Christopher Hitchens, on Slate.com, has written a piece on Guantanamo Bay and the current Presidential policies that has made me re-consider my understanding of tolerance (at least for a time). After much consideration, though, I have to say that this Hitchens article is not very compelling. He basically argues that the Guantanamo Bay Prison Camps are madrassahs in disguise because they are “dedicated to the fervent practice of the most extreme version of just one religion.”

Obama’s administration is supposedly “taking the extreme as the norm.” The reason given by Hitchens is that Obama is referring to the idea of the Muslim world as a whole – a complete entity. Hitchens reminds us that it is the extremists who are fighting for this concept of a new Muslim world. He says it is precisely the aim of the jihadists to bring it all under one rulership. I highly doubt, though, that Obama was referring to the Umma in the same way, for example, that a group such as Hizb-ut-Tahrir does. Perhaps we need to differentiate between the Umma of the radicals and extremists and the world of the vast majority of Muslims, who certainly do not first and foremost reject the concepts of citizenship and good governance by secular and democratic authorities. In being tolerant of certain practices among Muslims, such as hejab for women, Obama is certainly not adopting the reactionary policies of extremists and rejecting the secular concepts behind democracy.

I recently discussed this article with a colleague from the Institute for the Science of Religion (Central Asian Studies) in Switzerland. He didn’t reject the Hitchens thesis in this article but instead said that Obama was taking the same approach as the most extremist Muslims by quoting the Quran the way he did. If the President accepts that the basis for authority and decision-making must be based on the Quran then he is waging the battle with the extremists in a literary and text-based manner. He says that it is the most fundamentalist Muslims who only rely on the words of the Quran (while most Muslims only know small fragments of the text), and therefore, the President should have been making more logical arguments based on conflict resolution and peace-building tactics.

The Economist has jumped on the debate train: This past week they looked at the resolution on religious defamation, adopted by the UN Human Rights Council. Actually, they asked the question (which shows perfectly the confusion in this debate), “What exactly is it the drafters of the council resolution are trying to outlaw?” The answer to this question is fear. The Council is trying to restrict the defamation of religion with the hope that people of faith will be secure in their ability to practice their religions. According to the International Humanist, however, the resolution is dangerous because it does not distinguish what “hatred” of a religion could mean (ex: Islamophobia) as compared to mere criticism. This might show that we are not separating violent speech from regular speech. However, in the post-9/11 world, there is a fine line between the various kinds of anti al-Qaeda rhetoric and dangerous hate speech that affects ordinary Muslims.

As this blog has pointed out several times over the past year, the real fear for certain organizations is that “freedom of expression” will be damaged if there is substantial restrictions on the right to criticize. The question then becomes whether freedom of expression is a higher right under international law than freedom of worship and conscience. The main problem behind this debate is that the promoters of restrictions on defamation are countries facing public unrest on account of American and European rhetoric in the War on Terror. Pakistan, one of the sponsors of the resolution, has much to lose if the anti-Muslim rhetoric is not contained – at least partially. The U.S. is particularly pushing for a more stable Pakistan, and therefore, we should understand what kind of results come from the rhetoric of both government officials and ordinary citizens since 9-11.

This was the Turkish proverb quoted by President Obama in his speech yesterday before the Turkish Grand National Assembly to say that the U.S. does not aim to fight extremism through force. The President’s speech was remarkably general, but at the same time, he made some important gestures towards the Muslim world. In case you missed the major political element of the speech, this was the Executive’s first address to a majority Muslim country.

With respect to the Muslim world, President Obama gave the enduring quote: “The U.S. is not, and will never be, at war with Islam.” He clarified this comment with remarks about how America’s relationship with the Muslim world should not be based solely on opposition to terrorism. He also said that the U.S. will aim to convey deep appreciation for the Islamic faith.

Much of the speech was actually dedicated to Turkey’s achievements and future prospects. The New York Times has analyzed the choice of Turkey as both an example of cooperation between a Muslim country and the U.S. – but also as a way to push for “more acceptance of the separation of religion and state” – both in Turkey and throughout the world.

President Obama is expected to participate in the UN-connected meeting called the Alliance of Civilizations. It is the second forum of the alliance and scheduled for April 6-7 in Istanbul. The Alliance was established in 2005, and it aims to reduce cross-cultural tensions. The director of the alliance has said that Obama’s visit to Turkey (his first trip to a Muslim country since becoming President) would “signal an attitude in favor of a high dose of openness and cautious dialogue. It would also signal a preparedness to listen and to show respect – one of the basic tenets of the Alliance.” The hope that this brings to the other member countries that U.S. policy has shifted is immense. One topic, which we have been following in this blog is the debate “on defamation of religion versus freedom of expression.” The press release for the upcoming Alliance Conference reiterates that the Alliance tries to stay clear of that controversial and inflammatory debate.

 On December 15, the Third World Congress of Imams and Rabbis for Peace began its three-day meeting at UNESCO in Paris. Christian leaders also took part in the conference. Previously, the religious leaders had named 2008 as the "year of reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians." The calls for peace in the Middle East were widespread in 2008, although the results have been minimal. President Bush will leave office without having substantially achieved his goals for Israel and Palestine. Overall, the theme of the Congress was "the sacredness of peace" and much of the conference was devoted to the need for commitment from religious leaders to peacebuilding. Now, the Congress hopes to set up a monitoring group to support its initiatives and projects for Judeo-Muslim dialogue. It should hold its first working session in February 2009.

A two-day meeting at the UN, the "Culture of Peace," was the initiative of the King of Saudi Arabia. It was a large faith-based conference to promote inter-religious dialogue. The result has been a consensus resolution of the UN General Assembly. According to the UN News Centre, the meeting joined the leaders together to "decry the use of religion to justify the killing of innocent people and terrorist acts." The overall goal: Increase mutual understanding. 14 world leaders went to New York , including President Bush. There are positive reports about the fact that the Saudi king and Shimon Peres were at least in the same room, and Peres said that the initiative of the Saudi king "inspired hope that all countries in the Middle East could live in peace." Unfortunately, at the same time, other reports are discussing the Iranian envoy's accusation that Israel was abusing the conference for political purposes (merely by its presence) and that its participation brought no benefit to the purpose of the meeting: Dialogue.

Good day everyone, I am Patrick Frost, the FPA blogger for Central Asia, and Karin has been kind enough to let me do a post on this site from time to time. Please feel free to send me comments, critiques, and questions at  patfrost1 at gmail.com or just post them on this site.

Today, I would like to talk about a book I read about six months ago that challenged the way I saw the West's political society based on secularization, other societies, civilizations, and political systems throughout the world, especially in Muslim dominated lands, and the current "war on terror.' It is Mark Lilla's, professor of the Humanities at Columbia University, The Stillborn God; Religion, Politics, and the Modern West. At its most basic, it is a philosophical history of Europe/US advancement from a society ruled by political theology to one ruled by secularization. But the book is about much more, in fact it is a warning against complacency of this type of political/societal system in the West.

Here is Lilla's dramatic message;
‘Intellectual complacency, nursed by implicit faith in the inevitability of secularization, has blinded us to the persistence of political theology and its manifest power to shape human life at any moment.’

Lilla warns us in the West to not feel so safe and cozy with our secular system, for he argues that we are the "exception', not the rest of the world, and that we are in fact still living in an "experiment.' These are strong words and statements, but they are important for all to ponder. This is a pertinent book because it is based on a question not often asked; "Why don't we understand the ‘enduring attraction of political theology?’ Instead of "why don't they understand our (and copy) our political system and way of life?'

Lilla strongly believes that the argument over politics and religion will not end, and in fact "could not end,' because it concerns the enduring question that all societies must answer and face, whether "to order their political affairs in light of a divine revelation, or to make their way alone.'

On Sunday, July 13, the Dalai Lama gave a public talk at Lehigh University as part of a "series of teachings," which takes place from July 10-15. The public talk, held yesterday (on the topic of "Generating a Good Heart"), also allowed the Dalai Lama to answer questions from the audience, which had been earlier submitted in writing. The Associated Press apparently picked up on the talk because the Dalai Lama answered a question about Islam and then defended it as a peaceful religion. According to the AP, the Dalai Lama said that "it's totally wrong, unfair" to call Islam a violent religion. Does this make the Dalai Lama's discussion newsworthy , and why does the AP headline read: "Dalai Lama Defends Islam as Peaceful Religion"? How many people must say publicly that Islam is a non-violent religion before it stops making headlines and we assume it as fact. More interesting for this blogger is that the Dalai Lama also took a question on why so many Americans are depressed and anxious. Other than joking that he's the wrong person to ask because he's not an American, he said that the U.S. is too competitive and people always want "something more, something more, something more." The Associated Press headline should have alerted Americans to the answers behind depression, not the clear reality that Islam (just as all the major religions) are based on peace. Otherwise, no comments were made about the Olympics.

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”.