>Eid Mubarak from CSID
>New Issue of Democracy Watch
>EVENT: “After Democracy…What? Prospects for Reform in the Muslim World.”
>EVENT: The Young Global Leaders Summit: Think Outside the Bomb
>EVENT: The State of Civil Society and NGOs Under Iran’s New Government
>EVENT: Sudan Peace, Global Crisis and the Media: Lunch Forum
>EVENT: American Muslim Identity: Present and Future
>CALL FOR PAPERS: Citizenship, Security, and Democracy
>REPORT: Applying Islamic Principles in the Twenty-first Century
>ARTICLE: Activist addresses the future of democracy in Arab nations (by Ally Dilijohn)
>ARTICLE: Elections in Egypt: Time to Back Up Our Rhetoric with Action (by Shadi Hamid)
>ARTICLE: Sistani to stay out of Iraq election (UPI)
>ARTICLE: Tunisia: An Appeal to the Public Opinion
>ARTICLE: The return of the caliphate (by Osama Saeed)
>ARTICLE: Prince Charles to Plead Islam’s Cause to Bush (by Andrew Alderson)
>ARTICLE: Rush to Stabilize may backfire in polarized Iraq (by Shibley Telhami)
>NEW Book: Why They Don’t Hate Us (by Mark LeVine)
>ANNOUNCEMENT: Fellowship Opportunity
>ANNOUNCEMENT: New Master’s Degree Program in Democracy Studies
ON the Occasion of the End of the Holy month of Ramadan, and the celebration of Eid ul-Fitr, the CSID Board of Directors, staff, and members wish you a blessed Eid and manys happy returns. May God bless all of humanity and bring peace, justice, freedom, and dignity to every human being, especially those who are oppressed on earth.
بمناسبة عيد الفطر السعيد نتمنى للجميع حياة سعيدة هانئة، أعاده الله علينا وعليكم بالخير واليمن والبركات وقد تحررت النفوس قبل الأوطان، وكل سنة وأنتم سالمين غانمين آمنين.
CSID
THE NEW ISSUE OF DEMOCRACY WATCH (NOVEMBER 2005) has been posted online at http://www.csid-online.org/ in both English and Arabic. It contains several news items and articles on democratization efforts and reforms in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region.
Please send your comments and feedback to Slah Jourchi, Editor in Chief, at: sjourchi@yahoo.fr
George Mason University
The Center for Global Studies and Phi Beta Delta
Invite you to a special lecture
“After Democracy…What? Prospects for Reform in the Muslim World”
presented by Dr. Anwar Ibrahim former Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia in the Concert Hall at 6 pm on 14 November 2005
Dr. Ibrahim will address the growing gap between the seeming adoption of democracy in certain countries and a commitment to genuine political reform by governments in the Muslim world. Dr. Ibrahim is a major intellectual and activist in the global human rights movement and a leading advocate of political reform in his own country. Now free after several years of political persecution and imprisonment, Dr. Ibrahim has unique insight to offer on the future of democratization.
Please direct any questions to Marcy Glover at mglover2@gmu.edu or extension x38722
The Young Global Leaders Summit: Think Outside the Bomb
On behalf of Americans for Informed Democracy, I am writing to let you and your colleagues at Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy know about a major conferences this Saturday at the American University in Washington, D.C. The conference is called “The Young Global Leaders Summit: Think Outside the Bomb” and it aims to encourage todays young professionals and students to view the pursuit of nonproliferation and disarmament as the special mission of their generation. The conference will feature more than ten directors and deputy directors of major institutes and programs at the forefront of global security and non-proliferation issues. Thanks to generous foundation support, the summit (including tuition and meals) is free for selected participants.
If you know any young professionals or students in the DC-area who might be interested in attending this conference, I would be most grateful if you could pass this e-mail on to them. They can click here to view the conference schedule and to RSVP for the conference they just need e-mail their name and affiliation to globalsummit@aidemocracy.org.
This is a wonderful opportunity for bright, talented students who wish to be leaders in the world. If by chance you can share our announcement with any promising young leaders, I would be most grateful.
Many thanks for any help you can offer.
Best,
Allynn Lodge
Co-Executive Director, Americans for Informed Democracy (www.aidemocracy.org)
THE MIDDLE EAST PROGRAM OF THE WOODROW WILSON CENTER
Presents:
The State of Civil Society & NGOs Under Iran’s New Government
featuring Baquer Namazi
Chairman of the Board of Directors, Hamyaran, Iran NGO Resource Center Tehran, Iran
Baquer Namazi, a civil society activist in Iran has been actively working with civil society organizations in Iran for the last seven years. He has undertaken several studies on the situation of NGOs in Iran, one of which has been published by the United Nations Development Program. His talk will touch on current trends and future prospects based on the evolving scenario of the current Iranian leadership and its policy positions. He will also look at the challenges of international cooperation with NGOs in Iran.
Monday, November 7, 2005
12:00 NOON – 1:00 PM
6th Floor Board Room
Woodrow Wilson Center
Please RSVP: mep@wilsoncenter.org or fax (202) 691-4184
back to top
Peace, Global Crisis and the Media:
Luncheon Forum
Peaceful Settlement in Sudan: To bring to the attention of the American media and public the importance of the historic recent developments in Sudan, and discussion of the constitution of a new National Unity Government that ushers in the birth of a New peace-centered Sudan
Co-sponsored by World Media Association, World Peace Herald & Salam Sudan Foundation
Featured Panelists:
Amb. Khidir H. Ahmed
Charge d Affaires
Embassy of the Republic of the Sudan
Rev. Walter Fauntroy
Former Congressman
Founder, Sudan Campaign
Prof. Sulayman Nyang
Department of African Studies
Howard University
William Reed
Syndicated columnist
Publisher, Whos Who in Black Corporate America
President, Black Press Foundation
Dr. Hashim El-Tinay (Moderator)
Former Sudanese diplomat
Founder/President, Salam Sudan Foundation,
Editor, the Peace Quest Messenger
DATE: Thursday November 10, 2005
Admission Free
TIME: 12:00 2:00 PM (Lunch provided)
PLACE: The Washington Times Auditorium
3600 New York Ave., NE, Washington, DC 20002
(Next to the National Arboretum; free parking is available)
RSVP Needed
Please call, fax, E-mail, or go online at our Web site to confirm attendance by 12:00 noon, Wednesday, November 9.
Tel: (202) 636-3124
Fax: (202) 636-8928
E-mail: media@wmassociation.com
WMA Web Home Page (click: RSVP Forum): www.wmassociation.com
MPAC & ISPI TO HOLD “AMERICAN MUSLIM IDENTITY” CONFERENCE IN CHICAGO ON NOV. 19
(Washington, DC – 3/7/05) — On November 19, the International Strategy and Policy Institute and the Muslim Public Affairs Council will co-host a one-day conference entitled “American Muslim Identity: Present and Future” in Chicago, IL.
The conference will address crucial issues facing the American Muslim community — including “Defining the Muslim American Identity,” “Muslim American Identity on Campus,” and “Effective Political Engagement” — in a gathering of academics, community leaders, and students.
Confirmed speakers include :
Dr. Suleyman Nyang, author of “Islam in America” and professor of African Studies at Howard University
Dr. Maher Hathout, Senior Advisor to MPAC
Salam Al-Marayati, MPAC Executive Director
Edina Lekovic, MPAC Communications Director
Ahmed Rehab, CAIR-Chicago Communications Director
Professor Inamul Haq, Professor East-West University and Benedictine University
Faiyaz Husain
In his keynote address, Dr. Nyang will address the topic of “Transforming Self-Identity of Muslims: A Comparison Between the U.S. and Europe.” Additionally, ISPI will present its annual Lifetime Achievement Award to Professor Asad Husain.
AMERICAN MUSLIM IDENTITY: PRESENT AND FUTURE
November 19, 2005
1:00 pm – 9:00 pm
Benedictine University
Sholl Auditorium
5700 College Road, Lisle, IL 60532
Conference $15 / Conference & Dinner $50
Join MPAC and ISPI for this important event! Register for the Conference at ispi786@comcast.net. Also visit www.mpac.org for more information.
[CONTACT: Edina Lekovic, 213-383-3443, communications@mpac.org
Citizenship, Security and Democracy
Istanbul, Turkey: Friday 1st September – Sunday 3rd September 2006
The Association of Muslim Social Scientists (UK) and the Foundation for Political, Economic and Social Research (Turkey) in conjunction with The Association of Muslim Social Scientists (USA) , and the Association of Muslim Social Scientists (France)
The time for an international gathering of Muslim social scientists is at present a necessity. Global political upheavals have created an insatiable demand for studies, information and analysis of Islam and Muslims. The Muslim social scientist is not only being asked to be academic, objective and dispassionate about critical issues related to the Muslim experience, faith, culture and philosophy, but is also being called upon to “represent” a community misrepresented in monolithic terms. The inherent diversity of the Muslim experience across regional, national, ethnic, theological and social divides defies the homogenising logic of mass media, popular culture, and governmental politics.
The events of 9/11 in the US and 7/7 in the UK have created within circles of Muslim social scientists, especially in North America and Europe, an opportunity for research to explore the Muslim experience in multi-disciplinary and cross-disciplinary ways. We need now to create overlapping, synergistic discourse that will both examine the Muslim experience, and provide the necessary research, analysis and understanding to those who wish to enact social change. Social scientists must be acutely aware of the role they play in the future development of Muslim communities in the West and beyond. In this conference, we will begin to build a network of and importance of such research.
The notion of citizenship and security as they relate to democracy and freedom lie at the heart of discourses centred around the presence of significant Muslim communities in the West. In addressing these themes, we will consider these terms in their broadest way. The issue of citizenship can represent a confluence of identitieslegal, political, social, religious and spiritual. Security, in comparison, has legislative, policy, political, economic, theological and social implications, but can also be used to examine human rights, trust relations, community cohesion, social exclusion, and marginalization. The new critical tendencies on the capacity of democracy to safeguard the human rights of minorities and collective identities give us a framework for understanding and gauging the status of a pluralistic cultural identity. Further, if anything, the presence of significant Muslim minorities and the emergence of new Islamic discourses regarding modernity have begun to challenge the restrictive and exclusive notions of culture. We need to question for whom these rights are.
Muslim social scientists need, therefore, to develop evidence-based and policy-oriented research that delineates and represents issues of concern to Muslims in current social and foreign policies. This conference then, welcomes papers that are forward-looking and provide the basis for conceptual, critical and strategic thinking for the future.
Turkey is an ideal location to host this conference. Sitting along the presumed fault-line between East and West, Christendom and Islam and given its unique status as the only Muslim-majority country being able to make a case for inclusion in Europe, Turkeys internal and external struggles will provide a challenging and creative locus and a significant historical backdrop for a conference of Muslim social scientists.
Papers are invited along the following themes:
1) Citizenship: New Paradigms and Challenges
2) Security, Violence and Peace
3) Democracy, democratization: Prospects for Civil Society
********************************************************************************
Abstracts: February 1st 2006
Papers: June 15th 2006
Submission of abstracts (150 words) to be sent to:
From Turkey: setavtr@gmail.com
From the Arab World: confamss@yahoo.com
From North and South America: conferences@amss.net
From Europe and the Rest of the World: csd@amssuk.comPlease supply a short biographical profile (150 words) with your abstract
back to top
USIP SPECIAL REPORT 150
Applying Islamic Principles in the Twenty-first Century
Nigeria, Iran, and Indonesia
David Smock
This report describes three projects that illustrate how Muslim scholars in three countries are addressing critical contemporary issues from an Islamic perspective.
In Nigeria, more than 300 Muslim scholars and clerics engaged in a critical examination of shari’ah as it is being adopted and modified in Nigeria’s northern states. In Iran, Iranian scholars, clerics, and others convened to address the relationship between Islam and democracy in that country. In Indonesia, a team of scholars has written a manual based on Islamic sources for religious schools on the topics of peace/violence, democracy, rule of law, conflict resolution, human rights, and pluralism.
The debates among scholars and clerics in these three countries, as in other Muslim countries, on issues such as shari’ah and ijtihad (scriptural interpretation) are spirited. Resistance to reform and liberalism is particularly strong in Iran, but also in Nigeria. Those adhering to literal interpretations of the texts challenge those adopting a more rational/interpretive approach. “Text proof” versus “rational proof” approaches divide the ulama in Iran and Nigeria into traditionalist and rationalist camps, with the majority leaning toward the former.
The projects in Nigeria and in Iran were cosponsored by the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy (CSID), based in Washington, D.C. CSID arranged for scholars of Islam from the United States and elsewhere to make presentations at the two conferences. The Indonesian project was cosponsored by Nonviolence International.
For the full report, please visit: http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr150.html
Activist addresses the future of democracy in Arab nations
By Ally Diljohn
Old Gold & Black Reporter
October 20, 2005
Radwan A. Masmoudi, the founder and president of the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy (CSID), addressed issues facing the Muslim and Arab world 7 p.m. Oct. 17 in DeTamble Auditorium in a presentation entitled Democracy Promotion in the Middle East: A View from the Street.
During his presentation, Masmoudi addressed what he called an environment of despair caused by corrupt, authoritarian regimes in the Muslim, but particularly the Arab world.
The worse part is people feel they have no dignity, he added, stating the populations inability to change their society.
He said that people tend to turn to religion in times of despair, particularly to extremism.
There is a political crisis in the Muslim and Arab world in that change is necessary, Masmoudi said.
According to Masmoudi, many of the Arab nations are rich, but the people are poor because of a lack of accountability regarding what is done with the countries income.
Democracy is the only means of resolving this political crisis and empowering the Arab people he said.
Masmoudi also discussed methods of promoting democracy, emphasizing that democracy should not be imposed by an external force.
He said that the American people should assist in developing democratic states, but the American government should re-evaluate its role in doing so.
The small crowd shared questions and comments regarding the topic after hearing Masmoudi speak.
I totally agree that forced democracy is not democracy at all, said junior Andrew Durkin.
Regarding Masmoudis ideas senior Matt Imboden said, It was a good combination of idealism, vision and pragmatism.
Imboden also said that often politics get caught up in ideal situations, but Masmoudi seemed to have a balanced view on how to bring about change.
Masmoudi presented a different perspective because he was a Muslim American. He had the interests of everyone in mind, said senior Dave Desiderio.
According to senior Rob Jackson, Americans for Informed Democracy (AID) university representative, this is the first AID event held on campus. Jackson said he hopes to have other events throughout the year.
He also said he hopes other university students get involved with AID because currently he is a senior and the only student on campus affiliated with AID.
CSID, Masmoudis non-profit organization based in Washington, DC, was formed to promote democracy and freedoms in the Muslim and Arab world, according to its website.
Additionally, CSID strives to produce scholarship that clarifies to what extent such Western principles are permissible from an Islamic standpoint in the hope that this will spread knowledge in the Muslim community and better equip it to deal with todays challenges.
Jackson said Masmoudi was invited to speak on campus because of previous involvement with AID and because of his expertise on the topic of democracy and Islam.
AID is an international student organization dedicated to raising global awareness. The presentation on campus was part of the AID global initiative called Hope not Hate.
According to the AID Website, this series of town hall meetings and videoconferences are held to discuss relations between the West and the Muslim world.
Elections in Egypt: Time to Back Up Our Rhetoric with Action
by Shadi Hamid
http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2005/11/elections_in_eg.html
Egypt’s parliamentary elections are scheduled take place over the course of three weeks with November 9 as the first day of polling (mark your calendars). Egypt, of course, is one of our closest allies in the region and we give the the regime there nearly $2 billion in annual economic and military aid. Despite this, the elections have received barely any coverage in the American media.
These elections provide an important test case for the Bush administrations “forward strategy for freedom.” One can only hope that the results turn out better than Septembers presidential polls when strongman Hosni Mubarak was reelected with a ludicrous 88.5% of the vote. The Mubarak regime which is a quarter-century old has proven adept at fraud, intimidation, stuffing, and bribing its way to victory.
Is the Bush administration on its game or is dropping the ball on Egypt? Let us backtrack a bit. In his inaugural speech earlier this year, President Bush used unprecedented language in describing Americas democratic imperative: All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you. I know that with many Democrats, a built-in neo-con alert goes up whenever they hear this kind of language. I, on the other hand, was very much impressed. In the name of stability, we had supported Arab dictatorship for decades. Now, finally, there were signs that a change in policy was in the making. But it was not be. When less than two months ago, President Bush called Mubarak to congratulate him on his (rather lopsided) victory, the high-minded rhetoric of his inaugural address seemed particularly hollow.
The gap between words and deeds, rhetoric and policy has never been wider and our credibility continues to suffer as a result. This months elections in Egypt present US policymakers with an excellent opportunity to regain the initiative on democracy promotion. The response (or lack thereof) to the upcoming elections – and the voter intimidation and detention of opposition activists which will surely take place – will tell us a great deal about the current thinking in the Bush administration. I cant say, however, that Im particularly optimistic. Bush is embroiled in domestic controversies and has lost much of the political capital he might have still had just a few months ago.
Earlier this year, many commentators, on both the Right and the Left, were speaking of an Arab spring, an autumn for autocrats, and a springtime for democracy, and many other flowery, seasonal formulations. Since then, the euphoria has largely died down. Mubarak, with his September victory, has legitimized his illegitimacy for the next six years. Jordan’s King Abdullah has become increasingly authoritarian in dealing with an emboldened opposition and an increasingly restless civil society. Tunisia and Algeria are dragging their feet as usual. Yet, if the Bush administration has the political will and starts to put real, sustained pressure on these recalcitrant regimes, then this negative trend can be reversed. In other words, we’ve got the rhetoric down. Now its time to back it up.
November 1, 2005 08:53 AM | in Democracy, Middle East
Sistani to stay out of Iraq election
BAGHDAD, Oct. 28 (UPI) — Grand Ayatollah Sistani, one of the most revered Shiite clerics in Iraq, told Iraqis to vote their consciences in the election, refusing to endorse a party.
Sistani made his position clear through a Friday sermon by Sheikh Abdul Mahdi al-Karbalai in the holy city of Karbala, the BBC reported.
“The marja (Sistani) enjoins Iraqis to participate massively in the forthcoming elections, but does not support any political group in particular,” he said. “It’s up to Iraqis to make their choice based on their beliefs.”
In January’s election, Sistani backed the United Iraqi Alliance, helping it win a majority. The Alliance has joined other Shiite parties in a united bloc for the upcoming election, while two Kurdish parties and three Sunni parties have formed two more blocs.
back to top
TUNISIA: AN APPEAL TO THE PUBLIC OPINION
http://www.plmonline.info/id60.html
Tunisia has been living for years a deterioration of its political, social and cultural situation. Freedoms reached, lately, an intolerable level of deprivation.
During these last weeks, the regime seized the headquarters of the Tunisian Association of Magistrates [ATM] and installed at its head a puppet committee; in addition it fixed a jurisdictional decision to avoid the Human Rights League [LTDH] to hold its 6th national congress and, during the same period, banned the congress of the Tunisian Journalists Syndicate [SJT].
The situation of the political prisoners that has been lasting for more than a decade is alarmingly worsening: bad treatments and torture are bouncing back.
Political parties which are deprived of the use of public spaces and any resources of political intervention are paralysed and literally besieged.
These serious developments intervene at a time when important sectors of the civil society, lawyers, magistrates, journalists, academics, syndicates, militants of human rights defense, collectively expressed their aspiration for more freedom and a more important participation. They also intervene while Tunisia is ready to host next month, the World Summit for Information Society [WSIS].
Deliberately ignoring these aspirations, the regime increased repression these last days. It did not hesitate to prohibit meetings of local sections of the LTDH and to brutalize some of their members. On another hand, during political lawsuits, violating the principle of lawsuits exposure to the public, the regime prohibited the courts access to the public and to observers.
This systematic security option puts the social and political elites in front of a serious challenge: either accept the arbitrary use of force or face the the regime with peaceful means!
To express their refusal of arbitrariness and to demand the respect of political and human rights of the Tunisian people, the signatories of this call, representatives of associations from the civil society and political parties, decided to undertake an unlimited hunger strike as from October 18th, 2005
They demand:
1. Freedom of association by:
Recognizing all associations and parties that claim a legal existence
Removing all obstacles, which block the activity of associations and legally recognized parties, in particular the Tunisian Association of the Magistrates, the Tunisian League of Human Rights and the Tunisian Journalists Syndicate.
2. Freedom for the press and the media by:
Stopping the censure striking the written media, publications and Internet sites suspending pressures exerted on journalists
Opening the audio-visual media to all schools of thought
Instituting an independent and pluralistic authority, which would deal with the control of this public utility
Giving receipts to all newspapers which ask for the authorization to publish (while waiting for the abrogation of this unjust measure).
3. The immediate release of political prisoners: The release of all political prisoners, Islamists, Net surfers, young people wrongfully accused of terrorism as well as the release of the lawyer Mohammed Abbou and the adoption of a general amnesty law.
The hunger strikers launch a pressing call to all the democratic forces, associations, parties, independent personalities, to mobilize around this strike, bring any form of support to it and make succeed its claims, which are a prelude to Reforms and Democratic Change.
Tunis October 18th, 2005
Nejib Chebbi (PDP)
Lotfi Hadji (SJT)
Hamma Hammami (PCOT)
Abderraouf Ayadi (CPR)
Ayachi Hammami ( Avocat, Comit pour la Libration de maitre Abbou )
Mohamed Nouri (AISPP)
Mokhtar Yahyaoui (CTIJ)
There is no reason why the west should set its face against the vision of a reunited Islamic world
Osama Saeed
Tuesday November 1, 2005
The Guardian
It came as news to many Muslims, and probably non-Muslims too, that one of the things “fundamental to our civilisation” is opposition to any recreation of the Islamic caliphate. That is according to the home secretary, Charles Clarke, speaking last month as an honoured guest of the neocon Heritage Foundation in the US.
It follows hard on the heels of similar comments made by both Tony Blair and George Bush. With such luminaries pushing the policy, there must be significance to the words. The caliphate was wiped from the map, the message seems to be, and they want to keep it wiped.
The institution they attack is the idea of a united political leadership of the Muslim world, which was destroyed in 1924 after about 1,350 years. Following the death of the Prophet Muhammad, caliphs were appointed to the leadership of the Muslims. In the ensuing centuries, the centre and nature of this power moved around, resting in Istanbul at the time of its destruction.
In its dynamic period, the Islamic caliphate was at the heart of a great civilisation, leading the world in science, philosophy, law, maths and astronomy.
More recently, the Muslim world has had artificial lines drawn all over it, most notably by Mr Sykes and Mr Picot during the first world war.
The borders were defined for the colonial masters to extract what they needed and keep the natives divided. Western leaders are still determined today to defend these borders.
However, if Bush and Blair are serious about reform in Muslim countries, it must include not just democratic reform, but also economic development. As the people of the US and the EU know, creating economic blocks to allow this to happen is an imperative. No one argues that each federal state would be better off on its own not being part of the US. The EU managed to bring together a war-ravaged continent, on the basis of economic cooperation, which has led to further union.
India and China are emerging economically because of their size, an advantage the Islamic world would also enjoy if united.
There can be no doubt that there will eventually be a similar model for Muslim countries. Both the US and EU are structurally unique, and so will be any Islamic model. Instead of a president or a commission, there might be what is called a caliph. It’s not the names but what the institutions do – and how they are accountable – that matters.
There is no point in comparing the political form a caliphate might take to those in centuries past. Institutions such as the British monarchy or the papacy have existed for centuries, but bear little resemblance today to what’s gone before. A restored caliphate is entirely compatible with democratically accountable institutions.
But what about the issue of sharia? Opposing it is apparently also one of the western world’s raisons d’etre, according to Clarke. Terms such as “sharia” and “caliphate” have important meanings to Muslims quite different from the distorted connotations they often carry in the west.
The aim of Islamic law, contrary to popular belief, is not punishment by death or amputation of body parts. It is to create a peaceful and just society, with Islamic scholars over centuries citing its core aims: the freedom to practise religion; protection of life; safeguarding intellect; maintaining lineage and individual rights. This could be the basis for an Islamic bill of rights.
These principles don’t seem dramatic and far-flung, or even dissimilar to those in the west, so Bush, Blair and Clarke should explain why they oppose them so vehemently. Their stance belies their claim that they differentiate between al-Qaida and Islam as a religion, giving added credence to those who believe they are conducting a war against Islam itself, not just terror. In their meddling in other people’s affairs they have forgotten it is for people themselves to decide how they are governed.
The irony of Clarke’s Washington speech was that it was supposed to be about creating global security. The lack of legitimate leadership, coupled with a sense of humiliation, has led to widespread political instability in the Muslim world with its consequences for the wider world. The naked self-interest of divide and rule has backfired.
The vision of any kind of new caliphate, shared by Muslims worldwide, is a distant one. Right now, even talk of bringing down trade barriers and free flow of people across Muslim states seems radical. But it is a vision that is needed, and one that should actually be supported by the US and Britain if they are sincere about the development of the Muslim world. The revival of a strong Muslim civilisation would be for the betterment of the whole world.
Muslim Association of Britain
back to top
PRINCE CHARLES TO PLEAD ISLAM’S CAUSE TO BUSH
By Andrew Alderson, Chief Reporter
October 29, 2005
The Telegraph (UK)
The Prince of Wales will try to persuade George W Bush and Americans of the merits of Islam this week because he thinks the United States has been too intolerant of the religion since September 11.
The Prince, who leaves on Tuesday for an eight-day tour of the US, has voiced private concerns over America’s “confrontational” approach to Muslim countries and its failure to appreciate Islam’s strengths. The Duchess of Cornwall will accompany her husband
The Prince raised his concerns when he met senior Muslims in London in November 2001. The gathering took place just two months after the attacks on New York and Washington. “I find the language and rhetoric coming from America too confrontational,” the Prince said, according to one leader at the meeting.
It is understood that Prince Charles did not – and does not – believe that the actions of 19 hijackers should tarnish the reputation of hundreds of millions of law-abiding Muslims around the world.
Khalid Mahmood, the Labour MP for Birmingham Perry Bar, was also at the meeting at St James’s Palace. “His criticism of America was a general one of the Americans not having the appreciation we have for Islam and its culture,” he said.
Mr Mahmood and other Muslims present stressed that Prince Charles did not go so far as to criticise the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001. More recently, he has been careful not to express his views on Iraq.
The Prince also spoke of his sympathy for America after the terrorist attacks that claimed the lives of almost 3,000 people. He said he wanted to promote better relations between the different religions of the world.
Those present at the meeting in 2001 included Sir Iqbal Sacrani, the secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, and Hashir Faruqi, the chief editor of Impact International, an Islamic affairs magazine.
Prince Charles, who is about to embark on his first official foreign tour since his marriage to the Duchess of Cornwall, wants Americans – including Mr Bush – to share his fondness for Islam. He has agreed to attend a seminar on religions at Georgetown University, Washington, on Thursday: the only event where he will not be accompanied by the Duchess.
“The seminar will look at how faith groups can alleviate social problems in their community,” a royal aide said.
The Prince and Duchess will attend a lunch and dinner with President Bush and his wife, Laura, at the White House on Wednesday.
Prince Charles has done more than any other member of the Royal Family in history to understand Islam. He said in 1994 that when he became Supreme Governor of the Church of England, he would rather be “defender of faiths” than “defender of the faith”.
A year earlier Prince Charles made a speech, acclaimed throughout the Arab world, on relations between Islam and the West. He urged the West to overcome its “unthinkable prejudices” about Islam and its customs and laws.
He spoke warmly of the West’s debt to the culture of Islam and distanced moderate Muslims from misguided militants. “Extremism is no more the monopoly of Islam than it is the monopoly of other religions, including Christianity,” he said.
A senior aide to Prince Charles said yesterday: “The Prince has never promoted political messages around religion. He has simply said that he wants a greater tolerance and understanding of each other religions which will, in turn, promote better relations between faiths.”
A spokesman for Clarence House declined to discuss the Prince’s comments four years ago. “We never discuss private conversations,” he said.
Prince Charles has been wooing the US media ahead of next week’s tour when he will visit New York, Washington and San Francisco. It is considered a risky venture because Diana, Princess of Wales, who died eight years ago, was so revered in the US.
In an interview to be shown on CBS’s 60 Minutes today, he speaks of his desire to enrich people’s lives through his work. “I only hope that when I am dead and gone they might appreciate it a little more,” he jokes.
Rush to stabilize may backfire in polarized Iraq
By Shibley Telhami
San Jose Mercury, Perspective Section
October 30, 2005
Even as the death toll of American soldiers in Iraq reached 2,000 last week, the administration continued to hope that the passage of Iraq’s constitution and the recent opening of Saddam Hussein’s trial would begin to provide redemption for its much-maligned foreign policy.
Since Saddam was toppled more than two years ago, the Bush administration has been waiting anxiously for both events as potent signals that Iraq was moving past dictatorship and toward democracy. The hope was the two events would provide inspiration not just in Iraq, but also in the entire Middle East, propelling people to seek more democracy in their own countries and to begin seeing some good out of a war most of them opposed.
Instead, both the Iraqi referendum on the constitution and Saddam’s trial are likely to intensify the anger between Iraq’s Sunnis and its Shiite and Kurdish populations and the dismay in much of the Arab and Muslim worlds. And that means we face the possibility not only of more sectarian strife in Iraq, but also increased chances that other countries and groups will join the fray as providers of arms and even fighters.
The irony of the Iraqi Constitution, which passed with 79 percent of the vote, is that while it would appear to be a critical step toward democracy, from the point of view of limiting sectarian conflict, it would have probably been better had the document been defeated.
Sunnis, many of whom believe the constitution discriminates against their interests and who voted in large numbers against it, would have at least gained more faith in the process. Shiites — who constitute a majority of the Iraqi population — and Kurds, meanwhile, might have been more willing to compromise with the Sunnis in a new round of negotiations to amend the constitution after December’s National Assembly elections.
Irregularity suspicions
Instead, there is prevalent suspicion of irregularities among Sunnis. Early reports of 99 percent approval in some provinces were reminiscent of the habitual 99 percent wins of the region’s dictators that the United States was hoping to undermine through the Iraqi example. And a statement by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice before the votes were even counted that the constitution probably passed played into existing skepticism about the fairness of the elections.
Even if the election were considered fair, the fact that the results were so imbalanced — with Shiites and Kurds generally voting yes and the majority of Sunnis voting no — would surely empower the groups in drawing support along sectarian lines.
Some Sunnis, even skeptical ones, might be drawn into the political process by the chance to win changes in the constitution if they can elect enough members to the National Assembly, which will negotiate amendments as part of a deal made right before the election. But Sunnis will still remain a minority in the Assembly and there are no guarantees they will win more favorable terms than they did in the drafting of the existing constitution.
It probably didn’t help sectarian strains — in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East — that Saddam Hussein’s trial began as votes were being counted. Hated by many who suffered his ruthlessness, a group that includes Iraq’s Shiites and Kurds and many Kuwaitis, he is still admired by many in and out of Iraq. (In my 2004 survey of public opinion in Arab countries, more people in Jordan, one of America’s closest Arab allies, identified Saddam as the most admired world leader than any other person outside their own country.)
Methods in question
More important, even among the large number in the Arab and Muslim world and among Iraq’s Sunni Arabs who didn’t admire the former Iraqi ruler, many question the method in which a sitting Arab ruler was removed, and the legitimacy of the institutions that will try him in Iraq.
International human rights groups had proposed an international tribunal for Saddam and warned against a victors court. Those groups, including Human Rights Watch, worry that the requirements for conviction under rules set up for his trial are far less stringent than acceptable international standards.
Arab groups, meanwhile, have expressed doubt about the fairness of a trial that takes place in the shadow of American forces. The court did agree, after one day of the trial, to recess for a month to address concerns that the defense attorneys had been hurried and needed more time to prepare their cases, but that won’t address other questions of fairness. In the end, it is doubtful that the trial will change many minds and more likely that it will continue to fan sectarian anger when it resumes Nov. 28.
How much worse could sectarian violence in Iraq get? The worst-case scenario is an all-out civil war leading to the breakup of the country into three states along the lines of the dominant strains. But that danger remains limited in the foreseeable future.
For one thing, there is much population overlap in many parts of Iraq and significant intermarriage, especially among Sunni and Shiite Arabs — although those factors are not, in themselves, enough of a barrier to division. For another, each group has much to lose if it were to move rapidly toward independence.
Certainly Sunni Arabs would have the most to lose, especially as Iraq’s rich oil fields are primarily in the Shiite areas in the south and in heavily Kurdish areas in the north. Having dominated Iraqi politics for so long, Sunni Arabs would find it hard to swallow being left with a shrunken and resource-deprived state.
The Shiites would lose the benefits of a unified Iraq in which, as the majority faction, they finally would have the biggest say. Moreover, a breakup of Iraq might push them closer to Iran strategically, which is not a happy outcome for most Shiites. Iraqi Shiites do have religious affinity with Iran. They are, however, also Arab and Iraqi and feel the force of ancient rivalries between Arabs and Persians, as well as the newer Iran-Iraq rivalries that drove the two countries into a bloody war in the 1980s.
Even the Kurds, who clearly see themselves as an independent people worthy of a state, have pushed for gradual autonomy in large part to assuage strong opposition to Kurdish independence especially in Turkey and Iran, which are fearful of secession movements among their own Kurdish populations. But even if an all-out civil war is avoided, any escalation of sectarian violence could wreak havoc in Iraq and throughout the region.
The intensification of conflict would have two immediate consequences. The first would be the increased ability of the Sunni insurgency to recruit more support in the Arab and Muslim world, where Sunnis are the majority. This could be the battle cry that helps groups like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s Al-Qaida in Mesopotamia to vastly increase the number of foreign recruits in Iraq.
Zarqawi has been trying to boost those numbers by targeting Shiites in the hopes of creating a backlash against Sunnis. But so far, the best estimates are that foreigners constitute only about 10 percent of the insurgency.
Drawing others in
The second consequence would be the likelihood of drawing other governments in the region into Iraq. If Sunnis are on the losing end of sectarian conflict in Iraq, it would be hard for many Arab and Muslim countries to sit on the sidelines.
And the Iraqi factions needs for garnering allies and supplies would open up new intervention opportunities for interested neighboring states. That includes Iran, which has already been accused by Britain and the United States of intervening in Iraq, and which could see Iraq as a good site to act out its anger at European and American demands that it alter its nuclear activities. It also includes Syria, which has been accused by the United States of allowing insurgents to cross into Iraq and which is also increasingly at odds with the United States and others over a just-released U.N. report that implicated some of the country’s top leaders in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri.
Those threats — of a more violent Iraq and a destabilized Middle East — are the reasons most international actors, including the United States, are trying so hard to keep Iraq unified and its factions talking. But the rush to vote on a constitution that divides more than it unites and a controversial trial that is sure to make hourly headlines in the Arab press may achieve the opposite result.
SHIBLEY TELHAMI is Anwar Sadat professor for peace and development at the University of Maryland and senior fellow at the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution. He is a member of the board of directors of Human Rights Watch. He wrote this article for Perspective.
From Baghdad to Beirut, Arab Leaders Being Held To Account
By Michael Rubin
October 28, 2005
The Forward
http://www.forward.com/articles/5206
Long home to farfetched conspiracy theories and a political culture of victimization, the Arab world is now being swept by a new emphasis on accountability. While commentators and pundits debate the merits, drawbacks and sincerity of the Bush administration’s drive for democracy, events across the Middle East suggest that the relationship between rulers and the governed has been significantly transformed.
The shift was evident on October 19, when former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and seven high-ranking lieutenants shuffled into a Baghdad court room to face charges that they ordered a massacre of 143 Iraqi civilians following a 1982 assassination attempt against the Iraqi leader. The proceedings were broadcast in Iraq on television channels like Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya, and Arabic newspapers throughout the region splashed photos of the Iraqi dictator sitting submissively in the dock across their front pages.
Not everyone accepted the fairness of the trial. Dozens rallied against it in Saddam’s hometown of Tikrit. Saddam’s daughter Raghd called his trial a “farce.” Other Iraqis questioned the necessity of due process for a man whom they believe murdered hundreds of thousands.
Nor were the objections in words only. In March, gunmen ambushed and killed one of the tribunal’s judges. And the day after the trial opened, masked men abducted and murdered a co-defendant’s lawyer.
Regardless of the coffee house debate, Saddam’s insistence that he remain president of Iraq and immune from prosecution rang hollow. Iraqis can purchase for less than a dollar DVDs showing the deliberations of Iraq’s Constitutional Drafting Commission. While some Iraqis and many Arabs question the legitimacy of the transitional government, few believe that any return to the past is possible.
Arab Sunni rejectionists campaigned as hard as supporters of the newly drafted constitution prior to the October 15 referendum. Candidates are already positioning themselves for the upcoming elections in December, with some planning grass-roots campaigns and others hiring high-priced campaign consultants.
Accountability has taken root in Iraqi in other ways, too. The fear upon which Saddam’s rule and immunity long depended has largely lifted. The Baghdad-based Free Prisoners Association has copied and, in some cases, sold files of executed loved ones to grieving relatives. While Western pundits argue the arbitrariness of purging former Baath Party members from the state bureaucracy, the de-Baathification committee continues its business, painstakingly parsing through Baath Party payroll and secret police documents to separate those complicit in atrocities from those who were mere functionaries.
Iraqi newspapers not hotel-based American correspondents broke stories on everything from the United Nation’s oil-for-food scandal to the astounding $500 million embezzlement by Hazen al-Shaalan, the American-appointed interim Iraqi defense minister. Just as with the Plamegate scandal that currently engulfs Washington, those exposing the abuses of Saddam’s government and the corruption of the interim Iraqi administration are independent journalists driven not only by politics but also by a desire for transparency and rule-of-law.
A willingness to hold leaders to account, such as we are now witnessing in Iraq, is becoming increasingly more common in the Arab world. Against the backdrop of Saddam’s trial, U.N. special investigator Detlev Mehlis submitted the findings of his inquiry into the February 14 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri. He concluded, “There is converging evidence pointing at both Lebanese and Syrian involvement in this terrorist act.” Pre-release drafts suggest that Mehlis privately fingered President Bashar Assad’s younger brother Maher and brother-in-law Assef Shawkat as being complicit in the murder.
As with the Iraqi Special Tribunal, some in the Arab world may disparage the Mehlis report. Thousands of Syrians rallied in Damascus against the U.N. findings. The Lebanese Hezbollah and Amal militias both condemned the U.N. investigation as based on politics, not on fact. A shadowy pro-Syrian Lebanese group, Jund al-Sham, threatened to kill Mehlis.
But fringe groups and state-sponsored rallies aside, across the region Arabs appear to welcome it. Indeed, it was the groundswell of Lebanese and Saudi revulsion at Hariri’s assassination that spurred the U.N. Security Council to create a special investigatory commission.
The Lebanese Cabinet endorsed Mehlis’s findings even though he also implicated the top four security chiefs of pro-Syrian president Emile Lahoud. Lebanon’s parliament, just a year ago little more than a Syrian rubber stamp, moved to hold Lahoud to account. “The president must resign,” prominent parliamentarian Butros Harb declared. “There is a big gulf between MPs and Lahoud.” It remains unclear how far Lebanon’s Cedar Revolution will go, but there is no doubt that Lebanese and Syrian officials now realize their actions are not without consequence.
And the wave of accountability is spreading. Yasser Arafat’s death last year sparked renewed Palestinian attention to Palestinian Authority corruption. The new administration allowed Issam Abu Issa, the former chairman of the Palestine International Bank who exposed how Arafat siphoned off millions in aid money, to return from exile in Qatar.
This past April, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas ordered the P.A.’s prosecutor-general to investigate a former top Arafat aide and three senior Finance Ministry officials on embezzlement charges. While such corruption was commonplace within the P.A. throughout the Arafat era, the public mood had changed. The Palestinian public is no longer willing to stomach the worst excesses of its leadership.
Across the Middle East, Arab regimes are coming to realize that they no longer can act with impunity against their own citizens. The Syrian and Libyan governments may, for example, control state media, but plights of dissidents such as Aktham Naisse and Fathi el-Jahmi spread on the Internet and on satellite television.
Rima Khalaf Hunaidi, director of the regional bureau of Arab states in the U.N. Development Program, told the pan-Arab newspaper Asharq al-Awsat earlier this year that some Arab governments objected to the latest Arab Human Development Report because it highlighted the plight of prominent dissidents who had disappeared under mysterious circumstances. To the Arab public, though, such cases remain relevant. In Lebanon, many Shiites still demand that Libyan ruler Muammar Gadhafi reveal what happened to Musa al-Sadr, an important imam who disappeared while visiting the Libyan leader in 1978.
Accountability may be uncomfortable, but the public is no longer willing to give Arab autocrats a carte blanche.
Last week, a group of Tunisian dissidents including former presidential candidate Nejib Chebbi began a hunger strike to demand freedom of association, freedom of the press and the immediate release of all political prisoners. According to Parti Libral Mditerranen spokeswoman Neila Charchour Hachicha, while the Tunisian government shut down her Web site and banned mention of the protest, Al Jazeera reported it for three consecutive days.
Throughout the Arab world, rulers have acted with impunity toward their own populations and their neighbors. But the political atmosphere is shifting.
In 1982, Saddam Hussein thought little of signing execution orders for the citizens of Dujail. Now he waits in prison.
Senior Syrian officials and their Lebanese proxies would not have murdered Hariri had they realized that they would be held to account not only by the international community, but also by the Arab world. Rulers have taken note. Assad freed Aktham Naisse only after the Hariri uproar. Fathi El-Jahmi is still alive only because Gadhafi understands that his death will not pass unnoticed.
Now the ruling elite must worry that an increasingly free and frisky press might question their corruption. True democracy is still a distant dream in much of the region, but the ground rules are shifting.
Michael Rubin, a former political adviser to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and editor of the Middle East Quarterly.
Lifting the Veil on the Axis of Evil
Mark LeVine. Oneworld, $27.50 (456p) ISBN 1851683658
http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA336555.html?text=%22mark+levine%22
‘[This] book’s greatest virtue is that he introduces both the many shades of opinion and the cultural complexity of the, largely, Arab world… Levine detonates the uneasy but nonetheless profound complacency that seems to have invaded politics.” The Sunday Times
In this ground-breaking exploration of the roots of conflict between the United States and the Muslim world, LeVine argues that the notion that most Muslims hate the United States or the West is a fabrication used to help fundamentalists on both sides to maintain political, economic, or cultural power. Offering a critique of those whose work has been central in branding Islam as a source of violence and backward thinking, LeVine contests the spread of what he calls an Axis of Arrogance and Ignorance by advocating an Axis of Empathy as the only strategy that can bring about a long-term solution.
Featuring the most comprehensive analysis of economic and cultural globalization in the Middle East and North Africa region ever publishedthe strugle for power in Iraq and Palestine and its relationship to oil prices.
If media chatter about the “Axis of Evil” seems ubiquitous to the point of losing its meaning, LeVine offers up an alternative “Axis of Empathy” to counteract what he sees as the U.S.’s dangerous “Axis of Arrogance and Ignorance.” The author uses his own experiences traveling in the Middle East and North Africa to show readers not only that “they” don’t hate “us,” but that our concepts of “us” and “them” are invalid and skewed. This sprawling book is divided into three parts, and touches on many diverse subjects that fall under its larger themes of globalization and Middle Eastern attitudes toward the West. LeVine, a professor of Middle Eastern history and a musician who has recorded with musicians as diverse as Mick Jagger and Hassan Hakmoun, clearly has an interest in music and its potential for bridge-building. He includes a chapter on “Rock and Resistance in the Middle East and North Africa” and advocates for what he calls “culture jamming,” or bringing people together to “build an alternative to imperialism, occupation, intolerance, and violence.” LeVine writes in an engaging, if occasionally wandering, style, and the most effective parts of the book are those in which he recounts his personal experiences. Although aimed at an academic audience, this book will be valuable to anyone wishing to hear a different perspective on the complicated relationship between the U.S. and the Islamic world. (Aug. 23)
Mark LeVine is Associate Professor of Modern Middle East History, Culture and Islamic Studies at the University of California, Irvine.
For further information and the opportunity to purchase the book, click http://www.oneworld-publications.com/books/why-they-dont-hate-us.htm
The International Forum for Democratic Studies (United States, www.ned.org/forum/internationalforum.html) invites applications to its Reagan-Fascell Democracy Fellows Program for fellowships in 20062007. Established in 2001, the program enables democracy activists, practitioners, scholars, and journalists from around the world to deepen their understanding of democracy and to enhance their ability to promote democratic change. The program is intended primarily to support activists, practitioners, and scholars from new and aspiring democracies; distinguished scholars from the United States and other established democracies are also eligible to apply. Projects may focus on the political, social, economic, legal, and cultural aspects of democratic development and may include a range of methodologies and approaches. A working knowledge of English is an important prerequisite for participation in the program. The application deadline for fellowships in 20062007 is Tuesday, November 1, 2005. For more information write to fellowships@ned.org.
New Masters Degree Program in Democracy Studies:
The Center for Democracy and the Third Sector (CDATS, United States, www.georgetown.edu/centers/cdats) and Georgetown Universitys Department of Government announced the creation of a new masters degree program in democracy studies that will begin in fall 2006. The program will address the diverse needs of a growing population working in the field of democracy promotion, with a specific focus on issues of democracy and development, and on improving the quality of democratic life around the world. Additional information about this program is available at www.georgetown.edu/centers/cdats/maprogramaims.htm.
For questions or comments about the information in this bulletin, contact
Zahir Janmohamed at zahir@islam-democracy.org.
Copyright 2005 Center for the Study of Islam & Democracy (CSID).
All Rights Reserved.
