Religion and Politics

On Saturday, Iran’s Supreme Leader (Ayatollah Khamenei) met with the President and his cabinet members. Khamenei spoke about Ahmadinejad’s administration with great admiration and defended the actions and policies of the current government. In the face of economic uncertainty in Iran – particularly concerning inflation – Ahmadinejad has lost a significant amount of popularity. Regardless, the institutions of the supreme leader and the president now appear united, particularly ideologically. Nazila Fathi has written in the article, “Chief Cleric of Iran Defends President,” that they “share the same views over major policies and ideological values.” The Leader provided three characteristics for the current administration: 1) commitment (being serious in rendering services to the nation; 2) adhering to the slogans and principles of Imam Khomeini and the Revolution; and 3) forming close bonds with the public. He said that some people are spitefully denigrating the current administration. You can read more details of what the Supreme Leader said here. In response, the President visited Qom on Monday and apparently returned the favor by saying that “religious culture should be promoted in the country.” Moreover, in the spirit of the Revolution, he said, “It is time to promote and preach pure Islam to people around the globe as suggested by the late Imam Khomeini.”

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.

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.  

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.”

AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee is an organization that lobbies to promote and secure greater U.S. support for Israel and a stronger U.S.-Israel relationship. This past week, AIPAC held its Policy Conference 2008. All three of the U.S. presidential candidates spoke at the conference, as well as prominent speakers such as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Barack Obama spoke at the conference on Wednesday, June 4, 2008. Obama directly stated that as President he would “never compromise when it comes to Israel’s security,” while making pledges for aid and support.  As part of the justifications for this decision to stand firm for Israel were: “voices that deny the Holocaust” and “terrorist groups and political leaders committed to Israel’s destruction.” Obama brought the politics of the Middle East into his speech by referencing “government-funded textbooks filled with hatred towards Jews.” The politically clever aspect of Obama’s speech was his ability to refute media allegations that he would have negotiations with country leaders like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions. The brilliant part of the speech was the connection he drew between the African American community and the Jewish community. Obama said, “Jewish and African Americans have stood shoulder to shoulder. They took buses down South together; they marched together; they bled together; and Jewish Americans like Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwerner were willing to die alongside a black man, James Cheney on behalf of freedom and on behalf of equality.”  

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.

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.