Last week U.S. President Obama directly spoke to the Muslim world (again), and it seems that this time everyone has taken notice. In the President’s historic address from Cairo – supported by Al Azhar and Cairo University, there was great humility presented in order to try and ease the current tensions between the Muslim world and the United States. Here, in Tajikistan, various religious figures went to the U.S. Embassy to hear the address of the President. There was much surprise and delight that President Obama started with the traditional Arabic language greeting. In general, though, the positive reactions here were no different than the standard responses which the U.S. President receives for his generally outstanding oratory. He is indeed a great public speaker who knows his audience very well and almost never makes a mistake. But what do such great words mean to your enemies?

The words coming from Cairo were very similar to previous speeches (Bush administration) – with the exception that they were delivered by a person who has managed to earn more trust from extraordinary numbers of people around the world. This trust may only have been gained on account of his international background and upbringing – or the fact that he has not started any wars (merely continued them).

The speech included great historical quotes – such as from John Adams: “The U.S. has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility of Muslims.” But what was President Obama’s own best line? It may have been that “Islam is a part of America” – as this fact in itself reflects a bridge which connects two worlds and continues to strengthen the relations between the U.S. and the Muslim world. Or, it may have been in what was not said – such as the word terrorism. The real goal of such grand speeches is to alienate extremists (terrorists?) from the vast majority of moderate Muslims. However, that segment of radical Islam will not be persuaded by oratory and historical brilliance. They certainly do not respect religious diversity of the kind President Obama praised.

This week, an unusual opinion piece appeared on the Wall Street Journal online. Tawfik Hamid wrote, “Islam Should Prove It’s a Religion of Peace.” Looking back over the past few months, I have noticed that a common theme in articles about religion is “proof.” Specifically, the question is: Who is responsible for proving facts about a particular religion? When and what do Muslims, for example, have to prove about their own beliefs? Hamid argues that Muslims are responsible for the negative perceptions of Islam because they have failed to produce sufficient counter images. This puts all ownership of proof on the holder of the religious belief. Therefore, regardless of any differences from one Muslim believer to the other, all are equally at fault if there is a negative world image of Islam because each Muslim is obliged to prove their peaceful disposition.

Hamid’s specific suggestion is that the Muslim world must immediately produce a religious text that argues against violence. However, the catch is that the book must be widely accepted by the entire religious community, otherwise, it will only be one of many books about how Islam is peaceful. If the circular reasoning is not apparent, it is because there is also a presumption that all Muslims currently follow one or two texts that do espouse violence and hatred. This overemphasis on textual and written influence over Muslim thinking is strange. The way that some extremist Muslims “teach hatred and violence” is less by text and more by acts and spoken words. Nevertheless, Hamid’s response to the Dutch filmmaker, Geert Wilder’s movie Fitna, is that Islamic scholars must produce a new Sharia book. It is hard to imagine that a book will effectively combat the training camps for militants with so-called Islamist agendas. The end result for Hamid is that all extremist verbal rhetoric against Islam is acceptable until “a book” can be published that will be accepted and adopted by 100% of Muslims everywhere.

According to Fareed Zakaria, the answer to the above question is a resounding No. Zakaria’s main argument is that if we try to fully understand the phenomenon of Islamic radicalism, there will be a clearer picture that not all Islamists are potential terrorists. The article in Newsweek, “Learning to Live with Radical Islam,” focuses on why “radical Islam has gained a powerful foothold in the Muslim imagination.” The instruction is that the U.S. and the West – to avoid an increasingly painful war between civilizations – should try to better understand various local Muslim contexts and specifically how Islamists with local agendas are different from global terrorist networks such as Al Qaeda.

Zakaria directly argues that “not all Islamists advocate global jihad” and that the past years of the Bush administration were characterized by an unwillingness to differentiate between local militants with national political ambitions for development and extremists, who were aiming for violence and terror at the global scale. Zakaria argues in his standard straightforward manner: “In the Bush administration’s original view, all Islamist groups were one and the same.” These arguments are particularly timely because they have significant potential to assist in the ongoing struggle in Afghanistan. For this reason, Zakaria makes the point that “no Afghan Taliban has participated at any significant level in a global terrorist attack.” He also cites the stat that 90% of the people referred to as Taliban are tribal fighters or Pashtun nationalists.

Gross generalizations about Islam also apply to Shi’a rule in Iran. Absurd rhetoric places Taliban fighters, the Iranian regime, and Al Qaeda all in one large pot of Radical Islamists. Based on the last years of strategy from the Bush administration, Zakaria correctly states that “we have an instant, violent reaction to anyone who sounds like an Islamic bigot.” Nevertheless, there are signs that the new Obama White House is going to take a more nuanced and sophisticated strategy based on the Alliance of Civilizations.

President Obama is apparently working hard to keep his campaign pledges. He has now had his first interview with Al Arabiya, while repeating his promise to give a speech in a Muslim capital in the first 100 days of his administration. In some ways, President Obama's approach to the presidency feels like the campaign season is still in full swing. After eight years of President Bush's foreign policy, Barack Obama appears to still be campaigning , albeit now for his own approach to politics and an updated vision of a multilateralist foreign policy. As the U.S. President said in his interview: the most important element is to be "engaged" and "right away." Of course, the Bush administration was fully engaged on the issue of Israel/Palestine , but to no avail. The intention now , and this is the most remarkable part of the President's interview , is to "listen" as opposed to "dictating."

President Obama repeated his calls for mutual respect and interest, which we have heard about regularly and noted in his inaugural address. Referring to those who call for peace, however, may be ignoring the reality of practical dead ends in the substantive peace process. Listening can only go so far , especially when the political issues end and the religious issues begin. Sacrifices will be key, and so far the substance of the debate has yet to show how much the Muslim world will give on account of the U.S. alliance with Israel. At the same time, President Obama said, "My job is to communicate the fact that the United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world that the language we use has to be a language of respect."

To quote in full, as you can find in the transcript as well: "My job is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives. My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy. We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect. But if you look at the track record, as you say, America was not born as a colonial power, and that the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, there's no reason why we can't restore that."

(His job seems to be focused on communicating!)

On the issue of terrorism, President Obama referred to the historical reality that extremist organizations using the tactic of terrorism have surfaced with roots in numerous religions (clearly not just Islam). The key is that the groups use religion and faith as a justification for their acts of violence and destruction. In a well-worded statement (essentially in legalese), the President derived a new rule of art, "We cannot paint with a broad brush a faith as a consequence of the violence that is done in that faith's name."

I watched the inaugural address of Barack Obama at a packed auditorium at New York University School of Law. When Obama said, "America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity" the room broke out into applause. In fact, there were about a dozen occasions when nearly everyone was clapping. The news commentators, though, were not sure whether the speech would have a lasting impact because there was no one catch phrase that immediately stuck out. The importance of the speech, however, was really in the occasion (a history-making day) rather than the individual words. Obama's message of peace was based on the "patchwork heritage" of the country, emphasizing that "we are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers." It is for this reason that the content was so much more dramatic than catchy phrases and poetic language. Obama spoke not just about patriotism and courage in the U.S. but also about the world's common humanity. While addressing the diverse religions of the world, he said to the Muslims: "We see a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect." The images brought to our minds today show a new America with a tremendous spirit and strength that can defeat any challenge. There may not be one catch phrase from Obama's inauguration, but I understood that America is now "ushering in a new era of peace." America is ready to lead once more - multilaterally and through the rule of law.

Photo from Reuters

 salvador valldeperas md residency program Buy Full UK Postcode X.Y Longitude Latitude MySQL Download

 free web pages enhancements download Buy For Dummies Google SketchUp For Dummies Jul 2007 EBook Download

 free motorola mobile tools 4.0 download Buy Adobe CS3 Master Collection Corporate Final (1 Dvd) Download

 spacebattle trainer download software gratis Buy Arcgis Desktop 9 SP3 (3 Cds) Download

 vanderbilt nursing program Buy COSMOSWorks 2006 Download

 panda antivirus 7 crack Buy Keil RealView Microcontroller Development Kit 3.20 Download

 clay aiken downloads Buy Macromedia Freehand MX 11.0.1 Download

 hardrive dupiclate software Buy Quicken Premier 2008 Download

 ubuntu frozen program Buy Adobe Creative Suite 3 Master Collection 7-12 (6 Dvds) Download

The violence in Gaza and the current Israeli ground offensive have absolutely no direct connection to the politics of religion. Depending on your point of view, the key is either Israel's legitimate war on terror or the fundamental human rights of Palestinians.

However, if you have been following the news reports of protests and statements by world leaders, the conflict has actually been drawn on lines of religion. Unfortunately, the demonstrations against Israel's bombing campaign have been characterized by headlines such as "Muslims Protest Continued Israeli Campaign in Gaza." This particular AP article runs through major Muslim-majority countries to describe how protests were being carried out after Friday prayers. The article's reasoning for separating out all the protests in Muslim countries is unclear.

A second element in how the conflict has been drawn on religious lines is the political statements of world leaders and politicians. For example, the German Foreign Minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier made a statement on Saturday before the Organization of the Islamic Conference that "Muslim nations should use their influence to help secure an end Hamas militants' rocket attacks on Israel." The argument that only influence from the Muslim nations can stop the rocket fire from Hamas is astounding. This implies that Israel has no role to play whatsoever in peacefully stopping the conflict.

Either way, the world leaders are aiming to stop the bloodshed by calling on religious and ethnic affiliations while not looking at the effects of separating Muslim countries and Muslim supporters from European and U.S. support for Israel. For example, news reports have repeated continuously that it was the "Arab nations" that were demanding the U.N. Security Council call for an immediate cease-fire. These divisions will only lead to greater calls to radicalism and violence by anti-Israeli extremists , as well as greater support for Hamas in the long term.

December 10 was the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As usual, the leaders at the UN took the opportunity to remind the world's governments of their obligations and responsibilities to protect the most vulnerable. The Declaration's aim has been to ensure human rights for everyone - regardless of their race, gender, colour, sex, language, religion, or political opinion. Writing this blog has brought home just how many conflicts are based on religious grievances and how often human rights are violated on account of repression of religious minorities. As the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, has said, “For many people, the Universal Declaration remains an unfulfilled promise, as States’ political will to fulfill their obligations lags lamentably behind their pledges.” This has been particularly true with respect to religious minorities and freedom of conscience - as states can base their national identities on religious principles, sometimes leading to excessive intolerance.

Asif Ali Zardari, the President of Pakistan, has replied to the current pressure on his government by reflecting on "the challenge of confronting terrorists." In an editorial printed in the New York Times, Zardari discusses both the global scale of the current war against extremists and the particular price that Pakistan that has had to pay for the world's past exploit of religion. Zardari is referring to the past strategy of "empowering the most fanatic extremists" (Mujahidin in Afghanistan) to combat the Soviets. This exploitation of religion in the past has led to the creation of a new extremist militia (Taliban and al Qaeda) that has their "own dynamic." Zardari makes a simple but excellent point that terrorists are all "connected by ideology," and therefore, they should be "battled collectively." The underlying point of the editorial is that India and Pakistan (as well as the United States) should coordinate their responses and stop all unnecessary accusations. The world should also recognize and respect the massive war, which Pakistan has been undertaking against terrorists. "Nearly 2,000 Pakistanis have lost their lives to terrorism in this year alone, including 1,400 civilians and 600 security personnel."

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.'

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.