Globalization and the conflict between Christian and Muslim society

9. Why do you think globalization is connected to the conflict between Christian and Muslim society? Considering the integration of Muslim immigrants in Europe, what do you think is the main problem to be solved now? Do you have any experience with this minority (Muslim immigrants) making demands and the perception of it in official places?

Answer by Jana Hybášková:

I never said globalization is connected to the conflict between Christian and Muslim society. There is no connection whatsoever.

Muslims in Europe are not a unified group. We can not generalize about their situation. The situation of Moroccans in the Netherlands differs from situation of Algerians in France, and the Kurdish situation in Sweden differs from that of Turks in Germany. We find among them huge religious, legal and ethnic differences. Any equalization is a mistake. We have to inform ourselves about their social and economic situation. We have to try to avoid their social exclusion, as we do now with the Roma population to support by all means their inclusion in our society - our country. We have to support their inclusion by all means in our society. The key issue is education and language. They should have an equal opportunity to gain skills, habits, norms, and education as our children do. Then they can be more close to finding more equal opportunities to enter the labor market and to improve their social position. Then, if they are confident and satisfied citizens, I am sure they will keep their customs and manners, knowledge of Islam as an additional cultural capital, not as the confirmation of social exclusion. The issue then is to design proper systematic way of social inclusion and equal opportunity.

The important political issue is the way many EU states interfere in Muslims' religious affairs, often with disregard towards differences between Sunnis and Shiites, between Turks and Kurds and Arabs, among Malikis, Hanbalis, for instance. We should be much more sensitive to our approach to The Muslim Council, for instance, in Germany. Neglecting one group because of another does not help.

Irmawan Rahyadi

Thank you Jana for the answers. I would like to say that the answers are interesting and insightful. The reality in the Arab peninsula as the small example in the big scheme of globalization really makes me realize we are dealing with the huge span of issue here.

Since Jana was an expert in Arab matters, I tend to pay more attention on the questions related with this. So let me start with the perspectives of terror that at this time always being related to the Middle East a.k.a Arabs. As Jana mentioned that this so called "terror" phenomenon has been around for over centuries in different parts of the world, that means the Arabs terror origins were never been proved. The relations between terror and the globalization are not shown she said.

Jana then in different answer said that globalization is much more manageable in the hand of society which could steer the strategic threats to the minimum. I would like to link my next question with the fact that you said a certain religion is much more difficult to open up to modernization. Since education and language are important elements in supporting the inclusion to the modern society. In this case are you neglecting second or third generation Muslim which “turn to religious root” at the same time could participate in the modern society such as in Europe and North America?

Tuesday, 8 December 2009

Jana Hybášková

Dear Imrawan, Thank you very much for your question. For me it was the best one. And please, consider my answer my humble opinion, since it is very difficult to judge one other region, if you are not its believer. A do not have any problem with Islamic “usuliyya”. Coming back to roots, when you feel you cannot find clear answer as if centuries of tradition laid dust upon the religion illuminated truth, you try to do everything to dig back. We Christians read the Qumran Scroll, study Gnosis, we have apocrypha to try to discover, what really Jesus meant…If we do so, it is not extremism, it is not curiosity, it is true belief, as if we want to have it clearer. I know many fundamentalist Muslims, who are really pious people, who know Islamic Music, Islamic art, who contribute to Charity, who pray, who are blessed by great stay of deep belief, of trust… So never ever I can be neglecting them. More complicated issue usually lies with the answer: ” No, it is not the Quran al karim, it is how experts see it, it is in Bukhari"… As if the Quran is not sufficient source, and people seeking for truth are relying on the interpretations. Even this is o.k., unless the interpretation is misleading them. We people from post-communist countries are extremely suspicious to all those who feel, who like to impose their truth upon us, who try to say, we have the truth for all, for majority, we are bolshevicks./ meaning is the same/. So if someone tries to seek answers to globalization, and ends with quoting Nasrallah, al Manar TV, and sheikh Qaradhawi, this is were problem lies.

In Western Christianity we had Protestantism. It caused millions of dead people, the reformation was one of the bloodiest parts of our history, but it came with recognized reinterpretation, which is not reinterpretation of some. Islam has no more its Caliph; it has not the highest reinterpretation body. Might be, this is part of the problem. How to find proper reinterpretation, modernization question’s answer in real Quran of our day’s lives of Muslim second and third generations living inside Europe is the big question for me. This is the way forward to our common future; this is how we have to operate. Not to stop imams to bring to Europe tapes with messages from the Middle East interpreters, but might be, to open together the second and third Europe Muslim´s right to reinterpret?

Monday, 14 December 2009

Corinna Lohrengel

First of all, thanks to Jana for taking the time to answer our questions so detailed! I learned many new approaches to the subject of globalization. smile Here are my thoughts - I concentrated on the questions 6 and 8:

"The connection towards globalization is loose." (Concerning the terror)

The aspect "terror and globalization" interested me the most because I just wrote an essay about media and globalization. I think media is one of the most important outcomes of globalization concerning terrorism. Terrorist groups as the Hamas or the Hezbollah profit especially from the internet to communicate and to widen their network all over the world. The internet gives them new opportunities: To communicate faster and without attracting so much attention. Having followers everywhere. To issue a command in place A and action the command in place B without any hesitation. The media also gives those groups the chance to tell the world what they want to reach with those actions. Osama bin Laden sends video-messages to tell the world what he wants to achieve and to threaten everyone to be careful. In one message he said: "Even Germany shouldn't feel too secure." He wants us to know that every country could be the next. So the Internet and the television - two outcomes of the process of globalization - kind of improved the networking of terrorist groups and made it easier for them to attack. That's why I think globalization and terror are connected with each other. So I don't agree with you Jana. But do you think about but thoughts and what are your remarks?

Friday, 11 December 2009

Fabian Siggemann

Hi to all and sorry for being so late with my answer. At first a happy new year to all of you. For me the 6th question was very interesting. In the last years since the 11th of september of 2001 everybody hear a lot of the war against terror. I don't now if the globalization is the reason for more terrorism in the world but I think that the possibility to communicate with every person on our earth over the internet or mobile phones or the possibilty to travel around the world in less than 2 days make it easier for terror to spread out over the world. So I think it is not the reason for more terror but it is a kind of indirect assistance. Airplanes will be abuse as weapons and airport develope body scanners to fight against the terror and intervene into the privacy of the people how live in this globalized world.

Sunday, 3 January 2010

Lina Samoske

First of all happy new year.

I also think the qestion and the answer about terrorism is very interesting. The globalisation and terrorism is usually not mention in connection with each other. In my oponion the globalisation lets us communicate easier about all these occurrences, just like Fabian said. Globalisation can also enhance disparity, that could bring more enviers with it. So I can imagine that it could bring more anger.

Sunday, 3 January 2010

Josef Nový

Hello Fabian,

I'm also late with my contribution, so I will join you. I also think that the new technologies and all the results of rapid development make it easier for the terrorists to strike. However, this is exactly what Jana Hybaskova warned us about - the new equipment and hi-tech is a result of modernization, not globalisation I think. The thing is that terrorists realized how much bomb attacks and other massive aggressions hurt modern societies and that they cannot respond to that properly. But this must happen always when one player respects the rules which other player ignores. The second player may not win, but has a certain advantage.

Monday, 4 January 2010

Jana Hybášková

Dear Corinna, and Fabian and Josef

As much as I know, suicide form of terrorism appeared in the 12th century, with specific Shiite sect , based in Persia, to conquer Sunni population and later Christian crusaders. The militants were known as hašíšíjůn, form here the word assassins, those who being edicted to hashish believed that by killing they will enter paradise. Substantial factor hear is „to enter paradise“, individual, moral persuasion about specific very high moral value of murderous act. I would say that this belief in extremely high moral value of murderous act is what makes terrorism so specific and complicated to counter.

Christian crusaders were killed while coming to Palestine. Other case of clear terrorism in the Middle East are the 20th and 30th in Palestine. Incoming Jews believed in their fight for their Holy land, as much as Arabs did so. Irgun Zwei Leumi, Hagana were terrorist movements, fighting for their Holy persuasion, killing not only Palestinians, but Brits, and others as well. Palestinians learned their tactic mainly from them.

In the humble history of my country there was couple of clear terrorists – partisans who came in 1942 from UK to kill general Heydrich, the head of the project of Endlesung. Killing Heydrich was a clear terrorist attack, from our point of view. The last terrible hit to CIA in Afghanistan was definitely led by terrorist persuasion, that he serves the Holy fight against the infidel, and hitting them in the heart of their military structure, stemmed from the military importance of the target, not from media one. I am sure, that media and globalization did not play any role in all acts terrorism I mentioned above.

Yes, you are right, media can be used as a part of tactics, to spread the feeling of defeat and victimization among further parts of civilian population, so to enhance the „victory“of terrorist. Lot of literature was devoted to this particular issue. Nevertheless, terrorism first is the modus of warfare, which is used in asymmetric situations. In such case, targeting civilians is the most effective way, how to balance asymmetry. Media amplifies the effect. But the real truth behind is the Holy value of the act, deep moral persuasion about the extreme rightness of the act. This has nothing to do with globalization.

In the event that triggered the World War I, Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and his wife Sophie, Duchess of Hohenberg were assassinated in Sarajevo on 28 June 1914 by Serbian nationalist Gavrilo Princip. The famous photo shows the car of Archduke. The car was hit, since the pair already used the modern means of transportation. Today, they would most probably travel by plane. Gavrilo Princip would most probably try to hit plane…

As much as modernity changes the conditions in which we live, sos much terrorism accommodates these conditions. The second feature of terrorism I underline as well: the fight in conditions of asymmetry. Any means which can be used to balance it is good.

What about media? If there would be legislation, penalizing the amplification of effects of terrorism by spreading the news, media will most probably will be more restrained and terrorist would most probably reconsider the aim of masses of population. So what about launching People vs. al Jazira, People vs. BBC?

Wednesday, 6 January 2010

Marenka Krasomil

I agree with Fabian, that the possibilities that globalization is offering us is centred in a world wide communication. That terror has the chance to spread out all over the world is one point, and the other is I think, that the news about terror, the papers the newscast etc. are more connected. Through that information is possible to reach more people in a shorter time. And perhaps it is too a fact that if the news about terror are spread, every one has the impression that there is more terror in the world...perhaps would the people not have that impression of that immense rising of terrorism 10 years before.

I do not want to say that the rise of terrorism is not true, just that the media in a global world has the chance to give the impression of more terror and dangerous terror than it probably is.

Wednesday, 13 January 2010

Andrew Barton

Hi everybody. Now to add my five cents worth. Terrorism in one form or another has certainly been with us since the beginning of (human) time as mankind has learned to terrorise itself to varying degrees throughout the ages, although it is only in relatively modern times beginning in the 19th century that the perception of terror as something wholly irrational, unsporting, crazed and maniacal began to develop. This was particularly so as nationalities began to agitate to carve out their own nation states from the old empires; the Macedonian "terrorists" during the break-up of the Ottoman Empire come to mind. Then you had the creation of "terrorist" organisations promoting political ideas, such as the 19th century and early 20th century anarchists. Or even a combination of the two: Zionists terrorising their British overlords in Palestine in support of an independent Jewish state. And for much of the post-WWII 20th century we've had so-called terrorists commiting acts of violence in the name of left-wing politics (Shining Path, Baader-Meinhof, Red Army), right-wing politics (Contras) and again, nationalities (PLO, Tamil Tigers, etc). However, these groups were only "terrorists" in the eye of the beholder; one government's terrorists were another government's freedom-fighters. A lot of this was a result of the Cold War of course, but some might nevertheless be seen as legitimate groups fighting for legitimate causes, e.g. the Palestinian Liberation Organisation. And another issue is that regarding so-called state terrorism. Is an act of terror committed only by individuals or small groups, or can terror be carried out by governments as well? Again, it's in the eye of the beholder: the USA and Britain essentially invaded Iraq illegally in 2003 because they did not have the backing of a UN resolution, and therefore some people would say that the war was a wholesale act of terror. As a New Zealander, I well remember an act of state terror being carried out in Auckland harbour in 1985 when the French government bombed the Rainbow Warrior, which resulted in one death.

Speaking about Iraq leads us on to the phenomenon of Al-Quida and its various offshoots and "Islamic" terrorism, although there was no connection whatsoever to begin with in 2003. With Al-Quida we have the re-emergence of terrorism in support of an idea, except this time seemingly without a concrete agenda. But on the other hand, it is possibly the first truly global terrorist movement which has very effectively used globalisation to its great advantage, especially global communications. But what the whole anti-terror "war" and accompanying debate sadly lacks is a rigorous analysis of the causes and motivations behind this movement. Are Islamic terrorists simply nihilists who wish to inflict as much pain and suffering on non-believers because their beliefs or lack thereof are anathema to them? Or are they an extreme expression of frustration at the way the vast majority of Muslim people (living either in poor Muslim nations or alienated within wealthy but undemocratic Muslim countries) have been marginalised in the global economy? And what of the way that the original "war on terror" was manipulated to justify repression and state violence against any type of anti-state forces; again, it was the Palestinians who suffered as they all became dangerous terrorists overnight after Bush declared "you're either with us or against us". Israel's response to Palestinian efforts to defend and fight for its terrority is suprememly ironic when you consider that the Israeli state was founded on the back of acts of extreme terrorism carried out by future prime ministers like Menachem Begin and Yitzak Shamir.

Anyhow, my question is this: if the "new" terrorism of today is a consequence of global forces or is at least nourished and maintained by global connectedness, can it also be "defeated" by globalisation?

Thursday, 14 January 2010