|
|
Politics and Religion
Islam
Joint Seminar on Christianity and Islam
EPP-ED Group in the European Parliament and EPP Group in the Council of Europe
26 - 27 September 2002
European Parliament, Strasbourg
Faith in democracy
The impact of religion on civil society
A personal appraisal by Paola Buonadonna
Even without the dreadful clarion call of 9/11 a reflection on the challenges posed to the Christian West by the Islamic world would be highly desirable.
With more than 12 million people of the Muslim faith living in EU countries at the moment, (and their numbers expected to continue to rise sharply if current demographic and immigration patterns don't change), the issues of cultural integration, racial discrimination, religious fanaticism and democratic dialogue were already exercising our governments and civil society.
As it happened, this joint seminar by the EPP groups of the European Parliament and the Council of Europe, after a difficult, two-year gestation, did see the light shortly after the first anniversary of the 9/11 attacks and on the eve of a possible new coalition of Western forces against Iraq.
Many of the speakers referred to Samuel P Huntington's 1996 book Clash of Civilisations and the debate remained, most of the time, under the shadow of the questions raised by this book. Has culture/religion supplanted ideology and economics as the main source of conflict in the world? Are the Christian and Islamic religions and cultural traditions really so different? If so, is the difference doomed to lead to political violence? What can be done to foster integration and avoid such a clash of values?
But also, as some of the participants observed, is Christianity completely unproblematic when it comes to tolerance of internal and external dissent? And should we not be careful of public policies directly inspired by religious rather than humanistic values, whatever their provenance?
The seminar was also supposed to explore ideas on how institutions like the EU and the Council of Europe might call on their budget, political prestige and policy expertise to offer practical solutions.
As you can read in the separate Joint Presidency Conclusions, participants did indeed note that the above mentioned institutions offer a precious model of cooperation and promotion of human rights. They also called for the religious dimension to be taken into account in the formulation of policies on human rights and urged the EU/Council of Europe to incorporate in all internal and external policies an awareness of the impact those are having on the Islam question.
But I believe the seminar was particularly fascinating for the insights its speakers offered on the Islamic world and our relationship to it and that's what I'd like to concentrate on in my personal report.
A point made over and over again (and most persuasively by Bashir Khanbai MEP) was the need to distinguish between religion and politics when analysing instances of terrorism or genocide violence. Speakers from both the Christian and Islamic tradition stressed that there is nothing inherently intolerant and oppressive in the letter of the Islamic faith and noted how historically Islam has exercised a culturally progressive and civilising influence on the world, pace Silvio Berlusconi.
Distortions do arise, (most speakers noted that there is a real problem with lack of democracy in practically all Muslim countries), because of the lack of one specific overall authority in the interpretation of religious texts and of an established clerical hierarchy. The subsequent flowering of many, often conflicting interpretations of Islam, championed by separate, often mutually hostile political sects, leads to the current confusion about the real face of Islam and the recurrence of violence.
But why do the Muslim masses, so to speak, prove so pliable to the bending of their faith to violence by unscrupulous, self-appointed leaders, resulting in the 'Fatwas' and Jihads' the West has sadly become so familiar with?
The answers offered by our panellists were deceptively simple. Poverty and ignorance (most Islamic countries are to be found in the Third World and have endured long periods of colonisation), allow a variety of dictatorial regimes to use religion as a clarion call of mobilisation against the West. Besides, when all freedom of expression is curbed and information tightly controlled, passions can only be channelled into religious feelings and will eventually erupt in destructive ways.
But how can we account then for the instances of fanaticism within the Muslim communities settled in the West and living in relative affluence and complete democracy?
Our treatment of immigration and the 'internal' struggle between integration and cultural identity are at the basis of the problem there. As immigrants still suffer from an unacceptable degree of intolerance and marginalisation in most host societies, (Britain was singled out as an example of good practice yet race/religious-motivated riots as well as racist violence do take place there with alarming regularity), they might cling to religion (in its most bellicose interpretation) as a purveyor of identity, dignity and blueprint for 'political' action .
Bishop Emmanuel Adamakis kicked off this part of the debate with his observation that understanding has to be a two-way traffic - and the responsibility of both immigrant and host community. He added that while integration should mean assimilation and not slavish conformity to European values, immigrant communities should nonetheless be asked to behave loyally towards their host countries.
It's worth noting at this point that many, of the (Christian) participants expressed their anxiety at the deterioration of moral values within our own Western societies. Rampant materialism, greed and indifference to responsibility -with their corollary of broken families, teen-age criminality and drug addiction - are, not unreasonably, reviled by traditional Muslims. They certainly do not offer an attractive 'package' when it comes to wanting to prove the superiority of Western values.
But going back to the integration debate, one of the most stimulating contributions was offered by Professor Tariq Ramadan. He stressed the importance of fostering a sense of citizenship within Muslim communities, whereby a sense of identity and self-worth is gained by participation in, rather than the scorning of, the host society, whilst maintaining Islam as one's moral compass.
Muslims should be encouraged to accept from European culture anything that is not directly in contradiction with tenets of the Islamic faith. The good news being that in democratic, Western societies nothing morally distasteful can be imposed on them. In other words Muslims should be persuaded that they can live with laws which permit drinking alcohol as long as the same laws do not force them to drink it too. An 'ethic of citizenship' has the advantage of transforming everybody in a member of the majority, breaking down the siege mentality that characterises communities which are used to defining themselves as 'minorities'. To be part of the majority means to have a stake in society and therefore responsibilities to discharge, rather than just rights and traditions to defend.
Prof. Ramadan admitted that this attitude would only prevail in time and with the advent of an educated, affluent second or third generation intellectual elite, while in many Muslim communities in Europe today the tendency to retreat in a sense of victimisation was still prevalent and still informed a sense of identity and pride.
Meanwhile Western governments should set up a robust programme of civic education (from which kids of all backgrounds, frankly, could benefit!) as well as fostering dialogue and partnerships between communities.
As the seminar progressed we kept going back to the original theme of Islam and democracy, and the question of whether the two might be incompatible at some intrinsic level that no amount of partnership and joint initiatives can solve.
Distinguished speakers such as Professor Maurice Boormans and Arie Oostlander MEP hinted strongly that tolerance and human rights were hard to reconcile with the Koran and offered a variety of examples.
This is where I'd like to feed in my considerations. Bringing my own independent, young and female perspective to the debate I suggested that a certain varying degree of intolerance seemed to me a common feature of all oroanised religions.
Depending on one's interpretation of the Bible (especially the Old Testament) there's very little to be cheerful on human rights. in particular the rights of women.
And in the practice of everyday life it seems to me that lack of tolerance becomes tinged with hypocrisy. I would for instance question the validity", of Catholic 'dogmas' such as the ban on contraception which, while faithfully heeded by poor, uneducated communities in Africa and Latin America are cheerfully ignored by Milanese and Roman 'believers'.
I firmly believe that we will lack the moral authority and credibility to challenge extremism and fanaticism in the Muslim world if we fail to confront the lack of tolerance within the Christian faith, both in terms of straightforward persecution of minority groups, such as Episcopalians in Greece and Russia, but also aberrant expression of Christian fanaticism witnessed in America, such as the firebombing of abortion clinics and the picketing of schools which dare explain the origin of man with the Darwinian theory of evolution.
Let those without sin cast the first stone.
Paola Buonadonna
|
|
|
Printer friendly - 
Send page by e-mail - 
Back to Top
