab world. Eltahawy lists a catalogue of abuses women suffer, including her own beating and sexual assault at a protest in Cairo last year, attributing such attitudes to a toxic mix of culture and religion. The crux of her argument is that Arab women live as second-class citizens because they are hated by men. Our political revolutions will not succeed unless they are accompanied by revolutions of thought social, sexual, and cultural revolutions that topple the Mubaraks in our minds as well as our bedrooms, she writes.
Her critique immediately led to a crescendo of emotionally charged responses, with some lauding the Egyptian writer for her bravery. Her detractors have been more vocal, accusing her of promoting simplistic views that pander to Western stereotypes of Arab women as victims in need of rescuing from a misogynistic Islam.
Eltahawys article certainly did not start the debate on womens rights in the Arab world, but it has helped popularise it. On social media websites and in cafes, Arabs of different economic and religious backgrounds are busy contemplating the status of the regions women.
But ignored in the debate is the existence of many Arab men working in solidarity and partnership with women to exorcise the scourge of gender inequality from their communities. A sizeable number of men are equally or increasingly involved in family duties traditionally seen as womens work, such as child-raising, cooking and housework. We would do well to consider ways to further improve mens involvement in the struggle for gender parity.
More and more Arab men are joining in womens struggle for greater freedoms, accompanying them on demonstrations and viewing gender equality as integral to their vision of a better society. Some, like the Egyptian writer Ahmed Kadry, have taken to the blogosphere to call for an end to sexual harassment of women. Indeed, Arab feminism has found supporters among men throughout its long history- men who realise that they are equally held captive by strict interpretations of gender expectations.
Loaded language about hate has the advantage of drawing attention to an issue, but risks alienating the very audience that needs to be engaged with. Viewing men as hateful does little to promote the end goal of all gender activists, which is greater freedom and dignity for women. Instead, initiatives that increase mens involvement in and sense of ownership of gender equality must be fostered. Grassroots projects to rehabilitate male perpetrators of gender-based violence, such as those run by the Lebanese organisations KAFA (Enough), an organisation working to end violence and exploitation, and the ABAAD Resource Center for Gender Equality, are doing just that, helping transform misogynistic attitudes towards women.
As Arab women and men, we must harness the angry indictments of inequality that Eltahawy has rightfully brought to our attention into proactive action. Rather than laying the blame for womens disempowerment at the doorstep of men or culture, we should use peaceful and inclusive dialogue to reinforce the idea that womens rights are everyones concern.
To paraphrase the physicist Albert Einstein, one cannot solve a problem with the same mind that created it. Finger-pointing and blame games will only create further antagonism. Until women and men unite to throw off the chains of strictly dichotomous gender roles and identities, we are all culpable in perpetuating the disempowerment of our societies as a whole. The so-called Arab Spring may have disappointed many, but it is not over yet. These tumultuous times present an important opportunity for the region, and indeed the world, to engage in an inclusive and peaceful battle for greater freedoms for all.
Let Eltahawys article be a rallying cry to improve the communication lines between women and men. Their lives, as the United Nations Population Fund has noted, are interdependent and the empowerment of women benefits everyone.
###
* Dalila Mahdawi is a human rights journalist based in Beirut and London. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 8 May 2012, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
London - Rapid political developments have become a fixture of Egyptian politics in the post-Mubarak era. In the past few days, former International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed El-Baradei established a new political party, saying he hopes to revive the values of the revolution; and Saudi Arabia withdrew its Egyptian ambassador due to protests and unrest.
Egypts constitutional assembly, charged with the crucial job of drafting the countrys new constitution, is also in the midst of change. In March, Egypts parliament created the 100-member assembly, which included representatives from parliament, civil society and religious bodies.
Since its formation, the assembly has been heavily criticised from almost all quarters for including so many members of parliament, which is dominated by Islamic political parties. However, the solution to this impasse is not the removal of Egypts Islamic political parties from parliament, as much as their critics would wish it so.
Instead, the Islamic political parties who form the parliamentary majority need to embrace post-Mubarak Egypts political pluralism.
After an initial flurry of resignations from the constitutional assembly from members of parliament affiliated with small parties who felt they did not have a voice, there were several high profile withdrawals, including those of the representatives of Al-Azhar and the Coptic Church.
Due to this criticism, Egypts administrative court suspended the constitutional assembly in early April; however, the courts decision is still subject to appeal. What Egypt most needs now is to reform the constitutional assembly so that it includes greater representation of Egypt's diverse social and political spectrum, and Islamic political parties have a role to play in this.
It is increasingly important that these parties make a genuine push for greater political dialogue if there is to be any hope of democracy in Egypt and a diverse constitutional assembly. They must broaden their narrow coalition and allow themselves to be subjected to greater influence from minorities and other political groups. Beyond the widely reported under-representation of both Copts and women in the constitutional assembly, Egypt's Nubians, Sufis, Shia population and other religious and ethnic minorities were entirely side-lined.
The omission of all but one of Egypt's revolutionary activists who risked so much in the uprising was perhaps the most galling of all.
The Muslim Brotherhood is both pragmatic and flexible with regards to who they engage with. Indeed many Egyptians assume that the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) and the Muslim Brotherhood have long had some type of arrangement with regards to their respective positions of power. While the Brotherhood's realpolitik has served them well thus far, it has contributed to a growing negative perception that they are self-interested and power hungry.
It is important both for the democratic future of the country and its minority groups that the Brotherhood transform these negatively perceived traits into tools for greater pluralism and democratisation. They should use their vast political experience positively by forming coalitions with democratic groups from civil society, small political parties and groups representing social minorities, rather than forming coalitions based mostly on self-preservation.
Currently, the Muslim Brotherhood is struggling with fundamental insecurities over the continued domination of Egypt's political sphere by the SCAF, which likely prompted their decision to field a presidential candidate, Khairat El Shaiter (who was later disqualified based on electoral law technicalities). However, the Brotherhood pledged earlier not to field a presidential candidate. Its leadership likely recognises that this decision has turned some Egyptians against them, and that pressure on them continues to grow.
The Muslim Brotherhood should risk political security to embrace working with a broader coalition of political parties and social minorities. This would contribute to a pluralistic environment that is both more resistant to the ruling military council and more conducive to fostering the kind of democratic political system so many Egyptians risked their lives for. A plural political system will ultimately benefit everyone involved in the political process, including the Muslim Brotherhood itself.
###
* Nour Bakr is a British Egyptian freelance writer who focuses on Middle East politics, and is a regular contributor to Your Middle East and Comment Middle East. You can follow him on Twitter @nour_bakr. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 1 May 2012, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Egypts constitutional assembly, charged with the crucial job of drafting the countrys new constitution, is also in the midst of change. In March, Egypts parliament created the 100-member assembly, which included representatives from parliament, civil society and religious bodies.
Since its formation, the assembly has been heavily criticised from almost all quarters for including so many members of parliament, which is dominated by Islamic political parties. However, the solution to this impasse is not the removal of Egypts Islamic political parties from parliament, as much as their critics would wish it so.
Instead, the Islamic political parties who form the parliamentary majority need to embrace post-Mubarak Egypts political pluralism.
After an initial flurry of resignations from the constitutional assembly from members of parliament affiliated with small parties who felt they did not have a voice, there were several high profile withdrawals, including those of the representatives of Al-Azhar and the Coptic Church.
Due to this criticism, Egypts administrative court suspended the constitutional assembly in early April; however, the courts decision is still subject to appeal. What Egypt most needs now is to reform the constitutional assembly so that it includes greater representation of Egypt's diverse social and political spectrum, and Islamic political parties have a role to play in this.
It is increasingly important that these parties make a genuine push for greater political dialogue if there is to be any hope of democracy in Egypt and a diverse constitutional assembly. They must broaden their narrow coalition and allow themselves to be subjected to greater influence from minorities and other political groups. Beyond the widely reported under-representation of both Copts and women in the constitutional assembly, Egypt's Nubians, Sufis, Shia population and other religious and ethnic minorities were entirely side-lined.
The omission of all but one of Egypt's revolutionary activists who risked so much in the uprising was perhaps the most galling of all.
The Muslim Brotherhood is both pragmatic and flexible with regards to who they engage with. Indeed many Egyptians assume that the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) and the Muslim Brotherhood have long had some type of arrangement with regards to their respective positions of power. While the Brotherhood's realpolitik has served them well thus far, it has contributed to a growing negative perception that they are self-interested and power hungry.
It is important both for the democratic future of the country and its minority groups that the Brotherhood transform these negatively perceived traits into tools for greater pluralism and democratisation. They should use their vast political experience positively by forming coalitions with democratic groups from civil society, small political parties and groups representing social minorities, rather than forming coalitions based mostly on self-preservation.
Currently, the Muslim Brotherhood is struggling with fundamental insecurities over the continued domination of Egypt's political sphere by the SCAF, which likely prompted their decision to field a presidential candidate, Khairat El Shaiter (who was later disqualified based on electoral law technicalities). However, the Brotherhood pledged earlier not to field a presidential candidate. Its leadership likely recognises that this decision has turned some Egyptians against them, and that pressure on them continues to grow.
The Muslim Brotherhood should risk political security to embrace working with a broader coalition of political parties and social minorities. This would contribute to a pluralistic environment that is both more resistant to the ruling military council and more conducive to fostering the kind of democratic political system so many Egyptians risked their lives for. A plural political system will ultimately benefit everyone involved in the political process, including the Muslim Brotherhood itself.
###
* Nour Bakr is a British Egyptian freelance writer who focuses on Middle East politics, and is a regular contributor to Your Middle East and Comment Middle East. You can follow him on Twitter @nour_bakr. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 1 May 2012, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Boston - Its hard to watch the 2012 elections and not think that political and religious lines are cutting ever deeper into America. A pair of former allies, Republicans and Muslim Americans, whose relations have become beset with stereotypes and a lack of trust and communication, are a prime example. The Republican Party is typecast as hopelessly Islamophobic, and Muslims as a Fifth Column. Thus, were left to believe, the relationship suffers from irreconcilable differences.
The reality is not so clear-cut. Republicans and Muslim Americans have a long history of cooperation that, despite appearances, lingers today even in America's two-party system that often seems to reinforce division.
It wasnt that long ago, before 9/11, when a majority of Muslim Americans voted Republican. Back then, it was mainly over cultural issues like sex and violence on television, and foreign policy Muslims viewed Republicans as the party most likely to support fellow Muslims abroad, including Palestinians, Bosnians and Afghans. Many of these issues still resonate with Muslim Americans.
Sheikh Hamza Yusuf, a well-known Muslim American leader, urged Muslims in 2010 to make strategic alliances with conservatives and recognise that we share a lot of common ground . . . Yusuf added that premarital and extramarital sexuality, the breakdown of the family, and the proliferation of pornography and drugs were common worries.
Many Muslim Americans have also been drawn to the libertarian ideas of Texas Congressman and Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul. While conservatives favour legislating social issues, broad police powers and hard-line military policy, the 76-year-old Baptist has strongly opposed the post-9/11 Patriot Act which increases government powers to monitor citizens and promised to keep America out of international conflicts, which often involve Muslim nations.
There is also an important historical precedent for this libertarian commonality. Islam was founded by a prophet who was a successful merchant, and not only preached about ethical business practices, but had a soft spot for free markets.
For example, after a natural disaster sent commodity prices soaring, Prophet Muhammad rejected price controls, according to Imad-ad-Dean Ahmad, founder of the Minaret of Freedom Institute in Bethesda, Maryland, which focuses on exposing Muslims to free-market thought.
Muslims, who have often complained about being viewed as a monolith, are also beginning to realise that the Republic party is home to many diverse political philosophies, Libertarianism just one among them. There are also fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, neoconservatives, paleoconservatives, liberal Republicans and Tea Partiers. Muslims may identify with any one or several of these philosophies.
Although some conservatives have repelled Muslims with unabashedly Islamophobic rhetoric, there have been a few notable exceptions. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, a potential White House candidate in 2016, not only appointed a Muslim lawyer, Sohail Mohammed, to be a state superior court judge last year, but shot down as crazy critics who alleged that the new judge would impose sharia. Erstwhile presidential candidate and evangelical Christian, Governor Rick Perry of Texas has also established good relations with his states Muslims. General Colin Powell chastised Republicans in 2008 for attacking Barack Obama as a closet Muslim, saying, and What if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer is no.
While the best known Muslims in American politics today are Democrats, Congressmen Keith Ellison of Minnesota and Andre Carson of Indiana, several Muslims figure prominently in conservative politics. For example, Suhail A. Khan was policy director and press officer for California Republican congressman Tom Campbell and later served in the Bush administration.
And Reihan Salam has emerged as one of the leading voices in conservative discourse, writing for conservative magazines and co-authoring in 2010 Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the working Class and Save the American Dream.
While these and other examples show that Muslim Republican isnt necessarily an oxymoron, the numbers suggest that Republicans and Muslims dont talk like they once used to. A Pew Research Center poll in August found that 70 per cent of Muslim Americans identify or lean Democratic, compared to 11 per cent who identify or lean Republican.
Given their commonalities, Republicans dont need to make drastic changes to win back at least some Muslims, but rather address the roots of the Islamophobic rhetoric coming from within their party. Tackling stereotypes within the party would go a long way.
###
* Omar Sacirbey is a Boston-based correspondent for the Religion News Service, specialising in religion and international affairs. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 1 May 2012, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
The reality is not so clear-cut. Republicans and Muslim Americans have a long history of cooperation that, despite appearances, lingers today even in America's two-party system that often seems to reinforce division.
It wasnt that long ago, before 9/11, when a majority of Muslim Americans voted Republican. Back then, it was mainly over cultural issues like sex and violence on television, and foreign policy Muslims viewed Republicans as the party most likely to support fellow Muslims abroad, including Palestinians, Bosnians and Afghans. Many of these issues still resonate with Muslim Americans.
Sheikh Hamza Yusuf, a well-known Muslim American leader, urged Muslims in 2010 to make strategic alliances with conservatives and recognise that we share a lot of common ground . . . Yusuf added that premarital and extramarital sexuality, the breakdown of the family, and the proliferation of pornography and drugs were common worries.
Many Muslim Americans have also been drawn to the libertarian ideas of Texas Congressman and Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul. While conservatives favour legislating social issues, broad police powers and hard-line military policy, the 76-year-old Baptist has strongly opposed the post-9/11 Patriot Act which increases government powers to monitor citizens and promised to keep America out of international conflicts, which often involve Muslim nations.
There is also an important historical precedent for this libertarian commonality. Islam was founded by a prophet who was a successful merchant, and not only preached about ethical business practices, but had a soft spot for free markets.
For example, after a natural disaster sent commodity prices soaring, Prophet Muhammad rejected price controls, according to Imad-ad-Dean Ahmad, founder of the Minaret of Freedom Institute in Bethesda, Maryland, which focuses on exposing Muslims to free-market thought.
Muslims, who have often complained about being viewed as a monolith, are also beginning to realise that the Republic party is home to many diverse political philosophies, Libertarianism just one among them. There are also fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, neoconservatives, paleoconservatives, liberal Republicans and Tea Partiers. Muslims may identify with any one or several of these philosophies.
Although some conservatives have repelled Muslims with unabashedly Islamophobic rhetoric, there have been a few notable exceptions. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, a potential White House candidate in 2016, not only appointed a Muslim lawyer, Sohail Mohammed, to be a state superior court judge last year, but shot down as crazy critics who alleged that the new judge would impose sharia. Erstwhile presidential candidate and evangelical Christian, Governor Rick Perry of Texas has also established good relations with his states Muslims. General Colin Powell chastised Republicans in 2008 for attacking Barack Obama as a closet Muslim, saying, and What if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer is no.
While the best known Muslims in American politics today are Democrats, Congressmen Keith Ellison of Minnesota and Andre Carson of Indiana, several Muslims figure prominently in conservative politics. For example, Suhail A. Khan was policy director and press officer for California Republican congressman Tom Campbell and later served in the Bush administration.
And Reihan Salam has emerged as one of the leading voices in conservative discourse, writing for conservative magazines and co-authoring in 2010 Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the working Class and Save the American Dream.
While these and other examples show that Muslim Republican isnt necessarily an oxymoron, the numbers suggest that Republicans and Muslims dont talk like they once used to. A Pew Research Center poll in August found that 70 per cent of Muslim Americans identify or lean Democratic, compared to 11 per cent who identify or lean Republican.
Given their commonalities, Republicans dont need to make drastic changes to win back at least some Muslims, but rather address the roots of the Islamophobic rhetoric coming from within their party. Tackling stereotypes within the party would go a long way.
###
* Omar Sacirbey is a Boston-based correspondent for the Religion News Service, specialising in religion and international affairs. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 1 May 2012, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Newark, Delaware - A few days ago, I was in Ankara having a conversation with a senior advisor to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. As we were talking, I heard a loud bang outside his office window, as if someone had fired a gun nearby. Needless to say, I was startled, but my friend and his assistant remained unmoved by the noise. [It was] just a sound bomb, he said. Apparently, things like this often happened. We stood near the window and watched the rushing police cars and listened to their sirens. I comforted my disturbed heart by whispering, Relax!, this is Ankara, not Kabul or Baghdad.
Explosions are a new normal in our world. Violence, indeed egregious violence, has become such a big part of our lives that in some ways we are even beginning to celebrate it.
Massoud Hossaini, an Afghan news photographer, was taking pictures at a Kabul shrine on 6 December, 2011, when he too heard a loud explosion. A few shocking moments later he was photographing a 10-year-old girl, Tarana Akbari, standing in the midst of dead men, women and children. A suicide bomber had struck a Shia shrine in Kabul that killed 70 people. Taranas soul and Hossainis camera were eye-witnesses to this gory reality.
One of the pictures that Hossaini took of Tarana was awarded a Pulitzer Prize. People like Hossaini deserve every reward that society can bestow upon them for their service and bravery. The stories that they tell today become our history tomorrow.
Yet despite its importance I do not feel that the photo deserves a Pulitzer Prize at this moment. My feelings are not related to Hossainis own accomplishments but to the larger issues at play in determining what we value.
There is a proverb that a picture is worth a thousand words. And award-winning pictures are full-fledged narratives. Hossainis picture has now become another episode in the never-ending Western fascination with the horrors of the Muslim world. I can understand that the dramatic nature of the picture makes it a strong candidate for an award, but the story behind the picture is unworthy of recognition at this time.
Awards like the Oscars, Nobels and Pulitzers determine how we frame history. These awards do recognise merit but they are also political markers and reflect how the West wishes to understand and portray the world. US President Barack Obamas Nobel Prize for peace in 2009 is one of those striking examples that remind us that these awards are narratives and not just prizes. President Obama had until then done little to earn the prize, but his victory in the 2008 elections was seen by many as a promise that American discourse on world affairs would change and promote peace internationally; a message reinforced by this award.
However, in 2011, the most prominent narrative was not terrorism but the quest for democracy. 2011 did not stand out because of Muslim violence; indeed it was special for the collective Muslim cry for freedom and liberation: the Arab Spring. Pictures of Tahrir Square, full of fervour, promise and hope, deserve recognition more than pictures of what is left behind after bombs have exploded, missiles have landed and drones have struck.
In 2011, I think the Nobel Prize for Peace committee followed the momentum of history by recognising the role women peace-makers were playing, awarding the prize to Liberias Ellen Johnson Sirleaf and Leymah Gbowee, and Yemens Tawakkol Karman. Unfortunately, though, I believe that the Pulitzer Prize this year missed a season of change.
###
* Dr Muqtedar Khan is Associate Professor at the University of Delaware and Fellow of the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 1 May 2012, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Explosions are a new normal in our world. Violence, indeed egregious violence, has become such a big part of our lives that in some ways we are even beginning to celebrate it.
Massoud Hossaini, an Afghan news photographer, was taking pictures at a Kabul shrine on 6 December, 2011, when he too heard a loud explosion. A few shocking moments later he was photographing a 10-year-old girl, Tarana Akbari, standing in the midst of dead men, women and children. A suicide bomber had struck a Shia shrine in Kabul that killed 70 people. Taranas soul and Hossainis camera were eye-witnesses to this gory reality.
One of the pictures that Hossaini took of Tarana was awarded a Pulitzer Prize. People like Hossaini deserve every reward that society can bestow upon them for their service and bravery. The stories that they tell today become our history tomorrow.
Yet despite its importance I do not feel that the photo deserves a Pulitzer Prize at this moment. My feelings are not related to Hossainis own accomplishments but to the larger issues at play in determining what we value.
There is a proverb that a picture is worth a thousand words. And award-winning pictures are full-fledged narratives. Hossainis picture has now become another episode in the never-ending Western fascination with the horrors of the Muslim world. I can understand that the dramatic nature of the picture makes it a strong candidate for an award, but the story behind the picture is unworthy of recognition at this time.
Awards like the Oscars, Nobels and Pulitzers determine how we frame history. These awards do recognise merit but they are also political markers and reflect how the West wishes to understand and portray the world. US President Barack Obamas Nobel Prize for peace in 2009 is one of those striking examples that remind us that these awards are narratives and not just prizes. President Obama had until then done little to earn the prize, but his victory in the 2008 elections was seen by many as a promise that American discourse on world affairs would change and promote peace internationally; a message reinforced by this award.
However, in 2011, the most prominent narrative was not terrorism but the quest for democracy. 2011 did not stand out because of Muslim violence; indeed it was special for the collective Muslim cry for freedom and liberation: the Arab Spring. Pictures of Tahrir Square, full of fervour, promise and hope, deserve recognition more than pictures of what is left behind after bombs have exploded, missiles have landed and drones have struck.
In 2011, I think the Nobel Prize for Peace committee followed the momentum of history by recognising the role women peace-makers were playing, awarding the prize to Liberias Ellen Johnson Sirleaf and Leymah Gbowee, and Yemens Tawakkol Karman. Unfortunately, though, I believe that the Pulitzer Prize this year missed a season of change.
###
* Dr Muqtedar Khan is Associate Professor at the University of Delaware and Fellow of the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 1 May 2012, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Boston - Israeli author Amos Oz was born in Jerusalem in 1939, the son of parents with roots in Lithuania and Ukraine. In his 2002 autobiographical novel, A Tale of Love and Darkness, his father recalls how the walls in Europe were covered in graffiti: Jews, go to Palestine." Then, when he reached Palestine, the walls were scrawled with the words Jews, get out of Palestine.
This memory visibly colours Ozs perspective as a Jew and an Israeli. He is an unapologetic Zionist. He was also one of the first Israelis to advocate a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict after the Six-Day War. In a 1967 article in the Labour newspaper Davar, he wrote that "even unavoidable occupation is a corrupting occupation".
An early member of Peace Now, an Israeli NGO dedicated to promoting peace between Israelis and Palestinians, he has opposed the West Bank settlements for decades. And in 2011, to the outrage of many, Oz sent a copy of A Tale of Love and Darkness, to jailed Fatah leader Marwan Barghouti, with this dedication: "This story is our story, and I hope you read it and understand us better. Hoping you will soon see peace and freedom."
I had the good fortune to hear Oz speak at a plenary session at the pro-Israel, pro-peace organisation J Streets Making History conference in Washington, DC recently. Relaxed and engaging as he addressed more than 2000 attendees in a cavernous hall, Oz hammered at his primary theme: that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a tragedy in the purest sense, because it is a clash between right and right between one very powerful claim to the land and another no less powerful claim over the same land. Palestine is the homeland of the Palestinians in the same way Greece is the homeland of the Greeks, he said, and Israelis are in Israel for exactly the same reason.
Oz made clear that he has little patience for the sentimentalist Western idea that the conflict is just a matter of misunderstandings that can be cleared up with a little group therapy. Rivers of coffee drunk together cannot extinguish the tragedy of two peoples rightly claiming the same land as their one and only homeland, he said. Instead of coffee, what he calls for is a liveable compromise. Compromise means life. The opposite of compromise is not idealism and integrity, but fanaticism and death.
To this Israel Prize laureate, one state does not offer a solution. Rather than a honeymoon, what Israelis and Palestinians need, in his words, is a fair, if painful, divorce. But instead of the current arrangement one characterised by submission and domination the divorced parties will live side by side, and not one on top of the other.
Oz is adamant that the majority of Israelis and Palestinians are ready to accept albeit reluctantly the divorce: a two-state solution, the 1967 borders with modifications and two capital cities in Jerusalem. He offers another metaphor: the patient, Israeli and Palestinian, is unhappily ready for painful surgery; the doctors are cowards. The doctors the leadership on both sides must step forward. Oz doesnt know which leaders will have the courage to carry out the necessary surgeries, or when, but human beings are open-ended; they can surprise even themselves. And, he says with confidence, individuals who are alive today will make this happen.
Literary master that he is, Oz alludes to two kinds of tragedies: those of well-known English playwright William Shakespeare and those of 19th century Russian writer Anton Chekhov. With Shakespeare, at the end of the play, the stage is covered with dead bodies, but justice prevails. Chekhovs characters, on the other hand, are disappointed, disillusioned, and melancholy but alive.
Oz is looking toward a Chekhovian end to the Israeli-Palestinian tragedy. He doesnt expect the players two peoples with equal claims to the same land to be happy when the conflict is finally resolved. But they will be alive, and capable, over time, of healing, and of building a new and productive relationship.
Those of us who listened to Oz at J Streets conference might differ on which of his metaphors divorce or surgery or home subdivision is most apt in describing how the conflict must be resolved. But I expect we agree on this: the Israeli-Palestinian tragedy needs a non-Shakespearean end, and soon. It's called compromise.
###
* Michael Felsen is an attorney and is on the board of the Workmens Circle in Boston, Massachusetts, a 110-year old communal organisation dedicated to secular Jewish education, culture and social justice. This article first appeared in the Jewish Advocate and was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 24 April 2012, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
This memory visibly colours Ozs perspective as a Jew and an Israeli. He is an unapologetic Zionist. He was also one of the first Israelis to advocate a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict after the Six-Day War. In a 1967 article in the Labour newspaper Davar, he wrote that "even unavoidable occupation is a corrupting occupation".
An early member of Peace Now, an Israeli NGO dedicated to promoting peace between Israelis and Palestinians, he has opposed the West Bank settlements for decades. And in 2011, to the outrage of many, Oz sent a copy of A Tale of Love and Darkness, to jailed Fatah leader Marwan Barghouti, with this dedication: "This story is our story, and I hope you read it and understand us better. Hoping you will soon see peace and freedom."
I had the good fortune to hear Oz speak at a plenary session at the pro-Israel, pro-peace organisation J Streets Making History conference in Washington, DC recently. Relaxed and engaging as he addressed more than 2000 attendees in a cavernous hall, Oz hammered at his primary theme: that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a tragedy in the purest sense, because it is a clash between right and right between one very powerful claim to the land and another no less powerful claim over the same land. Palestine is the homeland of the Palestinians in the same way Greece is the homeland of the Greeks, he said, and Israelis are in Israel for exactly the same reason.
Oz made clear that he has little patience for the sentimentalist Western idea that the conflict is just a matter of misunderstandings that can be cleared up with a little group therapy. Rivers of coffee drunk together cannot extinguish the tragedy of two peoples rightly claiming the same land as their one and only homeland, he said. Instead of coffee, what he calls for is a liveable compromise. Compromise means life. The opposite of compromise is not idealism and integrity, but fanaticism and death.
To this Israel Prize laureate, one state does not offer a solution. Rather than a honeymoon, what Israelis and Palestinians need, in his words, is a fair, if painful, divorce. But instead of the current arrangement one characterised by submission and domination the divorced parties will live side by side, and not one on top of the other.
Oz is adamant that the majority of Israelis and Palestinians are ready to accept albeit reluctantly the divorce: a two-state solution, the 1967 borders with modifications and two capital cities in Jerusalem. He offers another metaphor: the patient, Israeli and Palestinian, is unhappily ready for painful surgery; the doctors are cowards. The doctors the leadership on both sides must step forward. Oz doesnt know which leaders will have the courage to carry out the necessary surgeries, or when, but human beings are open-ended; they can surprise even themselves. And, he says with confidence, individuals who are alive today will make this happen.
Literary master that he is, Oz alludes to two kinds of tragedies: those of well-known English playwright William Shakespeare and those of 19th century Russian writer Anton Chekhov. With Shakespeare, at the end of the play, the stage is covered with dead bodies, but justice prevails. Chekhovs characters, on the other hand, are disappointed, disillusioned, and melancholy but alive.
Oz is looking toward a Chekhovian end to the Israeli-Palestinian tragedy. He doesnt expect the players two peoples with equal claims to the same land to be happy when the conflict is finally resolved. But they will be alive, and capable, over time, of healing, and of building a new and productive relationship.
Those of us who listened to Oz at J Streets conference might differ on which of his metaphors divorce or surgery or home subdivision is most apt in describing how the conflict must be resolved. But I expect we agree on this: the Israeli-Palestinian tragedy needs a non-Shakespearean end, and soon. It's called compromise.
###
* Michael Felsen is an attorney and is on the board of the Workmens Circle in Boston, Massachusetts, a 110-year old communal organisation dedicated to secular Jewish education, culture and social justice. This article first appeared in the Jewish Advocate and was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 24 April 2012, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Beirut - On 13 April, 1975 Lebanons civil war began and continued for 15 years, instilling a "fear of the other", especially regarding religious and political differences. Now, more than three decades later, Lebanese youth are working to change this painful reality through a television series called The Team.
Search for Common Ground (SFCG), an organisation dedicated to promoting non-violent solutions to conflict, is responsible for the 13-episode dramatic series which started on 14 April. It airs in Lebanon on the Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation International channel (LBCI) Saturdays at 7pm.
The cast is made up of teenage youth male and female from various Lebanese confessional groups. The series presents ideas likes accepting the "other," civic participation, mutual understanding, condemning violence and cooperation. According to one character on the show, the series is "a practical attempt to combat sectarian intolerance through sports", and "creates a sense of common ground among youth.
In the first episode, viewers learn that Abdullah, a former army officer, lost his leg at a conflict along the Green Line during the civil war. After being invited to a military football game, he has the idea of creating a young team that would help foster unity instead of division in that same place. He decides to put together a football [soccer] team that includes the youth of two Beirut neighbourhoods, Ain Al-Rummaneh and Al-Sahyyah.
Ain Al-Rummaneh is a neighbourhood with a Christian majority, and the place where the civil war first began. Al-Shayyah, an adjacent neighbourhood, is predominantly Muslim. For symbolic reasons, the series takes place on the separation line between the two neighbourhoods, the Green Line, which divided Beirut into east and west for 15 years during the civil war. The resulting strife and separation prevented the youth of these neighbourhoods from understanding each other, and therefore from being able to develop a vision for the country as a whole. Instead, the separation instilled a culture of violence and fear which is still present today.
Almost one year before the series was launched, SFCG held meetings at its offices with a number of young people to talk about a sense of national identity, civic responsibility and respect for the other, and to learn about human rights. Participating youth were then invited to join a discussion group about the key ideas that the series should convey and the main problems facing Lebanese youth. I was part of this group.
At meeting after meeting, we presented, as young people, our ideas and our fears. We noticed that sectarianism is clearly present in our lives, or rather that it permeates many of the problems we face, and that it has become a serious burden that can only be overcome with a concerted effort to change our reality from one of division to one based on unity. Hence, we wanted The Team to spread a culture of peace, help individuals see solutions to problems and cultivate a culture of citizenship.
In the second episode, for example, Karaki, a Muslim team member, has a dispute with a Christian team mate. Karakis mother asks her son to apologise and restore their friendship. In the process she develops an unlikely friendship with the mother of her sons teammate You are like a sister to me, she tells her. Anyway, whats the difference between Ain Al-Rummaneh and Al-Shayyah? Nothing.
The series highlights characters who overcome big problems on and off the football field in order to achieve common goals. The episodes highlight ways to enhance understanding and begin the process of accepting the "other". In sum, if the characters do not play together, they cannot achieve their goals both to win in football and, by extension, to succeed as a country.
The Team works to promote feelings of belonging among its Lebanese viewers, regardless of their confessional or political identity. The team is a microcosm of Lebanon as a whole. Just as the players need to work together as a team in order to win, so must people in Lebanon also work as a team to overcome the fear that lingers from the civil war.
###
* Firas Al-Dabbagh is a Lebanese blogger and activist who helped design themes for The Team along with a number of his peers. You can watch episodes of The Team on theteamlb.com.
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 24 April 2012, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Search for Common Ground (SFCG), an organisation dedicated to promoting non-violent solutions to conflict, is responsible for the 13-episode dramatic series which started on 14 April. It airs in Lebanon on the Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation International channel (LBCI) Saturdays at 7pm.
The cast is made up of teenage youth male and female from various Lebanese confessional groups. The series presents ideas likes accepting the "other," civic participation, mutual understanding, condemning violence and cooperation. According to one character on the show, the series is "a practical attempt to combat sectarian intolerance through sports", and "creates a sense of common ground among youth.
In the first episode, viewers learn that Abdullah, a former army officer, lost his leg at a conflict along the Green Line during the civil war. After being invited to a military football game, he has the idea of creating a young team that would help foster unity instead of division in that same place. He decides to put together a football [soccer] team that includes the youth of two Beirut neighbourhoods, Ain Al-Rummaneh and Al-Sahyyah.
Ain Al-Rummaneh is a neighbourhood with a Christian majority, and the place where the civil war first began. Al-Shayyah, an adjacent neighbourhood, is predominantly Muslim. For symbolic reasons, the series takes place on the separation line between the two neighbourhoods, the Green Line, which divided Beirut into east and west for 15 years during the civil war. The resulting strife and separation prevented the youth of these neighbourhoods from understanding each other, and therefore from being able to develop a vision for the country as a whole. Instead, the separation instilled a culture of violence and fear which is still present today.
Almost one year before the series was launched, SFCG held meetings at its offices with a number of young people to talk about a sense of national identity, civic responsibility and respect for the other, and to learn about human rights. Participating youth were then invited to join a discussion group about the key ideas that the series should convey and the main problems facing Lebanese youth. I was part of this group.
At meeting after meeting, we presented, as young people, our ideas and our fears. We noticed that sectarianism is clearly present in our lives, or rather that it permeates many of the problems we face, and that it has become a serious burden that can only be overcome with a concerted effort to change our reality from one of division to one based on unity. Hence, we wanted The Team to spread a culture of peace, help individuals see solutions to problems and cultivate a culture of citizenship.
In the second episode, for example, Karaki, a Muslim team member, has a dispute with a Christian team mate. Karakis mother asks her son to apologise and restore their friendship. In the process she develops an unlikely friendship with the mother of her sons teammate You are like a sister to me, she tells her. Anyway, whats the difference between Ain Al-Rummaneh and Al-Shayyah? Nothing.
The series highlights characters who overcome big problems on and off the football field in order to achieve common goals. The episodes highlight ways to enhance understanding and begin the process of accepting the "other". In sum, if the characters do not play together, they cannot achieve their goals both to win in football and, by extension, to succeed as a country.
The Team works to promote feelings of belonging among its Lebanese viewers, regardless of their confessional or political identity. The team is a microcosm of Lebanon as a whole. Just as the players need to work together as a team in order to win, so must people in Lebanon also work as a team to overcome the fear that lingers from the civil war.
###
* Firas Al-Dabbagh is a Lebanese blogger and activist who helped design themes for The Team along with a number of his peers. You can watch episodes of The Team on theteamlb.com.
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 24 April 2012, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Ramallah - Toward the end of January a group of young Palestinians held a silent demonstration in front of the Palestinian Authority headquarters in Ramallah, demanding that their leadership halt the negotiations that were taking place in Amman between the Palestinian Authoritys representative Saeb Erekat and Israeli chief negotiator Yitzhak Molcho. This small protest soon moved to social media sites and became a large-scale discussion about normalisation between Palestinians and Israelis.
The protest marked one of the latest events in a campaign by Palestinians who oppose normalisation with Israel. Although I understand those who argue that anti-normalisation, or the refusal to cooperate with Israelis, is a legitimate non-violent means to struggle against the Israeli Occupation, I believe it is ultimately misguided and harms Palestinians on many levels. Moreover, normalisation between ordinary people can only encourage our leaders to see that their constituents are serious about making peace.
The term normalisation in its usual sense outside the Israeli-Arab conflict implies the establishment of normal economic, cultural, political and social relations between states and peoples. In most cases it is a process put into place at the end of a conflict or war.
For Palestinians, talk about normalisation began after the Oslo agreement in 1993, when Palestinian independence seemed to be just around the corner. However, the term had already emerged in the wider Arab political and cultural discourse with the signing of the Camp David agreement between Israel and Egypt in 1979.
At the time, many Egyptians felt that the establishment of political, economic, cultural, social and academic relations between Egypt and Israel should wait until the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza had ended, and a comprehensive and just peace between Israel and the entire Arab world was achieved.
For Palestinians, normalisation with Israel has a different meaning. Unlike Egyptians and Israelis, Palestinians and Israelis are enmeshed in their day-to-day realities, and their relations with one another span many levels touching individual peoples lives. The decision to cultivate relations or cut them off impacts people on basic economic, social, cultural and political levels. For example, if a Palestinian simply desires to take a trip to Israel, this necessarily entails interaction with Israelis. This is normalisation.
In fact, there is a long history of Israeli and Palestinian cooperation. The private sectors in Israel and Palestine cooperated many years prior to the first peace negotiations in 1991. Business relationships blossomed between 1967 and 1987, when the first intifada broke out. In the Oslo years, agreements between the Palestine Liberation Organisation and Israel included detailed principles and programmes for cooperation to initiate economic, cultural and scientific progress for both sides.
The fiasco of the second Camp David summit in 2000 between the late Yasser Arafat and then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak led to the close of such activities. Most cooperation at the time ended with the second intifada, the roadblocks and the separation wall.
The situation was then exacerbated when some Israelis, including some of those who had signed the Geneva Accord, made a statement against Palestinians right of return, which resulted in certain Palestinian institutions abandoning joint activities.
Nowadays normalisation has become a major point of discussion in Palestinian society. One may wonder whether the issue of normalisation isnt something of a luxury when there are urgent issues in our society that are deeply affected by the Occupation, such as high unemployment rates, poor education, a lack of access to basic health care and daily hardships created by the checkpoints, to name a few. Yet every time I am confronted with the issue, I am struck by a need to take the discussion beyond the black and white positions of rejection versus acceptance. I feel that in addressing the question of normalisation, we must take the will of the majority of people who do wish to communicate and cooperate into account.
Perhaps we can make a distinction between negotiations and cooperation on the level of political leadership, and cooperation between people. Lets leave the former to the politicians and concentrate on social peace peace on the ground among individuals between the two nations.
I live among people who wish to work and cooperate with the other side on many levels. How can we expect creative solutions to the Occupation and the conflict to emerge if we dont allow for a free flow of communication between the sides?
The road to a real peace is no doubt going to be a long one. Wouldnt it be better to leave the door between the two peoples open?
###
* Tahseen Yaqeen is a writer and a critic from Ramallah. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 17April 2012, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
The protest marked one of the latest events in a campaign by Palestinians who oppose normalisation with Israel. Although I understand those who argue that anti-normalisation, or the refusal to cooperate with Israelis, is a legitimate non-violent means to struggle against the Israeli Occupation, I believe it is ultimately misguided and harms Palestinians on many levels. Moreover, normalisation between ordinary people can only encourage our leaders to see that their constituents are serious about making peace.
The term normalisation in its usual sense outside the Israeli-Arab conflict implies the establishment of normal economic, cultural, political and social relations between states and peoples. In most cases it is a process put into place at the end of a conflict or war.
For Palestinians, talk about normalisation began after the Oslo agreement in 1993, when Palestinian independence seemed to be just around the corner. However, the term had already emerged in the wider Arab political and cultural discourse with the signing of the Camp David agreement between Israel and Egypt in 1979.
At the time, many Egyptians felt that the establishment of political, economic, cultural, social and academic relations between Egypt and Israel should wait until the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza had ended, and a comprehensive and just peace between Israel and the entire Arab world was achieved.
For Palestinians, normalisation with Israel has a different meaning. Unlike Egyptians and Israelis, Palestinians and Israelis are enmeshed in their day-to-day realities, and their relations with one another span many levels touching individual peoples lives. The decision to cultivate relations or cut them off impacts people on basic economic, social, cultural and political levels. For example, if a Palestinian simply desires to take a trip to Israel, this necessarily entails interaction with Israelis. This is normalisation.
In fact, there is a long history of Israeli and Palestinian cooperation. The private sectors in Israel and Palestine cooperated many years prior to the first peace negotiations in 1991. Business relationships blossomed between 1967 and 1987, when the first intifada broke out. In the Oslo years, agreements between the Palestine Liberation Organisation and Israel included detailed principles and programmes for cooperation to initiate economic, cultural and scientific progress for both sides.
The fiasco of the second Camp David summit in 2000 between the late Yasser Arafat and then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak led to the close of such activities. Most cooperation at the time ended with the second intifada, the roadblocks and the separation wall.
The situation was then exacerbated when some Israelis, including some of those who had signed the Geneva Accord, made a statement against Palestinians right of return, which resulted in certain Palestinian institutions abandoning joint activities.
Nowadays normalisation has become a major point of discussion in Palestinian society. One may wonder whether the issue of normalisation isnt something of a luxury when there are urgent issues in our society that are deeply affected by the Occupation, such as high unemployment rates, poor education, a lack of access to basic health care and daily hardships created by the checkpoints, to name a few. Yet every time I am confronted with the issue, I am struck by a need to take the discussion beyond the black and white positions of rejection versus acceptance. I feel that in addressing the question of normalisation, we must take the will of the majority of people who do wish to communicate and cooperate into account.
Perhaps we can make a distinction between negotiations and cooperation on the level of political leadership, and cooperation between people. Lets leave the former to the politicians and concentrate on social peace peace on the ground among individuals between the two nations.
I live among people who wish to work and cooperate with the other side on many levels. How can we expect creative solutions to the Occupation and the conflict to emerge if we dont allow for a free flow of communication between the sides?
The road to a real peace is no doubt going to be a long one. Wouldnt it be better to leave the door between the two peoples open?
###
* Tahseen Yaqeen is a writer and a critic from Ramallah. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 17April 2012, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Petaluma, California - When the Arab Spring was initiated by Mohammed Bouazizi's self-immolation last year in Tunisia, it ignited longings for freedom throughout the region; more than that, it took hold of the creative imaginations of non-violent activists and millions of dissatisfied individuals around the world. Has this hope ground to a halt with the violence in Syria?
Not necessarily.
We should remember that non-violence has strong roots in Islam, and Muslim-majority Syria is no exception. Like all great revelations, that of the Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) was based on a vision of human unity that forbade violence and stressed elements of non-violence as we know it.
Lessons from the Quran reflect the same teachings that inspired Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. from their respective traditions. The 103rd chapter in the Quran, Al-Asr states that those favoured by God believe and do good works, and exhort one another to truth and exhort one another to sabr (103:3), which means endurance or patience and is one of the Arabic terms for non-violence.
In a well-known hadith (recorded actions and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad) the Prophet (pbuh), having declared that a Muslim must help not only a victim but also an oppressor, was asked by a puzzled companion: how should we help an oppressor? The reply was, by preventing him from oppressing.
These examples, among others, show that one need not go outside the Quran and hadith for the fundamental principles of non-violence. And these principles have surfaced continuously in the history of Muslim-majority countries. The 2010 book Civilian Jihad: Nonviolent Struggle, Democratization and Governance in the Middle East, edited by Maria Stephan, cited a growing number of examples even before Arab Spring, of which the partially successful Palestinian resistance movements are the best ones.
Syrian activist Bsher Said mentioned to us recently that the non-violent opposition was caught unaware when the uprising erupted a little over a year ago. However, some ingredients were present: there were cadres of young people in many Syrian cities who were taking up public work like cleaning up neighbourhoods, even though that sometimes drew unwelcome attention to them.
As with most things, non-violence works best when you know what youre doing, but you also need a willingness to suffer without bitterness, or worse if needed. This too is not wanting in Syria today.
Said and others who make up Freedom Days, an umbrella organisation for the uprising, have repeatedly risked their life to promote political change non-violently. Pro-democracy activists in nearly every city of Syria are putting on plays, writing songs and sending up balloons filled with strips of paper with freedom written on them, which when shot at release the messages.
The ingredients have been and are still there for civic mobilisation that can be just as creative and even more concrete, extending the strikes and work stoppages that have already sent the message that the government and opposition must negotiate and find a path forward.
Historically, non-violent insurrections succeed when the international community recognises and supports the courageous struggle of actors on the ground. Organisations like Peace Brigades International and Nonviolent Peaceforce, to name just two, have been doing precisely this kind of unarmed civilian peacekeeping with remarkable small-scale successes in places like Colombia, South Sudan and Sri Lanka, which have situations comparable to that of Syria.
We, who are outside Syria looking in, must make knowledge of non-violence commonplace and support the institutions, like unarmed civilian peacekeeping, that practise it.
###
* Michael Nagler is Professor Emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley and author of The Search for a Nonviolent Future. Stephanie Van Hook holds an MA in Conflict Resolution and is Executive Director of the Metta Center for Nonviolence. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 17April 2012, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Not necessarily.
We should remember that non-violence has strong roots in Islam, and Muslim-majority Syria is no exception. Like all great revelations, that of the Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) was based on a vision of human unity that forbade violence and stressed elements of non-violence as we know it.
Lessons from the Quran reflect the same teachings that inspired Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. from their respective traditions. The 103rd chapter in the Quran, Al-Asr states that those favoured by God believe and do good works, and exhort one another to truth and exhort one another to sabr (103:3), which means endurance or patience and is one of the Arabic terms for non-violence.
In a well-known hadith (recorded actions and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad) the Prophet (pbuh), having declared that a Muslim must help not only a victim but also an oppressor, was asked by a puzzled companion: how should we help an oppressor? The reply was, by preventing him from oppressing.
These examples, among others, show that one need not go outside the Quran and hadith for the fundamental principles of non-violence. And these principles have surfaced continuously in the history of Muslim-majority countries. The 2010 book Civilian Jihad: Nonviolent Struggle, Democratization and Governance in the Middle East, edited by Maria Stephan, cited a growing number of examples even before Arab Spring, of which the partially successful Palestinian resistance movements are the best ones.
Syrian activist Bsher Said mentioned to us recently that the non-violent opposition was caught unaware when the uprising erupted a little over a year ago. However, some ingredients were present: there were cadres of young people in many Syrian cities who were taking up public work like cleaning up neighbourhoods, even though that sometimes drew unwelcome attention to them.
As with most things, non-violence works best when you know what youre doing, but you also need a willingness to suffer without bitterness, or worse if needed. This too is not wanting in Syria today.
Said and others who make up Freedom Days, an umbrella organisation for the uprising, have repeatedly risked their life to promote political change non-violently. Pro-democracy activists in nearly every city of Syria are putting on plays, writing songs and sending up balloons filled with strips of paper with freedom written on them, which when shot at release the messages.
The ingredients have been and are still there for civic mobilisation that can be just as creative and even more concrete, extending the strikes and work stoppages that have already sent the message that the government and opposition must negotiate and find a path forward.
Historically, non-violent insurrections succeed when the international community recognises and supports the courageous struggle of actors on the ground. Organisations like Peace Brigades International and Nonviolent Peaceforce, to name just two, have been doing precisely this kind of unarmed civilian peacekeeping with remarkable small-scale successes in places like Colombia, South Sudan and Sri Lanka, which have situations comparable to that of Syria.
We, who are outside Syria looking in, must make knowledge of non-violence commonplace and support the institutions, like unarmed civilian peacekeeping, that practise it.
###
* Michael Nagler is Professor Emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley and author of The Search for a Nonviolent Future. Stephanie Van Hook holds an MA in Conflict Resolution and is Executive Director of the Metta Center for Nonviolence. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 17April 2012, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Tunis - Recently at a university in Tunis, a female student approached her professor after class and told him that she had decided to wear the niqab, which covers the female body, face and head, to class. After some discussion on the topic, the professor said that he respected her decision and emphasised that university laws would need to change to accommodate her decision, as all public institutions in Tunisia ban wearing the niqab.
Similarly, Tunisians across the country are debating whether or not the ban on wearing the niqab in public institutions should be revoked and what consequences that would have for universities an on-going debate that has been covered extensively in the media.
While in this case, after some discussion and introspection, the student decided against wearing the niqab, this issue would not have developed into such a well-known concern had a few female students not decided to wear the niqab on campus. Now all parties must find a way to resolve it.
After the Tunisian revolution, attitudes about religious attire shifted, and a number of women in Tunisia began to wear the niqab. Before the revolution, women were not allowed to wear it in public institutional settings, such as when applying for a national identity card, passport, or government job. There was also fear of police harassment, which normally resulted in imprisonment.
After the revolution, people began to experiment with the restrictions on religion in public life, but the ban on confessional attire in public institutions remained. Accordingly, when women have worn the niqab on university campuses it has caused strong reactions, even leading to clashes like those seen at Manouba University where a female student in niqab was prevented from entering campus.
Universities have been approaching this issue with great care since the revolution. While discussions are taking place publicly, until a decision is made by the Ministry of Higher Education universities are simply waiting.
Opponents of the niqab maintain that a professor cannot properly address a student whose face he cannot see, and that the ban is motivated by security concerns. Students wearing the niqab defend their position by saying that the issue is one of personal and religious freedom, and that wearing it on campus does not hinder the learning process. They suggest that to fulfil security concerns, they could reveal their face to a female colleague.
University officials believe that elements affiliated with extremist movements are responsible for the problem and are sowing seeds of dissent on campus. Women wearing the niqab, and their supporters, defend wearing it on campus and believe that university deans are intentionally escalating the problem due to personal beliefs.
These differences of position have led to the current tense situation.
The tensions need not escalate, but rather what is needed is for students wearing the niqab and university officials to sit around a negotiating table to find common ground, and move beyond ideological or political concerns.
Parties from outside the university could be involved to help foster a neutral dialogue. The issue is a sensitive one with religious considerations, as the wearing of the niqab is a subject of discussion and disagreement even among religious scholars. But within the framework of a constructive dialogue, participants can consider the diversity of views among both religious scholars and university administrators.
It is also imperative now, more than at any other time, to ensure credibility through the participation of university authorities, religious leaders and intellectuals known for their integrity, and civil society representatives, in order to arrive at a consensus.
A dialogue that involves all these parties can solve this dilemma.
###
* Lotfi Radhouane Chebil is a teacher and a journalist for Al-Shorouq in Tunisia. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 17April 2012, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Similarly, Tunisians across the country are debating whether or not the ban on wearing the niqab in public institutions should be revoked and what consequences that would have for universities an on-going debate that has been covered extensively in the media.
While in this case, after some discussion and introspection, the student decided against wearing the niqab, this issue would not have developed into such a well-known concern had a few female students not decided to wear the niqab on campus. Now all parties must find a way to resolve it.
After the Tunisian revolution, attitudes about religious attire shifted, and a number of women in Tunisia began to wear the niqab. Before the revolution, women were not allowed to wear it in public institutional settings, such as when applying for a national identity card, passport, or government job. There was also fear of police harassment, which normally resulted in imprisonment.
After the revolution, people began to experiment with the restrictions on religion in public life, but the ban on confessional attire in public institutions remained. Accordingly, when women have worn the niqab on university campuses it has caused strong reactions, even leading to clashes like those seen at Manouba University where a female student in niqab was prevented from entering campus.
Universities have been approaching this issue with great care since the revolution. While discussions are taking place publicly, until a decision is made by the Ministry of Higher Education universities are simply waiting.
Opponents of the niqab maintain that a professor cannot properly address a student whose face he cannot see, and that the ban is motivated by security concerns. Students wearing the niqab defend their position by saying that the issue is one of personal and religious freedom, and that wearing it on campus does not hinder the learning process. They suggest that to fulfil security concerns, they could reveal their face to a female colleague.
University officials believe that elements affiliated with extremist movements are responsible for the problem and are sowing seeds of dissent on campus. Women wearing the niqab, and their supporters, defend wearing it on campus and believe that university deans are intentionally escalating the problem due to personal beliefs.
These differences of position have led to the current tense situation.
The tensions need not escalate, but rather what is needed is for students wearing the niqab and university officials to sit around a negotiating table to find common ground, and move beyond ideological or political concerns.
Parties from outside the university could be involved to help foster a neutral dialogue. The issue is a sensitive one with religious considerations, as the wearing of the niqab is a subject of discussion and disagreement even among religious scholars. But within the framework of a constructive dialogue, participants can consider the diversity of views among both religious scholars and university administrators.
It is also imperative now, more than at any other time, to ensure credibility through the participation of university authorities, religious leaders and intellectuals known for their integrity, and civil society representatives, in order to arrive at a consensus.
A dialogue that involves all these parties can solve this dilemma.
###
* Lotfi Radhouane Chebil is a teacher and a journalist for Al-Shorouq in Tunisia. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 17April 2012, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
New York, New York - You dont have to be Muslim to find good news in a recent study on mosque growth in the United States. Co-sponsored by the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), Hartford Institute on Religion, the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), and Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), this national survey of mosque leaders in the United States found that more than 900 new mosques have been built in the United States since 2000a period of increased scrutiny by government officials and increased controversy over mosque building. Of the 2,106 Muslim centres across the United States, a quarter of them were built in the last 10 years.
The first piece of good news in this discovery for non-Muslim Americans is that the First Amendment of the US Constitutionthe part stating Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof is in considerably better working order than it appeared in the summer of 2010. At that time, protests raged against a planned Islamic centre near the site of the World Trade Center and erupted into a national debate; anti-mosque demonstrations stretched from Tennessee to California. The too-commonplace anti-Muslim vitriol on the airwaves and over the internet that summer similar in content and tone to the anti-Catholic tirades of the early 19th centurywas, it now appears, a momentary setback in our 235 year on-going struggle for a more perfect union.
This survey, showing that mosques were being built at a steady clip despite the mega-mosque fears being stirred on Fox News talk shows, suggests that the protests were a tempest in a teapot. In other words, as one of earths most religiously and otherwise diverse countries, we stumbled forward in fits and starts together more than apart.
The second piece of good news in the survey is the potential it suggests for more interfaith partnership to solve social problems across religious traditions. Working at the Interfaith Center of New York with hundreds of faith leaders from at least 15 religious traditions for the past decade and a half, we have been able to generate and strengthen relationships across faith and civic lines by engaging grassroots religious leaders in addressing shared social concerns from housing foreclosures to domestic violence. This methodology has also allowed us to teach civic skills to grassroots religious leaders on the one hand and respect for religious diversity to judges, teachers, social workers and local politicians on the other.
There are plenty of faith communities who still believe that being a civic leader (through activities like showing up for jury duty, lobbying city hall, getting out the vote, etc.) means leaving your kippah or clerical collar at the door. Many of Martin Luther King, Jr.s fellow black Baptist ministers thought he should stop meddling in politics. Thus, like churches or temples, mosques are hard to generalise about when it comes to social engagement. One reassuring piece of news is that the study found that 98 per cent of mosque leaders say Muslims should be involved in American institutions and 91 per cent agree that Muslims should be involved in politics.
From a New Yorkers-eye-view, (given that we boast the largest number of mosques-per-state in America, surpassing California by one) we have some authority on the matter. For over a decade we at the Interfaith Center of New York have seen how Muslim New Yorkers have worked with people of other faith traditions to strengthen our cities social fabric and public institutions from feeding the hungry at halal soup kitchens in the Bronx, to promoting HIV/AIDS awareness at mosques in Harlem, to working in partnership with Roman Catholics doing outreach for the US Census Bureau, to serving on juries, to working as chaplains at public hospitals and with the Red Cross at Ground Zero back in 2001.
Our anecdotal observations are supported by other studies showing that mosques, like churches and synagogues, are associated with a higher level of civic engagement. Muslim Americans who were engaged in their mosques were found to be 53 per cent more involved in civic activities (such as charity organisations, school and/or youth programmes) than those who were not connected to a mosque.
Fighting poverty, homelessness and ignorance is a big job and Muslim New Yorkers have for decades worked side-by-side with people of other faith traditions and of no faith in meeting these great challenges. Far from making non-Muslim Americans fearful, the growth of mosques around the country promises another strengthening thread in the civic fabric of our nation.
###
* The Reverend Chloe Breyer is the Executive Director at the Interfaith Center of New York and Associate Priest at St. Mary's Episcopal Church in West Harlem, New York. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 10 April 2012, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
The first piece of good news in this discovery for non-Muslim Americans is that the First Amendment of the US Constitutionthe part stating Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof is in considerably better working order than it appeared in the summer of 2010. At that time, protests raged against a planned Islamic centre near the site of the World Trade Center and erupted into a national debate; anti-mosque demonstrations stretched from Tennessee to California. The too-commonplace anti-Muslim vitriol on the airwaves and over the internet that summer similar in content and tone to the anti-Catholic tirades of the early 19th centurywas, it now appears, a momentary setback in our 235 year on-going struggle for a more perfect union.
This survey, showing that mosques were being built at a steady clip despite the mega-mosque fears being stirred on Fox News talk shows, suggests that the protests were a tempest in a teapot. In other words, as one of earths most religiously and otherwise diverse countries, we stumbled forward in fits and starts together more than apart.
The second piece of good news in the survey is the potential it suggests for more interfaith partnership to solve social problems across religious traditions. Working at the Interfaith Center of New York with hundreds of faith leaders from at least 15 religious traditions for the past decade and a half, we have been able to generate and strengthen relationships across faith and civic lines by engaging grassroots religious leaders in addressing shared social concerns from housing foreclosures to domestic violence. This methodology has also allowed us to teach civic skills to grassroots religious leaders on the one hand and respect for religious diversity to judges, teachers, social workers and local politicians on the other.
There are plenty of faith communities who still believe that being a civic leader (through activities like showing up for jury duty, lobbying city hall, getting out the vote, etc.) means leaving your kippah or clerical collar at the door. Many of Martin Luther King, Jr.s fellow black Baptist ministers thought he should stop meddling in politics. Thus, like churches or temples, mosques are hard to generalise about when it comes to social engagement. One reassuring piece of news is that the study found that 98 per cent of mosque leaders say Muslims should be involved in American institutions and 91 per cent agree that Muslims should be involved in politics.
From a New Yorkers-eye-view, (given that we boast the largest number of mosques-per-state in America, surpassing California by one) we have some authority on the matter. For over a decade we at the Interfaith Center of New York have seen how Muslim New Yorkers have worked with people of other faith traditions to strengthen our cities social fabric and public institutions from feeding the hungry at halal soup kitchens in the Bronx, to promoting HIV/AIDS awareness at mosques in Harlem, to working in partnership with Roman Catholics doing outreach for the US Census Bureau, to serving on juries, to working as chaplains at public hospitals and with the Red Cross at Ground Zero back in 2001.
Our anecdotal observations are supported by other studies showing that mosques, like churches and synagogues, are associated with a higher level of civic engagement. Muslim Americans who were engaged in their mosques were found to be 53 per cent more involved in civic activities (such as charity organisations, school and/or youth programmes) than those who were not connected to a mosque.
Fighting poverty, homelessness and ignorance is a big job and Muslim New Yorkers have for decades worked side-by-side with people of other faith traditions and of no faith in meeting these great challenges. Far from making non-Muslim Americans fearful, the growth of mosques around the country promises another strengthening thread in the civic fabric of our nation.
###
* The Reverend Chloe Breyer is the Executive Director at the Interfaith Center of New York and Associate Priest at St. Mary's Episcopal Church in West Harlem, New York. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 10 April 2012, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Karachi, Pakistan - From a country where terrorism, extremism, inner strife and polarisation continue to eat at its roots, good news is reaching out globally from a perhaps unexpected source its women. Pakistani women are fighting for more than just the empowerment of women. They are taking centre-stage in Pakistans fight against oppression, social tyranny and extremism. They are the emblems of change, and Shad Begum is one such woman.
Photographs of Shad Begum standing alongside United States first lady Michelle Obama and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, her face resplendent with satisfaction, are a piece of much needed good news coming out of Pakistan. She is a recipient of the 2012 International Women of Courage Award, which is presented annually by the US Department of State to women around the world who demonstrate leadership, courage and sacrifice for others.
Shad Begum belongs to the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province where the social system is strongly patriarchal and tribal sensibilities reign; unlike other provinces, Pakistan women there are not even allowed to work in the fields.
At the occasion of the 2012 International Women of Courage Awards, the US Department of State described Shad as a courageous human rights activist and leader who has changed the political context for women in the extremely conservative district of Dir.
The Association for Womens Welfare (which later changed its name to Association for Behavior and Knowledge Transformation, or ABKT), set up by Shad in 1994, took up pioneering welfare work for women in the Dir district. Initially, ABKT focused on welfare, but increasing support from civil society and donors helped it focus on development and empowering individuals rather than only providing charity. Now, Shad mobilises and sensitises local women by helping them acquire primary education, political training and micro-credits to work towards empowerment and build their capacity. Providing health facilities, constructing bridges, installing hand pumps, creating wells and paving streets are all examples of ABKTs development work.
Shad Begum decided to enter politics in 2001, only to face a head-on collision with local conservative leaders who strongly opposed the participation of women in leadership and the mixing of sexes. In an area with a population of one million, but only 150,000 women registered as voters, this was not easy. Shad stood as an independent candidate because no political party would support her.
She was the victim of character assassination and was called a funded foreign agent, in addition to receiving threats from the Taliban. Yet she carried on with her mission and people believed in her: she received the most votes of any female candidate. Four years later, as a result of her efforts, including an effective campaign that got the attention of authorities, 127 women were elected at the local level in the same area. "Men voted for women in the election. This is a big change", said Begum.
Shad moved the organisations office to Peshawar when the Taliban became prominent, and she has been threatened by unidentified militants.
With women like Shad stepping up at the grassroots level, there have been major leaps in the present governments tenure when it comes to legislation promoting womens interests. Pressure from civil society and advocacy from womens groups have forced policymakers to address womens concerns. Legislation has been passed criminalising sexual harassment at the workplace, as well combatting gender discrimination. In addition, legislation regarding womens rights to inherit and forced marriage have been promulgated.
In January 2012, the National Assembly of Pakistan unanimously passed a bill to create a powerful and influential National Commission on the Status of Women, a huge step in the right direction and one that is being lauded by human rights activists as a salient pro-women move. This bill came after years of struggle by womens committees, consultations, relentless advocacy and 22 consensus amendments.
The impact of women like Shad Begum cannot be over-emphasised in this progress these women are heralding the winds of change in Pakistan.
###
* Farahnaz Zahidi Moazzam is a freelance writer, journalist and blogger with a focus on human rights, gender and Islam. She blogs at chaaidaani.wordpress.com. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 10 April 2012, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Photographs of Shad Begum standing alongside United States first lady Michelle Obama and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, her face resplendent with satisfaction, are a piece of much needed good news coming out of Pakistan. She is a recipient of the 2012 International Women of Courage Award, which is presented annually by the US Department of State to women around the world who demonstrate leadership, courage and sacrifice for others.
Shad Begum belongs to the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province where the social system is strongly patriarchal and tribal sensibilities reign; unlike other provinces, Pakistan women there are not even allowed to work in the fields.
At the occasion of the 2012 International Women of Courage Awards, the US Department of State described Shad as a courageous human rights activist and leader who has changed the political context for women in the extremely conservative district of Dir.
The Association for Womens Welfare (which later changed its name to Association for Behavior and Knowledge Transformation, or ABKT), set up by Shad in 1994, took up pioneering welfare work for women in the Dir district. Initially, ABKT focused on welfare, but increasing support from civil society and donors helped it focus on development and empowering individuals rather than only providing charity. Now, Shad mobilises and sensitises local women by helping them acquire primary education, political training and micro-credits to work towards empowerment and build their capacity. Providing health facilities, constructing bridges, installing hand pumps, creating wells and paving streets are all examples of ABKTs development work.
Shad Begum decided to enter politics in 2001, only to face a head-on collision with local conservative leaders who strongly opposed the participation of women in leadership and the mixing of sexes. In an area with a population of one million, but only 150,000 women registered as voters, this was not easy. Shad stood as an independent candidate because no political party would support her.
She was the victim of character assassination and was called a funded foreign agent, in addition to receiving threats from the Taliban. Yet she carried on with her mission and people believed in her: she received the most votes of any female candidate. Four years later, as a result of her efforts, including an effective campaign that got the attention of authorities, 127 women were elected at the local level in the same area. "Men voted for women in the election. This is a big change", said Begum.
Shad moved the organisations office to Peshawar when the Taliban became prominent, and she has been threatened by unidentified militants.
With women like Shad stepping up at the grassroots level, there have been major leaps in the present governments tenure when it comes to legislation promoting womens interests. Pressure from civil society and advocacy from womens groups have forced policymakers to address womens concerns. Legislation has been passed criminalising sexual harassment at the workplace, as well combatting gender discrimination. In addition, legislation regarding womens rights to inherit and forced marriage have been promulgated.
In January 2012, the National Assembly of Pakistan unanimously passed a bill to create a powerful and influential National Commission on the Status of Women, a huge step in the right direction and one that is being lauded by human rights activists as a salient pro-women move. This bill came after years of struggle by womens committees, consultations, relentless advocacy and 22 consensus amendments.
The impact of women like Shad Begum cannot be over-emphasised in this progress these women are heralding the winds of change in Pakistan.
###
* Farahnaz Zahidi Moazzam is a freelance writer, journalist and blogger with a focus on human rights, gender and Islam. She blogs at chaaidaani.wordpress.com. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 10 April 2012, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Picture an Arab man
Apr 2
Beirut - Picture an Arab man. Better yet . . . run a quick search on Google Images in English. Youll find the fighter, the flag-waving protester and the religious sheikh. Youll find the Arab man in subjective folkloric representation, framed by a loaded message; youll find clichs and stereotypes that seem to be stuck in the 19th century. Each picture might be worth the proverbial thousand words and you might decide that there isnt much to say beyond that story.
Picture an Arab Man is the title of Iraqi Canadian photojournalist Tamara Abdul Hadis series of portraits. Her goal is to show a new image of the contemporary Arab man. Well look at her photos in a moment; first lets take on the challenge of the topic itself.
Both in academia and mass media, gender-centric narratives of Arabic societies focus on the Arab woman. And while she is the one under constant scrutiny, very little attention has been paid to her masculine counterpart. At best, he is ignored. Too often, hes just the nameless oppressor, part of the patriarchal system in which women struggle for emancipation. Sometimes hes just one of many in a faceless crowd; his personal identity disappears in the group picture as he becomes part of a social phenomenon, a statistic on the evening news. Too often, we forget that he is also subjected to gendered stereotypes.
According to Abdul Hadi, As far back as the 1920s [Arab men] were stereotyped as sheikhs with harems because that was what was brought back through Orientalist depictions [a discourse about the East created by the West, constellated with false assumptions and stereotypes and based on Western attitudes towards the East]. More recently, the misrepresentation turned to terrorist and after 9/11 the stereotype became even more common. In addition to Western stereotypes, she also denounces socially-imposed ideals regarding Arab masculinity within Arab societies.
In recent years, new approaches to Middle Eastern masculinities are helping adjust the distortion of gendered representation. In the midst of this much-needed reform of gender discourse, Tamara Abdul Hadis work to update the image of todays Arab man is an essential reality check.
The photographer chose a subject from each country as she travelled the Arab world with fate as a guide and her intuition the only criteria in selecting different men from many backgrounds.
Started in 2009, the portrait series "Picture an Arab Man" is part of a large body of work capturing semi-nude Arab men of diverse backgrounds. Essentially the photographer shows us individual portraits of a bunch of guys rather good-looking young men with an undeniable air of sensuality about them as they pose candidly for a camera held by a female photographer. This alone is an interesting reversal of roles in the apparently international stereotype of women subjected to the lens of man. Yet this is not quite the point here.
Picturing an Arab man becomes a refreshingly active exercise. The black and white minimalistic approach allows us to let go of capital letters. These are just men whose portraits offer no indication of religious affiliation, political aspirations, professional profile, sexual orientation or social status.
Abdul Hadi explains, The reason I choose to portray the men as semi-nude is because my portraits mainly focus on the face, and having no distinguishing clothing, jewellery or accessories helps keep the focus on that. Stripped of their usual attire, they are unburdened of prevalent hyper-masculine clichs. Observers are free to ask, What is an Arab man anyway? Deconstructing stereotypes, those portraits are a call to action, raising questions of how identity gender, cultural belonging and religion affects each one of us: Arab men, Latino women, Egyptian architects or Japanese foodies. Labelling people denies them the right to be complex and unique individuals.
Picture an Arab man now. Looks at those portraits and think. Is this one a scientist or a musician? Is that one a vegetarian? Was his heart ever broken? Is he a dreamer? Is he a hero? Could he tell a good joke?
A flag, a Quran, a suit or a keffiyeh would perhaps help you know more, but in Abdul Hadis portraits, these guys could be anything. Theyre dreaming, laughing and pouting and you only get to know their first name and nationality. To know more you would need to chat with these men. And maybe youd talk about paragliding . . .
###
*Nada Akl is a freelance journalist based in Beirut. Tamara Abdul Hadi is now raising funds for her project on the crowd-funding website www.emphas.is. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 3 April 2012, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Picture an Arab Man is the title of Iraqi Canadian photojournalist Tamara Abdul Hadis series of portraits. Her goal is to show a new image of the contemporary Arab man. Well look at her photos in a moment; first lets take on the challenge of the topic itself.
Both in academia and mass media, gender-centric narratives of Arabic societies focus on the Arab woman. And while she is the one under constant scrutiny, very little attention has been paid to her masculine counterpart. At best, he is ignored. Too often, hes just the nameless oppressor, part of the patriarchal system in which women struggle for emancipation. Sometimes hes just one of many in a faceless crowd; his personal identity disappears in the group picture as he becomes part of a social phenomenon, a statistic on the evening news. Too often, we forget that he is also subjected to gendered stereotypes.
According to Abdul Hadi, As far back as the 1920s [Arab men] were stereotyped as sheikhs with harems because that was what was brought back through Orientalist depictions [a discourse about the East created by the West, constellated with false assumptions and stereotypes and based on Western attitudes towards the East]. More recently, the misrepresentation turned to terrorist and after 9/11 the stereotype became even more common. In addition to Western stereotypes, she also denounces socially-imposed ideals regarding Arab masculinity within Arab societies.
In recent years, new approaches to Middle Eastern masculinities are helping adjust the distortion of gendered representation. In the midst of this much-needed reform of gender discourse, Tamara Abdul Hadis work to update the image of todays Arab man is an essential reality check.
The photographer chose a subject from each country as she travelled the Arab world with fate as a guide and her intuition the only criteria in selecting different men from many backgrounds.
Started in 2009, the portrait series "Picture an Arab Man" is part of a large body of work capturing semi-nude Arab men of diverse backgrounds. Essentially the photographer shows us individual portraits of a bunch of guys rather good-looking young men with an undeniable air of sensuality about them as they pose candidly for a camera held by a female photographer. This alone is an interesting reversal of roles in the apparently international stereotype of women subjected to the lens of man. Yet this is not quite the point here.
Picturing an Arab man becomes a refreshingly active exercise. The black and white minimalistic approach allows us to let go of capital letters. These are just men whose portraits offer no indication of religious affiliation, political aspirations, professional profile, sexual orientation or social status.
Abdul Hadi explains, The reason I choose to portray the men as semi-nude is because my portraits mainly focus on the face, and having no distinguishing clothing, jewellery or accessories helps keep the focus on that. Stripped of their usual attire, they are unburdened of prevalent hyper-masculine clichs. Observers are free to ask, What is an Arab man anyway? Deconstructing stereotypes, those portraits are a call to action, raising questions of how identity gender, cultural belonging and religion affects each one of us: Arab men, Latino women, Egyptian architects or Japanese foodies. Labelling people denies them the right to be complex and unique individuals.
Picture an Arab man now. Looks at those portraits and think. Is this one a scientist or a musician? Is that one a vegetarian? Was his heart ever broken? Is he a dreamer? Is he a hero? Could he tell a good joke?
A flag, a Quran, a suit or a keffiyeh would perhaps help you know more, but in Abdul Hadis portraits, these guys could be anything. Theyre dreaming, laughing and pouting and you only get to know their first name and nationality. To know more you would need to chat with these men. And maybe youd talk about paragliding . . .
###
*Nada Akl is a freelance journalist based in Beirut. Tamara Abdul Hadi is now raising funds for her project on the crowd-funding website www.emphas.is. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 3 April 2012, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Washington, DC - As Americans pause on 4 April, the anniversary of Dr Martin Luther King, Jr.s assassination, it is worthwhile to reflect on the culture of service and social justice that were part of his teachings. While the values King espoused could be internalised by anyone who is passionate about improving the human condition, his teachings resonate especially with faith-inspired people. Muslim Americans, for example, have a profound appreciation for King because he dedicated his life to addressing societal injustices a central tenet of the Islamic tradition.
Of particular relevance from Kings teachings is the concept of a world house, comprised of peoples of different faith traditions. He wrote, We have inherited a large house, a great world house in which we have to live together black and white, Easterner and Westerner, Gentile and Jew, Catholic and Protestant, Muslim and Hindu a family unduly separated in ideas, culture and interest, who, because we can never again live apart, must learn somehow to live with each other in peace.
The concept of a world house is especially relevant when applied to interfaith collaboration on social justice initiatives today. Such interfaith collaboration is an American tradition, and Muslim Americans are integral to it. In fact, social activism among Muslim Americans is at an all-time high.
Inspired by their own faith tradition and responding to invitations from other traditions, Muslim Americans have been noticeably advancing the concept of a world house, especially by focusing peoples attention on hunger in America.
Consider the Interfaith Hunger Initiative (IHI) in Indianapolis, of which the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) is a partner. The IHI reports that 16,000 children die from hunger each day throughout the world. In Indianapolis alone, a total of 18,000 children are frequently hungry. With the active involvement of Muslim Americans, IHI aims to end child and family hunger both at the domestic level in Indianapolis, and internationally in Kenya.
While hunger is an issue nationwide, in inner-city neighbourhoods, a related issue is the disproportionately large number of unhealthy food options being sold in stores. This issue, conceptualised as food justice, is being addressed head on by a Chicago-based organisation, Inner-city Muslim Action Network (IMAN). IMAN is located in Chicagos south side and was founded by young Muslim Americans. IMAN is unabashedly targeting food and liquor stores (including ones owned by Muslims) in inner-city black neighbourhoods, challenging them to take responsibility for the food options they offer. IMAN recently sponsored a forum entitled Food For Life, A Human Right: Food Justice, Corner Stores & Race Relations in the Hood.
Muslim Americans are also represented both by ISNA and the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) in the National Religious Campaign Against Torture (NRCAT), an American membership organisation of 300 religious communities. NRCAT asserts that torture is a moral issue, and aims to end torture in our own backyard. A declaration regarding prisoner treatment, torture and cruelty states that NRCAT members agree that the use of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment against prisoners is immoral, unwise, and un-American. As active and vocal partners in NRCAT, Muslim Americans are exerting tremendous energy in organising campaigns to educate community members about the adverse psychological and physical impact of current practices on prisoners, such as 23-hour solitary confinement; they advocate prohibiting torture outright for mentally ill prisoners, as well as certain interrogation techniques.
As these examples indicate, there are sufficient members of the world house, among them Muslim Americans, who are not only putting into practice the teachings of their own faith and cultural traditions but also exemplifying the continuing relevance of Kings teachings to contemporary social issues. Kings life was cut short nearly 45 years ago; however, his teachings remain relevant today, inspiring Muslim Americans and others to uphold social justice through interfaith collaborations.
###
*Altaf Husain serves as a member of the Board of Trustees of the Islamic Society of North America. He is a Fellow at the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding and Assistant Professor of Social Work at Howard University in Washington, DC. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 3 April 2012, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Of particular relevance from Kings teachings is the concept of a world house, comprised of peoples of different faith traditions. He wrote, We have inherited a large house, a great world house in which we have to live together black and white, Easterner and Westerner, Gentile and Jew, Catholic and Protestant, Muslim and Hindu a family unduly separated in ideas, culture and interest, who, because we can never again live apart, must learn somehow to live with each other in peace.
The concept of a world house is especially relevant when applied to interfaith collaboration on social justice initiatives today. Such interfaith collaboration is an American tradition, and Muslim Americans are integral to it. In fact, social activism among Muslim Americans is at an all-time high.
Inspired by their own faith tradition and responding to invitations from other traditions, Muslim Americans have been noticeably advancing the concept of a world house, especially by focusing peoples attention on hunger in America.
Consider the Interfaith Hunger Initiative (IHI) in Indianapolis, of which the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) is a partner. The IHI reports that 16,000 children die from hunger each day throughout the world. In Indianapolis alone, a total of 18,000 children are frequently hungry. With the active involvement of Muslim Americans, IHI aims to end child and family hunger both at the domestic level in Indianapolis, and internationally in Kenya.
While hunger is an issue nationwide, in inner-city neighbourhoods, a related issue is the disproportionately large number of unhealthy food options being sold in stores. This issue, conceptualised as food justice, is being addressed head on by a Chicago-based organisation, Inner-city Muslim Action Network (IMAN). IMAN is located in Chicagos south side and was founded by young Muslim Americans. IMAN is unabashedly targeting food and liquor stores (including ones owned by Muslims) in inner-city black neighbourhoods, challenging them to take responsibility for the food options they offer. IMAN recently sponsored a forum entitled Food For Life, A Human Right: Food Justice, Corner Stores & Race Relations in the Hood.
Muslim Americans are also represented both by ISNA and the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) in the National Religious Campaign Against Torture (NRCAT), an American membership organisation of 300 religious communities. NRCAT asserts that torture is a moral issue, and aims to end torture in our own backyard. A declaration regarding prisoner treatment, torture and cruelty states that NRCAT members agree that the use of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment against prisoners is immoral, unwise, and un-American. As active and vocal partners in NRCAT, Muslim Americans are exerting tremendous energy in organising campaigns to educate community members about the adverse psychological and physical impact of current practices on prisoners, such as 23-hour solitary confinement; they advocate prohibiting torture outright for mentally ill prisoners, as well as certain interrogation techniques.
As these examples indicate, there are sufficient members of the world house, among them Muslim Americans, who are not only putting into practice the teachings of their own faith and cultural traditions but also exemplifying the continuing relevance of Kings teachings to contemporary social issues. Kings life was cut short nearly 45 years ago; however, his teachings remain relevant today, inspiring Muslim Americans and others to uphold social justice through interfaith collaborations.
###
*Altaf Husain serves as a member of the Board of Trustees of the Islamic Society of North America. He is a Fellow at the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding and Assistant Professor of Social Work at Howard University in Washington, DC. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 3 April 2012, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.