Pope Francis says interfaith dialogue needed to battle extremism

Part of the puzzle but requires an openness for dialogue. And many of those susceptible to radicalization may not be open to such dialogue:

Pope Francis said on Thursday dialogue between religions in Africa was essential to teach young people that violence and hate in God’s name was unjustified, speaking in Kenya which has been the victim of a spate of Islamist militant massacres.

Bridging divisions between Muslims and Christians is a main theme of his first tour of the continent that also takes him to Uganda, which like Kenya has been victim of Islamist attacks, and the Central African Republic, riven by sectarian conflict.

“All too often, young people are being radicalized in the name of religion to sow discord and fear, and to tear at the very fabric of our societies,” the pope told Muslim and other religious leaders gathered in the Kenyan capital Nairobi.

“Ecumenical and inter-religious dialogue is not a luxury. It is not something extra or optional, but essential,” he said at a morning meeting with about 25 religious leaders in the Vatican embassy here.

He stressed that God’s name “must never be used to justify hatred and violence.”

He referred to Somalia’s al Shabaab Islamists’ 2013 attack on Nairobi’s Westgate shopping mall and this year’s assault on Garissa university. Hundreds of people have been killed in the past two years or so, with Christians sometimes singled out by the gunmen behind the raids.

The chairman of the Supreme Council of Kenya Muslims (Supreme), Abdulghafur El-Busaidy, also called for cooperation and tolerance.

“As people of one God and of this world we must stand up and in unison, clasp hands together in all the things that are essential for our collective progress,” he said at the meeting, adding doctrinal differences should be put aside.

Source: Pope Francis says interfaith dialogue needed to battle extremism – World – CBC News

How America’s Demographic Revolution Reached The Church

Source: How America’s Demographic Revolution Reached The Church

In the fight against terrorism, Muslims must own their message: Sheema Khan

Sheema Khan, further developing her arguments for the role that Muslims can and should play in the West:

Here in the West, Muslims have the unique luxury – if not the duty – to examine such critical questions, and take ownership of their own narrative. If they don’t, others will do it for them. Do Muslims in the West want to define Islam as a faith rooted in compassion, generosity and pluralism? Or will it be defined as a religion of fear, terror and subjugation, as advocated by extremists? While the choice may be obvious, it requires forceful authentication through repeated words and actions.

Own the message, and declare it with conviction: Islam forbids terrorism, murder and mayhem. Extremists who murder innocent civilians, as retribution for Muslims killed by the West, do not speak for me. I will fight injustice with people of justice, using non-violent means. I will fight to protect my fellow human beings from harm, because my faith demands it. I will look after my neighbour and help to make this country a better place. I will follow on the footsteps of Prophet Mohammed, who was sent as a mercy to mankind.

Such a principled path includes fighting for the rights of innocents abroad through legitimate means. It includes standing up to Islamophobia and engaging in the wider struggle against xenophobia.

It also encompasses the duty to work with law enforcement to ensure the safety of all Canadians. This is evident in the number of plots thwarted by Muslim tips and informants. In a 2007 Environics poll, the overwhelming majority of Canadian Muslims believed it was their responsibility to “report on potentially violent extremists they might encounter in their mosques and communities.”

After the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris, Muslims organized grassroots demonstrations in Ottawa, Toronto, Kingston and London, Ont., reiterating the commitment to our shared humanity, while welcoming all Canadians to join in the call. Such efforts are shaping a Canadian narrative of Islam and should be repeated. Grassroots efforts that have spawned interfaith, cultural, charitable and civic initiatives are also moulding an indigenous form of Islam, rooted in a Canadian ethos.

Finally, owning the narrative means purposeful use of language. Those who know the true nature of the Islamic State refer to it by its Arabic acronym, Daesh, which has a derogatory meaning. They certainly don’t label Daesh members as jihadi. Islamic law defines the terror perpetrated by extremists as hiraba, which is diametrically opposed to jihad. They seek legitimization under the moniker of jihad. Let’s not give into that. Call them for what they are: hirabi. In the propaganda war, language means everything.

Source: In the fight against terrorism, Muslims must own their message – The Globe and Mail

Forcing Jewish hair stylist to take Saturdays off is grounds for rights complaint: Quebec commission

Interesting case:

Quebec’s Human Rights Commission has decided there is sufficient evidence to support a complaint by a Jewish hairstylist who claims his employer, the owner of a Snowdon beauty salon who is also Jewish, discriminated against him on the basis of his religion by not letting him work on Saturdays.
The commission has recommended that Spa Orazen and its owner Iris Gressy compensate hair stylist Richard Zilberg $17,500 in damages ($12,500 for loss of income and $5,000 for moral damages) and that Gressy pay an additional $2,500 for punitive damages to Zilberg for intentional violation of his civil rights.

Zilberg worked at Spa Orazen throughout the fall of 2011 and winter of 2012 for about 30 hours a week, including Saturdays. But that spring, he says his boss, Iris Gressy, began to suggest that he should not be working Saturdays because it is Shabbat, the traditional day of rest for observant Jews.

In July 2012, Zilberg says he was told he would no longer be scheduled on Saturdays, the busiest day of his work week, although the salon remained open Saturdays and non-Jewish employees were allowed to work Saturdays. Another Jewish employee was told she could not work on Saturdays, he claims.

I come from a long line of Jewish people and I love my faith but it is 2015 and I can choose how I want to practise

“I come from a long line of Jewish people and I love my faith but it is 2015 and I can choose how I want to practise,” Zilberg said at a news conference called by the Centre for Research Action on Race Relations (CRARR), a civic rights organization that brought the case to the Human Rights Commission on Zilberg’s behalf.

Zilberg told some of his regular Saturday clients that his employer would not let him work on Shabbat because he is Jewish. One of those clients, who is Jewish, complained to the owner of the salon on Aug. 15, 2012 that the policy was “mishegas”, a Yiddish word for “crazy”. An argument ensued and Zilberg was fired on the spot, he said.

He eventually got a job at a nearby salon, Intercoupe Coiffure and Spa on Décarie Blvd., but he worked fewer hours and had to rebuild his clientele from scratch.

In December 2012, Zilberg decided to file a complaint with the Human Rights Commission, with the help of CRARR.

“I couldn’t let go of it. Every night I would go to bed and I’d be angry,” He said. “They took from me my choice to practise my faith as I see fit.”

A commission investigator examined the complaint, and the Commission determined that the evidence obtained was sufficient to submit the case to a court of law. The Commission recommended that Spa Orazen and Gressy compensate Zilberg, rather than let the case proceed to the Human Rights Tribunal.

The respondents had until Oct. 23, 2015 to compensate Zilberg, to avoid a court case.

“That didn’t happen so we’ve been advised by the Human Rights Commission lawyers that the case will go to the Human Rights Tribunal,” said Fo Niemi, executive director of CRARR.

The Human Rights Tribunal is a specialized tribunal of Court of Quebec judges and assessors which has jurisdiction to hear and rule on complaints concerning discrimination prohibited under the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. A lawyer from the Human Rights Commission will now represent Zilberg at the Tribunal.

Reached at her salon Tuesday, Gressy told the Montreal Gazette she fired Zilberg because he was irresponsible. She claims she did not ban him from working Saturdays because he was Jewish but because he bickered with another employee who worked Saturdays.

“I can’t be racist against this man because I’m Jewish myself,” she said, adding that she herself sometimes works Saturdays.

She said she will not pay the recommended compensation. “Why would I pay for something I am being falsely accused of? I am going to court. I’m going to fight this.”

Zilberg said he may have been late for a shift or two in the ten months he worked at the salon, but said he was not fired for being irresponsible.

“It bothers me that she doesn’t acknowledge that I was forbidden because of being Jewish to be in there on Saturdays to work … I was fired after a client insulted her because of this policy,” he said.

Niemi noted that the case can be resolved out of court at any time. If the Human Rights Tribunal rules that discrimination has occurred, the Tribunal can impose whatever compensation or remedy it sees fit.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/forcing-jewish-hair-stylist-to-take-saturdays-off-is-grounds-for-human-rights-complaint-quebec-commission 

Jews can show Christians how to live as a minority: Marmur

Interesting reflections:

I thought of that encounter recently when I read an article in the American-Jewish online journal Mosaic by Bruce Abramson under the title, “How Jews can help Christians learn to succeed as a minority.” What the Canadian clergy group anticipated long ago has become commonplace today in the United States and in many other countries.

Though Abramson’s interest is in law and public policy, not theology, his insights will be helpful to all who wish to understand what’s happening to mainstream Christianity. In his words, Christians are now facing the reality of being “but one more of America’s many minority groups.” As a result, “the sudden need for an effective defence will take them into terrain that Jews have occupied most of American history.”

Abramson distinguishes between “the classical liberal preference for freedom and the rule of law” and “the progressive preference for equality and justice.” Though the two don’t seem to be mutually exclusive, he appears to opt for the traditional liberal American opposition to government infringing on individual rights over “the progressive preference for ‘positive’ rights like housing, food and health care that someone must provide.” Most Europeans and Canadians are likely to advocate the latter way because it cares for people least able to fend for themselves.

Though the “liberal” stress on individual rights is essential for their survival in the Diaspora, Jews are nowadays also seeking allies to champion “progressive” government programs that provide basic needs for citizens. Theological differences are often set aside in favour of social action advocacy that brings together different religious groups. These groups live their faith as interfaith despite their divergent theologies and join forces to be effective despite their minority status.

When I spoke to the Canadian clergy group I suggested that being a minority shouldn’t alarm them: it may be bad for wielding power but it’s good for practicing religion. Think of the havoc caused by the might of the Church for much of its history, say in persecuting minorities such as Jews, or the devastating effect today in countries where all-powerful Islamic clerics have the last word.

Ironically, contemporary Judaism in Israel is now also struggling with the quest for power by some of its exponents. Orthodoxy that mixes utopian Messianism with radical nationalism is endangering Judaism in the Jewish state. Faith is the foundation of Judaism, but fanaticism is its sworn enemy. Hence the laudable attempts by “liberal” and “progressive” minorities in Israel to champion the separation of religion and state for the sake of the integrity of both.

Seen in this light, the loss of power by religious bodies is the great opportunity for exponents of genuine faith to act as true witnesses to God’s redeeming power. The weakening of ephemeral institutional clout that to some seems so alarming is really religion’s great opportunity to advance the sovereignty of the Kingdom of God on Earth.

UK Catholic schools to shun Islam in new GCSE courses 

Odd, given the common roots of Christianity, Judaism and Islam:

Catholic schools will no longer teach Islam as part of GCSE religious studies, but will be directed to teach Christianity and Judaism.

Changes to the new religious studies GCSE specification mean schools must teach two religions as part of the course, with each weighted equally in the exam.

The Bishops Conference has decreed that all Catholic secondary schools teach Judaism alongside Christianity at GCSE, regardless of whether teachers are trained to teach other religions, such as Islam.

The 2011 census shows that Judaism is the fifth most popular religion in England, with 0.5 per cent of the population saying that it is their faith. This compares with 5 per cent identifying themselves as Islamic.

A teacher at a Catholic secondary school, who wished to remain anonymous, told Schools Week the decision was made for purely “academic” reasons. “There is a real need for understanding of Islam, but . . . the argument coming from the dioceses is that we shouldn’t sway with the times.”

According to information on the Catholic Education Service (CES) website, the body overseeing all Catholic schools, 2,156 Catholic primary and secondary schools in England educate more than 800,000 pupils.

Approximately 30 per cent of children educated at the school are of no faith or other faiths.

The teacher continued: “The bishops say Judaism is an academic study of religion rather than a social study, however, we would argue that Islam is both.”

Source: Catholic schools to shun Islam in new GCSE courses | Schools Week

ICYMI: ‘Islam and the Future of Tolerance’ and ‘Not in God’s Name’ – The New York Times

Irshad Manji on the need for respectful discourse:

Enter Jonathan Sacks, a former chief rabbi of the British Commonwealth. In his sobering yet soul-stirring new book, “Not in God’s Name,” Sacks confronts “politicized religious extremism” and diagnoses that cancer crisply: “The 21st ­century has left us with a maximum of choice and a minimum of meaning. Religion has returned because it is hard to live without meaning.” Given that “no society has survived for long without either a religion or a substitute for religion,” and given that believers are proliferating, Sacks predicts that the next 100 years will be more religious than the last. Bottom line: Any cure for violence in God’s name will have to work with religion as a fact of life.

That is where Sacks’s brilliance as a theologian radiates. He thinks two matters need tackling. There is “identity without universality,” or solidarity only with one’s group. Then there is “universality without identity,” the unbearable lightness of humans in a transactional but not transcendent world. Sacks wants to preserve the joy of participating in something bigger than the self while averting the hostility to strangers that goes with tribal ­membership.

He attempts this balance through an ingenious rereading of Genesis. Sacks’ proposition: Genesis contains two covenants rather than one. The first focuses on justice, which is impartial and thus universal in application. The second covenant emphasizes love, which is exquisitely particular and personal. In a ­showdown, justice overrides love. Analyzing parables and sibling rivalries in the Bible, Sacks concludes that decency toward the misfit, even to the infidel, takes precedence over loyalty to your own.

This should hearten Sam Harris, who despises the tendency of Muslims (and others) to stick up for fellow believers, especially when they act like “psychopaths.” Still, I have to wonder if Harris and his disciples will put stock in any reinterpretation, no matter how learned. After all, Harris opines that to reform religion is to read scripture in “the most acrobatic” terms. Sacks turns the tables on such skepticism, observing that “fundamentalists and today’s atheists” both ignore “the single most important fact about a sacred text, namely that its meaning is not self-evident.”

My own skepticism is about whether reformist interpretations can outpace regressive readings that tap into primal fears and gain traction quickly. Sacks argues, “We must put the same long-term planning into strengthening religious freedom as was put into the spread of religious extremism.” That implies creating a matrix of schools, policies and campaigns to teach reformist perspectives. But as he admits early on, “decades of anti-racist legislation, interfaith dialogue and Holocaust education” have not prevented the mess we are in. Why would it be different now?

Here is why. The Islamic State’s savagery against Muslims offers hope for taking power politics out of Islam, eventually achieving the mosque-state separation that Nawaz views as central to reform. Sacks gives historical comparisons to justify his hope. Europe’s bloody Reformation wars showed that big religion could not be relied on to protect the religious: “Western Christianity had to learn what Jews had been forced to discover in antiquity: how to survive without power. . . . You do not learn to disbelieve in power when you are fighting an enemy, even when you lose. You do when, with a shock of recognition, you find yourself using it against the members of your own people.”

Meanwhile, back at liberal democracy’s ranch, we must “insist on the simplest moral principle of all. . . . If you seek respect, you must give respect.” This does not mean always having to agree, but it does mean viewing one another as worthy of candid, constructive engagement. On that front, Sam Harris and Maajid Nawaz are role models. The Lord works in mysterious, perhaps acrobatic, ways.

Source: ‘Islam and the Future of Tolerance’ and ‘Not in God’s Name’ – The New York Times

After attacks, France walks narrow line on Islam in schools

Secularism as religion – not providing pork alternatives:

This was the week that schoolchildren in one Paris suburb got a stark choice at the cafeteria: pork or nothing at all.

Chilly-Mazarin joined a handful of towns run by right-leaning mayors which have ended a practice of offering a substitute for students forbidden by their religion from eating pork.

The decisions have come amid increased discussions in France about its secularist ideals following the terror attacks in January that were blamed on French Islamic extremists — a discussion critics say has been hijacked by anti-Muslim forces on the far right.

On Wednesday, the Socialist government issued unusually direct criticism against the schools that have ended the pork substitutes as it was training dozens of appointees to mediate tense questions about the role of religion in schools and in public life.

In back-to-back speeches, the education and interior ministers walked the country’s increasingly narrow line on religion in schools, with the unspoken threat of Islamic extremism hovering over the auditorium in Paris’ tony 16th arrondissement.

Education Minister Najat Vallaud-Belkacem said teachers at schools have to impart the secularist ideal, but “not a secularism that is a declaration of war against a religion, as we see when a mayor here or there decides that in the name of a so-called secular ideal, children will be forced to eat pork or skip school lunch.”

France forbids “ostentatious” symbols of religion in schools and government buildings, a mandate generally interpreted to mean Muslim head scarves and one that includes parents who accompany school outings wearing them. Schools take seriously their mission to educate the next generation of secular French citizens, never more so than since the January terror attacks.

Source: After attacks, France walks narrow line on Islam in schools – US News

Islam in Britain: David Cameron goes too far in equating theology and terror | The Economist

Worth reading:

Nobody could deny that Britain’s madrassas are a huge, under-regulated social phenomenon (about 250,000 children attend around 2,000 such institutions) and that at worst, they are dreadful. In Birmingham last month, a 60-year-old imam and his son, a fellow Islam teacher, were both jailed for a year after pleading guilty to beating a ten-year-old child for his supposed failures in religious classes. It is certainly a bit crazy that up to now, “supplementary schools” have not been subject to the sort of inspection regime that has long been applied (albeit rather too leniently, until recently) to all full-time schools, including faith-based ones.

Mr Cameron’s words will reassure citizens whose sympathies teeter between the Conservatives and parties further to the right; but they will be badly received in the hard-core Muslim areas of British cities, like Bradford and Birmingham, even among those who agree that their communities suffer from all sorts of pathologies, from forced marriage to domestic violence to self-segregation to intolerance, that badly need to be tackled.

And the main reason, says Bradford imam Alyas Karmani, is not so much the contents of the prime minister’s statement, but the context; and in the particular the implication that by teaching, sometimes rather badly and brutally, a fairly purist form of Islam, madrassas are incubators for jihadist violence. What Muslim listeners to the speech will have noticed is the fact that Mr Cameron’s reference to madrassas came immediately after a segment deploring the fact that British boys and girls are being lured off to Syria to fight for the terrorists of Islamic State. “People do not become terrorists from a standing start,” said the Tory leader, after pledging to “take on extremism in all its forms, violent and non-violent.”  Both openly and subliminally, he was implying that deeply traditional Islam is a step on the path to terrorism.

And there, precisely, lies the nub of the deep argument between the British political class and many of the country’s Muslim leaders, especially those who are close to the grass roots. In parts—not all—of the former camp, it has become an ideological axiom that ultra-traditional social attitudes (on gender and sexuality, for example) and terrorism are points on the same spectrum, and not very far apart. But there are many Muslims (including those who resolutely oppose terror, and don’t much like ultra-traditionalism either) who insist that this is simply wrong. On the contrary, they say, social and theological conservatism is one thing, and sympathy for terrorism is another; they need to be separated not conflated.

Whatever their (often dire) failings, British madrassas are not an especially significant factor in incubating terrorism, insists Mr Karmani who knows the Muslim scene in London and many northern cities. The sort of youngster who is tempted to quit Bradford for Syria is often the product of a secular, non-madrassa-going family who is led into fanaticism by material on the internet. As evidence against against any link between hard-line theology and terror, he says that hardly any of the British youngsters who have left for Syria have been products of the purist Deobandi school of south Asian Islam, which accounts for a lot of Muslim education in Britain. As another prominent British Muslim adds, madrassas (especially those attached to well-known mosques) are the last place where a rogue teacher would try to find a jihadist warrior; they are watched by too many people and any such recruiting drive would be quickly found out.

Of course, while there appears to be little to no link to violent extremism, from an integration perspective, such ‘hard-line theology’ is hardly helpful.

Source: Islam in Britain: David Cameron goes too far in equating theology and terror | The Economist

Religious Freedom Report Says Anti-Semitism Remains Global Problem – Breaking News – Forward.com

Highlights from the U.S. State Department’s annual International Religious Freedom Report for 2014:

The 17th annual report, which was released Wednesday, noted that anti-Semitic incidents rose significantly in Western Europe during the 2014 Gaza War between Israel and Hamas as well as in eastern Ukrainian regions when Russian rebels forcefully annexed part of the territory. The number of incidents overall in France doubled last year, to 851, over 2013.

The report, which analyzed levels of religious freedoms in regions across the globe, also found in Israel “an increase in interethnic tension and violence involving different religious communities.”

In addition to the 2014 Gaza conflict, the report cited the attack on a synagogue in Jerusalem that left five dead along with the kidnapping and killing of three Jewish teenagers before the war as incidents that heightened tensions between Muslims and Jews in Israel during the year.

However, the report emphasized that “because religion, ethnicity, and nationality are closely linked in the Israel-Palestinian conflict, it was difficult to categorize many societal actions against specific groups as being solely based on religious identity.”

The report was the first presided over by Rabbi David Saperstein, who in January became the first non-Christian to hold the post of U.S. ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom.

“If you look at the Pew reports that I believe are a year behind our reports, over the last several years there’s been a steady increase in the percentage of people who live in countries that … have serious restrictions on religious freedom,” Saperstein said at a news conference Wednesday. “At the same time … we’ve seen enormous expansion of interfaith efforts on almost every continent to try and address the challenges.”

Source: Religious Freedom Report Says Anti-Semitism Remains Global Problem – Breaking News – Forward.com