Jawaban untuk akang sealmamater
Salam, Terima kasih atas perhatiannya Kang Faqih. Saya baru dua bulan jadi Ass Professor, masih mempelajari segala aturan main dan program-program yang saya akan kerjakan kedepan. Untuk sementara, saya bisa katakan, lingkungan akademik di kampus tempat saya sekarang sangat baik, dengan dukungan professor senior dan kolega, staf, dan mahasiswa. Kolega-kolega saya pakar di bidang religious studies dan sebagian pakar di bidang area studies Asia Tenggara. Untuk religious studies, masing-masing profesor fokus pada agama tertentu, misalnya Katolik, Buddha, Sikhisme, Konghucu, Yahudi, dan sebagainya, sementara saya satu-satunya prof bidang Islam. Semester depan saya akan mengajar agama-agama di Asia (Hindu, Buddha, Islam, Sikh, Konghucu, Tao, Sinto) dari sisi ajaran, kitab suci, praktek keagamaan, dan kelembagaan. Saya juga akan mengajar Understanding the Qur'an, dan Islam di Asia Tenggara. Akan ada mata kuliah lain yang juga saya akan ajarkan, seperti agama dan politik, pemikiran Islam, dan sebagainya. Ini untuk program S-1, dan juga paskasarjana. Selain mengajar, sebagai professor, saya harus terus lakukan riset, publikasi, dan pengabdian (menjadi panitia, aktif dalam organisasi, dan semacamnya). Posisi assistant professor adalah jenjang pertama; setelah beberapa tahun akan dinilai, baru akan naik ke jenjang kedua, disebut Associate professor, lalu setelah itu, baru full professor. Assistant professor tidak berarti asisten dosen seperti di negeri kita, yaitu dosen yunior yang mengantikan profesor yang lebih senior (yang biasanya jarang hadir). Assistant professor di Barat memiliki otoritas penuh dalam bidang disiplin ilmunya. Sebagai assistant professor saya dibantu beberapa Teaching Assistant yang biasanya mahasiswa paskasarjana. Tugas lain adalah membimbing mahasiswa dalam kegiatan akademik, tesis, disertasi, dan sebagainya. Di Riverside, ada Islamic Center yang cukup besar berjamaah hampir seribuan dan bahkan lebih, umumnya pendatang dari negeri-negeri Muslim tapi sudah jadi orang Amerika. Orang Palestina, Mesir, Irak, Bangladesh, dan sebagainya, menjadi orang Amerika dan betah menjadi orang Amerika ketimbang tinggal di negeri-negeri asal mereka. Salah satu pelajaran penting di sini adalah menjadi Muslim tidaklah sulit di Amerika, dan bahkan kebebasan beragama sangat dijamin, terlepas dari sebagian orang Amerika yang tidak tahu banyak soal Islam. Salah satu acara yang saya ikuti Ramadhan yang baru lalu adalah dialog antaragama yang diadakan ole Islamic Center mengundang tokoh agama-agama di sini. Suasananya sangat akrab. Saya sempatkan tulis artikel soal itu di The Jakarta Post berjudul Ramadhan in America. Saya juga hadiri dialog antaragama yang dirintis masyarakat Muslim asal Turki. Ini dulu ceritanya, Kang Faqih. Nanti bisa disambung. Gimana kabar antum? Salam,
Monday, October 29, 2007
In Pursuit of Happiness
In pursuit of happiness
Happiness is a warm gun, sang the Beatles, and happiness is a long cold drink, an old beer advertisement heralds, and happiness is the happy and smiling faces of children.
But happiness is not always about self-gratification -- it can be about giving.
A Chinese proverb says if you want happiness for an hour, take a nap; if you want happiness for a day, go fishing; if you want happiness for a year, inherit a fortune; if you want happiness for a lifetime, help somebody.
And the Dalai Lama said, "If you want others to be happy, practice compassion".
Happiness is probably something everybody pursues in life, but happiness means different things to different people.
And to most, happiness means different things at different times.
Although material wealth, or at least well-being, is certainly an important element, happiness is not always associated with money or wealth.
Poor but happy people are forever in our midst -- and it is too easy to find wealthy miserable people.
And it's probably easier to find the latter group than the first in Indonesia, or in other places for that matter.
It is therefore courageous for anyone or any institution to try to rate and then aggregate the happiness of a nation, or of a people in a city.
The Frontier Consulting Group Indonesia last week released a study called the Indonesian Happiness Index 2007.
The study is based on a survey involving 1,800 respondents, 300 each in the six cities selected including Jakarta, Medan, Bandung, Semarang, Semarang, Surabaya and Makassar.
It finds the Indonesian Happiness Index (IHI) at 47.96 (presumably out of a possible score of 100), which put Indonesia below the average (meaning an index of 50).
The study did not say where Indonesia stood in relation to other countries.
The survey included questions related to the age, gender, income, education, job/position and religious devotion of the respondents, and came out with some interesting results.
People in Semarang and Makassar are said to be among the happiest in Indonesia, with those in Jakarta and Medan are among the most miserable, with their city ranking fifth and sixth respectively.
Speculation around why Semarang is the happiest city to live in remains however, as does the reason behind the study's findings that men are generally happier than women. No explanation was provided.
In terms of age, those in the 41-50 year-old category were happiest and those in 21-30 years old were most miserable, probably because those in the first group tend to be more established in their jobs and life, while those in the second group are just embarking on adulthood.
The rest of the survey's results are somewhat predictable. Those with a higher education and a good income (the two are usually related anyway) are happiest.
The more religious among us are said to be happier (probably because we think God is always with us).
Perhaps we should also thank religion, and religious leaders, for helping the nation through some of the most difficult times in the last 10 years.
In most other countries, the hardship the nation endured would have led to social upheaval.
In terms of profession, one result shows those in middle management were happier than those in top management.
So, those craving for the top job may want to think again -- and weigh-up the lucrative perks versus the responsibility that comes with being number one in the company.
If the Frontier Consulting Group put Indonesia below average (because it ranked below 50 in the index), a study published in 2006 by the New Economics Foundation actually put Indonesia among the happiest lot in the world in a survey of 178 countries.
The Happy Planet Index, issued to challenge the use of the gross domestic product (GDP) and the United Nations' Human Development Index (HDI) in measuring the welfare of a nation, found material wealth did define the happiness (or the fulfillment of a happy life) of a nation.
Vanuatu heads the happy index which includes Vietnam, Sri Lanka and the Philippines in the top 20. Indonesia came at a decent 23rd. The United States ranked 150th and Zimbabwe bottom of the list at 178th.
The Happy Planet Index, and the more recent Frontier Consulting Group measurement of Indonesians, reminders that while we keep to the adage that "men don't live on bread alone", material well-being is still important in our pursuit of happiness.
Granted, it is not the most important measurement of happiness, but it is an important component nevertheless.
And the pursuit of happiness, while not clearly stated as a right in our constitution, is an inalienable right for every citizen in this county, just as life and liberty are. (Editorial, The Jakarta Post, October 29, 2007)
Happiness is a warm gun, sang the Beatles, and happiness is a long cold drink, an old beer advertisement heralds, and happiness is the happy and smiling faces of children.
But happiness is not always about self-gratification -- it can be about giving.
A Chinese proverb says if you want happiness for an hour, take a nap; if you want happiness for a day, go fishing; if you want happiness for a year, inherit a fortune; if you want happiness for a lifetime, help somebody.
And the Dalai Lama said, "If you want others to be happy, practice compassion".
Happiness is probably something everybody pursues in life, but happiness means different things to different people.
And to most, happiness means different things at different times.
Although material wealth, or at least well-being, is certainly an important element, happiness is not always associated with money or wealth.
Poor but happy people are forever in our midst -- and it is too easy to find wealthy miserable people.
And it's probably easier to find the latter group than the first in Indonesia, or in other places for that matter.
It is therefore courageous for anyone or any institution to try to rate and then aggregate the happiness of a nation, or of a people in a city.
The Frontier Consulting Group Indonesia last week released a study called the Indonesian Happiness Index 2007.
The study is based on a survey involving 1,800 respondents, 300 each in the six cities selected including Jakarta, Medan, Bandung, Semarang, Semarang, Surabaya and Makassar.
It finds the Indonesian Happiness Index (IHI) at 47.96 (presumably out of a possible score of 100), which put Indonesia below the average (meaning an index of 50).
The study did not say where Indonesia stood in relation to other countries.
The survey included questions related to the age, gender, income, education, job/position and religious devotion of the respondents, and came out with some interesting results.
People in Semarang and Makassar are said to be among the happiest in Indonesia, with those in Jakarta and Medan are among the most miserable, with their city ranking fifth and sixth respectively.
Speculation around why Semarang is the happiest city to live in remains however, as does the reason behind the study's findings that men are generally happier than women. No explanation was provided.
In terms of age, those in the 41-50 year-old category were happiest and those in 21-30 years old were most miserable, probably because those in the first group tend to be more established in their jobs and life, while those in the second group are just embarking on adulthood.
The rest of the survey's results are somewhat predictable. Those with a higher education and a good income (the two are usually related anyway) are happiest.
The more religious among us are said to be happier (probably because we think God is always with us).
Perhaps we should also thank religion, and religious leaders, for helping the nation through some of the most difficult times in the last 10 years.
In most other countries, the hardship the nation endured would have led to social upheaval.
In terms of profession, one result shows those in middle management were happier than those in top management.
So, those craving for the top job may want to think again -- and weigh-up the lucrative perks versus the responsibility that comes with being number one in the company.
If the Frontier Consulting Group put Indonesia below average (because it ranked below 50 in the index), a study published in 2006 by the New Economics Foundation actually put Indonesia among the happiest lot in the world in a survey of 178 countries.
The Happy Planet Index, issued to challenge the use of the gross domestic product (GDP) and the United Nations' Human Development Index (HDI) in measuring the welfare of a nation, found material wealth did define the happiness (or the fulfillment of a happy life) of a nation.
Vanuatu heads the happy index which includes Vietnam, Sri Lanka and the Philippines in the top 20. Indonesia came at a decent 23rd. The United States ranked 150th and Zimbabwe bottom of the list at 178th.
The Happy Planet Index, and the more recent Frontier Consulting Group measurement of Indonesians, reminders that while we keep to the adage that "men don't live on bread alone", material well-being is still important in our pursuit of happiness.
Granted, it is not the most important measurement of happiness, but it is an important component nevertheless.
And the pursuit of happiness, while not clearly stated as a right in our constitution, is an inalienable right for every citizen in this county, just as life and liberty are. (Editorial, The Jakarta Post, October 29, 2007)
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Media and Cultural Pluralization in Iran
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/16/world/middleeast/16tehran.html
The news in Iran as read above indicates how media, including movies and TV programs, could play an important role as a social critic which in turn allows greater democractization and pluralization of religious views. With a creative, constructive, free and responsible media, the public space becomes pluralized and civilized.
Ali
Tibeten Dalai Lama, U.S. and China
China Warns U.S. on Dalai Lama Trip
By JOSEPH KAHN
Published: October 16, 2007
BEIJING, Oct. 16 — Chinese officials warned the United States on Tuesday not to honor the Dalai Lama, saying a planned award ceremony in Washington for the Tibetan spiritual leader would have “an extremely serious impact” on relations between the countries.
Stephen Crowley/The New York Times
The Dalai Lama arrived at his hotel in Washington on Tuesday before a meeting with President Bush.
Speaking at a Foreign Ministry briefing and on the sidelines of the Communist Party’s 17th National Congress, the officials condemned the Dalai Lama as a resolute separatist and said foreign leaders must stop encouraging his “splittist” mission.
“Such a person who basely splits his motherland and doesn’t even love his motherland has been welcomed by some countries and has even been receiving this or that award,” Tibet’s Communist Party boss, Zhang Qingli, told reporters during the congress.
“We are furious,” Mr. Zhang said. “If the Dalai Lama can receive such an award, there must be no justice or good people in the world.”
The Dalai Lama, a Nobel laureate, has lived in exile since the Chinese army crushed an uprising in his homeland in 1959 and is revered as the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhists. He is scheduled to receive the Congressional Gold Medal on Wednesday.
President Bush met with the Dalai Lama at the White House on Tuesday.
The meeting was clearly a matter of great sensitivity at the White House, which did not release a photograph of the Dalai Lama and the president, as it has in the past. “We in no way want to stir the pot and make China feel that we are poking a stick in their eye,” said Dana Perino, the chief White House spokeswoman. “We understand that the Chinese have very strong feelings about this.”
In fact, the Bush administration’s attempts to soothe Chinese feelings began more than a month ago in Sydney, when Mr. Bush accepted an invitation from President Hu Jintao to attend the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing.
Mr. Bush told Mr. Hu at the time that he would attend the ceremony at which the Dalai Lama will receive a Congressional Gold Medal. And the White House emphasized Tuesday that Mr. Bush has always gone to the medal ceremonies, and that by protocol he will speak for about three minutes.
The visit comes as the United States has been either seeking or relying on Chinese cooperation on an array of difficult issues: the North Korean and Iranian nuclear programs, the mass killings in Darfur and the recent crackdown on protesters in Myanmar.
China has pressed the United States to cancel the award event for months. Foreign Ministry Spokesman Liu Jianchao said today that Beijing was “strong dissatisfied” and warned of an “extremely serious impact” if the events are held as scheduled. But he did not say what steps China planned to take.
This week, Beijing pulled out of a meeting at which leading world powers are to discuss Iran’s nuclear program. Chinese officials cited “technical reasons” for not participating, but they left the clear impression that they might downgrade support for international efforts to stop Iran’s nuclear program if foreign powers interfere in China’s internal affairs.
China also recently canceled its annual human rights dialogue with Germany to protest the September meeting between Chancellor Angela Merkel and the Dalai Lama.
But Beijing often uses strong language when warning other countries about interfering in its internal affairs without taking strong action. Giving an award to the Dalai Lama is highly unlikely to seriously disrupt relations with the United States, which has often sought to protect Chinese dissidents and has maintained close ties to Taiwan, which China considers a renegade province.
Both Washington and Beijing say relations between the two countries have been warm, especially after they worked together to bring about an agreement to end North Korea’s nuclear program.
In recent months, China has stepped up its attacks on the Dalai Lama even though Chinese officials and envoys from the Tibetan leader have engaged in a on-and-off dialogue over terms of reconciliation.
While Beijing says it is willing to allow the Dalai Lama to return to China if he promises to respect Chinese sovereignty over Tibet, the Chinese have dismissed his efforts to work for a “middle way” that gives Tibet a higher measure of autonomy under continued Chinese rule.
Tibet’s governor, Qiangba Puncog, said at the party congress that the dialogue with the Dalai Lama had gone poorly.
“He should resolutely abandon his Tibetan independence stance and activities,” Mr. Qiangba Puncog said. “But in my opinion, some of those activities are actually escalating and setting a lot of obstacles for further progress.”
Ethnic tensions have risen in Tibet in recent months, prompting tough police action.
Rights groups said a group of Tibetan boys were detained in the northwestern province of Gansu last month after they were accused of scribbling slogans on walls calling for the Dalai Lama’s return.
Four of the boys, all 15 years old, were still in detention. Police officers used electric prods on them and were demanding payment for their release, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch say.
Brian Knowlton contributed reporting from Washington
By JOSEPH KAHN
Published: October 16, 2007
BEIJING, Oct. 16 — Chinese officials warned the United States on Tuesday not to honor the Dalai Lama, saying a planned award ceremony in Washington for the Tibetan spiritual leader would have “an extremely serious impact” on relations between the countries.
Stephen Crowley/The New York Times
The Dalai Lama arrived at his hotel in Washington on Tuesday before a meeting with President Bush.
Speaking at a Foreign Ministry briefing and on the sidelines of the Communist Party’s 17th National Congress, the officials condemned the Dalai Lama as a resolute separatist and said foreign leaders must stop encouraging his “splittist” mission.
“Such a person who basely splits his motherland and doesn’t even love his motherland has been welcomed by some countries and has even been receiving this or that award,” Tibet’s Communist Party boss, Zhang Qingli, told reporters during the congress.
“We are furious,” Mr. Zhang said. “If the Dalai Lama can receive such an award, there must be no justice or good people in the world.”
The Dalai Lama, a Nobel laureate, has lived in exile since the Chinese army crushed an uprising in his homeland in 1959 and is revered as the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhists. He is scheduled to receive the Congressional Gold Medal on Wednesday.
President Bush met with the Dalai Lama at the White House on Tuesday.
The meeting was clearly a matter of great sensitivity at the White House, which did not release a photograph of the Dalai Lama and the president, as it has in the past. “We in no way want to stir the pot and make China feel that we are poking a stick in their eye,” said Dana Perino, the chief White House spokeswoman. “We understand that the Chinese have very strong feelings about this.”
In fact, the Bush administration’s attempts to soothe Chinese feelings began more than a month ago in Sydney, when Mr. Bush accepted an invitation from President Hu Jintao to attend the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing.
Mr. Bush told Mr. Hu at the time that he would attend the ceremony at which the Dalai Lama will receive a Congressional Gold Medal. And the White House emphasized Tuesday that Mr. Bush has always gone to the medal ceremonies, and that by protocol he will speak for about three minutes.
The visit comes as the United States has been either seeking or relying on Chinese cooperation on an array of difficult issues: the North Korean and Iranian nuclear programs, the mass killings in Darfur and the recent crackdown on protesters in Myanmar.
China has pressed the United States to cancel the award event for months. Foreign Ministry Spokesman Liu Jianchao said today that Beijing was “strong dissatisfied” and warned of an “extremely serious impact” if the events are held as scheduled. But he did not say what steps China planned to take.
This week, Beijing pulled out of a meeting at which leading world powers are to discuss Iran’s nuclear program. Chinese officials cited “technical reasons” for not participating, but they left the clear impression that they might downgrade support for international efforts to stop Iran’s nuclear program if foreign powers interfere in China’s internal affairs.
China also recently canceled its annual human rights dialogue with Germany to protest the September meeting between Chancellor Angela Merkel and the Dalai Lama.
But Beijing often uses strong language when warning other countries about interfering in its internal affairs without taking strong action. Giving an award to the Dalai Lama is highly unlikely to seriously disrupt relations with the United States, which has often sought to protect Chinese dissidents and has maintained close ties to Taiwan, which China considers a renegade province.
Both Washington and Beijing say relations between the two countries have been warm, especially after they worked together to bring about an agreement to end North Korea’s nuclear program.
In recent months, China has stepped up its attacks on the Dalai Lama even though Chinese officials and envoys from the Tibetan leader have engaged in a on-and-off dialogue over terms of reconciliation.
While Beijing says it is willing to allow the Dalai Lama to return to China if he promises to respect Chinese sovereignty over Tibet, the Chinese have dismissed his efforts to work for a “middle way” that gives Tibet a higher measure of autonomy under continued Chinese rule.
Tibet’s governor, Qiangba Puncog, said at the party congress that the dialogue with the Dalai Lama had gone poorly.
“He should resolutely abandon his Tibetan independence stance and activities,” Mr. Qiangba Puncog said. “But in my opinion, some of those activities are actually escalating and setting a lot of obstacles for further progress.”
Ethnic tensions have risen in Tibet in recent months, prompting tough police action.
Rights groups said a group of Tibetan boys were detained in the northwestern province of Gansu last month after they were accused of scribbling slogans on walls calling for the Dalai Lama’s return.
Four of the boys, all 15 years old, were still in detention. Police officers used electric prods on them and were demanding payment for their release, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch say.
Brian Knowlton contributed reporting from Washington
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Saturday, October 13, 2007
A Common Word
Call for a Common Word between Muslims and Christians
http://www.acommonword.com/
http://www.acommonword.com/lib/downloads/CW-Total-Final-v-12g-Eng-9-10-07.pdf
http://www.acommonword.com/
http://www.acommonword.com/lib/downloads/CW-Total-Final-v-12g-Eng-9-10-07.pdf
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Rasa Sayange
The Feeling of Love which (could) Undermine a True Love
The current debate on the song Rasa Sayang (Feeling of Love) between two Malay neigbors Malaysians and Indonesians is apparently contra-productive to the idea of love the core idea of the matter being debated. Some Indonesian figures claimed that Malaysians had stolen the song they said belongs to Indonesia not Malaysia. Malaysians replied that the song belong not to Indonesians, but to all Malays.
Traditional Malay people did not have the concept of copy-right as this is a new international concept embraced and adopted by them from their interactions with international laws. It would be difficult to claim and counter-claim about who own a song already sung popularly in the Indo-Malay world. As this has for long (not sure for how many decades or centuries) been sung by many without thinking of who authored it and when it was composed, nobody, including the Malaysians, could be ethically and culturally justified to manipulate the song for the sake of economic and political interests without respect of others who share it. If a supposedly shared cultural product is claimed for one party's economic interest, not simply for cultural enrichment and enjoyment of everyone, then there is a problem.
Malaysians are insensitive when they simply adopted that song for their commercial purposes and for their exclusive claims of Malaysia being a true Asia, thus excluding Indonesians, Bruneians, Filipinos, Singaporeans, and others.
Indonesians are also not aware of the historical fact that they and Malaysians are actually one race and once were one before the Dutch and the British colonialized divided them into two separate countries. Although Indonesians are ethnically more diverse (not only Malays as they are Javanese, Sundanese, Buginese, Papuans, etc) than Malaysians, they have all been engaged in regional networks of religion, trade, politics, culture, and society. Their interactions are more intense and closed than they come to realize, especially when issues of political economy awakens their mind and sense of nationalism.
Historically, Malaysians have long won the battle of claiming Malayness of their country, when they only, excluding Indonesians, regard Malacca as their true ancestors. Malaysians also win the struggle over some territorial boundaries. And this time Malaysians is successful in claiming a Malay song to be their own. Malaysian diplomats appear to be smarter than Indonesian diplomats and politicians in manipulating their cultures and natural resources for their national development and international images.
The problem of this debate over the song might be resolved by cultural dialogue and political diplomacy, but the resolution will depend on the intelligent ways in which Indonesians and Malaysians come to terms with their past, present and future. They have to learn more about their own histories, their common histories and their distinct histories. There is certainly no monolithic reading of history, but a politicization of history is often dangerous, subjective, and destructive when exclusions are deliberately intended for the economic and political self-interest of one country at the expense of the feeling of love of other countries which obviously without doubt are their forever brothers and neighbors.
Muhamad Ali, Riverside, October 9, 2007
The current debate on the song Rasa Sayang (Feeling of Love) between two Malay neigbors Malaysians and Indonesians is apparently contra-productive to the idea of love the core idea of the matter being debated. Some Indonesian figures claimed that Malaysians had stolen the song they said belongs to Indonesia not Malaysia. Malaysians replied that the song belong not to Indonesians, but to all Malays.
Traditional Malay people did not have the concept of copy-right as this is a new international concept embraced and adopted by them from their interactions with international laws. It would be difficult to claim and counter-claim about who own a song already sung popularly in the Indo-Malay world. As this has for long (not sure for how many decades or centuries) been sung by many without thinking of who authored it and when it was composed, nobody, including the Malaysians, could be ethically and culturally justified to manipulate the song for the sake of economic and political interests without respect of others who share it. If a supposedly shared cultural product is claimed for one party's economic interest, not simply for cultural enrichment and enjoyment of everyone, then there is a problem.
Malaysians are insensitive when they simply adopted that song for their commercial purposes and for their exclusive claims of Malaysia being a true Asia, thus excluding Indonesians, Bruneians, Filipinos, Singaporeans, and others.
Indonesians are also not aware of the historical fact that they and Malaysians are actually one race and once were one before the Dutch and the British colonialized divided them into two separate countries. Although Indonesians are ethnically more diverse (not only Malays as they are Javanese, Sundanese, Buginese, Papuans, etc) than Malaysians, they have all been engaged in regional networks of religion, trade, politics, culture, and society. Their interactions are more intense and closed than they come to realize, especially when issues of political economy awakens their mind and sense of nationalism.
Historically, Malaysians have long won the battle of claiming Malayness of their country, when they only, excluding Indonesians, regard Malacca as their true ancestors. Malaysians also win the struggle over some territorial boundaries. And this time Malaysians is successful in claiming a Malay song to be their own. Malaysian diplomats appear to be smarter than Indonesian diplomats and politicians in manipulating their cultures and natural resources for their national development and international images.
The problem of this debate over the song might be resolved by cultural dialogue and political diplomacy, but the resolution will depend on the intelligent ways in which Indonesians and Malaysians come to terms with their past, present and future. They have to learn more about their own histories, their common histories and their distinct histories. There is certainly no monolithic reading of history, but a politicization of history is often dangerous, subjective, and destructive when exclusions are deliberately intended for the economic and political self-interest of one country at the expense of the feeling of love of other countries which obviously without doubt are their forever brothers and neighbors.
Muhamad Ali, Riverside, October 9, 2007
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Ramadhan in America
Ramadhan in America: A lesson for everyone
Muhamad Ali, Riverside, California
In a secular nation like the United States, observing religious obligations is recognized because religious freedom is implemented seriously. I have had many experiences concerning religious freedom in the country, but the most recent one is worth reflecting on.
Obviously fasting in America is unlike fasting in Indonesia, where almost everyone joins you in your quest. The University of California at Riverside, where I teach, is one of the most diverse campuses in America. People of Hispanic, Asian, African, Middle Eastern and Caucasian origin are all proud to be American.
In the second week of Ramadhan, the Islamic Center of Riverside hosted a public gathering. The event was specifically organized for Muslims to break the fast, but everyone invited also enjoyed the food and drinks provided, including non-Muslims. Everyone who attended, regardless of their religion or identity, conversed in a friendly and respectful manner, despite the fact they had never met.
A Jewish rabbi shared jokes with the crowd and thanked the leaders of the city's Muslim community for the invitation. He said rabbis should not feel uneasy congratulating Muslims during Ramadhan. He said he hoped there would come a time when people greeted people of other religions without even thinking about it.
Symbolic gestures and greetings, however trivial they may seem, are significant in the creation of an inclusive and respectful social environment. A Catholic said he understood the feelings of Muslims, and that in Northern Ireland terror attacks have also occurred, pointing toward the fact terrorism is not associated with a particular religion.
The Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack was a turning point for different religious communities in the U.S., during which they were forced to come to terms with differences and prejudices. In a secular country like the U.S., efforts to foster interfaith dialogue and meetings are taken seriously. Muslims and non-Muslims work together to overcome misunderstandings and misperceptions between them.
In a touching speech, UCR Professor June O'Connor, a Catholic and an expert on comparive religious ethics, emphasized the need to go beyond tolerance. One has to show true willingness to know more about others in order to achieve peace and harmony, she said. She invited the audience to strengthen common ethics shared by conflicting religious beliefs.
Another interesting aspect of the gathering was that the city's Islamic community handed out awards to recognize the contributions certain figures had made to the Islamic community and the general public.
The mayor of the city has been a leader in the areas of inclusivism and multiculturalism. He initiated a forum aimed at building a more inclusive Riverside community. In his speech, he said the inclusive community was a type of social capital that could be seen as a great asset.
Having observed this particular event, I have some lessons to share. First, a religious community has to reach out, to embrace inclusiveness and pluralism. No one should express the idea that one religion is superior over others. One should embrace others, seek common values and set aside differences.
Second, this relationship must not be built in terms of majority-minority because everyone is equal. In the U.S., the value of inclusiveness was developed by a Catholic, John F. Kennedy, who become a president in a predominantly Protestant country. It was also developed by a Muslim who became a senator, and in the future, may be developed by anyone from any ethnic group or religion. Inclusiveness means everyone should be included without exception.
Interfaith meetings are an excellent beginning to reducing racialism, anti-Semitism, anti-Islamism, anti-Christianism and so forth. However, such meetings are not without long processes of engagement. They require moral courage and sincerity in building a cooperative, inclusive and prosperous community.
Third, everyone's contribution to the community must be recognized and acknowledged regardless of their race, gender or religion. Recognition is important and must be given by the state and/or civil society.
Fourth, Muslims can actually live a prosperous, Islamic life in a country where the constitution separates the church from the state. Muslims are proud of being American Muslims and they do not endorse the idea of an Islamic state or the formal implementation of sharia. Muslims in America hope that the current secular constitution will last forever as it benefits rather than harms people in terms of community building.
However, this secular constitution does not mean everyone takes distrust, prejudices and stigmas for granted as if problems do not exist. The secular constitution does not necessarily mean that religious communities and leaders can not speak and stand up to express their religious views. But they speak in terms of their contributions to the larger community and to the state.
Lastly, people should speak their mind without pressure because they are speaking in a civilized and a non-threatening manner. Freedom of speech is guaranteed by the constitution, and is practiced by many local politicians and civil society leaders.
A sheik from al-Azhar University, for example, who clearly has a different viewpoint regarding how society needs to be educated, has continually been invited to give Ramadhan lectures and lead prayers in the mosque as part of his contribution to the community at large.
The secular state allows its citizens to speak their mind as long as what they say does not harm the rights of others. The most important thing is not what is said, but how it is said.
There remain many challenges ahead. Interfaith meetings are important, but not sufficient. Leaders must return to the grassroots level and reach out to the marginalized, oppressed, poor, backward and illiterate.
These people need more than just meetings. They also need interfaith social work and social, economic, cultural and political networks that reflect practical pluralism.
Like in Indonesia where such interfaith meetings are common, the challenge is the same. How can we move further toward the grassroots level?
People of different religions can learn from each other's beliefs and practices. Muslims in particular countries can learn from other cultures about how religious freedom and social inclusivity is upheld.
The writer is an assistant professor at the University of California's Religious Studies Department in Riverside. He can be reached at muhali74@hotmail.com.
Muhamad Ali, Riverside, California
In a secular nation like the United States, observing religious obligations is recognized because religious freedom is implemented seriously. I have had many experiences concerning religious freedom in the country, but the most recent one is worth reflecting on.
Obviously fasting in America is unlike fasting in Indonesia, where almost everyone joins you in your quest. The University of California at Riverside, where I teach, is one of the most diverse campuses in America. People of Hispanic, Asian, African, Middle Eastern and Caucasian origin are all proud to be American.
In the second week of Ramadhan, the Islamic Center of Riverside hosted a public gathering. The event was specifically organized for Muslims to break the fast, but everyone invited also enjoyed the food and drinks provided, including non-Muslims. Everyone who attended, regardless of their religion or identity, conversed in a friendly and respectful manner, despite the fact they had never met.
A Jewish rabbi shared jokes with the crowd and thanked the leaders of the city's Muslim community for the invitation. He said rabbis should not feel uneasy congratulating Muslims during Ramadhan. He said he hoped there would come a time when people greeted people of other religions without even thinking about it.
Symbolic gestures and greetings, however trivial they may seem, are significant in the creation of an inclusive and respectful social environment. A Catholic said he understood the feelings of Muslims, and that in Northern Ireland terror attacks have also occurred, pointing toward the fact terrorism is not associated with a particular religion.
The Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack was a turning point for different religious communities in the U.S., during which they were forced to come to terms with differences and prejudices. In a secular country like the U.S., efforts to foster interfaith dialogue and meetings are taken seriously. Muslims and non-Muslims work together to overcome misunderstandings and misperceptions between them.
In a touching speech, UCR Professor June O'Connor, a Catholic and an expert on comparive religious ethics, emphasized the need to go beyond tolerance. One has to show true willingness to know more about others in order to achieve peace and harmony, she said. She invited the audience to strengthen common ethics shared by conflicting religious beliefs.
Another interesting aspect of the gathering was that the city's Islamic community handed out awards to recognize the contributions certain figures had made to the Islamic community and the general public.
The mayor of the city has been a leader in the areas of inclusivism and multiculturalism. He initiated a forum aimed at building a more inclusive Riverside community. In his speech, he said the inclusive community was a type of social capital that could be seen as a great asset.
Having observed this particular event, I have some lessons to share. First, a religious community has to reach out, to embrace inclusiveness and pluralism. No one should express the idea that one religion is superior over others. One should embrace others, seek common values and set aside differences.
Second, this relationship must not be built in terms of majority-minority because everyone is equal. In the U.S., the value of inclusiveness was developed by a Catholic, John F. Kennedy, who become a president in a predominantly Protestant country. It was also developed by a Muslim who became a senator, and in the future, may be developed by anyone from any ethnic group or religion. Inclusiveness means everyone should be included without exception.
Interfaith meetings are an excellent beginning to reducing racialism, anti-Semitism, anti-Islamism, anti-Christianism and so forth. However, such meetings are not without long processes of engagement. They require moral courage and sincerity in building a cooperative, inclusive and prosperous community.
Third, everyone's contribution to the community must be recognized and acknowledged regardless of their race, gender or religion. Recognition is important and must be given by the state and/or civil society.
Fourth, Muslims can actually live a prosperous, Islamic life in a country where the constitution separates the church from the state. Muslims are proud of being American Muslims and they do not endorse the idea of an Islamic state or the formal implementation of sharia. Muslims in America hope that the current secular constitution will last forever as it benefits rather than harms people in terms of community building.
However, this secular constitution does not mean everyone takes distrust, prejudices and stigmas for granted as if problems do not exist. The secular constitution does not necessarily mean that religious communities and leaders can not speak and stand up to express their religious views. But they speak in terms of their contributions to the larger community and to the state.
Lastly, people should speak their mind without pressure because they are speaking in a civilized and a non-threatening manner. Freedom of speech is guaranteed by the constitution, and is practiced by many local politicians and civil society leaders.
A sheik from al-Azhar University, for example, who clearly has a different viewpoint regarding how society needs to be educated, has continually been invited to give Ramadhan lectures and lead prayers in the mosque as part of his contribution to the community at large.
The secular state allows its citizens to speak their mind as long as what they say does not harm the rights of others. The most important thing is not what is said, but how it is said.
There remain many challenges ahead. Interfaith meetings are important, but not sufficient. Leaders must return to the grassroots level and reach out to the marginalized, oppressed, poor, backward and illiterate.
These people need more than just meetings. They also need interfaith social work and social, economic, cultural and political networks that reflect practical pluralism.
Like in Indonesia where such interfaith meetings are common, the challenge is the same. How can we move further toward the grassroots level?
People of different religions can learn from each other's beliefs and practices. Muslims in particular countries can learn from other cultures about how religious freedom and social inclusivity is upheld.
The writer is an assistant professor at the University of California's Religious Studies Department in Riverside. He can be reached at muhali74@hotmail.com.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
religion and politics in America
The news below indicates how in America the problem of connection between religion and politics is not entirely resolved.
McCain criticized for religious remarks
By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer Mon Oct 1, 5:50 PM ET
WASHINGTON - Several Jewish organizations criticized John McCain on Monday after the Republican candidate said he would prefer a Christian president over someone of a different faith.
In an interview with Beliefnet, a multi-denominational Web site that covers religion and spirituality, the White House hopeful was asked if a Muslim candidate could be a good president.
"I just have to say in all candor that since this nation was founded primarily on Christian principles ... personally, I prefer someone who I know who has a solid grounding in my faith," McCain said. "But that doesn't mean that I'm sure that someone who is Muslim would not make a good president."
Later, McCain said, "I would vote for a Muslim if he or she was the candidate best able to lead the country and defend our political values." He added that "the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation."
The interview was published Saturday.
The American Jewish Committee, an international think tank and advocacy organization based in New York, issued a statement criticizing the Arizona senator, arguing that McCain should know that the United States is a democratic society without a religious test for public office.
"To argue that America is a Christian nation, or that persons of a particular faith should by reason of their faith not seek high office, puts the very character of our country at stake," Jeffrey Sinensky, the group's general counsel, said Monday in a statement.
A partisan organization, the National Jewish Democratic Council, also called McCain's comments repugnant.
Amid the criticism, Democrat Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, an Orthodox Jew, came to the defense of his Senate colleague.
"I have known John McCain very well for many years and I know that he does not have a bigoted bone in his body. I know that he is fair and just to all Americans regardless of their faith," Lieberman said.
Over the past few days, McCain has sought to clarify his remarks.
While campaigning in New Hampshire on Sunday, he said that the most qualified person could be president, no matter his or her religion.
"It's almost Talmudic. We are a nation that was based on Judeo-Christian values. That means respect for all of human rights and dignity. That's my principle values and ideas, and that's what I think motivated our founding fathers," McCain said.
Also Sunday, in a statement, his spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker said: "The senator did not intend to assert that members of one religious faith or another have a greater claim to American citizenship over another."
McCain criticized for religious remarks
By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer Mon Oct 1, 5:50 PM ET
WASHINGTON - Several Jewish organizations criticized John McCain on Monday after the Republican candidate said he would prefer a Christian president over someone of a different faith.
In an interview with Beliefnet, a multi-denominational Web site that covers religion and spirituality, the White House hopeful was asked if a Muslim candidate could be a good president.
"I just have to say in all candor that since this nation was founded primarily on Christian principles ... personally, I prefer someone who I know who has a solid grounding in my faith," McCain said. "But that doesn't mean that I'm sure that someone who is Muslim would not make a good president."
Later, McCain said, "I would vote for a Muslim if he or she was the candidate best able to lead the country and defend our political values." He added that "the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation."
The interview was published Saturday.
The American Jewish Committee, an international think tank and advocacy organization based in New York, issued a statement criticizing the Arizona senator, arguing that McCain should know that the United States is a democratic society without a religious test for public office.
"To argue that America is a Christian nation, or that persons of a particular faith should by reason of their faith not seek high office, puts the very character of our country at stake," Jeffrey Sinensky, the group's general counsel, said Monday in a statement.
A partisan organization, the National Jewish Democratic Council, also called McCain's comments repugnant.
Amid the criticism, Democrat Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, an Orthodox Jew, came to the defense of his Senate colleague.
"I have known John McCain very well for many years and I know that he does not have a bigoted bone in his body. I know that he is fair and just to all Americans regardless of their faith," Lieberman said.
Over the past few days, McCain has sought to clarify his remarks.
While campaigning in New Hampshire on Sunday, he said that the most qualified person could be president, no matter his or her religion.
"It's almost Talmudic. We are a nation that was based on Judeo-Christian values. That means respect for all of human rights and dignity. That's my principle values and ideas, and that's what I think motivated our founding fathers," McCain said.
Also Sunday, in a statement, his spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker said: "The senator did not intend to assert that members of one religious faith or another have a greater claim to American citizenship over another."
Monday, October 01, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
