Religion and Politics

According to the Institute for War and Peace Reporting (IWPR), Syrian women are happy that men will no longer be the only gender occupying the position of mufti. In June, according to IWPR, Arabic-language news sites reported that Grand Mufti Ahmed Badreddin Hassoun “announced that female graduates of Islamic law colleges are being trained to become muftis who will counsel women on religious matters.” The IWPR Report “Women Want Female Muftis,” also reported that Hasun “made it clear that female muftis would be appointed to the Iftaa Council,” which can issue fatwahs (religious edicts). According to Alarabiya.net, Hassoun said, “The Prophet allowed women to issue fatwas and used to refer women to come to him and consult his wife Aisha.” In Al Arabiya’s report, “Women Train to be Muftis in Syria,” an Islamic studies teacher, Hoda Habash was quoted as saying that this new initiative would be a step towards recognizing women’s issues. Another great interesing link on Alarabiya.net about Sheikh Ahmad Badreddin Hassoun is the article, “Syrian Grand Mufti Says he is Sunni and Shiite.” The highest jurist of Islamic law in Syria said that he felt affiliated to all the different denominations of Islam and that there’s only one Islam – with no real contradictions between being Sunni or Shiite. He also argued (this was in a speech before the German parliament) that Holy Wars usually serve political ends only.  

AlJazeera.net continues its coverage of the violent clashes in Indian-administered Kashmir (particularly in Srinagar), which have already lasted more than eight days. It reports that the violence stems from protests over a “controversial plan to transfer land to a Hindu trust organization.” The aim was to provide 99 acres of land to the Shri Amarnath Shrine Board, which assists hundreds of thousands of pilgrims to come to the holy site. As the New York Times reported on June 28, 2008, the protestors are accusing the Indian government of planning to build Hindu settlements in “India’s only Muslim-majority state in an effort to change the demographic balance in the region.” This would arguably negatively impact their religious identity, although the Indian government has flatly denied the allegations. The fears of the local Muslim population, however, have not been calmed. Since the announcement of the land allotment on June 23, four people have died and more than 300 injured. Two days ago, Kashmir’s chief minister said the plan was dropped, but it’s not clear in media sources, whether there has been “a formal revocation.”  This news (and the unfortunate violence) directly relates to religious communities, such as Muslims in Kashmir, and their fear of “marginalization.”

(Photo from the Shri Amarnathji Shrine Board website)

According to President Bush’s speech at the National Hispanic Prayer Breakfast on June 26, his administration “has provided unprecedented support for the compassionate work performed by faith-based and community groups.” He continued this thought by saying that the “government can hand out money, but government cannot put hope in a person’s heart.” The President remarked that his legacy has been to lower “the barriers that kept government and faith-based groups needlessly divided.” The U.S. President also addressed the National Conference of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives and said that when he came to office his goal was to change the fact that faith-based organizations were “often barred from receiving support from the federal government.” His method of change was “compassionate conservatism.” The President also recalled that compassionate conservatism was his main agenda item as a candidate back in 1999.  In reality, it was his main focus until the foreign policy of the U.S. dramatically shifted after September 11, 2001. Afterall, his first executive order established the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives itself.  In essence, this order was meant to ensure that faith-based organizations “do not have to give up their religious character to receive taxpayer money.” To be clearer about how his initiative could coincide with true U.S.-style separation of church and state, President Bush said, “Government should never fund the teaching of faith, but it should support the good works of the faithful.” The President further spelled out three policies advanced for this cause: 1) The tax code was amended to provide greater incentives for charitable donations; 2) The Compassion Capital Fund was established; and 3) The Pro Bono Challenge was launched this year. The President said that “the movement is bigger than politics or any political party;” 35 governors have faith-based offices – 19 of them Democrats; and last year the government provided “more than 19,000 competitive grants to community and faith-based organizations.”  The areas where faith-based groups have been active are listed in a White House Fact Sheet, with interesting facts such as: “Of the 60 million people who give their time to others, more than one-third do so through faith-based groups.” 

(Photo from the White House website)

Foreign Policy and Fund for Peace have published the 2008 Failed States Index. The main goal of the Index is to assess the vulnerability of states to slide towards further violence and chaos. There are twelve indicators of state vulnerability, which can be found here. At the top of the Index (most failed) is Somalia, where the political situation has continually deteriorated (like much of the world) on account of shortages and food riots (it was in third place in 2007). The chaos in Somalia has been directly linked to ongoing battles with the Islamist insurgency. Moreover, as mentioned in this blog several times, Iraq and Israel have been plagued with instability that often results from the role of religion in politics. The Failed States Index 2008 points out, for example, that Iraq’s score has improved (now 5th place; 2nd place in 2007), although “discord among sectarian factions has shown no real improvement.” With respect to Israel, the main force behind its new ranking in the top 60 (most failed states) is its “inability to fully integrate its Arab minority.” The ranking for Israel (now fifty eight) is reported to be based mostly on the political reality of the West Bank. There is also a precarious connection between religion and politics (meaning violence) in Sudan, which is ranked this year as the second most failed state in the world (compared to 1st last year). The full list of country rankings can be found here. The article explaining the Index does not directly address the role of religion as a factor for conflict or an element of instability. Instead, the focus of the 2008 analysis was more on 1) how the U.N’s peacekeeping presence in the Ivory Coast, Liberia, and Haiti helped improve their rankings; 2) how oil prices have helped provide lifelines to Presidents such as Omar Hassan al-Bashir (Sudan); and 3) how the rapid increase in the cost of essential goods such as flour and rice “can cause chaos.” One main question, therefore, was primarily left out of the analysis on failed states and political hardship.

Presidential Candidate Barack Obama still has the support of a majority of American Muslims, but a New York Times article from June 24, 2008 questions whether there is a “disconnect between Mr. Obama’s message of unity and his campaign strategy.” One reason for questioning his sincerity is Obama’s failure to visit a single mosque during the campaign season. Muslim Americans interviewed for the NYT article said that the implication is that there is something wrong with being Muslim, particularly because on Obama’s website, “he classifies the claim that he is Muslim as a smear.” The article reflects on Representative Keith Ellison’s concern that Obama’s aides are not considering carefully enough that Muslim Americans are being alienated from the campaign process. The questions about Obama’s evasiveness picked up intensity after reports that two Muslim women were recently prevented from sitting behind Obama at a rally in Detroit. The reason for the exclusion of the women may have been, according to a report on politico.com, that Obama’s aides are almost paranoid about the need to deny rumors that Obama is Muslim, leading many members of the Muslim American community to “feel betrayed.” Questions are being raised in two directions: Whether Obama is really driven to create a unified America and whether Muslim Americans are a sufficient political force that Obama cannot afford to ignore them.

The Lambeth Conference for bishops of the Anglican Communion (held once a decade) will take place from July 20 to August 2. This year, however, a real divide has emerged, and according to an article in the New York Times, “a quarter of the bishops are expected to boycott the conference and attend a rival meeting for conservative Anglicans in Jerusalem.” The schism centers on the debate over homosexuality. Two bishops have not been invited to Lambeth, one Gene Robinson, an openly gay bishop from New Hampshire and Bishop Martyn Minns, who ministers to conservatives in the Church of Nigeria, “who want to leave the Episcopal Church.” The rival meeting will not coincide with the Lambeth conference and takes place from June 22 to June 29 – the Holy Land 2008 meeting began on Sunday. According to the NYT article, about 10% of the bishops at the Jerusalem conference (the Global Anglican Future Conference or GAFCON) will also attend Lambeth. 1,200 delegates are in attendance at the Jerusalem gathering, and at the opening session, Rev. Akinola said that GAFCON was not going to break away from the Anglican Communion, but they “had no other place to go.” Also, for obvious reasons, you won’t find much information about GAFCON from the Lambeth conference website.

Several posts on this blog have discussed the place of dialogue and cultural understanding in world politics, specifically in the context of religion. Recently, a newsletter of the Organization for Defending Victims of Violence (ODVV is an Iranian human rights organization) raised the question of Islamic Feminism. In this regard, Hiba Arshad, the author of a paper on this topic, was cited by ODVV and writes, “there is an incredible need for understanding and cultural dialogue to take place in order to foster understanding and build peaceful relationships with the civilizations of the world.” Arshad’s short paper analyzes Islamic feminism in the context of UNESCO but first takes a general-historical approach and breaks down feminist movements in Islam into three categories: Islamic feminists, Muslim feminists, and Islamist feminists. The author says that “Islamists are advocates of a political Islam, the notion that the Qur’an can mandate an Islamic government; they advocate women’s rights in the public sphere but do not challenge gender inequality in the personal, private sphere.” The Islamic feminist movement, however, is allegedly the most dominant. Arshad further discusses the current trend for women scholars of Islam to read the Qur’an in such a way that it is female inclusive. Amina Wadud, an American convert to Islam, who wrote, “Quran and Woman: Rereading the Sacred Text from a Women’s Perspective” is an example of this new approach. Arshad poignantly concludes by writing “that the prominent political discourse is a speech that generates fear and stereotypes”.

Anna Badkhen, writing in Baghdad for ISN Security Watch, wrote a commentary this week expressing her view that “the most lingering threat to stability in Iraq is the psychological fallout of the sectarian violence of 2006 and 2007.” She discusses the long-term threat that is now emerging from the severe segregation of Sunnis and Shias.  She recognizes that tension has existed between the two religious groups for “more than 1,000 years,” but that now the two sects are so divided and the political situation so fragile that there is no real solution to such problems as resettlement. One month earlier, Anna Badkhen wrote another commentary on reconciliation in Iraq, in which she argued that “the tension between the two sects is so deep that even the slightest perceived bias sparks a new cycle of resentment.”  The fallout of violence in Gaza is also mutual distrust. The calm that has arrived today with the truce between Israel and Palestinian groups appears to have had little effect on general Israeli or Palestinian views. Ehud Olmert said yesterday, for example, that the truce will probably be short-lived and that a cessation of violence does not mean that Hamas has changed its nature or become lovers of peace. The New York Times reminds readers that the new six-month truce took months to conclude with Egypt’s assistance and that violence was still raging on Wednesday. Unfortunately, mistrust at such high levels only confirms the reality that Hamas will forever be seen as terrorists and no peace deal will ever be in the making.

This month, the Center for Security Studies (Zurich) published an excellent analysis of Switzerland’s Middle East policy. The article first reminds readers that Switzerland follows a policy of engagement on the basis of three principles: neutrality, universality, and recognition of states rather than governments. The last element can be specifically contrasted with the foreign policy of the U.S., which regularly denies recognition to governments on the basis of perceived political necessity. The CSS Analysis describes this approach as “the US-Israeli policy of isolating unpopular regimes.” Although the article’s aim is actually to question whether Switzerland’s active involvement in dialogue and peace building in the Middle East is compatible with the notion of neutrality, there is an underlying idea in the article that dialogue among countries or “civilizations” is basically left to Switzerland on account of its need to defend its raison d’être. The article implies that neither Europe or the U.S. is standing up for dialogue or genuine peace building. One example in the article of the Swiss “inclusion” strategy was when it became clear that Switzerland was “the only Western state that has never joined in isolating Hamas.” Switzerland also takes an inclusive approach to Hezbollah in Lebanon, in contrast to the U.S., which has listed it as a terrorist organization. The article agrees that the Swiss “dialogue and mediation approach is supported by solid reasoning,” but also complains that the Swiss face too many tensions in the application of its “ambitious foreign policy.”

From all the media coverage of the current U.S. presidential election, it seems that the “liberal” or “progressive” voice has once again entered U.S. politics. According to a recent Q&A at the Pew Forum, “the religious left” is more active. John Green, the Senior Fellow in Religion and American Politics, provides clear definitions of the religious right and religious left in the interview. He distinguishes “red-letter Christians” from “progressive centrists” and the “core religious left.” Despite the subgroups in the body of people making up the religious left, John Green says that they are united by social welfare issues, environmental protection, and foreign policy. Other issues, such as abortion and same-sex marriage are “potential points of division.” The religious left also has “in common a negative reaction to the religious right.” Based on a 2004 Survey of Religion and Politics, the Senior Fellow estimated in the interview that the religious left totaled a little more than one-quarter of American adults.