Amnesty International's Report 2008 considers the current state of the ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights,’ sixty years after it was adopted. In the section "At a Glance,' Amnesty International challenges world leaders to apologize for six decades of human rights abuses and "to deliver concrete improvements." The press release said that the "most striking images of 2007 were of monks in Myanmar, lawyers in Pakistan, and women activists in Iran." In the section on Facts and Figures, Amnesty International cites Article 18 of the Universal Declaration, which declares that "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance." In contrast to the legal right, Amnesty International says that the reality in 2008 is that 45 countries are actively detaining Prisoners of Conscience.

The former Finnish president, Martti Ahtisaari, has won UNESCO's annual peace prize. Ahtisaari was the President of Finland from 1994 to 2000. The award is known as the Felix Houphouet-Boigny Peace Prize, and Ahtisaari is the recipient of the award on account of “his life-time contribution to world peace.” Mr. Ahtisaari is the founder of the NGO, Crisis Management Initiative, through which he organized a week-long meeting (September 2007) between Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites to improve dialogue between the communities.  According to UNESCO, in 2000, Ahtisaari also supervised the disarmament process of the IRA in Northern Ireland.

An agreement in Doha, Qatar has been signed among Lebanon's political leaders. UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon has welcomed the agreement and hopes it will be the start of "a lasting period of national reconciliation." The Security Council also supports the agreement and the "decision to continue the national dialogue on ways to reinforce the authority of the State over all its territory." Under the agreement, a new president will be chosen and there will be a national unity cabinet. Reuters has reported some of the facts of the agreement, which was reached after six days of talks, which were initiated after disastrous fighting that led to 81 people killed. Reuters has also reported that U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice believes Hezbollah was weakened by the fighting in Lebanon because now Hezbollah has shown the world that is not a resistance movement but a militia that "decided to turn its guns on its own people."  On the other hand, according to the agreement, Hezbollah now has veto power in the cabinet. A good description of the anatomy of the agreement can be found in an article by David Schenker, who argues that Hezbollah's "modus operandi of using its military power to wrest concessions from the government was validated." Meanwhile, Israel and Syria have announced that they were also negotiating peace. According to Ethan Bronner of the New York Times, "A real peace treaty with Syria would bring Israel significant advantages in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories." Iran, always cited as the main supporter of Hezbollah, has praised the Agreement reached in Doha. Tehran Times has quoted the Iranian Foreign Ministry's spokesman as saying that “the deal is the outcome of attempts made by Lebanon's friendly countries and is a clear example of regional unity.” 

Regarding the previous post, President Bush has now also officially apologized to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki for the actions of the sniper, who used the Quran for target practice.

While Israel has been celebrating its 60^th anniversary, US President George W. Bush took a five-day trip to the Middle East (May 13-May 18). On May 15, President Bush addressed members of Israel's Knesset. His remarks were controversial in the US domestic arena on account of his supposed criticism (attack?) of presidential candidate Barack Obama and other influential people, who "believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along." However, the President's words were also geared towards religion. He said, "We believe that religious liberty is fundamental to a civilized society." Later in the speech, he said, "The killers claim the mantle of Islam, but they are not religious men.  In order to prevail, the President said that the values of justice, tolerance, freedom, and hope were values that are "the self-evident right of all people, of all religions, in all the world because they are a gift from the Almighty God."

On May 18, President Bush spoke in Egypt for the World Economic Forum. He refuted the idea that democracy is merely a Western value that America wishes to impose on people. He said, "In a recent survey of the Muslim world, there was overwhelming support for one of the central tenets of democracy, freedom of speech: 99 percent in Lebanon, 94% here in Egypt, and 92% in Iran." He reminded his audience that America is a religious country, where more than 75% of the people believe in a higher power. The President remarked that in "our democracy, we would never punish a person for owning a Koran. We would never issue a death sentence to someone for converting to Islam. Democracy does not threaten Islam or any religion."

Meanwhile, the US military has announced that the American sniper in Iraq that shot at the Quran for target practice has been sent home. The very eloquent apology from Major-General Hammond to local elders calmed the resulting anger and tension. The military has also purchased for them a new holy book.

After the riots in the French suburbs in 2007 (not to mention 2005), Olivier Roy , an expert on Islam and politics , said, "what these guys want is integration." In a presentation of his book (published the same year), Secularism Confronts Islam, Olivier Roy discussed the "tools" of integration. With respect to the situation in Holland, Roy said, "After 9/11, after the assassination of Theo Van Gogh, suddenly there is a feeling in Europe that [assimilation and multiculturalism], in fact did fail. That multiculturalism is not working or is heading towards very negative side effects, and on the other hand, assimilation in France has created problems , not created, but has opened the door for polemics about what is the place, what is the role for religion in the French public place."

 This month, Human Rights Watch has released a report titled "The Netherlands: Discrimination in the Name of Integration."  The research looks at measures instituted by the authorities in the Netherlands "with the stated aim of better integrating its migrant population." One of the measures is the overseas integration test, which aims to have new immigrants integrate into the Dutch culture before arriving in Holland. The test primarily targets the migrants from two of the three largest immigrant communities in Holland , Moroccans and Turks. These communities have specifically been under greater pressure because of allegations that they do not integrate. "The main targets for these attacks have been Muslim communities, especially Turks and Moroccans." Human Rights Watch has found that the integration test is discriminatory on the grounds that it is not required from all immigrant communities and the costs of taking the test abroad may pose an excessive financial burden (indirect discrimination). 

A classic example of the complex dynamics surrounding an “Islamic” party in a secular state is Turkey and the AKP (The Justice and Development Party), which has spent most of its recent political clout trying to remove the headscarf ban in universities. The Eurasia Daily Monitor (Jamestown Foundation) has recently reported on research that shows "Turks are becoming more pessimistic and introspective." The article reflects on the decline of support for the AKP and the supposed "deep divisions in Turkish society over the future of secularism." Apparently, "only 5.2% of AKP supporters were concerned that secularism was in danger."

A second example of a secular state, which faces questions about the legitimate role of its religious political parties, is Tajikistan. This less-developed country (rarely discussed in world politics) prides itself on the open inclusion of the “Party of the Islamic Revival/Renaissance of Tajikistan” (also known as PIRT). Tajikistan perpetually claims the status of "most-democratic country in Central Asia" simply because the PIRT is active and openly challenges government policies and agenda items. This past week, in Tajikistan, at the National Center for Strategic Research, there was a presentation of a new book by Abdullo Rakhnamo, "Religious Parties and Secular Governments." Rakhnamo has recently said during an interview that the legal functioning of the PIRT is "one of the most important components of the Tajik peace process." His book focuses on the role of religious parties in maintaining equilibrium in developing political systems , helping to create "a culture of stability" leading to compromise and the furtherance of the rule of law.

This is a Guest Blog written by Zharmukhamed Zardykhan, an Assistant Professor at KIMEP, the Kazakhstan Institute of Management, Economics, and Strategic Research.

  The First World War was noted not only for its horrific physical destruction and tremendous financial ruin, but for the first time systematic international propaganda became one of the most effective means of warfare.

The incorporation of the notion of jihad into wartime propaganda had already gained strength during the Balkan Wars and, in fact, did not slacken its pace up until the First World War. Indeed, the very notion of warfare, whether offensive or defensive, obtained a certain character in traditional Islam and its interpretation, depending on whose part it is conducted, so that, according to Ibn Khaldûn, any warfare conducted by Muslims, including an offensive one, is not only legitimate, but also a holy war, or jihad, since in the long run it undertakes a mission of leading the world population to Islamic faith. (1) However, the long-established Turkic and Anatolian tradition established a difference between jihad and ghaza, referring, respectively, to the defense of Muslim lands against the aggression of infidel troops and to the actual invasion of infidel lands by Muslim troops empowered by the Caliph. (2)

But what about the Ottoman proclamations for jihad during the First World War? The traditional appeals to fight down the infidels would not work because of the German troops fighting alongside of Ottomans. The appeals to resist the enslavers and suppressors of Muslim populations would be impeded by Austro-Hungarian and Bulgarian participation in the Great War on the side of the Central Powers. Furthermore, throughout the First World War, the Ottoman troops had to stand against fellow Muslim soldiers among the Russian, British or French troops.

Here comes the Ottoman fatwa, the religious edict issued by Ottoman Seyh-ul-islam Urguplu Hayri Efendi that justified the religious and spiritual grounds of war. Structured in the traditional Ottoman pattern, this fetva-i Serif (3) contained five issues [mes'ele] concerning different features of the war and answers to them [el-cevab]. In brief, the fetva-i Serif assured that: (1) at the time when Islam is assaulted and Islamic population is threatened by annihilation and imprisonment, the physical and material contribution of every Muslim to the holy war is an individual and unavoidable obligation [farz-i "ayn]; (2) it is an obligation [farz] for the Muslim population of Russia, Britain and France to declare jihad against these governments and actually joint it; (3) even if they were threatened by death or the extermination of their families, fighting against the soldiers of the Islamic Government [i.e. Ottoman State] is absolutely forbidden [haram-i kat'i] by religious law and the infringers would be thrown to infernal fire [nar-i cahim]; (4) the fighting of the Muslim subjects of Britain, France, Russia, Serbia and Montenegro against Germany and Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman allies, would harm the Islamic Caliphate and those who fought would suffer grievous wrath [gazab-i elim].

Similarly, upon the Ottoman engagement into the First World War, numerous articles on the nature of jihad and its place and justification by the Islamic law started appearing in Ottoman periodical press. As "Religion and War" acknowledged thoroughly using quotations from Qur'an, "the Muslims do not fight for personal and arbitrary causes," while jihad is bound to the greater cause and is both permitted and obligatory.(4) At the same time, the outburst of the war came out as an opportunity to strengthen the image of the Caliphate not only outside, but also within the Empire, as did "What Kind of a Caliph the Enemies of the Caliphate Want?" by stating that "the Caliphate of Islam is not a weak [kuvvetsiz] and humble [Sevketsiz] institution like the Papacy that only has religious guardianship and spiritual governance."(5)

[1] See Abu-Sahlieh, Sami A. Adeeb. "The Islamic Conception of Migration." International Migration Review 30, No. 1 (Spring 1996): 37-57.[2] See Darling, Linda. "Contested Territory: Ottoman Holy War in Comparative Context."Studia Islamica No. 91 (2000): 133-163.[3] For the text of the fatwa see "Fetava-i Serife," Cihan-i Islam, No. 50; and "Fetava-i Serife," Donanma, No. 68-20 (16 TeSrin-i sani 1914).[4] "Din ve Harb," Islam Mecmasa, Year 2, No. 42 (7 Djumada "l-ala 1334) [1916].[5] "Hilafet Dusmanları Nasıl Bir Halife Istiyor?" Islam Mecmû'ası, Year 2, No. 46 (9 Dhu l'-Ka'da 1334) [1916].

(Photographed by Karin Esposito, 2004, Tehran)

The organization Search for Common Ground (SFCG), on April 7, 2008, published the results of a second poll that it took of 710 Iranian adults , both in rural and urban areas. The first extensive survey it took of Iranian citizens was published in January 2007. SFCG has complemented the survey of Iranians by asking similar questions to 703 respondents in the United States.

As the U.S. has now successfully managed to get the UN Security Council to support a third round of sanctions against Iran, the timing of this follow-up poll of Iran-U.S. attitudes and perceptions is excellent. Although the survey addressed many specific topics, such as Iran's nuclear program and Iranian influence in the Persian Gulf, this blog is interested in the poll results related to religion, politics, and tolerance. Here are some of the main findings of SFCG's poll:

·        "A growing majority of Iranians believe that it is possible for Islam and the West to find common ground." , "64% percent , now say it is possible to find common ground (up from 58%)"

·        "The United States is widely perceived as seeking not only to assert control over the oil resources of the Middle East, but to weaken and divide the Islamic world and to purposely humiliate Muslims."

·        "The United States is seen as pursuing goals hostile to Iran and to Islam in general."

·        "64% saw the United States as purposely seeking to humiliate the Islamic world. Twenty-one percent thought the United States is disrespectful, but out of ignorance, and only 5 percent thought the United States mostly shows respect."

·        "Seventy-eight percent said the United States is not very (16%) or not at all (62%) committed to the goal of creating an independent and viable Palestinian state."

·        Only 32% of Americans surveyed (as Americans were also polled) said that it is a US goal to weaken and divide the Islamic world.

·        "Only 14% [of Iranians] wanted Shari'a to play a smaller role" in the way Iran is governed.

In March 2007, Europol published its first annual report on terrorism in the EU. The "EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report” is also known as TE-SAT. With respect to the subject matter of this blog, what useful information about supposedly "religiously motivated" terrorism can we find in the TE-SAT?

• "Islamist terrorists aim at mass casualties."
• The radicalization process of the suspects in European bomb plots was "reported to have been rapid."
• The weapon of choice of "Islamist terrorists are Improvised Explosive Devices made with home-made explosives."
• "Half of all terrorism arrests were related to Islamist terrorism."
• "France, Spain, Italy, and the Netherlands had the highest number of arrests of Islamist terrorist suspects."
• There were cases in the UK and Denmark involving converts to Islam.
• "The majority of the arrested suspects were born in Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia.

The Jamestown Foundation's Terrorism Monitor, in an article on the TE-SAT, points out that Europol has reported that the "increase in homegrown terrorists is partly the result of an increase in quantity and a "new quality" in jihadi propaganda in Europe."  What we might find the most interesting about the TE-SAT is the persistent use of the term "Islamist." Europol seems to have accepted this term as a proper adjective to describe terrorist acts carried out by groups that base their agendas and targets, at least to some degree, on their view of Islam. However, as Karen Armstrong has written, "These acts may be committed by people who call themselves Muslims, but they violate essential Islamic principles."  Regardless of such deficiencies in terminology, the TE-SAT understands "Islamist terrorism" to be "motivated either in whole or in part by an extreme interpretation of Islam and the use of violence is regarded by its practitioners as a divine duty or sacramental act." 

Many Muslims see Yemen as a sanctuary , a tranquil home of Islam that stays close to tradition. This positive image for the faithful persists despite the conflict that broke out in 2004 between the government and Shi'ite rebels. Young Muslims, who want to study Arabic and religion, in a more authentic environment, often take a journey to Sanaa.  Meanwhile, however, Yemen is a hot spot in the world's ongoing conflict over the question of clerical rule.  Is clerical rule (particularly in the Muslim world) increasing or decreasing? Is it becoming more or less popular?  We allege in the United States that the number of democratic countries is increasing. On the other hand, constitutional developments in Iraq and Afghanistan are increasingly based on religious principles.

Reuters reported this past Monday that Yemeni officials are saying: "the rebels want to return to a form of clerical rule prevalent in the country until the 1960s." The rebels belong to the Shi'ite branch of Islam, particularly the Zaydi sect. Friday, May 2, 2008, a bomb explosion in northern Yemen killed at least 12 people outside a mosque. And, of course, whenever there is a debate about clerical rule , the question of Iranian influence is always in the background. The Yemeni government "has accused the Houthi rebels of receiving support from Iran."  While Western media are analyzing the situation from the perspective of the War on Terror and whether Yemen is a safe haven for terrorists (al-Qaeda specifically), IRIN News has reported that the rebel leader, Abdul-Malik al-Houthi is calling for help because of the devastating effects of Yemen's “stop-go” conflict.