Blog

Governance, Citizenship, Rights & Obligations article

Human Dignity: the Foundation of Human Rights


March 21st is annually commemorated as Human Rights Day in post-Apartheid South Africa, in remembrance of the 1960 Sharpeville massacre in which the apartheid police force opened fire on a crowd of anti-pass law protesters, killing 69 and maiming 189. On Human Rights Day, we pay tribute to the Sharpeville martyrs and all those who sacrificed their lives for a non-racial and democratic South Africa.

But Human Rights Day also provides an opportunity to reflect on the never-ending struggle to affirm the dignity and rights of all human beings, both locally and abroad. Specifically for Muslims, it is a useful time to become familiar with the latest thinking on the longstanding and robust debate about the compatibility between “Islam and Human Rights.”

Beyond Essentializing

Neither Islam nor human rights can be essentialized. They are both complex entities subject to interpretation.

Even though the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights remains the primary reference for defining what is meant by universal human rights, the concept of human rights remains open to different and conflicting interpretations in our pluralistic world. It is unfortunate, therefore, that with few exceptions debates almost always refer to international human rights as a monolithic and essentialized concept, rather than a concept that has been consistently reinterpreted in a transnational context.

Among Muslim scholars, the human rights debate runs the gamut from those scholars who denounce “human rights” as a sinister imposition of a particular set of Western values, to those that embrace it and work for an overlapping consensus between universal human rights and Islam.

The Ethical-Moral Foundations of Human Rights

One of the major problems with many Muslim studies is that they largely approach the compatibility between human rights and Islam from the point of view of shari’a defined narrowly as a legal framework, rather than considering how universal human rights resonate with the moral and ethical foundations of Islam.

One of the few Muslim scholars who has not restricted himself to looking at human rights from a juristic perspective is Abdulaziz Sachedina. Sachedina is primarily interested in identifying the ethical-moral foundations on which human rights may be understood in Islam. In his book, Islam and the Challenge of Human Rights (2009), Sachedina suggests that the cross-cultural discourse on human rights should be rooted in the concept of human dignity (karamat al-insan). He argues that the concept of human dignity is at the core of the ethical-moral worldview of Islam.

Sachedina cites the most primary source of Islamic guidance, the Glorious Quran, to argue that dignity has been bestowed on all humans (karamat al-insan) because of their “human-ness,” rather than their belief in Islam. That is, every human being is afforded dignity because of his/her human personhood, irrespective of religious beliefs. He bases this claim on Sura al-Isra’, chapter 17 verse 70:

“We have honored (all) the children of Adam with innate dignity (karam); and provided them with transportation on both land and sea; and given them sustenance from the good and pure things in life; and favored them far above most of those We have created.”

From this Qur’anic perspective, living human life with dignity for all should be the primary objective of human rights advocacy. In our understanding, human rights comprises all rights, from the personal to the political. These rights rest on the innate dignity of all human beings, and they enable all human beings to live their lives with full dignity. In other words, the denial of anyone’s human rights constitutes a violation of their human dignity and thus contravenes a core teaching of Islam. From this understanding of Islam, every human life, Muslim or non-Muslim, male or female, adult or child, rich or poor, has exactly the same intrinsic worth, and should therefore be afforded exactly the same human rights.

 

Furthermore, I would argue that the Qur’anic concept of human dignity in fact goes beyond the materialistic realm to include the metaphysical. This distinctive Islamic concept of human dignity is best illustrated in Surah Al-Sajdah, chapter 32, verse 9, which reads:

“[God] fashioned [the human being] in due proportion, and breathed into him something of His spirit (wa nafakha fihi min ruhi). Then He endowed you with [the faculties of] hearing and sight and feeling [and understanding]: but little thanks do you give!”

This well-known Qur’anic injunction once again illuminates the egalitarian ethic of Islam. This powerful ethic obliges Muslims to look upon each and every human being—whatever their professed beliefs—as carrying within her or him, the breath of God. Thus the denial of human rights to anyone not only constitutes a violation of human dignity but is ultimately an affront to God.

Drawing on the primary source of Islamic guidance, the Glorious Qur’an, the concept of human rights may thus be unequivocally interpreted as the honoring and protection of the dignity bestowed on all human beings, without prejudice or discrimination.

The Centrality of Human Dignity

In conclusion, a Muslim discourse on human rights needs to foreground the concept of human dignity, which is central to the ethical-moral worldview of Islam. It is this consonance between Islam and human rights through “human dignity” that needs to be highlighted by Muslim scholars and activists in their efforts to develop a meaningful Muslim human rights discourse.

It is fortuitous that the African National Congress’s theme for this year’s human rights celebration is: “Working together to protect human dignity for all.” This theme resonates well with the Islamic concept we have articulated. It is in this spirit that we support the call from the ANC-led government for this year’s celebrations to be “a call to unite in the protection of human rights for people’s dignity.”

On this Human Rights day we ask God, the Sublime, to help us to protect our human dignity and rights, and, with the same vigor and determination, to defend the human dignity and human rights of others.

1 Comment on Human Dignity: the Foundation of Human Rights Array
A. Rashied Omar
A. Rashied Omar earned an M.A. and Ph.D. in religious studies from the University of Cape Town, South Africa, and an M.A. in peace studies from the University of Notre Dame’s Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, where he is now a core faculty member. Omar’s research and teaching focus on the roots of religious violence and the potential of religion for constructive social engagement and interreligious peacebuilding. He is co-author with David Chidester et al. of Religion in Public Education: Options for a New South Africa (UCT Press, 1994), a contributor to the Oxford Handbook of Religion, Conflict and Peacebuilding (Oxford University Press, 2015), and a contributor to the Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World (Macmillan Reference USA, 2016). In addition to being a university-based researcher and teacher, Omar serves as Imam (religious minister) at the Claremont Main Road Mosque in Cape Town, South Africa, and an advisory board member for Critical Investigations into Humanitarianism in Africa.
Deadly Violence & Conflict Transformation article

Another error in the “war on terror”


From the outset, the so-called “war on terror” has proceeded erroneously. The first error was an incorrect diagnosis of the root causes of 9/11. The second error was the response. The third error has been the faulty narrative that has sustained the conflict. I would like to call these three errors primary errors, under the shadow of which a number of secondary errors have sprouted, such as extra-judicial drone strikes, extraordinary rendition, Blackwater, waterboarding, the Abu Ghraib fiasco, and the Guantanamo embarrassment.

The cumulative effect of these errors has been devastating for our national soul, typified by the recent “ground zero mosque” controversy, anti-shari‘a movements in several states, never-ending attempts to paint Obama as un-American because he might be Muslim, hate-spewing banter on talk-radio, and most recently the Congressional hearings on the radicalization of American Muslims.

Our instinctive questions after 9/11 were correct: “Why did they attack us?” “Why do they hate us?” Our answers were incorrect: “They hate our freedom.” “They hate our way of life.” Although this diagnosis has been repeatedly challenged by academics with empirical studies (Robert Pape), CIA analysts (Michael Scheuer), Politicians (Ron Paul), preachers (Jeremiah Wright), and even some conservative radio hosts (Jason Lewis), it is drowned by incessant insinuations and slander in almost every conceivable forum, and fails to make a dent in the global posture of the United States. Congressman Paul put it simply: “They don’t come here to attack us because we’re rich and we’re free. They attack us because we’re over there.” Even Bin Laden himself mocked: “Let him [Bush] tell us then, why did we not attack Sweden?”

A Fictional Grand Narrative

After the attacks, the U.S. had the sympathy of the entire world. Instead of capitalizing on this overwhelming support, including from all quarters of the Muslim world, the U.S. went it alone with its rhetoric and warmongering, alienating Muslims and even antagonizing close allies. Anyone remember those “freedom fries?” An ongoing war on terror has since been sustained by a fictional “grand narrative” that has the following four elements: 1) they attacked us because we are free, 2) the 9/11 attack was unprovoked, 3) this is an existential battle to the death, and 4) it is not possible to negotiate with “evil.”

Elements of this narrative constantly reemerge to justify the ongoing wars.  President Obama’s “audacity” draws on this narrative in his speech accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, in which he speaks about security threats and the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan: “make no mistake:  Evil does exist in the world.” Attempts to challenge the grand narrative are treated with suspicion and could be detrimental to one’s standing as a “true American.” Examples from the religious community are Jeremiah Wright and Feisal Abdul Rauf (the Imam of the so-called “ground-zero mosque”), each of whom have been maligned for suggesting that our foreign policy bears some responsibility for 9/11.

The terrorist attacks of 9/11 backed America into a corner. We had two choices: 1) To admit that our support of repressive dictators in the Muslim world has been counterproductive, and that our uncritical support of Israel at the expense of Palestinian dignity and rights has been morally wrong, or 2) To dig in and stay the course.

Digging In

Essentially, we dug in. Granted, navigating Option 1 (to engage in introspection, take responsibility, and change course) would be unimaginably complex, because it might be taken as weakness or as “giving-in to terror.” Soul-searching balanced with inner strength, poise and resolve, while simultaneously prosecuting the terrorists of 9/11 and organizing for future security threats, would have been a tremendously challenging balancing act. Alas, our moment of greatness was not meant to be. As a Pakistani rock star put it, 9/11 made us like an elephant in a china shop. Since then, it has been a slippery slope.

Anyone who has a shred of integrity will acknowledge that American Muslim leaders, such as Ingrid Mattson (vice president and then president of the Islamic Society of North America from 2001-2010), have worked tirelessly with the Muslim community and Homeland Security to deal with the turmoil in the decade after 9/11. Muslim leaders and organizations have repeatedly issued statements against terrorism. Extremists have been ostracized from their communities and reported to the authorities, although FBI tactics of entrapment have at times alienated communities from cooperation.  Moreover, Muslims who have actually engaged in acts of terrorism invariably cite political grievances as causes, such as the never-ending humiliation of Palestinians and civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is consistent with the findings of a recent Gallup poll of the global Muslim population that politics, not religion, is the propellant of extremism (John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed, Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think, Chatper 5, “What Makes an Extremist,” (Gallup Press, 2007).

Doubling Down, Thanks to Peter King

Instead of engaging in some real introspection and changing course where necessary, Congressman Peter King’s hearings on the radicalization of Muslims are a doubling-down on a path of errors. Research has shown that Muslim terrorists get a disproportionate amount of coverage in the media, but not when trends show that attacks are on the decline. To put things in perspective, one Muslim scholar has noted that last year, more Americans died from dog bites than from terrorism. We also know from a major Pew survey that American Muslims are well integrated, moderate and mainstream, and that the best strategy for dealing with terrorism in the Muslim community is to understand what really makes a terrorist, rather than stick to mistaken assumptions.

The irony, or one might say tragedy, is that the hearings of Congressman King not only ignore Muslim leaders who are allies in the “war on terror,” but also further alienate the Muslim community at large, which is precisely the wrong thing to do if one is interested in results that will keep us all safe.

The real danger to our nation lies in opportunist politicians like King, who, as an Irish Catholic, supported the IRA when it was declared to be a terrorist organization by the U.S. and our allies. It is too bad that King is unable to draw on his past experience to bring about an end to our prevailing conflict with Islamic extremists through a peace process that involves dialogue, a recognition of grievances, and reconciliation, as was accomplished in the case of the IRA. Instead, he has embarked upon an inquisition.

I Believe in America, but Also in the Shari’a

The correct way to fight the war on terror is to empower Muslim leaders and respect the religion of Islam. This strategy has proven successful, for example, in gaining the release of Raymond Davis from a Pakistani prison.  Davis, the CIA contractor who was being held for murder, was released by going through the shari‘a, which provides the relatives of the victims three options: 1) life for life, 2) bloodwit, or 3) outright forgiveness. Another example is the heroic work of Greg Mortenson in the remotest regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Mortenson earned the trust and protection of the local population by honoring local customs. Instead of denigrating the shari‘a, he upheld it in order to bring about positive change. Whenever a local religious leader issued a fatwa against his activities to build schools for the education of women, there was always a higher Islamic authority at hand to issue a counter-fatwa in his support!

After 9/11, Muslim scholars and institutions, from the Ayatollahs of Qom to the ulema of Azhar, condemned it. 9/11 was a crime according to the shari‘a as interpreted by the overwhelming majority of Muslims. Unfortunately, the worst of Muslims continue to be portrayed as ideal representatives of Islam, and the entire shari‘a continues to be caricatured by a handful of its most controversial elements. I believe in America, but I also believe in the shari‘a. Just like the good in America is capable of correcting what’s gone wrong with America, the good in shari‘a can be used to correct what’s gone wrong with Islam. The congressional hearings are driving a wedge between these natural allies, yet another tragic error in the conduct of the war on terror.

2 Comments on Another error in the “war on terror” Array
Mahan Mirza
Mahan Mirza was appointed teaching professor and executive director for the Keough School's Rafat and Zoreen Ansari Institute for Global Engagement with Religion on July 1, 2019.

An Islamic studies scholar and expert on religious literacy, Mirza brings extensive pedagogical and administrative experience to his roles at Notre Dame, including serving as dean of faculty at Zaytuna College in Berkeley, California, America’s first accredited Muslim liberal arts college. Prior to his appointment as Executive Director of the Ansari Institute, Mirza served as the lead faculty member for Notre Dame's  Madrasa Discourses project, which equips Islamic religious leaders in India and Pakistan with the tools to confidently engage with pluralism, modern science, and new philosophies. 

Mirza holds a B.S. in mechanical engineering from the University of Texas at Austin, an M.A. from Hartford Seminary, and a Ph.D. in religious studies from Yale University. He has taught courses and lectured on Arabic-Islamic studies, western religions, and the history of science, along with foundational subjects in the liberal arts, including logic, rhetoric, astronomy, ethics, and politics. He has edited two special issues of 
The Muslim World and served as assistant editor for the Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic Political Thought (2018).

He is a fellow with the Liu Institute for Asia and Asian Studies at the Keough School and continues to serve as an advisor for Madrasa Discourses.
 
Global Migration & the New Cosmopolitanism article

Muscular Liberalism or Multiculturalism?


Last month, in a speech before the Munich Security Conference, British Prime Minister David Cameron declared that multiculturalism had weakened Britain’s collective identity and helped to make young British Muslims vulnerable to extremist ideologies.  In response to these failings, he argued that European governments needed to build stronger national identities that rejected “passive tolerance” in favor of “a more active, muscular liberalism”:

A passively tolerant society says to its citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone.  It stands neutral between different values. A genuinely liberal country does much more.  It believes in certain values and actively promotes them.  Freedom of speech.  Freedom of worship.  Democracy.  The rule of law.  Equal rights regardless of race, sex or sexuality.  It says to its citizens: this is what defines us as a society.  To belong here is to believe in these things.  Each of us in our own countries must be unambiguous and hard-nosed about this defense of our liberty.

The speech generated something of a firestorm among the chattering classes in Europe and North America, particularly in light of similar recent comments by the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, and the French president, Nicholas Sarkozy.  Some saw Cameron’s speech as an attempt to align himself with his two most prominent European counterparts. Others viewed the speech as a rather clumsy effort to address a volatile domestic issue in an international setting—a setting in which, unfortunately, multiculturalism and Europe’s growing Muslim minority were associated none too vaguely with the need to address “security.”Predictably, the “left” reacted angrily to what it perceived as Cameron’s conflation of multiculturalism with extremism. And the “right” cheered him on for finally saying that multiculturalism was a failure.

In retrospect, it appears that neither side really understood what Cameron was trying to say, but in fairness, that may have been because Cameron’s speech was more about sound bites than substance.

No Getting around Multiculturalism

Most people in Britain see multiculturalism as a way for people of different backgrounds, cultures, and traditions to respect and appreciate one another within the context of a larger, unified British political identity. In this they perceive on the ground what many academics have been theorizing about for years: citizenship is being decoupled from membership in a particular cultural community.  David Cameron himself alluded to this reality in his speech when he identified the root source of unity in Britain as a commitment to liberal values rather than in some cultural notion of “Britishness.”  Modern social, legal, and technological conditions mean that immigrants and migrants no longer feel obligated to immerse themselves totally in the preexisting social and cultural environments of their new homes, certainly not to the extent that would have been expected a generation or two ago.  Most British people see a more multicultural Britain as a better place for everyone, including, not insignificantly, “natives” like the Scots and the Welsh who can now demand respect for unique aspects of their culture within a more self-consciously diverse Great Britain.

Seyla Benhabib has written extensively on the emergence of a citizenship of residency that allows for multiple and often overlapping ties to locality, region, and transnational institutions.  To this I would add commitments to diasporic or universal religious identities, which in the case of Catholics might be encompassed by transnational institutions, but for many Muslims could be seen as completely separate from any institutional or geo-political structures. A number of political, legal, economic, and social changes since World War II have made this disaggregation of citizenship possible.

Primary among these changes has been the emergence of cosmopolitan legal norms linked to the expansion of international human rights.  As individuals are seen as bearers of certain fundamental rights regardless of the territories in which they find themselves, the notion of state sovereignty has weakened and, consequently, the ties of citizenship to particular cultures and territories have withered as well.  As these changes progress, an awkwardness about the meaning of citizenship and membership has developed in places like Europe and the United States as these societies reckon with the status of individuals in their midst who once would have been seen as members of peripheral cultures that were perhaps suitable for assimilation, not accommodation.

What do these changes signal for our understanding of citizenship and membership in societies like Britain as we move forward?  The numbers of global migrants may have dipped a bit due to the decline in the global economy, but most observers see this as temporary.  Furthermore, economic factors are just one of the many reasons that spur migrations, and the changes wrought by previous migratory movements are now a permanent part of the political and social landscape of nations around the world.

Muscular Liberalism Yes, as Well as a Respectful Pluralism

Unless there is some other coherent idea for engaging the new realities of multiple and overlapping identities, any failures of multiculturalism will not be addressed by abandoning the concept.  A more robust commitment to democratic values is a start. But it is those very values and critical questions about how they should be defined that force a deeper recognition of and respect for difference within a democratic nation-state.  What does religious freedom mean when the conversation moves beyond Protestants, Catholics, and Jews?  Can pluralism flourish in places like the Britain and the United States if it means that some citizens will choose lifestyles that encompass practices many other citizens will find illiberal?  Lines separating the acceptable and unacceptable will no doubt have to be drawn, but separating real threats to liberal democracy from fear of a cultural or racialized “other” is not always so easy.  Rep. Peter King’s hearings on Muslim “extremism” offer one troubling example of where the confusion might lead.

Looking ahead, it seems very likely that new, transnational forms of identity are destined to emerge that will allow citizens to share various types of geographic, political, and social space while still remaining connected to other identities—such as religion and ethnicity, including the robust transnational identities and communities fostered by Islam and Catholicism—that transcend territory.

2 Comments on Muscular Liberalism or Multiculturalism? Array
Vincent Rougeau
Vincent Rougeau has been Dean of Boston College Law School since 2011. He previously worked as a Professor of Law at the University of Notre Dame.  He teaches and writes in the area of law and religion, with an emphasis on Catholic social teaching, and is the author of Christians in the American Empire: Faith and Citizenship in the New World Order (Oxford, 2008).
Authority, Community & Identity article

Civility 101: Do Unto Otters


Review of Do Unto Otters by Laurie Keller (New York: Henry Holt and Company LLC, 2007).

Shrillness, vitriol, and a distinct lack of civility characterize much of our public discussion in America these days.  America is torn and tense.

Public Hate

One example is that the topic of Islam in public discussion has become almost radioactive.  A jolting, disturbing reminder spread across the internet last week in video footage of loud, rude, and at times vicious anti-Muslim protesters who held a rally in February at a mosque in Yorba Linda, California. This was on an evening when the mosque was holding a fundraiser to support relief and charity work in the U.S.  (There were over 600,000 views of this “Hate Comes to Orange County” video on YouTube before it was removed due to a copyright dispute.)  And Rep. Peter King’s hearings on Islamic radicalization in America have been the focus of intensely polarized—and not particularly civil—national debate.

How we proceed will have an impact both domestically and abroad.  At home we need to decide whether to strengthen or to rip apart the fabric of our own society.  Abroad, what we are at home determines how we look in the world’s eyes. If we are hateful to others at home, we dare not be surprised if others are hateful towards us abroad.

The stakes are high.  We would do well to take stock of what is happening to fundamental public civility in our country.

I offer a proposal that may sound unusual, but if an unusual route is what it takes to restore at least some level of public civility, so be it (or so “bee” it, as is the case in my recommendation).

 

Public Civility, Advises the Wise Owl

I propose that we turn to a rabbit, some otters, and an owl for a useful lesson.

In her book Do Unto Otters (A Book About Manners), talented author and illustrator Laurie Keller offers us a way to return to public civility and vibrant, peaceful pluralism.  Such civility and pluralism have at other times have been among the core strengths of our society.  We have done this before.  We can, if we want to, do it again.

I am well aware that reviewing a book about a goofy bunny, a polka-dot-trouser-wearing otter, and a bow-tie wearing owl, along with some funky bees, may seem like an unusual response to the ugly vitriol that played out in Yorba Linda in February and is playing out now as the nation debates Congressman King’s hearings.  Of course I don’t view Keller’s book as any kind of panacea for our very serious troubles today.  Do Unto Otters, does, however, show a way to return to civility, and it reminds us that we can be civil to others who are different—without having to sacrifice who we are in the process.

I think widespread reading of Keller’s book Do Unto Otters would be one of the best things that could happen to America today.

Calling all kids: please read this book to your parents!

Mr. Rabbit’s Confrontation with “the Otter”

In Keller’s book, Mr. Rabbit lives in a tree in the forest on the banks of a pretty river.  One day he arrives home to discover that a family of otters has decided to move in next door.

Before he has even met them, Mr. Rabbit gasps in a panicked horror, “OTTERS?  OTTERS?  My new neighbors are OTTERS!  I don’t know anything about otters.”  He goes on to imagine the worst from this new predicament, as Keller’s funny illustrations make abundantly clear.

Mr. Rabbit has no idea what to do.  Wise Mr. Owl then offers Mr. Rabbit a way to approach this seemingly scary situation of having to live next door to a new, strange type of neighbor: “Do unto otters as you would have otters do unto you.”

Mr. Owl invites his hare-brained pal to consider how he, a rabbit, would like otters to treat him.  Mr Rabbit seems taken aback by this approach to his pending crisis, as I suspect the readers of this review may be taken aback by approaching some of the serious tensions in our society today though a children’s book.  Upon further reflection, Mr. Rabbit gives Mr. Owl’s approach a try.

That’s lesson number one: It can’t hurt to try.

Mr. Rabbit’s Other Approach

Mr. Rabbit tells Mr. Owl that he would like otters to be “friendly…polite…honest…considerate…kind…[to] cooperate… to play fair…to share…[not to] tease… [to] apologize…and be forgiving.”  For each of these Keller offers charming, very amusing illustrated scenes of Mr. Rabbit imagining what such behavior would look like.

Yes, the book is heavy on levity—all the more reason to recommend this not only for children but also for adults.

That’s lesson number two: A little silliness won’t kill us.  But hatred and fury could.  We need to find another way to handle living together and discussing our shared public future together in our diverse population.

In the end, importantly, Mr. Rabbit discovers he does not need to become an otter, and the new otters in his neighborhood do not need to become rabbits, for all of them to get along.  Instead, with basic mutual civility and considerateness, they can live side by side with their differences.  And not just that. When these different creatures find a way to treat each other with mutual decency and fairness, they discover they can even play together.

To be sure, Do Unto Otters is not an alternative to complex and vital discussions about religion and politics; no, we need to have these discussions.

However, what Keller’s book does provide is a guidebook for how we have these discussions and how we live side by side constructively with, not in spite of, our differences.  Her book provides us a way to maneuver through these differences.

Given the tone of our current public discussions and public protests, I think a return to basics could serve us well, doing unto others, including otters, as you would have done unto you.

4 Comments on Civility 101: Do Unto Otters Array
Jennifer Bryson
Jennifer S. Bryson is a Visiting Fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington, DC. from 2009-2014 she served as Director of the Islam and Civil Society Project at The Witherspoon Institute in Princeton, New Jersey. She studied Political Science as an undergraduate at Stanford, medieval European intellectual history for an M.A. in History at Yale, and Greco-Arabic and Islamic studies for a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, also at Yale.
Global Currents article

Equal Citizenship Must Replace Sectarian Violence in Egypt


All Egyptians—Christian and Muslim—have a fundamental right to live in safety. Acts of sectarian violence such as have been witnessed in Egypt in recent days are an affront to the entire nation and must be met with a unified front. The future of Egypt depends on the cooperation and goodwill of all its citizens, and now is the time  to work towards good; now is the time to banish sectarianism from our vocabularies once and for all.

As Egypt turns a chapter in its history, it is important to remember that as we cast away injustices of the past, we must never cast away what has made our nation strong and resilient. We should never compromise our national unity and we must honor the sacred duty to remain true to our principles, to insist as the Qur’an teaches us: “to stand firmly for justice, as witnesses to God, even if it be against your selves.” To do otherwise is to risk losing our rich traditions of tolerance, our social unity and cohesion, indeed “our very selves” to the forces of instability and violence.

The recent tensions between Muslims and Christians in Egypt are a reminder that much work lies ahead of us. Both faith traditions teach the sanctity of human life and importance of coexistence. The Qur’an teaches that to kill an innocent person is the equivalent of killing all of humanity. Not only are places of worship considered sacred spaces within the confines of Islamic law, but also more importantly human life is considered sacred. Transgressing these bounds is a grave sin that will only lead to turmoil in this life and the life to come.

The Islam that we were taught in our youth is one that calls for peace and mercy. The first prophetic saying that is taught to a student of Islam is, “Those who show mercy are shown mercy by the All-Merciful. Show mercy to those who are on earth and the One in the heavens will show mercy to you.” What we have learnt about Islam has been taken from the clear, pristine, and scholarly understanding of the Qur’an, “O people, we have created you from a single male and female and divided you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another.”

This sort of violence cannot be the outcome of any proper understanding of religion. It is rather a manifestation of the immorality of people with cruel hearts, arrogant souls, and warped logic. There is no doubt that such barbarism needs to be denounced in the strongest of terms, and opposed at every turn. Now is not the time for voices of reason to prevail, now is time for the peacemakers to take action.

Needed: The Full Meaning of Equal Citizenship

The sectarian violence must end. Egyptians are sick and tired of using painkillers and bandages to cure the chronic sectarian disease. A solution that addresses the deep roots of the sectarian quagmire is urgently needed as we move into this new era. I think the solution lies in putting into practice and actualizing the full meaning of citizenship, which accords every citizen, regardless of religious affiliation, equal rights and responsibilities before the law.

I call upon the Egyptian and international media to take part in promoting a sectarian-free Egypt. I call upon the educationists to review the school curricula to make sure they are free from sectarian biases and stereotypes. I call upon all political, administrative, and executive players to facilitate the full participation of all Egyptians in building the new Egypt. The sectarian issue is like an iceberg that is sure to melt down with the sunshine of freedom in our beloved country.

1 Comment on Equal Citizenship Must Replace Sectarian Violence in Egypt Array
Shaykh Ali Gomaa
Shaykh Ali Gomaa was Grand Mufti of Egypt from 2003-2013. One of the most respected jurists in the Sunni Muslim world, he headed the Dar al Ifta, which issues thousands of fatwas per week.
Authority, Community & Identity article

Inequality, Masculinity & Modernity


M. CHRISTIAN GREEN

In the weeks and months after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, speculation swirled over the attackers’ possible motivations.  The pseudo-religious zeal of Mohammed Atta’s final letter to his comrades was only one aspect of it.  Attention also centered on the attackers’ possible socioeconomic motivations.  Many of the 9/11 terrorists seemed to fit the profile of the burgeoning masses of young men with dim economic prospects said to populate the Middle East.  And yet the ringleaders all had graduate degrees, often from European universities.  Their activities in the United States while biding time before the attacks demonstrated no lack of familiarity with American-style consumerism and modern masculine pastimes—including the seamier diversions of casinos and strip clubs.

Some of the socioeconomic analysis of 9/11 focused on the gap between educational background and actual opportunity that may have haunted the minds of the more educated attackers. In that analysis, their ambition may have been enough to get them out of their countries of origin and into European universities, but it also brought new knowledge of the gap between the limitations of their home countries and the affluence of the West.  Theirs was not a problem of absolute poverty, but of relative poverty. In their new environs, they could never quite fit in culturally—or perhaps religiously, morally, or spiritually—given the marginalization of immigrants that persists in many European countries even among immigrants who aspire to “assimilate.”

The Spirit Level of Inequality and Modernity

In the recent book, The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger, public health researchers Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, compellingly catalogue the overwhelming public health effects of inequality along a number of markers.  The authors never deal as directly as they might have with the spiritual level suggested in their book’s title.  But the implication is that inequality disintegrates not only societies, but the spirits of the individuals who inhabit them. And they do note that “more unequal societies seem more masculine,” (58-60, emphasis added) and “more hierarchical” (141, 200-207).  By Wilkinson and Pickett’s account of the upward trend in inequality, throughout the industrial era, but particularly the last half century, inequality seems to be a distinctly modern phenomenon as well.

This attention to inequality in public health comes at a time when economists are beginning to look at the connections between economics and identity.  It turns out that matter and spirit—money and soul—may not be as easy to separate as many religious traditions may suggest, with the bright lines they sometimes draw (or imply) between materialism and spiritualism.  Inability to procure the basic necessities of life, affluence aside, remains a problem in most of the world, and it is a problem with which more and more Americans are becoming intimately and painfully familiar in the Great Economic Recession.

As suggested in phenomena as diverse as the motivations of the 9/11 attackers and the recent self-immolation of the fruit-seller Mohamed Bouazizi that touched off the “Tunisami” (hat tip to Rashied Omar) of revolutions now sweeping North Africa and the Middle East, what is also emerging is a sense of the connection between inequality, masculinity, and modernity.  Observers have commented for decades now on the global “feminization of poverty.”  It may now be important to turn our attention to the “masculinization of inequality” as well.

Religion and Globalization

Again, in the spirit of the animating question of the “Contending Modernities” project— “Where can Catholics, Muslims, and secular views come together to address the problems of modernity?”—the masculinization of inequality might be another problem to address.  On the Catholic side, at Notre Dame, the inquiry is already well under way.  This year’s Notre Dame Forum 2010-2011 has focused on “The Global Marketplace and the Common Good.”  In this impressive undertaking, scholars from around the university were given the common task of reading Pope Benedict XVI’s recent encyclical on economics, Caritas in Veritate (“Charity in Truth”) and journalist Tom Friedman’s book Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution. The result has been a series of events that have generated important interdisciplinary perspective on globalization, inequality, and the common good.

These issues need interreligious as well as interdisciplinary perspectives—and not just on the economic and technical issues that might lead to a green revolution, but also on the social and spiritual dimensions of these issues, which seem to be sparking a gender revolution.  The Catholic tradition has a long line of thought on economic matters, spanning a number of key papal encyclicals and exceptionally well represented in the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ pastoral letter, Economic Justice for All. That 1986 letter is a veritable Catholic “best seller” and is a staple of courses on economic ethics everywhere.  The Muslim tradition, born amidst both desert scarcity and ancient trade routes, has also had a significant focus on economic justice and globalization, centuries before globalization assumed its status as one of the great cultural and political buzzwords of our time.

The Gender of Humiliation

Where the Catholic and Muslim traditions might want to focus their long legacies of economic thought, together with secular and other religious counterparts, is on the spiritual questions that emerge particularly with economic justice and questions of gender.  For one of the great risks of economic inequality, both within particular societies and worldwide, is that it may produce toxic experiences and emotions of dishonor, shame, and humiliation.  Sadly, many women have such experiences and emotions in abundance through their poverty, objectification, exploitation, and subordination in cultures around the world.

But for many men in modernity, these are new experiences, and ones with which they seem poorly equipped to cope.  From Mohammed Atta to Mohamed Bouazizi, something is going on when even foreign policy and counterterrorism security wonks sense a masculinity problem.

Samia Bouazizi saw the problem when a policewoman slapped her brother across the face because he would not move the fruit stand from which he expected his meager earnings. She remarked of the incident, “She humiliated him. Everyone was watching. Our family can accept anything, but not humiliation.”  In the new era of inequality, masculinity, and modernity, humiliation—at the spirit level—is an intolerable condition we must redress, and one the Catholic and Muslim traditions have special resources for understanding and transforming.

Further Reading

  • Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett  The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger (2009)
  • Barbara Ehrenreich and Arlie Russell Hochschild, Global Woman: Nannies, Maids, and Sex Workers in the New Economy (2003)
  • Nicholas D. Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn, Half the Sky: Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide (2009)
  • Isobel Coleman, Paradise Beneath Her Feet: How Women Are Transforming the Middle East (2010)
  • Reihan Salam, “The End of Macho,” Foreign Policy (July/August 2009).
  • “Man Up! Why We Need to Reimagine Masculinity,” Newsweek, September 20, 2010,
  • Hanna Rosin, “The End of Men,” The Atlantic Monthly (July/August 2010)
  • Dominique Moïsi, The Geopolitics of Emotion: How Cultures of Fear, Humiliation, and Hope are Reshaping the World (New York: Doubleday, 2009)
  • Karim Fahim, “Slap to a Man’s Pride Set Off Tumult in Tunisia,” The New York Times, January 21, 2011
  • Roger Cohen, “Facebook and Arab Dignity,” The New York Times, January 24, 2011
Leave a Comment on Inequality, Masculinity & Modernity Array
M. Christian Green
M. Christian Green is a scholar, teacher, researcher, writer, and editor working in the fields of law, religion, ethics, human rights, and global affairs.  Green is currently a senior fellow at the Center for the Study of Law and Religion, a general co-editor and the book review editor for the Journal of Law and Religion, and editor and publications manager for the African Consortium for Law and Religion Studies. She blogs at Cakewalks and Climbingwalls.
Gender, State & Society article

Truth & Reconciliation Amid Sexual Violence


Like many universities around America, Notre Dame recognized Sexual Assault Awareness Week at the end of last month (February 20-27) in a world in which sexual violence against women and girls—and sometimes men and boys—remains a persistent evil.  As one of the world’s oldest forms of violence, present throughout the ages, particularly in situations of conflict and war, sexual violence seems distinctly anti-modern from both religious and secular perspectives.  How is it that sexual violence remains such a blot on human nature, human society and, particularly, the relationship between men and women?

The sexual assault of CBS war correspondent Lara Logan by a mob of men amidst the euphoria of Tahrir Square on the day of Hosni Mubarak’s resignation, on February 11th—a sexual assault described as “brutal and sustained”—is just the most recent high-profile instance of the scourge of sexual violence inflicted on women throughout the African continent, most heinously in the Congo.  This scourge is well-known to brave and seasoned conflict journalists like Logan, who hails from South Africa, a country with the highest incidence of sexual assault in the world.

The Horror of a Ugandan Girl’s Story

At the “Contending Modernities” project launch in New York in November 2010, Jacqueline Moturi Ogega, director of the Women’s Mobilization Program at Religions for Peace, gave a compelling testimony of the gravity of such violence.  She told the story of a fifteen-year-old who had been abducted into sexual slavery as a young girl by the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda.  Continually raped and almost certainly denied any form of medical care as she accompanied the “soldiers” in their campaign of terror, she gave birth to five children in captivity and was pregnant with a sixth child when she came to the attention and care of Ogega’s group.  The idea of “forced pregnancy” rankles those who are justifiably keen not to disparage the circumstances that give rise to new life—and yet there seems no more apt description of the girl’s ordeal.

As Ogega recounted this girl’s story, there was near complete silence in the large and virtually packed hall of attendees at the “Contending Modernities” launch. The story was not addressed in the rich discussion following the panel of women scholars who introduced the “Contending Modernities” project’s inaugural focus on “Women, Family, and State.”  In truth, the audience and panelists may have been struggling simply to register and reconcile the horror of the Ugandan girl’s story.

Muslims and Catholics: Together Against Sexual Violence?

And yet one of the inaugural questions of the “Contending Modernities” project was “Where can Catholics and Muslims come together to address the problems of modernity?”  I would suggest that the issue of sexual violence is such a problem, where they can come together, and that something like a religiously-grounded “truth and reconciliation” process around gender and sexual violence might be a step towards a common effort and solution.

Both Catholicism and Islam have complicated histories when it comes to sexual violence.  Islam has a strong concern for women’s honor, but requires multiple witnesses to establish guilt in cases of rape and sometimes metes out harsh punishments for sexual improprieties, including stoning—sometimes for the female victims themselves. In Catholicism, St. Thomas Aquinas’ discussion of the crime of rape mostly as an offense to a woman’s father, husband, or possibility of obtaining a husband, does not tend to sit well with modern ears. And yet in his discussion of the sexual violence that can result from the sin of lust, Thomas is clear that the first harm is to the woman “by reason of due honor not being paid to her” (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 154, a. l).  St. Augustine also addressed the problem of sexual violence in the context of conflict and war, urging women who had been raped not to commit suicide—perhaps not the most enlightened comment in light of modern understandings of women’s capacity for resilience and survival—and yet here Augustine, like Thomas, references women’s honor in maintaining that “[t]hey have the glory of chastity within them, the testimony of their conscience.  They have this in the sight of God, and they ask for nothing more” (City of God, bk. I, ch. XIX).

This charity from the fathers of the Church is certainly more than women can expect today in many, if not most, societies around the world.  In secular feminist discussions of sexual violence there has, at times, been discussion of whether rape is a crime of lust or a crime of violence—the prevailing view being that it is a matter of violence.  Noted feminist legal theorist, Catharine MacKinnon (Are Women Human? And Other International Dialogues) has sought to transcend this debate, arguing that rape, while certainly a crime of violence, has an inescapably gendered dimension. Even men who are the victims of sexual violence are victimized largely by being treated as women.

In fact, it seems that women who suffer sexual violence in many parts of the world are not being treated even as women but rather precisely as objects and instruments. Particularly in the case of gang rapes or family members being forced to rape one another at gunpoint, as has happened regularly in the Congo, there is a way in which the intended victims of such assaults are not women as such but the families and communities of which they are members. The women in such cases are merely instruments and tools—inhuman, inanimate objects to be used to inflict violence and terror on whole groups. Moreover, the tendency of the male perpetrators to participate in such acts in groups, suggests another audience, as well. They are watching each other—and assessing the strength of their fellows’ perverse displays of masculinity and power.

Towards “Truth and Reconciliation” around Sexual Violence

The Muslim tradition has as many resources as the Catholic tradition for addressing men’s abuses of power in sexual violence. Would that both religions would revisit and, where necessary, reinterpret their traditions to intensify the struggle against such abuses!

One way Muslims and Christians might collaborate would be to engage in something like an interfaith “truth and reconciliation” commission to investigate the roots of, and responses to, sexual violence in their traditions.  Such a process might produce strong statements from both religions on sexual violence in all its forms. Perhaps then, as Cathleen Kaveny suggested in her address that preceded Ogega’s at the “Contending Modernities” launch—men and women might truly be able to be “friends” in modernity.

Leave a Comment on Truth & Reconciliation Amid Sexual Violence Array
M. Christian Green
M. Christian Green is a scholar, teacher, researcher, writer, and editor working in the fields of law, religion, ethics, human rights, and global affairs.  Green is currently a senior fellow at the Center for the Study of Law and Religion, a general co-editor and the book review editor for the Journal of Law and Religion, and editor and publications manager for the African Consortium for Law and Religion Studies. She blogs at Cakewalks and Climbingwalls.
Authority, Community & Identity article

Al-Azhar: beyond the Politics of State Patronage


The great Islamic polymath, Abu Hamid al-Ghazali (d. 1111), bemoaned the lack of intellectual independence, integrity and critical distance from the state that characterized the position of Muslim scholars in his time. He laments this in his book, Ayyuhal Walad, and advises his young disciples neither to get too close to princes and sultans nor to praise them excessively. But even more than that, Imam Ghazali warns them not to accept generous gifts from rulers, even though this may be permissible: “Coveting things from the rulers and those in power will spoil and corrupt your religion, since there is born from it flattery and ‘kowtowing’ to those in power and unwise approval of their policies.”

Ebrahim E. Moosa has eloquently summarized al-Ghazali’s strong critique of his contemporaries in his book, Ghazali and the Poetics of Imagination (2005): “Most scholars are sycophants, groveling at the feet of political leaders, displaying egotistical behavior, driven by insatiable materialism.”

Al-Ghazali’s critique of Muslim scholars and their subservience to the state in his time is just as relevant to today’s relationship between the Egyptian state and the religious scholars affiliated to the citadel of Islamic learning in the Muslim world, Jami`at al-Azhar al-Sharif, or al-Azhar Islamic University. The new political order now emerging in Egypt perhaps provides an opportunity to put al-Ghazali’s warnings into practice.

The Nationalization of Al-Azhar

During the past half century, a tradition of religious legitimation of the state—and religion’s co-option by the state—has become endemic in Egyptian society. It was first engineered by Gamal Abdel Nasser, shortly after his military coup on July 23, 1952, when he nationalized all “waqf” properties—land and assets associated with religious endowments. Because the prestigious al-Azhar Islamic University depended on income from such land to operate, this move curtailed its autonomy and made it completely reliant on the state for financial support. According to Scott W. Hibbard in his book, Religious Politics and Secular States (2010), the nationalization of waqf properties also allowed the government to distribute waqf resources in such a way as to “reward those who followed [its] lead…and punish those who did not.”

The nationalization of waqf assets was followed in 1961 by a radical state-imposed reformation of the al-Azhar University, including of its traditional curriculum and appointment of faculty, especially the prestigious position of Shaykh al-Azhar, or the head of al-Azhar University. Nasser believed that creating a state-controlled monopoly on religion would be useful for buttressing his regime against both internal and external enemies. This policy of state manipulation of religion was scrupulously pursued by both of his successors, Anwar Sadat (1970-1981) and Hosni Mubarak (1981-2011), for the past forty years.

Shaykh Al-Azhar’s Uncritical Support of the Mubarak Regime

The problematic nature of this policy of state hegemony over religion is well illustrated by the ambivalent political stance of the Shaykh al-Azhar, Dr. Ahmed el-Tayeb, during the Egyptian uprising against the Mubarak dictatorship. Shaykh el-Tayeb found it extremely difficult to offer public support for the demands of the pro-democracy demonstrators. All he could manage in his public pronouncements was to echo the failing regime’s call for “stability” and its accusations that foreign agents engineered the uprising. Is it disingenuous to suggest that Shaykh al-Azhar’s stance can be attributed to the fact that he was not only appointed by Mubarak but also served as a high ranking member of his National Democratic Party?

As is the case with all of Mubarak’s loyal supporters, the Shaykh al-Azhar is now coming under critical scrutiny for his complicity in the Mubarak regime’s three decades of blatant human rights violations and financial corruption. Al-Azhar’s tacit and often open support of the regime’s draconian policies is currently being evaluated like never before.

To his credit, in his first official statement after the fall of the Mubarak regime, Shaykh el-Tayeb acknowledged that many Egyptian institutions suffered from corruption, and that the pro-democracy protesters who decided to go to the street and protest against this corruption are heroes. Furthermore, in response to a group of Al-Azhar scholars who joined the protests and are now demanding that the constitution be changed to prevent a future government from appointing the esteemed position of Shaykh al-Azhar, Dr. el-Tayeb claims that this has always been his position.

The positive response of Shaykh el-Tayeb to the demand that the future head of this prestigious center of Islamic learning be appointed through democratic election rather than by presidential appointment should be welcomed by all Egyptians as well as by all Muslims all over the world. Such a transparent and consultative policy will not only lend greater legitimacy and credibility to this distinguished office, but it will also afford greater independence to al-Azhar and the `ulama (Muslim religious scholars) from state control and manipulation. I believe this should be welcomed as a first step in an ongoing struggle to free al-Azhar from state control.

Winning the battle for the democratic appointment of the Shaykh al-Azhar will indeed go a long way toward changing the half-century-old tradition of state control of the influential al-Azhar University. However, the longer term goal should be broader: the forging of a different relationship between al-Azhar and the state, on one hand, and al-Azhar and civil society, on the other.

Beyond the Politics of Patronage

It is my considered view that the role of the al-Azhar university and the `ulama in Egypt should not be focused exclusively on seeking patronage with political power. Rather, they should—in accordance with what has been powerfully demonstrated in the recent Egyptian pro-democracy protests—seek to become an integral and vibrant part of the broader civil society and network of non-governmental organizations. The al-Azhar leadership needs to resist the temptation to become once again the mere apologists for the powers that be. It needs to avoid being co-opted by the government or powerful political parties to serve their expedient agendas.

The role of al-Azhar should be that of the nation’s moral conscience, alongside other organizations in civil society. The `ulama have a duty to exhort and challenge government whenever they fail to fulfill their political mandate. Government officials are elected by the nation’s citizens, and all citizens—including religious leaders—have a political right and obligation to censure and criticize them when necessary. At the same time, civil society also has a responsibility to support and collaborate with the government in areas of mutual concern and benefit.

In addition, Al-Azhar University holds the distinguished position of being the eminent and moral voice of the Muslim world. In this regard, for example, they have made many praiseworthy pronouncements such as denouncing extremist acts of violence and supporting inter-religious dialogue.  This more global role will be further elevated if al-Azhar is seen to be equally critical of unethical and repressive practices by the government of their own country as well as other autocratic leaders within the Muslim world.

The critical question facing al-Azhar Islamic University and indeed all religious leaders in the post-Mubarak era is the following: Will Abu Hamid al-Ghazali’s prudent advice be headed?

Leave a Comment on Al-Azhar: beyond the Politics of State Patronage Array
A. Rashied Omar
A. Rashied Omar earned an M.A. and Ph.D. in religious studies from the University of Cape Town, South Africa, and an M.A. in peace studies from the University of Notre Dame’s Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, where he is now a core faculty member. Omar’s research and teaching focus on the roots of religious violence and the potential of religion for constructive social engagement and interreligious peacebuilding. He is co-author with David Chidester et al. of Religion in Public Education: Options for a New South Africa (UCT Press, 1994), a contributor to the Oxford Handbook of Religion, Conflict and Peacebuilding (Oxford University Press, 2015), and a contributor to the Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World (Macmillan Reference USA, 2016). In addition to being a university-based researcher and teacher, Omar serves as Imam (religious minister) at the Claremont Main Road Mosque in Cape Town, South Africa, and an advisory board member for Critical Investigations into Humanitarianism in Africa.
Deadly Violence & Conflict Transformation article

Monks in Algeria: Loving Thy Neighbor at Gunpoint


What does it mean to love your neighbor?  What does it mean to love your neighbor when a neighbor is pointing a gun at you and your other neighbors?

Of Gods and Men

The French film “Of Gods and Men,” released in the U.S. on February 25th, is based on a true story. Though it failed even to be nominated for Best Foreign Language Film at the Academy Awards, it won the award for “best film” at France’s equivalent of the Oscars, the Cesar Awards, on February 25th. It follows the lives of French Catholic monks in the Atlas Mountains of Algeria in the 1990s. As the country descends into violent conflict between a repressively secularist state and radical Islamists, the Trappist brothers face an increasingly chaotic environment.

Caught between the brutal Algerian government and the ruthless Islamists, the monks struggle to know and share God’s love and peace.  What they experience alongside the beauty of the love they live out on a day-to-day basis in their monastic community is unbounded hatred, unspeakable violence, and, ultimately, unstoppable death seeping into their world.  They must decide whether to remain in their monastery or flee the violence and return to France.

In their vocations, they seek to love and serve God by being “brothers to all”—in their monastic community and with all the people they encounter.  All this becomes exponentially more complicated when new neighbors—a group of radical Islamists—come to the region.  The battles between the Algerian government and the Islamists for influence and control unleash persistent horror and tragedy.

Love Thy Neighbors, All of Them

The monks face a new question: What does it mean to share brotherly love at gun point?  Over the years, the lives of the monks and the neighboring villagers became intertwined.  The monks realize that if they leave, the consequences will be immense not only for themselves but also for the Muslim villagers who work in the monastery and whom the monks serve through a free medical clinic.

This is not a film about Christians vs. Muslims.  Rather, this is a film about Christians trying—imperfectly but still genuinely—to love Muslims.  And the monks must sort out what love means amid competing interpretive claims on the Muslim faith.  In the Islamists’ political fanaticism and obsession with political power, the monks encounter a “distorted” Islam that stands in sharp contrast to the religious faith the monks experience in the lives of the Muslim villagers who live alongside the monastery in peace, Muslims who love their families and their neighbors.

Witness to the Good News

Any Christian wondering what it may mean to share the good news of Jesus Christ with Muslims should see this film.  In the lives of these monks, sharing the good news with Muslims is not the type of “I’m right!” vs. “You’re wrong!” battle one can see unfolding in some areas of the world today.

At the same time, the monks don’t deny their Christian faith.  Hardly.  Even in an encounter with armed Islamists, the monastery’s abbot—named Christian—reminds the thugs’ leader that Jesus, “Issa” in Arabic, came as the “Prince of Peace.”

What is distinct, however, from the usual “I’m right!” vs. “You’re wrong!” battles is that it is love that is always the point of reference from which these monks share the good news.  It is through the living out of love in their very lives that these monks share the good news of Christ.

At the same time, however, love does not mean being naive.  The monks struggle to understand how to live out their vocation as circumstances change dramatically around them.

As the violence and chaos grow, the film spotlights the monks’ internal struggles to persevere in their vocation to love God and neighbor, as individuals and as a community.  And this journey is in no small part acoustic, taking place through the monks’ sung prayers—and in this, subtitles can be a great advantage rather than an annoyance, because they provide the rich texts of the monks’ sung prayers clearly and in detail.  To stay or to go?  The monks sing together, they pray together, they deliberate together.

The Centrality of Prayer

At its core, however, the decision-making process plays out in each brother’s relationship with God.  Through brilliant story-telling, “Of Gods and Men” brings viewers inside the intimate struggles of each individual monk, as each one offers personal, desperate, raw, and profoundly honest prayers before God.  One of the most important legacies of the lives of these monks, captured by this film, is to make the common challenge of living together with our deepest differences the subject of inner spiritual struggle—of individual prayer before God.

We live in an era of national upheavals, large-scale institutional inter-faith dialogue, and identity questions that juxtapose one group with another.  All these will continue.  But in the rush for large-scale change and large-scale achievements, we risk skipping what must be the starting point: prayer.

As “Of Gods and Men” ever so beautifully reminds us, figuring out how to love our neighbors in a multi-faith world—perhaps even at gunpoint—has no recourse to any simple formula.  Without individual prayer before God, trying to rest instead on having the “best” argument in “I’m right!” vs. “You’re wrong!” battles, we will be lost along the way, and so too will our neighbors, all of whom God wants to receive God’s love.

7 Comments on Monks in Algeria: Loving Thy Neighbor at Gunpoint Array
Jennifer Bryson
Jennifer S. Bryson is a Visiting Fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington, DC. from 2009-2014 she served as Director of the Islam and Civil Society Project at The Witherspoon Institute in Princeton, New Jersey. She studied Political Science as an undergraduate at Stanford, medieval European intellectual history for an M.A. in History at Yale, and Greco-Arabic and Islamic studies for a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, also at Yale.
Global Currents article

A New Egypt


In the aftermath of Mubarak’s resignation, Egypt stands at the dawn of a new era. It is an era borne of the ingenuity, sacrifices and dedication of an entire nation. We remember and recognize all those brave men and women who lost their lives but have ignited and galvanized the movement of change. The past month has been a testament to the spirit and integrity of the Egyptian people. It is with great pride that we witnessed the exemplary behavior of Egyptians during some of the most intense and anxious moments in the nation’s history.

The past few weeks were indeed difficult. At times, it was unclear what the next day held—whether food shortages would prove debilitating, whether the safety of the people could be assured, or whether the situation would spiral out of control. However, history bears witness that it is in times of difficulty that the Egyptian spirit of community asserts itself the strongest. The display of national unity over the past few weeks has been remarkable—people from all walks of life have joined together to imagine a better future. Religious, social and economic differences were put aside.

Egypt on Display for the World

It was Egypt as a whole that was on display for the world over the past few weeks, and it is Egypt that has emerged into a new era.

It is important to acknowledge at this juncture the crucial role played by the armed forces in maintaining peace throughout the nation, asserting their respect for and unity with the Egyptian people, and ensuring that the welfare of the nation transcends all. As they embark on this transitional phase, we have every confidence that they will continue to place these values at the top of their agenda and live up to their stated commitments.

The new era in which we stand is one of hope. It was built on an agenda of reform. While that agenda has largely focused on political and constitutional reforms, this is the moment to remind ourselves that this is simply the beginning, and that Egypt needs much more than this. To foster a truly healthy and vibrant society, we need to seize the moment and take measures to ensure economic and social reform as well. This requires the continued goodwill and dedication of all Egyptians. As recent events have shown, this is not beyond our reach. Now is the time to take advantage of the revolutionary moment and achieve truly comprehensive and far-reaching reforms that will help all members of society. We must continue to be united in solidarity, working towards a better future, and putting Egypt above all else.

It is important to point out that this moment is one of hope, and not one to satisfy old grudges. Islamic teachings emphasize that we not dwell on the past, and instead move into the future, active and alive, focused on creating a better future. Egypt has a unique ability to continue to remember the positive contributions of the various personalities in our nation’s history, despite their faults. Let us continue this tradition, and let old grievances neither divide us nor eat away at the spirit that has characterized this noble uprising.

Islam & Christianity, Together in Society’s Service

I have been at pains during my tenure as the Grand Mufti to stress inter-cultural and inter-religious dialogue. In particular, I was asked to participate in the pioneering initiative to promote cooperation between Christendom and the Muslim world. It is with great pleasure that I became a signatory to the declaration entitled “A Common Word Between Us and You,” in which Christian leaders joined with Muslim ones to emphasize their similarities and their dedication to the welfare of their societies as a result of their devotion to God.

This is an important time to affirm that the Dar al-Iftaa, Egypt’s supreme body for Islamic Legal Interpretation, remains at the service of the Egyptian people, prepared to offer religious guidance on all matters of national and international importance. We have always remained independent of political affiliations and orientations and have been providing pragmatic guidance to all those who are looking for authoritative guidance and we will continue to do so. We support the aspirations of the Egyptian people in the coming era, and we call on all Egyptians to ensure the safeguarding of the five overriding objectives of Islamic law—the preservation of life, property, honor, family, reason, and religion—values that are of course shared by all humanity.

For the past few years, the Dar al-Iftaa has made great strides in restructuring the organization to enhance accessibility and responsiveness, incorporating new technologies along the way. The circumstances of the past few weeks have inspired us to embark on a set of initiatives to move further along this path, improving lines of communication with the people. These include a presence on social media (Facebook, Twitter), meetings with youth and media regularly, as well as an expansion of our translation department that already translates religious guidance into nine languages.

The past month has deeply affected all segments of Egyptian society. The new era is one on which we embark together as a nation, full of hope, trusting in God, and determined to make Egypt prosper. I offer my sincere prayers and wishes for an orderly and peaceful transition of power and for crafting a constitution that suits and fulfills the aspiration and needs of the people and brings their efforts to fruition.
Leave a Comment on A New Egypt Array
Shaykh Ali Gomaa
Shaykh Ali Gomaa was Grand Mufti of Egypt from 2003-2013. One of the most respected jurists in the Sunni Muslim world, he headed the Dar al Ifta, which issues thousands of fatwas per week.