Religion and Politics

This past week SpiegelOnline published an interview with Kurt Westergaard, the cartoonist, who drew a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad in 2005 (the simplistic one with the bomb placed on his head). The interview was based around the new development in the saga that the prosecutor general in Jordan has issued a subpoena against Westergaard. In the interview, he says again that the cartoon “was not aimed at Islam as a whole but aimed at the terrorists, who use part of Islam as their spiritual ammunition. You could also say that the terrorists have taken the Prophet as their hostage.” The artist says that many people did not understand his intentions, but at the same time, it also was not in the interests of other groups (politicians and governments mostly) to admit that they did in fact understand the cartoon. Westergaard is 73 years old and now lives under police protection. An earlier article in SpiegelOnline looks more in depth at how his life has changed since his “cartoon would turn into a symbol of the struggle over European values of tolerance and freedom of the press.” Westergaard’s intentions (as spelled out in another interview) were more apparent when he took legal action against Geert Wilders for using his drawing in an anti-Qur’an movie. He said, “Wilders has an overly generalized perception of Muslims as potential terrorists” and that he did not want his cartoon taken out of its original context that aimed at fanatic terrorists.

The Center for Religious Freedom of the Hudson Institute, with the Institute for Gulf Affairs, published this year an extended brief titled, “2008 Update: Saudi Arabia’s Curriculum of Intolerance.” The Introduction describes the Center for Religious Freedom as an institution that “promotes religious freedom as a component of U.S. foreign policy.” It joined the Hudson Institute in 2007, following ten years of affiliation with Freedom House. The Center – in its own words – “is increasingly engaged in ensuring that American policymakers defend the principle of religious freedom and believers who are persecuted purely for their religious beliefs.” The Foreword presents the current world political situation and says that “it has become quite clear that extreme Islamist ideologies have been gaining adherents throughout the world.” The paper looks at how Saudi Arabia encourages extremist thinking and radical views through textbooks and educational materials at schools, all the while funding madrassahs (religious schools) world-wide. The subsequent claim of the Center, therefore, is that “the world has been slow to respond to this new ideological challenge.” Furthermore, the goal of the report is to reveal the content of the textbooks posted on the website of the Saudi Ministry of Education and argue that it includes “violent and intolerant teachings against other religious believers.” It is an update from a 2006 document, which looked at a dozen textbooks published by the Saudi Ministry. The analysis is summarized in 12 key points on how the textbooks encourage religious discrimination. The points are further broken down into three categories regarding 1) Sunni, Shiite, Sufi and other non-Wahhabi or non-Salafi Muslims; 2) Christians, Jews, Polytheists, and other infidels; and 3) anti-Semitism. In the end, the report argues that the U.S. needs to hold Saudi Arabia accountable for its adherence to its international obligations to respect freedom of religion – particularly as the U.S. State Department in 2006 “publicized that Saudi Arabia confirmed it would revise its textbooks and make other related reforms within two years” during the course of bilateral discussions.

According to an interview with a Chinese security official in Xinhua news, the East Turkestan Islamic Movement is “one of the main security worries to the Olympics.” The fear of this organization was highlighted on Monday when two Uighur men in the city of Kashi (in Xinjiang) killed 16 policemen. The Uighur population in northwest China is predominantly Muslim, and the Chinese authorities have claimed that it poses a serious terrorist threat. In March, there was an attempt by the East Turkestan Movement to sabotage a Southern Airlines flight. In recent weeks, there have been “a spate of smaller bombings or attempted bombings elsewhere in China.” The New York Times article on the issue (Ambush in China Raises Concerns as Olympics Near) reminds readers that this attack could be “the worst eruption of ethnic violence on Chinese soil since the early 1990s, when China blamed Muslim separatists for a spate of violent attacks.” Apparently, 82 people (through a crackdown on Uighur separatists) have been arrested this year on allegations of terror plots connected to the Olympics. On July 29, this blog discussed briefly the Turkestan Islamic Party and their threats to the Olympics. The Turkestan Islamic Party is another Uighur Muslim separatist group that claimed responsibility for recent explosions. In contrast to the NYT, the Globe and Mail/Reuters featured the article, “China Suspects Bent on Jihad.” This article, in contrast to the NYT, looks at the image of the Uighurs as religious extremists and discusses the attack on the police officers from the more stereotypical perspective that the movement is religiously motivated rather than politically desperate. A top official is quoted in the news piece as saying that “religion is more important to them than their own life or peace for their mothers, and so they set out to perform Jihad.”The U.S. State Department has listed the East Turkistan Islamic Movement as a terrorist organization with links to al-Qaeda and “the international jihadist movement.”

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@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.’

The article, Figures on Faith, discusses new efforts to gather information about the actual number of Muslims living in the United States. For many years, there has been a debate about the size of the Muslim communities in America. Past surveys put the numbers quite low, worrying Muslims that they may not have a substantial presence in the American political process. The Council on American Islamic Relations says the number of Muslims in the U.S. is between 6 and 8 million people (or 2-3% of the total population). The Pew Research Center - based on phone surveys - says the number is more like 2.3 million (0.6%). The Christian Science Monitor in an article back in 2002 discussed “America’s Elusive Minority,” and pointed out that the population estimates range from 1.2 to 10 million. A New York Times Article from 2005 discusses trends in immigration and reminds readers that although the U.S. Census Bureau and the DHS does not track religion, “both provide statistics on immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries.” Accordingly, “in 2005, more people from Muslim countries became legal permanent U.S. residents - nearly 96,000 - than in any year in the previous two decades.” The exciting part of this new initiative (partly led by the Islamic Society of North America) is that it will not be a sample phone survey. Rather, as reported by the lead researcher of the study, they are going to “try and identify the total universe of mosques and not do a sample survey but a complete survey of every mosque.” The surveyors will also gather information and data about mosque governance, voter drives at mosques, and the level of participation of women. Hopefully, this census will make statistical sense of all the packed and overflowing mosques throughout the country.

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.

In June of this year, the International Crisis Group published a report titled, “Egypt’s Muslim Brothers: Confrontation or Integration?” – particularly looking at confrontation in the context of long-term stability. In the world of politics and religion, the question always seems to come back to “confrontation” and whether domestic politics can tolerate the religious foundations of certain forms of opposition, and on the flip side, whether the world community can tolerate local community politics – in contexts where objectionable religion opposition is not confronted. The main aim of the ICG report is to explain how the role of the Muslim Brothers (the largest opposition) in Egypt’s politics is formally restricted but that the ban has done “nothing to reduce its legitimacy or deal with its longer-term political role.” The report has two sets of recommendations, one set for the Government of Egypt and the other for the Society of Muslim Brothers. With respect to the role of religion, the recommendations are particularly fascinating. To the Government of Egypt, the ICG says there should be a regularization of the participation of the Muslim Brothers in political life. This would require revising Article 5 of the constitution to “set guidelines for the establishment of a political party with religious reference.” The laws should also be revised so that new parties with “a religious reference” can be created. To the Muslim Brothers, the ICG says that they should engage with “secular opposition parties and movements to form a consensus on how the Society can best be integrated,” and also that representatives of the Christian community should be included “in a frank dialogue on sectarian relations.”  The ICG also calls on the Muslim Brothers to clarify (or alter?) their stance on women and religious minorities in public life and particularly the political sphere.

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.  

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”.

This past Thursday, there was a deadly bomb attack in the Philippines. Three people were killed outside an Air Force base. The Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) – the largest Muslim rebel group in the Philippines – denied any involvement in the attack but was accused by the regional police chief. There are other Muslim armed groups like the Abu Sayyaf, which could have been involved in the bombing. Peace monitors arrived in 2004, which “reduced the level of violence to nearly zero.” Conversely, rebel negotiators walked away in December from a meeting that was part of peace talks that began in 1997. One of the main questions is finding a joint “determination of the scope of the Muslim homeland” in the Philippines, while there has been fighting for a separate Islamic state since the 1970s. Carlos H. Conde points out in the New York Times that a peace deal might be difficult to reach when the state cannot constitutionally hand over sovereign rights to territory.  

This past week, the former top Muslim insurgent – Nur Misuari – said that the Muslim National Liberation Front (MNLF) should abide by a 1996 agreement with the national government. Agence France Press reported that Misuari said that if the government failed to give the full autonomy the group was seeking, then they would march for peace. Misuari said he would work for a federal form of government with four states. To date, approximately 120,000 people have been killed, and about 2 million people were displaced in the Philippines. Despite these statistics, President Arroyo has spoken extensively about peace building and the role of dialogue. She has said, “I have personally advanced the process of peace in Muslim and Christian Mindanao to a new level of engagement, focused on interfaith dialogue, economic development and mutual security.”