Setting personal controversies aside, the Naples conference «Giving voice to democratic Muslims» brings three objective issues to light: the nature of dialogue between the West and Islam; the identity of «democratic Muslims»; Israel as a value parameter. In this regard, I agree with the opinions expressed by Pope Benedict XVI and by the Head of State Giorgio Napolitano. As far as the nature of dialogue is concerned, you have to decide if you want to see dialogue as an empty container to which you add the most conflicting opinions casually and without discrimination, letting them interact, or if it is supposed to be a path undertaken with the awareness of a common goal and accepting a set of rules, shared principles and values.
For decades the West and the Church have cultivated towards Islam a perception of dialogue as a tabula rasa. For the sake of short term interests, formal handshakes were allowed to prevail over an exchange of views with a long term outlook on the founding values of our humanity. It was thanks to this Pope and his historic speech in Regensburg last Sept. 12 th, that the Church finally clarified that correct and constructive dialogue must be founded on the acceptance of truth, the acknowledgement of differences, the refusal of violence and on shared absolute and transcendental values, starting with the sacredness of the individual's life and dignity. Opposite this ethical concept of dialogue, the Naples conference seems to prefer an approach that abandons responsibility. The Pro-rector of Naples' University of Oriental Studies, Augusto Guarino, stated «it is not the University's responsibility to judge, but to put intellectuals in a position in which they can communicate with each other».
So, no evaluation of the merits of their ideas. On this matter, Rector Pasquale Ciriello said: «The criteria with which you assess the level of democracy of a person cannot be determined with an ax, otherwise you end up communicating only with like-minded people». On the other hand, John Esposito, professor of Religion and International Affairs at Georgetown University expressed the following view: «Secular fundamentalism is a neoconservative position that denies an essential part of dialogue, namely free and open discussion, irrespective of whether or not you agree. If you choose dialogue then you sit people at a table. Magdi Allam wants to choose those people". This characterization of the identity of «democratic Muslims» clashes with the reality of the ideology of hatred, of violence and death that animates their profound aversion to Israel . In this regard, I fully share the position expressed by Napolitano on Holocaust Remembrance Day «against any revival of Antisemitism. Even when it is dressed up as Antizionism. Because Antizionism denies the inspiring source of the Hebrew state, the reasons for its birth, yesterday, and for its security, today, regardless of the individual governments that alternate at the helm of Israel ».
I therefore wonder how Ciriello, the Rector of the University of Oriental Studies, can speak of «ascertained democracy» with regard to those who, like Ramadan, deviously deny Israel's right to exist stating «my wish is for a single State that welcomes Jews, Christians, Muslims and other faiths and beliefs on the basis of equality before the law and shared citizenship». I wonder how the sociologist Stefano Allevi, referring to Rached Ghannouchi's decision not to take part in the Naples conference, can speak of a «defeat of democracy» after Ghannouchi declared: «There are no civilians in Israel . Men, women and children are all reserve soldiers and can therefore be killed». I also wonder how John Esposito can support the notion that Youssef Quaradawi «reinterpreted Islamic principles in order to reconcile Islam with democratization and multi-party political systems» after the latter justified the killing of the fetuses of Israeli mothers «because once they're grown they will join the Israeli army». It strikes me as obvious that, more than ever, Israel is the ethical parameter to be used in assessing the level of democracy of Muslims?.
Meanwhile, in Israel, a Druze becomes speaker of the Israeli Knesset. Talk to me about proportionality when we see a Jew in the parliament of a Muslim country. (Thanks, Stefania!)
For decades the West and the Church have cultivated towards Islam a perception of dialogue as a tabula rasa. For the sake of short term interests, formal handshakes were allowed to prevail over an exchange of views with a long term outlook on the founding values of our humanity. It was thanks to this Pope and his historic speech in Regensburg last Sept. 12 th, that the Church finally clarified that correct and constructive dialogue must be founded on the acceptance of truth, the acknowledgement of differences, the refusal of violence and on shared absolute and transcendental values, starting with the sacredness of the individual's life and dignity. Opposite this ethical concept of dialogue, the Naples conference seems to prefer an approach that abandons responsibility. The Pro-rector of Naples' University of Oriental Studies, Augusto Guarino, stated «it is not the University's responsibility to judge, but to put intellectuals in a position in which they can communicate with each other».
So, no evaluation of the merits of their ideas. On this matter, Rector Pasquale Ciriello said: «The criteria with which you assess the level of democracy of a person cannot be determined with an ax, otherwise you end up communicating only with like-minded people». On the other hand, John Esposito, professor of Religion and International Affairs at Georgetown University expressed the following view: «Secular fundamentalism is a neoconservative position that denies an essential part of dialogue, namely free and open discussion, irrespective of whether or not you agree. If you choose dialogue then you sit people at a table. Magdi Allam wants to choose those people". This characterization of the identity of «democratic Muslims» clashes with the reality of the ideology of hatred, of violence and death that animates their profound aversion to Israel . In this regard, I fully share the position expressed by Napolitano on Holocaust Remembrance Day «against any revival of Antisemitism. Even when it is dressed up as Antizionism. Because Antizionism denies the inspiring source of the Hebrew state, the reasons for its birth, yesterday, and for its security, today, regardless of the individual governments that alternate at the helm of Israel ».
I therefore wonder how Ciriello, the Rector of the University of Oriental Studies, can speak of «ascertained democracy» with regard to those who, like Ramadan, deviously deny Israel's right to exist stating «my wish is for a single State that welcomes Jews, Christians, Muslims and other faiths and beliefs on the basis of equality before the law and shared citizenship». I wonder how the sociologist Stefano Allevi, referring to Rached Ghannouchi's decision not to take part in the Naples conference, can speak of a «defeat of democracy» after Ghannouchi declared: «There are no civilians in Israel . Men, women and children are all reserve soldiers and can therefore be killed». I also wonder how John Esposito can support the notion that Youssef Quaradawi «reinterpreted Islamic principles in order to reconcile Islam with democratization and multi-party political systems» after the latter justified the killing of the fetuses of Israeli mothers «because once they're grown they will join the Israeli army». It strikes me as obvious that, more than ever, Israel is the ethical parameter to be used in assessing the level of democracy of Muslims?.
Meanwhile, in Israel, a Druze becomes speaker of the Israeli Knesset. Talk to me about proportionality when we see a Jew in the parliament of a Muslim country. (Thanks, Stefania!)
0 comments:
Post a Comment