Dominic Asquith

"Between saying and doing, many a pair of shoes is worn out"

There are some things that can make you irrationally angry.  This week it was a photograph of an Indonesian student throwing a shoe at a poster of Obama entitled “Kick Obama Out”.   Apparently there is a movement among the Muslim students in Indonesia to block Obama’s forthcoming visit to their country because he hasn’t delivered on his Cairo speech last June.

Why did I get angry?  After all, Obama’s not my President.  Why bother if someone wants to insult him? And may be Obama hasn’t delivered as much as so many hoped for after the Cairo speech. 

I suppose what angered me was the self-important, unconstructive and ugly-mannered behaviour of someone determined not to engage in dialogue, not to hear another view.  If as a Muslim student you aren’t satisfied with Obama’s performance, then you should make use of the opportunity of his visit to your country to engage him in debate and put your views to him.  Obama seems to enjoy this sort of public debate.  It strikes me as idiotic to prevent such a debate. 

And it seems to reveal a human characteristic that is fairly common of blaming others for your problems.  The latest UN Arab Human Development Report makes interesting reading on this.  It is a report written about the region by a team of independent Arab scholars, policy analysts and practitioners who are from the region.  It is about what it calls human security, which it defines as the liberation of human beings from those intense, prolonged and comprehensive threats to which their lives and freedom are vulnerable.  As usual, it is an honest document. 

The first report in 2002 caused a big stir in the Arab world.  This one has caused not a ripple.  Odd, because it has some troubling findings about the deterioration of rule of law, accountability and governance, the increase in under-nourished people and youth unemployment – which is double the world average.   The problem, says the report, is that the modern Arab state has failed to develop a sense of citizenship among its nationals.  Many citizens look abroad for protection rather than to their own community.  This “colonial era mentality” was nowhere more striking than in the massive attention paid to waiting for the new Middle East policies of the Obama administration.

What got me out of my anger were two examples I then came across of young people taking responsibility into their own hands for trying to change their environment.  One involved an Egyptian student from Al Azhar, whom the British Council has been helping learn English, who went to Barcelona to take part in a conference about how to make real progress in social and cultural cooperation among Mediterranean countries.

There are high profile speakers who go to this event.  The Al Azhar student (whom I know well – he has even interviewed me) made such an impressive presentation that he became the authority every one wanted to talk to about how best to build partnerships.

The second example is a group of young people, from UK, Egypt, Bosnia, Yemen, Morocco and the Netherlands who will be working for three months in the community in Sharqiyya – before spending another three months doing the same in Britain.  This is a programme organised by the British Council called Global Exchange. 

I have met previous groups of youth who have been following this programme – in Minya and Assiut.  They are dynamic, contributing to and trying to shape their surroundings – just like the Iraqis who turned out to vote again, defying those who want to blow them up.

What a refreshing alternative they provide to that shoe-throwing student in Indonesia!

Posted at 10:06 11 March 2010 by Dominic Asquith  |  Comments[1]

Do as you would be done by

The result of the Swiss referendum about whether those building mosques in Switzerland should be allowed to erect minarets has raised again the question in the minds of many whether this is "proof" of an inevitable conflict between the West and Islam.  Those who want to emphasise the differences between Islam and western civilisation have jumped on the result to argue that there can be no coexistence. What has struck me, however, is how thoughtful, in many cases self-critical, the commentary has been in the media. This is important, because how Muslims react - whether in the West or in countries where there is a majority of Muslims - will influence the future relationship.  
 
Fawzia al Ashmawy, the head of the Egyptian community in Switzerland and of the Euro-Muslim Institute, was clear in her advice to governments and religious establishments. Don't interfere or exaggerate, she said.  Muslims in Switzerland enjoyed their rights and wanted to be left to solve the problem without unhelpful demagogic statements.  It was the price of living in a "genuine democracy".   Muslims weren't being prevented from worshipping.  H A Hellyer (a professor of law at the American University of Cairo and an associate fellow at Warwick University), who is an expert on Muslim communities in Europe, commented that Muslim populations in the West "are in the heart of modernity and understand it far better than their Eastern counterparts."
 
Alaa al Aswany understandably argued that, while the referendum might be the result of a democratic process, it nevertheless contravened human rights principles.  Why in a democratic country did a majority of those who voted want to deny only to Muslims the right to build a visible symbol of their faith? Again understandably, he was worried about the reaction elsewhere in Europe, drawing attention to the apparent support of the French President for the referendum's result.
 
However, he went on to pose the key question: why did the Swiss vote as they did? His answer was that it reflected a fear of Islam in Swiss society and that Muslims were to a great extent responsible for that fear. "Some terrorist criminals, such as Usama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri, have distorted the image of Islam in the minds of millions of westerners."
 
This was a theme developed by Mustafa Kamel el Sayed, who had spent ten years in Switzerland so can be assumed to understand the culture.  "We must admit," he said, "that the conduct of some political Islam currents has contributed to portraying a negative picture of Islam." He listed as examples: bombings in Paris, Madrid and London; 40,000 women punished for wearing trousers in Sudan; depriving women of their civil rights in most Gulf countries.
 
 Almost four hundred years ago, the British poet Milton wrote of hypocrisy that it was "the only evil that walks invisible, except to God alone".  One of the outcomes of this debate has been to expose some of the hypocrisy that exists in communities, in Europe and outside.  Hypocrisy and the failure to apply standards consistently is the most prominent common feature of those who have adopted extreme views in this debate.  Personally I believe it is the main barrier to understanding in what has been called the intercultural dialogue. We are all vulnerable to the accusation.   It makes no sense to criticise intolerance in some majority Muslim countries of religious freedom, and then undermine those principles at home.  But I also believe that hypocrisy is a fault less common in the young than the old.  Which is why I agree with those who have argued that continuing that dialogue just between clerics and intellectuals on both sides, while necessary, is insufficient.  We need to expand it by including a much greater variety of society.
 
I have given examples of some of the thoughtful comments I have read.   All of them were from people who have first hand experience of a society outside the one they were born into.  There needs to be a thoughtful response from Europe also.   And there has been.   The Presidency of the European Union, the European Commission against Racism, the Vatican, Amnesty International have all criticised the referendum.
 
However, it is not enough just to condemn the referendum result; we have to try and understand the reasons for it.  Many have identified a "crisis of identity" there, as Europeans see their own traditions and culture having to make room for others'.   In a recent opinion poll carried out by a French newspaper, 54% of French people think Islam is incompatible with their society.  But the implications don't just affect those living in France.  They affect us all.  Assertion of rights by either party to a dispute requires extraordinary sensitivity.  Maintaining the balance between respect for a culture you are entering and acceptance of those who come and make their lives in your society is a challenge that confronts each one of us every day -  whether we are among those who move around the world to make a living, or those who remain in their country of birth throughout their life.   The principle that must guide us is the title of this piece.
 
I can't pretend Britain is perfect  in this respect, but it seems to be making progress.  An opinion poll just published, which the Soros foundation has spent the past two years compiling, reports that 78% of British Muslims identified themselves as British, a figure which rose to 94% among those who were born in the UK.  The equivalent figure for France was 49% and for Germany 23%. 

Posted at 11:13 17 December 2009 by Dominic Asquith  |  Comments[4]

West and Islam: understanding each other

The attack by Major Nidal Malik Hassan, the US Army psychiatrist, on his fellow soldiers in Fort Hood has been used by some to raise questions about the relationship between Islam and "the West".

Egypt's Grand Mufti wrote that Major Hassan is representative neither of Muslims nor Islam.  He went on to state that it served no purpose to blame an entire religion because of the acts of what he called a "non-well" individual.

I completely agree.  There is a deeply important debate we need to have about how the West and Islam view each other.  But we have to be careful how we use the case of Major Hassan in that debate.  We don't even know clearly what his motive or state of mind was.  It may be tempting for some to use a particular case to prove an argument they are trying to make.  But I'm suspicious of the motives of those who do so.  They usually want to cause trouble, specifically to set societies against each other or to argue that a clash between them is inevitable.  They also usually have a closed mind - they have made up their minds and won't be persuaded to think differently.

An single act in itself does not prove a thesis or signal a general attitude.    The tragic murder of Marwa Sherbini shocked us all.  However, I argued at the time that it was not helpful to charge the whole of Germany or Europe or the West with the crime.  The reaction to an individual act, however, may be revealing about attitudes.  Brutal acts of violence require us not just to condemn them, but also to review how our reaction has been perceived by others. That requires understanding.  

This week and last I have been very aware of groups here in Egypt who are trying to develop that understanding.  A group of the brightest students from Al Azhar, who are learning English at a centre which the British Council has helped to set up, came to interview me today.  They were interested in whether Islam and the West were heading for a collision.  They did not think so - nor do I.  Indeed, they saw it as part of their duty to help explain the two cultures to each other so that the trouble-makers could not exploit people's fears and ignorance.  

Next week, a group of six, young Egyptian journalists are going over for a week to Britain to talk to Muslims there and to hear about their experiences.  As a result, they will better understand how a Muslim community in a majority non-Muslim country view themselves and their surroundings - and foreign Muslim countries.  I will be really interested to hear what their impressions are when they return.  

Modern technology allows people to share their views with a wide audience.  Views that are shaped by distrust and prejudice have greater power to damage than ever before.  However, the same technology allows people with real understanding to communicate more effectively.  Creating open minds and building up capabilities to project intelligent debate is what we must promote. Now more than ever we need people with the courage and sensitivity to interpret between societies. The importance of what those young students and journalists are doing cannot be exaggerated.

Posted at 15:33 11 November 2009 by Dominic Asquith  |  Comments[0]

The courage to debate

Thank you all for your comments on my previous blog about the murder of Marwa El Sherbini - especially those who are posting comments for the first time on a blog.
 
There are some common themes.  For example the role of the news media, which are at fault both for ignoring the case of Marwa, but also for stirring up rage.  Some have referred to the role of the internet as a forum where freedom of speech is abused and insulting language is promoted.  These channels have allowed troublemakers to argue that a whole community (Germany - even the whole “West”) is guilty of what was an individual act. 
 
Others asked whether the religious institutions, mosque and church, should not be playing a greater role in moderating reactions.  Similarly the NGOs.  We should also be targeting youth, particularly at schools, to educate them in what we call the “soft skills” - how to communicate in a way that respects the position of the other person.

There is a further theme that emerges from the blog comments: it is not hate that Muslims feel for the West, but anger.  And the anger comes from a strong feeling that Muslims are victims and are insecure living in a non-Muslim society.  Only by making a great noise will those who ignore them feel their pain.  The “West” does not really care: indeed, focusing on the specific case of Marwa just proves that the much bigger picture of Muslims suffering (Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine etc) is blurred and ignored.  What made me saddest was the comment: “I would really love to see some of us smile again.”
 
All those comments are true.  News media will make more money selling stories of hate and violence than friendship and peace - so don’t count on them being allies of moderation.  Those who want to use mass communication to promote a message of peace will have to compete with those who want to misuse the internet to promote violence.  And insecurity on one side breeds insecurity on the other. Look no further than Israel and Palestine.  As Kissinger once said, “the desire of one power for absolute security means absolute insecurity for all others”. 
 
Hypocrisy is part of the problem.  It is dishonest, betrays a closed mind and is often an excuse for cowardice - not daring to face the reality.   I was therefore genuinely excited by a conversation with the Rector of Al Azhar this week.  He’s just returned from a visit to Britain.  He is conscious of Al Azhar’s role as the manarat al ilm, as the beacon of scholarship.  He met many in Britain, in the best universities, among the NGOs, in the mosques who wanted to collaborate in building understanding, particularly among young people, to counter those who seem determined to promote intolerance. 
 
It made me proud to read how bloggers who had studied in Britain had been welcomed.  But how can one ever protect against an individual act of wickedness?  Well, the best answer is what you suggested - build the experience from a young age of open but respectful debate, without insisting that you are right and the other wrong.  I think that is what could come from this recent visit by the Rector.  I also felt I had something to smile about.

Posted at 12:52 22 July 2009 by Dominic Asquith  |  Comments[3]