Chapter 3
Case Studies
First: Working Papers
- The Status of Religious
Freedoms in Pakistan
Father James Channan*
Although the
Pakistani nation was essentially created as a country for
Muslims, its founding father Mohamed Ali Jenah, strove to
establish it on a secular base. Mr. Jenah thought that
religion had no connection to the state and should remain
every individual’s personal faith, he also considered
inhabitants of the state the citizens of one country
enjoying the same rights and having to perform the same
duties.
On March 24, 1947 a new law
was ratified, the law stated that Pakistan will be a state
for Muslims but did not mention Islam, it was quite clear
that there was complete separation of religion and state,
and that citizens were treated on an equal footing. But in
1949 things changed when a new law was adopted, which gave
Islam a bigger standing as the source of legislation, all
state legislation had to confirm to Islamic principles, this
new affected the entire Pakistani population.
Three different
Constitutions were adopted in 1956, 1962 and 1973, but later
military governors cancelled all three Constitutions.
The 1973 Constitution, which was issued during the
Zulfikar Ali Bhuto era, stated that Pakistan is an
Islamic country and that Islam was the state religion.
Then came Diaa El Hakim and Diaa El Hak who turn
Pakistan into a very radical Islamic country.
*The Religious Institute, Pakistan.
They
introduced the system of separation of electoral districts,
which required Muslims to elect Muslims candidates, while
Christians could only elect Christian candidates, according
to this system the entire country was divided according to
sectarian and religious lines, without any consideration for
the need to achieve coexistence and harmony between the
followers of various sects and religions.
Members of minorities felt they were treated like second
class citizens, some cases of human rights violations
occurred, like Muslim parents killing their daughter who had
embrace Christianity, while the Priest who had helped her
was persecuted and had to flee. Urdu media channels do not
support minorities, and they are mostly publish reports
antagonistic to them, but the English speaking Media adopts
a somewhat different policy.
The
fundamentalist trend increased in education, religious
schools dedicated exclusively to Muslims increased from 800
schools in 1979 to around 20 000 schools play a powerful
role in Pakistani life, and their activities should be
closely monitored.
Since
General Pervis Mosharaf came to power in Pakistan he
introduced some changes in government policy, as he applies
the edicts of Islam in a liberal and progressive manner, in
addition he wants to deal with all citizens with some
equality, for example, President Musharaf cancelled the
system of separation in electoral districts, and instead
applied a system of common districts. He affirmed that all
educational curricula taught in religious schools would be
reviewed, and that focus will be on realizing equality and
non-discrimination in dealing with the followers of other
religions.
He also
imposed a ban on all groups with fundamentalist
inclinations; such groups advocate not applying the
principle of equality and support bigotry and extremism.
Finally, I say that in spite of all the problems that I have
mentioned earlier there are now in Pakistan some indications
that encourage an optimistic outlook.
- The French model
Father Jean Marie Gaudeul*
I tried through this paper
to describe the legal framework under
Which live Christians and Muslims in
France. The main idea is that the Government in France is
secular and unbiased, and does not recognize except mere
citizens regardless of their sectarian, ethnic or religious
affiliations. This is the reason we have no census of the
actual number of Christians or Muslims in France.
In the first part of the
paper I relied on information given to me by Dr. Layla Abou
Bakr, the current President of the Islamic Council Muslims
in France, who offered me a comprehensive review of the
status of Muslims in France. I endeavored to explain how
such situations evolved in France until we got to the point
where we now have the national Council for Muslims, although
this Council is not elected by Muslims but rather by people
who occupy leadership positions in France. It can be said
that the Council does not really represent the Muslim
population in France, but represents the people responsible
managing houses of worship in our country.
In reality we faced many
problems in this context, like defining the number and
location of the houses of worship, and the procedures that
should be followed when establishing a new house of worship.
While in relation to the position of
Muslim Imams, the French law had put a job hierarchy similar
to the one adopted by the Catholic clergy, which caused many
difficulties.
The issue of Muslim burial
plots represents one of the main problems that we face in
France, as naturally Muslims are buried in graves built to
face the direction of Mecca, but French law stipulates that
no distinctive marking of a religious nature appear on
graves.
Finally a law was adopted allowing some graves in public
cemeteries
*Secretary for relations with Islam,
France.
To be built facing towards “the correct
direction”, and to be available to all French citizens.
Thus the law always strives
to consider the current facts at hand in reality but without
abandoning the main principle: the government and the
citizens.
We are now facing a
delicate situation in relation to the field of education;
especially the issue of Muslim girls wearing the veil in
their schools, as a law was adopted defining the type of
clothes that girls should wear in elementary and secondary
schools. The law was problems due to discrimination or
mutiny conducted by some students.
From the Christian point of
view the Church had opposed this law, but public opinion
played a decisive role in pushing and approving the law.
As you know have priests in
the Army and in jails while Muslims do not have the same
right to a Muslim cleric, and now they ask to be treated
like the followers of other religions.
The last part of the paper
explains the effect of international problems on the spirit
prevailing among various groups in France.
While the Palestinian problem causes
feelings of antagonism to often flare up between French Jews
and Muslims, the matter completely differed in relation to
the position taken by France towards the war in Iraq, as
this position helped establish a kind of calm and quit
between French citize4ns in general.
- The Situation in Nigeria
Father Mathew Kukah
When the British colonizers
came to Nigeria, Islam had already been present for 700
years in some regions of Nigeria and for 800 in other
regions. One of the first things that the colonizers tried
to do in order to consolidate their rule was to try and find
a legal base for the Colonizing State in Nigeria; local
traditional practices were one of the first victims of this
attempt while another victim was Islamic Shariaa regulations
prevalent at the time like administration of divine
ordinances; Muslims considered this to be an attack on the
principles of Islam.
By 1957, 1958 which is the
time when the British were preparing to grant Nigeria in its
independence, three Nigerian provinces enjoyed a degree of
autonomy as each had its own bureaucratic system and
legislative council, but suddenly the British decided to
unify Nigeria and incorporate the autonomous provinces
within a unified nation. Muslims in the northern region
tried to face the problems that were created as a result of
this decision.
Nonetheless, Nigeria got
its independence on the 1st of October 1960, but
just five years after independence the first military coup
took place on 15 January 1966, this was the forerunner of
the problems the country suffered then, and is still
suffering now. The country remained under military rule from
1966 to 1976, until the Army decided to hand over power to a
civilian government, at the time military leaders started to
look for a constitutional foundation to once more revert to
civilian rule.
During this period the situation in the
country witnessed many developments as the three
provinces that were canceled earlier were once more
incorporated, and then to avoid a civil war in 1967 they
were divided into 12 states. But the new system of
states created problems that still exist until today.
Instead of one system for Islamic Shariaa,
*Catholic Secretariat of Nigeria.
There are now in the North of Nigeria,
6 states that want each to have their own Court of Appeal,
which would rule according to their own views of Islamic
Shariaa, this of course constitutes a problem for Nigerian
Muslims.
In view of the above, many
observers of the development of religious conditions in
Nigeria see the 1976 Constitution as the reason behind the
mounting tensions in the country. The 1976 Constitutions
stipulated the establishment of a Federal Shariaa Court that
would be link connecting the various states Sharia Courts
with Supreme Nigerian Court; the Constitutions also allowed
every state in Nigeria to have its own Shariaa Court.
This state of affairs
continued for a period of time until the
Army-unfortunately-once more took over power in Nigeria in
1993, and the country was again submitted to Military Rule.
I pointed in my paper to some matters that became a source
of problems due to the Military Rule.
The creation of new states
in our country was one of the sources of problems, as their
creation was accompanied by the creation of new identities,
which in turn generated countless tensions from which we are
still suffering today, especially that many of these states
adopt positions that seem to defy the government authority.
In 1999, our country took
an extremely new and impressive turn, when the Shariaa
Courts and the states applying the Islamic Shariaa decided
to widen the scope of cases that full under Laws of the fact
caused problems to flare even more and continue for almost
three years, it also undermined the democratic process in
our country.
But after Nigeria reverted to civilian
rule, many Nigerians felt optimistic about peaceful
coexistence, but later matters did not go as well as it was
hoped for.
At the conclusion of my
paper I was keen to express my opinion that failure of the
country’s institutions and systems is the reason behind some
of the difficulties that we face in Nigeria in relation to
religion, and I believe that this applies to Nigeria as well
as to many other countries in the African continent.
- Supervision of Religious
Freedoms
Dr. Gane Mc Auliffe*
As you will notice, this
paper differs somehow from the three other previous papers,
and what implied me to write this paper is my interest, in
my country’s initiative, in regards to providing an
international instrument to monitor the status of religious
freedoms.
This paper is divided into
three main sections, the first section discusses the
definition of some thinking configurations, through which
any monitoring operation can be undertaken, and some
questions about responsibility and authority, as who has in
fact the right to speak in the name of or for a particular
religious traditions?
Procedures for
international monitoring of religious freedoms started in
its modern form in the United States by a congressional
Session held in 1998. during this session the International
Law of Religious Freedom was adopted, which stipulated the
establishment of the new section in the State Department,
which would be responsible for the Religious Freedom Affairs
on the international level, and that would issue an annual
report. The Law also created the position of Roaming
Ambassador, who would be responsible for this mission, and
for establishing a new verification instrument in the form
of a bi- partisan Committee that would be responsible for
the issue of religious freedom at the international level.
In spite of all the
criticism leveled the annual report, its main importance
lies in the fact that it is the only instrument providing
international coverage for conditions in the field of
religious freedoms, as well as the only instrument that drew
attention to the importance of the religious freedom and the
need to separate this freedom from other considerations
related to human rights.
_____________________
*Dean, Georgetown College, USA.
The report reviews with
critical eye the position of specific countries, and
suggests applying sanctions against those countries;
Furthermore the report draws attention
to cases where religious freedom is badly exploited. This is
not considered the only efforts in the field of
international monitoring of religious freedom; nevertheless
it is the biggest and most comprehensive one. In my paper I
reviewed all the other monitoring efforts like efforts by
the International Helsinki Union for Human Rights, or by the
International Partnership Institute and others.
The third part of the paper
discusses the results that were realized through the
monitoring efforts of the United States and of NGO”s, and
then using those results as a base conducting studies of
cases that focused on 4 countries: Saudi Arabia, Turkey,
Iraq and Germany, in an attempt to understand the factual
conditions in these countries.
The paper also includes a
final part, which discusses effects of the American war on
terror, as people responsible for the preparation of the
American State Department report consider that the policy
adopted towards the issue of religious freedom is one the
tools to fight international terrorism, and that countries
that enjoy the highest degree of religious freedom are at
least susceptible to suffer from extremism or religious
terrorism.
But the American State
Department efforts in this matter typically have numerous
facets of inner inconsistency, as in many situations a
country is praised for repressing the religious freedom what
are called radical or extremist groups.
Following the September ii
attacks, the United States became target of criticism,
because of the sorting process the US applies to United
States was also criticized because of prevalent racial
practice and of the restrictions that the American
administration started to impose on some religious groups’
civil and religious freedom.
Nevertheless I believe that the efforts
aiming to deal separately with the issue of religious
freedom, outside the comprehensive framework of the subject
of human rights, and creating an annual monitoring
instrument, really helped us conduct a wide debate regarding
the status of religious freedom at the international level,
and helped us broach new subjects.
***
Second: Discussions
In relation to
religious freedoms in Pakistan, the participants had the
following questions and comments:
*The paper did not
differentiate between schools affiliated to various
movements and trends; are we allowed to generalize? And do
all religious schools to do the things that the paper
accused them of committing?
*One should not deal with
these schools from a hostile perspective as the Arab media
does when it pictures those schools as the source of all
threats in the world. Pakistan is poor country, and these
schools fill a basic need in the education sector especially
in rural areas, there is a need to develop these schools by
providing them with specialized teachers of scientific and
other subjects.
*Feeling of hate and
resentment always are rife in those schools, but it is not
fair to say that they are the main cores of the problem.
During the Ziaa Elhaq era these schools did not constitute a
problem although they did then what they are doing today,
but as time passed Gulf countries offered support to these
schools with blatant encouragement from the US, because at
the time the US need those Mullahs and others to fight and
carry Jihad in Afghanistan. But currently after the problem
in Afghanistan no more exists, talk about feelings of hatred
and resentment has started.
*We should all speak
carefully about foreign parties exploiting
Religious minorities, as in fact this
is a weapon used against religious minorities in various
regions of the world, and also used by authorities to find
justification, within defects of their religion, for
collectives practices against those minorities.
The present religious
confrontation in Pakistan happens between Muslims and
Hindus, not Christians, but this confrontation also affects
Christians because they constitute another religious
minority in Pakistan. There is another dimension related to
Muslim in Pakistan, as there are great number of Shiite
Muslims that have an ongoing conflict with Hanafy Sunni
majority, there is also another conflict with the Ahmadeya
sect, whose followers were considered by the 1973
Constitution as non-Muslims, this also affected all the
other minorities specially Christians.
Father Channan also pointed
to a very important matter when he said in his paper that
religious minorities have to join efforts with the majority
to establish a democratic society in Pakistan, because
society still suffers from a widespread low level of
education and from the tribal disputes. Some provinces are
under the power of rulers called “Saridar”, and in those
provinces the population has to embrace the ruler’s
religion.
We are required to fight
democracy in order to obtain rights, education opportunities
and to liberate women, to also realize all the principles on
which is based the concept of religious freedom, because if
there is no democracy there will be no religious freedom. In
the fact minorities joined this struggle but at a later
stage, as Islamic democracy, in order to establish a secular
society and to draft a secular constitution.
I have an important and
final comment, which is that during the Ziaa Elhaq’s rule
there were laws for divine statute, blasphemy and other
Islamic laws, but a wicked plan was devised through the
Constitution, when new and alternative judicial power, the
Federal Shariaa Court, was created to replace the existing
judicial system.
The Federal Shariaa Court
became a kind of parallel parliamentary council to the
original Legislative Council in Pakistan, and any ruling
issued by this Court becomes immediately operational, even
if the two Councils of Parliament hold a different opinion
about the rulings.
In relation to the status
of Muslims in France, the participants had the
following questions and comments:
*I do not know how useful
or effective it is to review one model only to demonstrate
Europe secular tendency, you presented the French model
while I think you should present several models in order to
give people a clearer picture.
*France has a special
status regarding the way it deals and understands the
concept of a secular state, and which we may not be able to
see in many other countries.
*I have a feeling that
Islam has caused some changes in European Churches existing
system. The increasing presence of Islamic communities in
numerous European countries presented doubts about the
veracity of the idea of non-interference from the State in
religious matters, as a religious matters were considered a
private and personal matter, but this idea did not presently
seem applicable. Many European countries, including France,
started to make changes in existing systems to make them
correspond with religious considerations and needs.
*Many of us have
preconceived idea of a one and shared religion for all,
which is untrue, we might use the same terminology but to
great extent we mean different things. It is preferable to
carry a dialogue around our own depiction of this concept.
For example do we believe that women wearing the veil is a
religious matter? Or don’t we?
If we manage to get away
from the prevalent image about secularism being a principle
that stands at the opposite end of religion, and start
looking at secularism in a different manner bearing in mind
that its intent to establish impartial secular societies,
and to allow all human beings to coexist within a climate of
religious and cultural variety, wouldn’t this conform with
the values and beliefs taught to us by our religious in
relation to leaving room for the others to move?
I have a question about
Muslim in Europe. They all unconsciously and somehow feel
that they are under the Church’s power and authority,
although this varies from the European country to other.
Muslims also do not enjoy within European societies, the
same secure standing enjoyed by followers of other
religions; they also believe that changing themselves in the
manner required by European societies will clearly endanger
their existence and their Islamic identity. Can any
democratic society based on the principle of pluralism
continue to perform its missions and duties towards those
living in it, if some groups within society do not have
representatives to speak in their name?
*Being a member of any
faith is a very important matter, thus we feel very worried
about the extreme and overrated concept of secularism, which
does categorically, refuses the idea of the group. I
consider that recognizing that recognizing the group would
be recognizing the dogma of faith itself, which I think is
extremely important.
The issue of individuals
and various societies recognizing all religions and
religious ideologies, which differ from their own religion
and beliefs, is indeed a very important matter that should
be stressed in all religions. I think that Islam has
effectively realized this, as Islam always allows
acknowledging other religions, and I believe that
Christianity has started to take steps in the same direction
to achieve this.
Another matter is that
Muslim in the Balkans, and especially in Australia, acquired
self-rule and currently enjoy a special standing there, the
Australian government even appoints a representative for the
Muslim community. Thus I can say that there is an existing
model for Islamic presence in Europe, and we can discuss how
effective this model is.
As to the issue of Muslims
having no representation, I see that the problem here is not
connected to the Church but rather to the fact that Muslims
come to Europe from different countries, which is the same
problem Jews face in Britain where they are divided into two
distinct groups.
The idea of choosing a person to speak
in the name of a certain group is simple and easily
applicable; France started to understand the importance of
this idea and to undertake procedures in this direction, the
same thing is also happening in Belgium. The main idea
behind representation is that governments want to convey and
explain their policies to Islamic communities and get
feedback about Muslims’ opinion of the policies as well as
their demands.
*Muslims in South Africa
represent 1.3% of the population, and until the latest
elections that took place a month ago Muslim representation
in Parliament was 14% of the total number of deputies, while
16% of Cabinet members were Muslims, the head of the Senate
was a Muslim woman, who has currently become the Minister of
Education. Thus we are looking at a country with secular
tendencies, but secularism is not a new phenomenon in South
Africa as our non-reliance on racial differences, which are
two balanced and equivalent foundations of society.
In relation to the study of
the Nigerian situation, the participants had the
following questions and comments:
*How strong is the
Nigerians’ feeling of national unity and national
allegiance? And is there for example a great number of
Nigerians not interested in belonging to the Nigerian
nation, or do they have feelings of loyalty to other bodies
and identities?
*I would like to ask about
the foreign influences affecting Islam in Nigeria, in
relation to religious freedom and to application of the
Shariaa?
*Where is the issue of
apostasy located within the framework of Islamic conditions
in Nigeria, and are there actual cases where people
abandoned Islam and embraced Christianity? Did
Shariaa-related laws contains any items referring to how to
deal with cases of apostasy?
*When explaining “Safeya’s”
case, in the past the lawyer defending Safeya’s case the
Court of Appeal asked for my opinion
In this matter and I informed him that
she should not be tried under the Laws of the Shariaa, as
the alleged crime in this case had been committed before the
application of the Shariaa, and as such the Court accepted
to hear to her appeal. Consequently the original sentence
against Safeya was not carried out, and the court even
pronounced her innocent of the crime of adultery.
*The question that presents
itself now is why do Nigerians in the northern region want
to apply the Islamic Shariaa? I think that Father Mathew
answered this question when he mentioned that the system of
judicial justice entirely collapsed, furthermore Islamic
Laws are considered sacrosanct and directly address the
human conscious while the State is not. But unfortunately in
Nigeria politicians tried to exploit this to realize their
personal goals.
*I would like to say that
none of the mentioned sentences were carried out, and until
now that the matter has not exceeded legal discussions and
defense speeches in Courts between judges and lawyers. I am
sure that the final outcome in such cases will be similar to
the outcome in Safeya’s case.
*Father Matthew mentioned
at the end of his presentation that hopes are tied to the
realization of Democracy, as it is the only way that can
produce settings that allow people of different faiths to
coexist. I know that in the other countries in Africa, like
Kenya for example, permission was granted for the
establishment of an Islamic party, but this matter is not
perceived in the positive or supportive manner.
If consent is given to a
kind of political democracy based on religion, in my opinion
this will not realize good results, it might even have an
adverse outcome and could generate numerous threats.
There is another important
issue related to the manner the Shariaa can be applied in a
society based on pluralism, this issue is currently
forcefully discussed, and I do not know how a country like
Nigeria will deal with the matter. Northern states that
apply Shariaa have non-Muslim citizens; and in my opinion
this situation is very difficult.
In relation to monitoring
religious freedoms, participants had the following questions
and comments:
*I ask about monitoring
procedures used when religious freedom are wrongly used,
wouldn’t be better to have religious circles handle the
matter? They will certainly deal within from a different
perspective. Regardless of how true is the information
deduced by any other monitoring authority’s work will always
be tainted by an intrinsic prejudice stemming from the fact
that political authority performed the work.
I have to ask if the US
deals equally with various countries I the relation the
religious freedom? I also have to point to provocation that
Muslim and Christian Palestinians had to suffer at the hands
of Israeli forces before the current Intifada. My next
question is : Does this suffering fall by any measure under
the law that was adopted by the Congress? And is this in
fact what has been done since the law was adopted in 1988?
*Since the end of the cold
war, and especially after the September 11 attacks, matter
became very complicated; the support offered since then by
the Americans to Pakistan is pretty obvious, and prevented
the adoption of any procedures aiming to reveal this
country’s violations.
*I believe that the idea
that the religious authorities can monitor the status of
human rights and religious freedom is correct and
applicable, but on the other hand any monitoring operation
is always based on biased point of view. Here lies the
difficulty of procedures involved in monitoring case like
religious freedom. But nevertheless we should not abandon
this noble mission.
*Even if impartial judicial
authorities were charged with monitoring, some prejudice
would still remain possible, in addition to what I call
“cultural relativity”. This occurred in some cases reviewed
by the European Court for Human Rights”, in some opinion the
best thing for facing the problem of monitoring, is a wider
exchange of information among all interested parties, and to
focus on how to constitute established committees in an
efficient manner.
*People inquire if the
American Committee for Religious Freedoms considered any
discussion of the conditions within the Unite States itself.
*In relation to religious
authorities taking on the responsibility of monitoring,
there is in fact within the Catholic Church an authority
that issues annual report, but it mainly relies on the
American report for information. On the Islamic side “The
Institute for Muslim Minorities Affairs” conducts studies of
the status of Muslim minorities in various regions of the
world, but its work is very academic, and the Institute is
not really considered a monitoring instrument.
*I would like to know how
do interested authorities and organizations gather
information related to the status of religious freedom? Are
there specific procedures to investigate the veracity of
forgery and information obtained? I believed that sometimes
there is a lot of forgery and information manipulation.
*I personally was deeply
affected by the manner prisoners in the Guantanamo Camp were
treated, and my question is: did religious circles or any
American organizations interested in Human Rights, do
anything about the matter?
Third: Comments
Comments By Father Matthew:
We all have to understand
that there is under the slogan of politics in Nigeria an
influential and active power, which is oil and its financial
revenues; oil represents a driving force behind political
activities in our country. I spoke to some religions and
states rulers that strive to apply the Islamic Shariaa and
learned a lot of really very awesome facts.
I think that the issue of
applying the Islamic Shariaa is not in
Fact linked to religion, and many
ordinary citizens look upon the
Shariaa as a basic tool that helps
realize a kind of order within society, and also helps limit
the ruling class irresponsible acts and practices, members
of the ruling class steal their resources and then claim
they are Muslims.
International reactions to
application of the Shariaa, did not help improve the
situation in Nigeria, adversely they helped, with other
important factors, to exacerbate the problem.
In relation to plurality in
Nigeria, many Muslims and Christians started to join several
political parties, which forecast a much brighter future,
but on the other hand Muslims are required to exert greater
efforts to solve the problem of applying the Shariaa in
Nigeria.
I completely agree with what my
colleagues mentioned above criminal law, we witness now in
Nigeria a unique situation, as in addition to the Supreme
Shariaa Court, we have regular courts that administrate
people from the level and judicial aspect. I really do not
know how the government is going to deal with the unique
situation.
In relation to what my
colleague mentioned about religious schools, I see that this
situation represents part of the heritage left to us by
colonialism, if a person in the country is to get an
important position in the government, this person has to
acquire a western-type education, while the type of
education received by the students of religious schools does
not prepare them to employed in governmental institutions.
Therefore religious schools are just a institutions, this
state of affairs undermined the position and influence of
religious schools.
In relation to how
qualified are judges to preside in Shariaa Courts? This is
one of the problems that we face, because when state
governors increased the number of Shariaa Courts demand for
judges and experts could not be met, which meant that judges
working in such Courts were not properly qualified. Some
states were forced to take this matter into consideration.
In the eyes of an ordinary
citizens one of the advantages of Shariaa Courts is the
swift way they process cases, which many Christians
merchants in Nigeria decide to go to the Shariaa Courts for
their grievances.
I have to mention that the
issue of apostasy was never mention in our country before
the first International Conference on the Shariaa was held,
what was the most conspicuous was the staunch supporters of
applying the Shariaa did not adopt a define position about
this matter during the conference, they preferred to
postpone any discussions to a later date. But in 1987,
Nigeria was exposed to the first major religious crisis when
a Muslims converted to a Christianity, this convert gave a
public speech in which he used Koranic verses as the bases
for embracing Christianity and for denying the existence of
Islam itself, this generated immediate reactions, as a Fatwa
was issued against the apostate and he had to flee Nigeria.
Until the present time,
foreign influence in the political field does not constitute
a dangerous problem in Nigeria.
I have previously explained
that national identity represents a kind of unanimity. But
in fact Nigerians have different identities, this is due to
the fact that Nigeria has now around 770 regions under local
governments, and each region is controlled by a specific
sect or ethnic group.
Those are some of Nigeria’s
problems, which complicate the project of realizing national
unity in the country. But reverting to normal political
condition might help face these problems in an effective
manner and within an acceptable time.
Father Jean- Marei
Gaudeul’s Comments:
In
relation to the question of choosing Imams and how it is
handled, it is true that we have now a number of schools
established by Muslims in France where individuals are
trained to work as Imams, but these schools realized a very
limited success.
A very limited number of Imams actually
graduated from these schools, and the most dangerous is that
an even smaller numbers have actually worked as Imams,
because as Imams they get a very low salary being employed
by local and poor Islamic Unions.
A number of Imams come from
abroad and most of them are self-appointed in the job, which
causes a lot of problems. During the last four months of 22
of those foreign Imams were deported after they were
classified, within the framework of the war against
terrorism, as having fanatic inclinations.
I recognize that Islam in
France has no suitable leadership. This is not my opinion
alone, Muslims also think the same and of course they are
not happy with the situations.
Assessments point, that
around 80% of the Muslims community in France avoid Muslims
religious organizations, what pushes them to do so? I do not
know the correct answer to this question, but some those
people are trying to forge new ties with what are called
“secular Muslims”, which means they wish to belong to new
groups or organizations, away from the traditional houses
worship in France.
As to the clamor about
girls wearing the veil, in fact extensive discussions about
this subject uncovered other controversial issues.
Discussions started about the mutiny
shown by some young men against being taught by women
teachers, about their refusal to study natural sciences or
to play sports in schools. This explains the other
difficulties Muslims who have traditional and conservative
views, have with the curricula designated by the government
to be taught in governmental schools. The latest
governmental law was mainly issued to realize the purpose.
Therefore we have to understand that this issue is much more
complicated that it outwardly seems.
Allow me to broach the
subject of the secular state. French people, whether Muslims
or Christians, are currently facing an increasing trend from
the state to directly and openly oppose religion in general,
government authorities consider that religion has no place
in society, this attitude will affect Muslims as well as
Christians.
There is another dangerous
possibility, which is that government authorities or local
councils and organizations could be used as tools to control
citizens and prevent unrest and riots. When there are
international problems, like the war in Iraq or unrest in
Palestine People, get provoked, in such cases the
authorities call on Cardinals, Rabbis and Imams to try and
face the situation, and make them hold a joint meeting to
issue directives to followers of each religion calling for
peace and keeping calm. Of course this is not the role we
would like to play in society, but it happen in real life.
French history explains
that the concept of secular state had originally appeared as
a kind of reactions against religions circles and
organizations including the Church itself, and maybe mainly
against the Church. In the same manner Islam perceived in
negative way because it is come to resemble the Church in
many ways, to the extent that it can be said that currently
Islam is dealt with from perspective of being the “Islamic
Church” if I am allowed to use such term, which naturally a
difficult position.
You might remember what a
colleague said about the Church currently facing regarding
giving greater area of existence and freedom of movements to
others; but I think that France, and not Christian religion
itself, is currently facing the challenge.
France is not Christianity and
Christianity is not France, and the Church itself is
currently striving to have a more palpable and effective
presence in society.
Father James Channan’s Comments:
I confess that not all
religious schools incite hatred and resentment or propagate
terrorism, but many of them are accused of doing so.
Religious schools are strict to their teaching in science of
one religion without mentioning other religions, modern
sciences or what happens in the outside world. Religious
schools should be restructured and developed through modern
educations systems and by broadening their student’s scope
of knowledge.
I have the comments
concerning the use of minorities as tools in the hands of
foreigners, and think this opinion is highly exaggerated and
I could like to affirm that we are not tools in the hands of
foreigners, but we are struggling to get our political and
religious rights, and have our standing and position within
our country.
If those international
parties shows interest and worry about the status of
minorities in Pakistan, expressing their support for our
case and making sure it is moving in the right direction, we
have to pursue our struggle without this being construed
that we have become tools in the hands of foreign circles.
We are happy that these authorities and numerous Islamic
organizations in Pakistan support us, so we can realize the
fine outcomes we wish for our country.
The law blasphemy against
religion applied in our country is used as threatening tool,
not only against minorities but in some cases against the
majority. Until today all judicial case against Muslims as
well as against members of minorities, which where initiated
based on this law, have not proven to be true and were
finally dismissed by courts of law.
In reality, this law is
quite dangerous because as soon as a person is tentatively
accused of blasphemy he can no longer live in Pakistan and
has to immediately leave the country. Therefore efforts
should be made to fight such laws and oppose them.
For a final point, I
completely agree with the opinion saying that there is a
close relationship between religious freedom on one side and
political freedom on the other side. In addition how should
we fully contribute to the nation’s construction? As we are
fully committed to this task and we consecrate our lives and
all our skills to serve our country, Pakistan. We are not
only one to present some objections and questions, numerous
human rights groups are also asking similar questions. But
we think that conditions in Pakistan are going to improve
when we find solutions to all the problems we are facing.
Dr. Gene Mc Auliffe’s Comments:
In my paper, I discussed
two instruments used to collect information in the United
States, the first is an office attached to the State
Department, which mainly relies on human rights experts in
embassies and consulates, the office require the experts to
provide information on an annual basis, regarding the status
of religious freedom in the countries where they are
located. Later the office checks the veracity of the
information provided through NGOs.
The second instrument is
the Committee on Religious Freedom, which criticized cases
where breaches occur or if certain countries provide
insufficient information, or when it is reveal that
officials in the embassy or consulate of a certain country
did not deal with attention with information they presented.
As I mentioned earlier, the
Committee of Human Rights is an American bi-partisan
committee which means it is not an international committee,
although it comprises representative of numerous religious
groups in the United States. This Committee does its utmost
to widen its scope of representation.
Every year the report
comes under a lots of criticism, because its adopts
positions that are lenient or even lax towards Israel and
Saudi Arabia, which are the two countries where the United
States has a lot of interest, and the State Department does
not want to upset the stable conditions there because of
what the report about them might say.
This is a criticism, which is always
directed at the report.
In relation to questions
around legitimacy and credibility, I would like to ask your
permission to use an American term to answer this question:
“The jurors are still out on this matter”. Would it be
better to gather information and criticize their bad sides,
or just sit back and do nothing at all?
But I believe that if we
strive to establish the ideal monitoring instrument, if we
secure the funds to support its operation, we would carry
this mission in a completely different manner. In this
Case, the monitoring instrument would
be a global international instrument that does not submit to
any government or specific authority, and would be also
concerned with all religions.
But I believe that in all
case this problem will remain unsolved.
Even if international NGOs sometimes
include in their rulings praise for the United States
efforts in the field of monitoring, I still believe that
doing something is better than doing nothing at all.
Starting to activate new instrument that would issue an
annual report would make the issue of religious freedom one
of the numerous cases to be relied upon in the field of
human rights, in addition it will raise awareness of this
subject to a level and manner never known before in the
world.
I have to say that the
report itself did not look critically at the United States,
which would be sufficient reason for the report to be
criticized.
All human rights
organizations, as well as numerous Churches declared their
strong opposition to what is happening in Guantanamo.
This matter caused a great uproar, and
started to actually affect the Administration’s policy.
* * *
|