Author: Daniel Philpott

Qatar — one of the world’s very richest nations per capita — aspires to be an entrepôt for international commerce, both in goods and in ideas like interreligious understanding.  For over a decade, the Doha International Center for Interfaith Dialogue (DICID), a quasi-governmental entity, has hosted an annual conference on interreligious dialogue, a recent one of which brought in 300 participants from over 70 countries.

But what is going on outside the conference hall?

It’s not so tolerant.  Qatar boasts that its law recognizes Christians and Jews – “people of the book” – and allows them to worship freely.  This, though, takes place in a strongly Islamist atmosphere.  Even people of the book must keep their worship private; religious ideas contrary to those of Islam (Sunni or Shia) have no place in public forums like the media.  Proselytism is strictly outlawed, as is conversion away from Islam, which is a capital offense (through never enforced since the country’s independence in 1971).  The government exercises heavy censorship of the media.  It does not legally recognize – meaning that it does not authorize worship facilities for – religions other than Judaism and Christianity, despite the fact that Hindus are 30% of the population of noncitizens and Buddhists are 7%.  The government strongly regulates Islam as well as other faiths.

An article in yesterday’s New York Times details Qatar’s support for militant groups around the region.

Sheikh Ajmi and at least a half-dozen others identified by the United States as private fund-raisers for Al Qaeda’s Syrian franchise operate freely in Doha, often speaking at state-owned mosques and even occasionally appearing on Al Jazeera. The state itself has provided at least some form of assistance — whether sanctuary, media, money or weapons — to the Taliban of Afghanistan, Hamas of Gaza, rebels from Syria, militias in Libya and allies of the Muslim Brotherhood across the region.

 

Lately, Qatar has been coming under criticism for these ties from rival states in the region like the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Israel, many of whom, admittedly, are on the other side of many of the rivalries in which Qatar is involved.  And to clear up the air on one issue, there is no evidence that Qatar is supporting the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL).

Still, foreign conference-goers would do well to look beyond Doha’s glass towers.

 

 

 

 

As the Islamic State’s (ISIS/ISIL) latest beheading became news today, the group’s brutal ambitions have become all the more apparent.  The United States and its allies are expected to continue military operations for some time to come.  Are such operations just?

Two major statements have arisen in recent weeks, each signed by numerous scholars, religious leaders, and activists.  They take very different stands.  One, put out by a group called Iraq Rescue, calls for military force against ISIS/ISIL and for arming its opponents.  It advertises itself as being signed by conservatives, moderates, and liberals.

The other comes from a group of 53 religious voices who oppose the use of military force, cite Pope Francis in their favor, and call for alternative measures, including reconciliation initiatives and “just peace” practices.

Who is right?

Military force is both justified and necessary to stop ISIS/ISIL.  Without it, thousands of preventable deaths of civilians, including communities of religious minorities, would have taken place and will take place.  Force meets the criteria of the just war tradition and fulfills the “responsibility to protect” that the international community has articulated.

In the intermediate to long run, however, far more ought to be done to build a sustainable just peace on the ground in Iraq and in the region than has been done in recent years.  Iraq has been riven by sectarian tensions for decades.  Once the fall of Saddam took the lid off these tensions, they broke out into violence and have become bloody again since the departure of the U.S. military.  If the United States wants to avoid another large scale intervention in Iraq, measures to address these tensions are critical.  What is needed is reconciliation.

U.S. policymakers have spoken of reconciliation for Iraq for some time now.  The 2006 bipartisan Iraq Study Group used the term 63 times. General David Petraeus promoted reconciliation to quell civil war.  Most recently, the Obama Administration has appealed for a reconciliation by which Iraq’s Shiite government would include far more Sunnis and Kurds.

In most of these usages, reconciliation means something much like political compromise. Now, it must go deeper, addressing the wounds of the past.  In the past generation, tens of countries around the world have sought to do this through truth commissions, reparations, and local reconciliation initiatives stressing healing, truth-telling, apology, forgiveness, and reparation, often under the guidance of religious leaders.  (I have written about these here.)

Such measures will not be possible until the guns stop.  Once they do, though, reconciliation can wait no longer. Reconciliation offers a deeper justice than does the use of force alone.  In the Jewish, Islamic, and Christian traditions, reconciliation is right relationship within and between communities.  Reconciliation is also profoundly pragmatic. Apart from deeper repair, the kind of intervention that the U.S. wants to leave behind will not be avoidable.

 

 

 

 

Welcome to this new blog, Arc of the Universe.  It is devoted to the discussion of global justice.  Justice lurks just beneath headlines from Ukraine, Iraq, Afghanistan, and China, dealing with war, separatism, religious tensions, women’s issues, poverty, and religious freedom.  Justice often goes unexamined, though.  The same is true even in the American university.  In American political science, for instance, justice is sharply separated from — and often takes a back seat to — the scientific study of politics.  Arc of the Universe is devoted to resurfacing justice – examining today’s global issues from the deep commitments of ethical traditions.  Arc of the Universe is also distinctive in bringing religion into the picture.  Some posts will appeal to religion while others will be rendered in secular terms.  Arc of the Universe is a crossroads where secular and religious meet in conversation.

Our lineup of bloggers consists of scholars and activists from around the world who think about and experience global justice issues in their diverse valences.

If you are not a standing blogger and wish to post, please consider contacting one of our bloggers and having them publish a guest post on your behalf.

We look forward to a lively conversation.