Building bridges between Muslims, Christians, and Jews seems like a worthy goal. But, by glossing over serious differences, the organisations at the forefront of interfaith dialogue confuse discussion with success – and end up leaving everyone at risk. By Geneive Abdo, liaison, un’s alliance of civilisations
Like many international institutions, the United Nations says it
seeks to address Muslim extremism. Who else but the collection of states with the broadest mandate, most members, and loftiest goals could tackle this perversion of civilised society and threat to world order? So, when I was hired in January 2006 for a project to devise a United Nations response to the so-called clash of civilisations, it seemed to be a pretty worthy way to consider this challenge on a global scale. At the urging of the prime ministers of Spain and Turkey, the then Secretary-General of United Nations, Kofi Annan established the Alliance of Civilisations with the primary goal of identifying the roots of the divide between Western and Islamic societies and, ultimately, to find ways to curb religious violence.
Part of my job was to travel around the world, collecting the views of leaders of Islamist parties and movements. Their ideas would then be included in a document th--e alliance would publish at the end of that year. The United Nations hoped the document would receive international press coverage and generate funding for the solutions, or at least some “practical steps,” it would propose to bridge the divide between Western and Islamic societies. There seemed to be no better way, I thought, to clarify the Islamist vision – one ignored and rejected by Western governments – for a wide international audience. Based on my own research on Islamic revivalism during a decade in the Middle East, I knew these dozen or so leading activists could shed light on the major causes of extremism, namely, anger and resentment at US foreign policy; beliefs that the September 11 attacks sparked an ideological war between Islam and the West; and the underlying conviction that Islam would cure the ills that a decadent West had imposed on the world.
Almost as soon as the project began, though, a fear of political backlash proved to outweigh any potential for mutual understanding. At a meeting in Qatar with a 20-member committee composed of former ministers, diplomats, and scholars, the question of whether the views of Islamists would be part of the alliance’s work was raised in public discussions. One of Kofi Annan’s special advisors decided that meetings with Islamists would amount to scandal for the United Nations. For me, the reversal was one of a few defining moments in my understanding of the risks the institution was willing to take. More profoundly, it exposed the philosophical divide within the alliance: Was the best way to deal with extremism through a head-on political approach or an indirect cultural one? Is it better to engage directly with Islamists and learn first hand their grievances and convictions, or to create Hollywood films for the Muslim masses in the hopes of changing perceptions of the West and vice versa? In the end, the cultural strategists won out, much to my dismay.
Today, as the Alliance of Civilisations continues its work, it can be added to the rapidly growing list of groups, including non-governmental organisations (NGOs), interfaith projects, the US State Department, polling agencies, self-appointed Muslim-American public intellectuals, religious leaders, and academics, all claiming to be addressing the “problem.” However, as someone who has actively participated in this debate, I believe that the opposite is true. Rather than dealing with extremism, these institutions are deliberately dodging the discomforting work of addressing a global conflict that in hindsight makes the Cold War look like a small ethnic squabble. Although the approaches differ from one organisation to the next, the general strategies bear a great resemblance: emphasise the commonalities between Islamic and Western societies and among the three Abrahamic faiths; downplay or avoid completely the very real differences as if they just do not exist; and make Westerners feel comfortable by convincing them that extremism is a temporary phenomenon that exists only on the fringes of Islamic societies.
For Complete IIPM Article, Click on IIPM Article
Source : IIPM Editorial, 2008
Like many international institutions, the United Nations says it
seeks to address Muslim extremism. Who else but the collection of states with the broadest mandate, most members, and loftiest goals could tackle this perversion of civilised society and threat to world order? So, when I was hired in January 2006 for a project to devise a United Nations response to the so-called clash of civilisations, it seemed to be a pretty worthy way to consider this challenge on a global scale. At the urging of the prime ministers of Spain and Turkey, the then Secretary-General of United Nations, Kofi Annan established the Alliance of Civilisations with the primary goal of identifying the roots of the divide between Western and Islamic societies and, ultimately, to find ways to curb religious violence.Part of my job was to travel around the world, collecting the views of leaders of Islamist parties and movements. Their ideas would then be included in a document th--e alliance would publish at the end of that year. The United Nations hoped the document would receive international press coverage and generate funding for the solutions, or at least some “practical steps,” it would propose to bridge the divide between Western and Islamic societies. There seemed to be no better way, I thought, to clarify the Islamist vision – one ignored and rejected by Western governments – for a wide international audience. Based on my own research on Islamic revivalism during a decade in the Middle East, I knew these dozen or so leading activists could shed light on the major causes of extremism, namely, anger and resentment at US foreign policy; beliefs that the September 11 attacks sparked an ideological war between Islam and the West; and the underlying conviction that Islam would cure the ills that a decadent West had imposed on the world.
Almost as soon as the project began, though, a fear of political backlash proved to outweigh any potential for mutual understanding. At a meeting in Qatar with a 20-member committee composed of former ministers, diplomats, and scholars, the question of whether the views of Islamists would be part of the alliance’s work was raised in public discussions. One of Kofi Annan’s special advisors decided that meetings with Islamists would amount to scandal for the United Nations. For me, the reversal was one of a few defining moments in my understanding of the risks the institution was willing to take. More profoundly, it exposed the philosophical divide within the alliance: Was the best way to deal with extremism through a head-on political approach or an indirect cultural one? Is it better to engage directly with Islamists and learn first hand their grievances and convictions, or to create Hollywood films for the Muslim masses in the hopes of changing perceptions of the West and vice versa? In the end, the cultural strategists won out, much to my dismay.
Today, as the Alliance of Civilisations continues its work, it can be added to the rapidly growing list of groups, including non-governmental organisations (NGOs), interfaith projects, the US State Department, polling agencies, self-appointed Muslim-American public intellectuals, religious leaders, and academics, all claiming to be addressing the “problem.” However, as someone who has actively participated in this debate, I believe that the opposite is true. Rather than dealing with extremism, these institutions are deliberately dodging the discomforting work of addressing a global conflict that in hindsight makes the Cold War look like a small ethnic squabble. Although the approaches differ from one organisation to the next, the general strategies bear a great resemblance: emphasise the commonalities between Islamic and Western societies and among the three Abrahamic faiths; downplay or avoid completely the very real differences as if they just do not exist; and make Westerners feel comfortable by convincing them that extremism is a temporary phenomenon that exists only on the fringes of Islamic societies.
For Complete IIPM Article, Click on IIPM Article
Source : IIPM Editorial, 2008
Read these article :-
ZEE BUSINESS BEST B SCHOOL SURVEY
B-schooled in India, Placed Abroad (Print Version)
IIPM in Financial times (Print Version)
IIPM makes business education truly global (Print Version)
The Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM)
IIPM Campus
Top Articles on IIPM:-
'This is one of Big B's best performances'
IIPM to come up at Rajarhat
IIPM awards four Bengali novelists
IIPM makes business education truly global-Education-The Times of ...
The Hindu : Education Plus : Honour for IIPM
IIPM ranked No.1 B-School in India, Management News - By ...
IIPM Ranked No1 B-School in India
Moneycontrol >> News >> Press- News >> IIPM ranked No1 B-School in ...
IIPM ranked No. 1 B-school in India- Zee Business Survey ...
IIPM ranked No1 B-School in India :: Education, Careers ...
The Hindu Business Line : IIPM placements hit a high of over 2000 jobs
Deccan Herald - IIPM ranked as top B-School in India
India eNews - IIPM Ranked No1 B-School in India
IIPM Delhi - Indian Institute of Planning and Management New Delhi ...
domain-b.com : IIPM ranked ahead of IIMs
