This is not convincing. Which of her facts is incorrect? What logic is faulty? I haven't checked these facts out myself, but I'm not dismissing them either.
There were some quotes about Arab being spoken in paradise and all that. But historically there was nothing in Islam that can really compare to the Crusades or Spanish Inquisition etc. The kingdom of the Moores was primarily over territory and not religion. Many religions preach that they are the way, and people who aren't part of that aren't 'saved' or whatever, but that doesn't make a religion violent. I'll try and respond to all this in one attempt. That's how the religion is twisted by saying that all westerners are the enemy, or that the existence of Israel is provocation. But the Koran itself talks about the only just provocation being if someone is trying to kill you, or has murdered. The first speaker at the memorial for 9/11 was an Imam. This addresses most of the points of contention. It looks like that any form of Islam that doesn't behave violently you are claiming has been moderated or influenced. That's whay I mean when I say the only interpretation of the Koran you will accept is the most violent and extremist interpretation. Any example presented that shows moderate Islam, you claim isn't really valid because of Western or other influences. Even though the majority of muslims practice a more moderate form of Islam, it's the only the violent, extremist version that you seem willing to accept as pure Islam.
I think this is the main point. I would certainly say that the Islam practiced by many Muslims, including primarily those in the West, is not inherently violent. But I do not agree that Islam as practiced in other areas is that same version of Islam. Which is the 'true' Islam? The violent one most matches the Koran. The corollation between Islam and violence in places where the religion is NOT moderated is significant, and merely brushing them off as 'extremists' denies both their numbers and their influence. Are there moderates in the Middle East, and Africa, and Asia? Yes. Are they proportionally as strong as in Muslim communities in the West. Not even close.
I didn't type all of that because this isn't an Ann Coulter thread but the short list is that on a news show she claimed that because the NY Times printed Republicans opinions that dissented with Bush's about Iraq, that the NY Times was actually 'Rooting for Saddam'. In addition her picking isolated incidents of Islamic criminals and terrorists and claiming that ISlam isn't a peaceful religion is faulty. Again I can point out incidents by Christians that are violent, that restrict rights and freedoms, etc. but it doesn't really prove the point the religion as a whole is or isn't peaceful. At one point in her article, she said "the story vanished amid an embarrassed recognition of the fact that any Muslim could snap at any moment and start shooting." That's not true anymore of a Muslim than it is of anyone else. She lists it as fact. Her logic that because some Muslims have commited crimes must mean that any Muslim could snap at any moment and start shooting is faulty. She also didn't mention the whole story behind the Egyptian who shot El Al. She mentioned he complained about his neighbor's flag which hung over his balcony, but didn't mention the fact that he himself had an American Flag in his window. Why? Because that wouldn't help make her point. She leaves stuff out if it doesn't support her case. The issue the man had about the flag was it's size and intrusiveness, not the fact that it was an American Flag. Ann also didnt' mention that the man's wife and kids had left and gone back to Egypt, and that he had told someone that he was depressed and lonely since they left. Instead Ann Coulter says "the story vanished amid an embarrassed recognition of the fact that any Muslim could snap at any moment and start shooting." I'm not trying to excuse the guy. But writing about potential reasons behind the shooting would carry a little more integrity. Their are also a jewish group that blew up an Islamic facility killing seven Palestinians back in March. They caught the same group attempting to blow up a Islamic girl's school. Then the man in Florida was arrested with explosives and plans to blow up Islamic centers. Zionists used terrorism against the British when establishing their own country. They occupy and build settlements in Israel. The ruling party of the Jewish state voted to never recognize a Palestinian state. No one started asking if Judaism was at it's heart a violent religion. I don't think that it is. I'm just saying it's easy to pick apart incidents and claim that one religion is violent. But the only religion that gets publicity for it is Islam. When the El Al attack happened, it was only man, not affiliated with Al Qaeda, and yet that was talked about by Ann as Islamic violence. The Jewish man in Florida who listed at least one accomplice wasn't examined by Ann Coulter, or the media at large. There wasn't the rush to label him as Jewish terrorist.
DS-Not really a big coincidence if my original explanation is right, that the more radical violent Muslims seek out unstable, poor, and impoverished places to propagate Western hate. For example you could probably replace “impoverished and desperate countries” with “Islamic countries” and the statistics also hold up (e.g., statistically where most the wars are occurring). So is it Islam, poverty, scare resources, governmental instability that cause these wars?,--any one of these things could be the root cause but I would hazard to guess poverty and political instability are at the top of the list. DS-In undeveloped countries there is greater poverty and instability that could lead to war. . DS-This question remains unanswered. It isn’t just Islam correlated to violence and war, all these other things I mentioned are too. It may well be a radical twisted version is being propogated in spots with desperate people already stewing for war. Further, my point with “other wars” is essentially this, the presence of war (based on ideology, religion, ethnic prejudice, etc.) is a lot more common than the absence of war historically. The fact in the last 30 years a disproportionate amount of wars have some Islamic sub-groups involved is pretty inconsequential when you look at wars over the last 5000 years. Since Islam was formed has their been more wars due to it than due to other religions? I don’t know but though this is also an imperfect test of your theory but nonetheless a whole lot fairer test than only focusing on the last 30 years and ignoring other ethnic, political and socioeconomic factors.
Cool. Like I said I had no knowledge of Coulter. Don't dispute her overall theory, but from your insight into her examples I realize Ms JB was insulting me.
No. First, most of these places have been under Islamic influence for quite awhile. Second, there are plenty of places around the globe that are impoverished etc that are NOT Islamic, and those are what the comparisons are made with. There has been a spike in "ethnic conflict" and that has not occured in the developed world, but in the underdeveloped world. Islamic nations in Africa are more likely to be violent that non-Muslim nations. Same in the sub-continent, same in East Asia. And those statistics include Latin America where there is virtually no Muslim penetration, which would logically skew the statistics the OTHER way. But they don't. Third, Osama was not poor, nor were his hijackers. The theory that poverty is what breeds hate may be true of the suicide bombers in Israel, but it is not true across the board. The House of Saud is not poor, and yet they continue to fund terrorism. You can say 'well, they are only a few.' But they control the freakin homeland of the religion. They are the cultural center for Islam on the planet. Answered above. I don't know the answer to the last part of that as I can't speak to the first 600 years of the religion except generally to outline the expansion of Islam through war all the way to the gates of Vienna (twice). I can say that the statistic I quoted earlier hold true going back farther than the last 30 to about the 100 year mark. I used the quotes about the last 30 because they seem the most relevant to the discussion of how Islam concerns us NOW, and in light of the complete change in international order re: moving from the bi-polar world (which had contained many of these conflicts under the two Superpower axis) to unipolar world (which released many of these conflicts). These are not comparisons of first world and third world countries, so there is not a skewed outlook. And Islamic countries are not the only poor, underdeveloped countries in the world. The 30 year mark was where I drew the line as I was typing this stuff in from a book, which can get quick tedious when you type as slowly as I do!
interesting.. first off, the name of Islam's sacred text is 'Quran,' so please make a note of that.. as for the alleged hadith taken from the Mishkat on Arab superiority.. i would appreciate it if someone could tell me what the Mishkat is, as i nor any of my Muslim friends have ever heard of it.. going one further, i'll debunk it by taking a quote from Muhammad's, peace be upon him, final sermon: the Quranic verse dealing with the so-called carnage was revealed after the Muslims of Mecca had been persecuted, tortured, and murdered for 13 years.. this was the first time they were given the chance to retaliate for the atrocities that had been committed against them.. there is a strict code of ethics when it comes to warfare, as laid down by the Quran, and first and foremost is that Muslims should never ever be aggressors.. only if they, or their allies, have been attacked, w/o provocation or justification, can they be allowed to fight back.. as for the US and Israel being labeled enemies of the state and thus fair game, that simply doesn't hold water.. yes, there have been injustices committed by both nations against Muslim populations, however that in no way justifies the killing of civilians as that is strictly prohibited.. a person can only fight against someone who is directly fighting him.. no collateral damage, no destruction of property, no regrettable mistakes, no oops, no nothing.. as for the passing mention of dar ul harb and dar ul islam, i challenge you to find any mention of that in the Quran.. i'll do you one better - i'll save you the trouble b/c it's not in there.. regarding your wishes to wage war w/ Islam, i direct you to Article XI of the Treaty of Tripoli (1796): this treaty was later annulled as the n. african pirates (w/ whom this treaty was arranged) went back to being no good, but it was remixed as the Treaty of Tripoli (1806).. the above quote can be found under Article XIV of the 1806 treaty.. finally, i just want to remind everyone that we are discussing a religion here.. a certain respect is in order -- it's just common courtesy.. before attributing any quotes to either the sacred texts and/or prophets of any religion, i suggest one be absolutely sure they know what they're talking about.. at least double-check ur material from independent sources.. as w/ any text, quotes need to be taken w/i context, not only of surrounding words, but also of time and place.. nice try though hayes, 9 out of 10 for effort..
Several quick points to make. 1) If one doubts that there isn't a <i>moderating</i> influence on Islam when it comes into contact with other religions and populations, explain the vast differences in dress & conduct between women from Bosnia and those from Saudi Arabia. 2) The Islamic world has the OIC and I am trying to find a equivalent organization in the Christian world. If anybody can think of it, please share it with me. 3) Ayodhya and Bosina are amongst noted flashpoints in conflicts between Islam and other populations and the root events occured <b>centuries</b> ago, 4) Less than six <b>decades</b> ago, Europe was in the middle of a World War and now many European countries are banding together as the EU. Why does the hatred visible in WW II get handled/moderated/checked while the centuries old grudges between Muslims and other groups still exist? 5) If one agrees that there is some moderation evident in Islamic countries/areas that are adjacent to Christian, Hindu, Buddhist etc countries, then the pure/traditional Islam would be in the areas/countries that are shielded/sheltered from outside influence and amongst early converts such as Saudi Arabia and Iran? 6) There has been the refrain that it is just a <b>few</b> radical elements creating a poor image for the religion. Iran has a fundamentalist religious element that has held sway there for two decades. Pakistan has a <i>President</i> that has survived several attempts against his life by various radical elements in that country. The <i>ISI</i> has elements that are partial to radical Islamic groups and bin Laden. Saudi Arabia has troubles with fundamentalists and has trouble controlling the funding of religious radicals throughout the world. Egypt has had decades of conflict with religious fundamentalists and probably will continue to have that problem well into the future. For being just a <b>few people</b>, they have been causing quite a bit of grief for the countries named above. 7) I read the constant back-n-forth about Coulter, yet am still waiting for somebody to give rebuttals to what I have posted from two noted Islamic scholars that probably inspired some of the current sentiment/feelings amongst the fundamentalists such as bin Laden and the religious leaders in Iran.
Wait a second. There are plenty of brutal and violent conflicts in Latin America, Europe, Asia and Africa—basically all over the developing world, that have nothing to do with Islam. Also, how about the terrorism and skirmishes that have nothing to do with Islam in N Ireland that have gone on for multiple centuries. Conflicts in Tibet that have nothing to do with Islam that have going on for multiple millennias. The wars in the Middle East that have carried for that predate Islam for tens of centuries. Again, peace is the exception historically, and wars or conflicts in the name of religion are very common. In fact the only places where peace has been sustained has been in places hard to get to and/or perceived with little resources (Switzerland, Costa Rica), or in developed countries with relatively plentiful resources. To do any kind of fair analysis of conflicts due to Islam, Protestantism, Catholicism or other religions the economic, social, and ethnic factors have to be taken out. I am not convinced any such analysis has properly done this. Mango, I am not particularly familiar with the OIC. But though I am no scholar on world religions either I also am not familiar with any single entity reflecting the voice of Islam equivalent to where the Pope/Vatican is considered the voice of Catholics or the Dali Lama for Buddhism. If this is what you are getting at (Islam has a centralized, unified message and political front as evidenced in the OIC) if, anything my understanding is Islam has as many sub-groups and is as decentralized, or more so, than Protestants (in fact more like Baptists where you get sub-groups all over the spectrum in terms of degree of extremism, literalness of texts, fundamentalism and isolation).
Why not just invade Africa? We'd elminate probably more than half the FGM practiced, and elminate countless civil wars that falls under our political radar. We could prevent genocide in places like Rwanda. Rwanda is a predominantly Catholic country. It had no moderating force to prevent the senseless ethnic killings. "The genocide stunned Rwanda's Christian community. While clergy in many communities struggled to protect their congregations and died with them, some prominent Catholic and Protestant leaders joined in the killing spree and are facing prosecution. Elizaphan Ntakirutimana, the head of Rwanda's Seventh-day Adventist Church, is on trial, charged with luring Tutsi parishioners to his church in western Kibuye province, then turning them over to Hutu militias that slaughtered 2,000 to 6,000 in a single day." http://www.ummahnews.com/viewarticle.php?sid=3940
my bad. sometimes its hard to tell where someone is coming from without hearing the voice. accept my apologies.
YES YES YES. Now you are getting it. Even with all those conflicts factored in Islam far outdistances other civilizations in the number and intensity of conflicts with other civilizations and within their own (Islam vs. X and Islam vs Islam). Amazing isnt it that with so much conflict that Islam would come out so far ahead. Well, DS, I'll tell you this. I quoted three different studies of this question. All of which unquestionable concluded you are wrong. If you want to post some counter studies, feel free to do that.
I, for one, would not have had a problem intervening in Rwanda to stop that conflict. But I am not sure what the relevance is to this discussion on Islam.
Now we are getting somewhere. a few short points... 1. I find it most difficult to establish a hierarchy of writings etc, so am relying on my opposition in this discussion to elaborate any fine distinctions on context etc. There are many differing versions of what Mohammed said and multiple translations of the Quran. If I read an Islamic scholar expressing an opinion its seems legitimate to me to quote that expression if it coincides with other opinions I am using. If they provide a quote from Mohammed and/or the Quran in their text, I dont think its reasonable for me to go try and check their translation. If you are an expert on the Quran then it should be easy for you to make those distinctions and in the end debunk my theory. So far in this discussion I have pulled from both Islamic and Western sources, all of which are consistent with my overall thesis or responses I am making on specific points. 2. Not sure what relevance the Treaty of Tripoli has, except for an example of a Muslim entity exercising violence on the US. And to remind you that a Muslim state and Muslim group have indeed done violence both against civilians and against the US recently. Even if your argument that Islam does not inherently derive a violent tendency from the Quran holds water, that still does not deny that Islam 'as practiced' in much of the Muslim world is violent. 3. Nice post sw4real. I didn't know nor had heard of a hadith either until I looked it up. Now I will go check the Mishkrat and the other quotes and respond in kind to your analysis.
"Mishkat-ul-Masabih is one of the most authentic secondary collections of Ahadith, produced in the 8th century." Then it would seem he had a change of heart, or am I quoting from the 'Satanic Verses?' (And I'm asking there, not cracking a joke). And the ahadith quotes sited from the 'mishkat' are sourced correctly. So how does that change the meaning? He says carnage is better than civil discord. How does your context change that? And how does that disprove the interpretation that Israelis displacing Palestinians or Americans displacing Taliban/Al Queda makes them legitimate targets of Islamic violence? Why is the Mecca example not a blueprint for how Muslims should act? Then how do you explain Mohammeds expansion? How do you explain the Arab expansion into Persia or into North Africa or into Europe or into India? That's a lot of expansion. I think you have a reciprocal responsibility to site your sources. The Quran is not the only thing interpreted or referred to is it? Mohammed did not speak in the Quran, yes? The ahadiths are his words and those are also used as reference, right? For my information, is there a Quran site with its text that we can review?
You're claiming that Islam is a violent religion without moderating forces. And that certain regions practice that kind of Islam. Yet in this case, there were church officials who used their religious capacity to slaughter thousands of people as some sort of cleansing. Was Christianity a moderating force there? Rwanda is one of the few Christian countries in Africa yet it housed the same violence and even further than some other neighboring countries. What you say is that the religion of Islam itself is promoting this violence. What could be the alternate reason is that cultural tendencies and rivalries have distorted whatever religion to its regional needs.
The point I am making is that after all of the horror and destruction of WW II that the countries of Europe have gotten over it and many decided to band together for the common good (EU & NATO). As the Eastern Europe Communist Bloc melted away, relations between Eastern and Western Europe also made substantial progress. The considerable human carnage attributed to Stalin and Hitler isn't that far in the past, yet the Europeans have decided to move forward. Northern Ireland, Basques (Spain) etc are issues that will likely continue to linger into the future, but are intranational. The dominant groups refuse to accomodate the minority groups in those situations. The UN seems to have little involvement in solving those situations. The Latin America and Carribean countries have some problems with political stability & quality, but again seem to be internal situations rather than international incidents requiring the UN. The various Pacific Islands seem fairly benign. Even though Amercia went nuclear on Japan and December 7, 1941 is an unforgettable date in U.S. history , Japan is our ally. In four decades, the U.S. went from !) War with North Vietnam 2) Embargo of Vietnam 3) Resumption of diplomatic ties 4) Resumption of trade Communist China and North Korea are the two major foes in the East with the majority of Asian countries having fairly good relations with the rest of the world. Tibet has the unfortunate problem of being a fairly small country with larger neighbors intent on influencing/controlling the situation. Mongols and China are amongst the most prominent powers throughout Tibet's history. In regards to the economic question and giving countries the same criteria to work under for comparison purposes, the best examples that come to mind are of India and Pakistan. They both went their separate ways after the breakup of Britsh empire (post WW II) and the economic resources should have been similar. Pakistan seems to have recurrent political problems that dwarf those of Inida. Pakistan has a very limited minority religious population compared to India on a percentage basis, so it should have a better opportunity to lead/focus its population in one direction rather than bear the burdens of the past such as the Hindu - Muslim struggles. Most measures that I have seen grade India as much more of a success as a country than Pakistan. True, Islam does not have a singular entity as Roman Catholics have with the Pope and that might be some of the problem. Too many Islamic scholars with each having their own viewpoint on how Islam should be implemented leads to the decentralization problem. Without a central authority/voice to counter radicals such as bin Laden, Islam has difficulty in presenting a unified message that is more tolerant of Western Ideals as mentioned in my earlier posts. Islam does have a common voice in that secular government is not the norm in countries with Islamic majority populations and the OIC is a banding of countries with that theme in mind. Religion has a major part to play in the daily life of the people and their governments' actions & policies which is quite different than the separation of Church and State that the U.S. strives for. Turkey is changing to fit in with the European model of things so that it can qualify for membership with the EU. Their ties with Israel, the drift from being an Islamic country to a European country and other issues creates a problem for Turkey in the Muslim world. <A HREF="http://www.mfa.gov.tr/OIC-EU-Forum/PrinceHasan.htm">Prevention Of Political And Cultural Fault-lines</A> <i> <b>Intervention of Prince El Hassan bin Talal Istanbul, February 2002</b> It is a great pleasure and honour to be here today at this important exchange of ideas, in this astonishing city of Istanbul which has always represented a meeting-place for continents, empires and cultures. Today, we are offered the task of ‘preventing political and cultural fault-lines.’ I, for one, believe that the human conditions that give rise to extremism are different from the geological conditions that give rise to earthquakes or volcanoes. The more dangerous fault-lines are those that exist in people's minds. Yet, because they exist in people's minds, they are a danger which we can do something about in advance. Human poverty, despair, ignorance, fear and hatred are conditions which are subject to human intervention. A geological fault-line can only be addressed using cautious predictions and crisis management. Cautious prediction and crisis-management have proved insufficient to deal satisfactorily with economic disasters and political or cultural conflict. As a human race we have bound ourselves together in one global civilisation using worldwide technology and communications. Only now are we beginning to realise the consequences of our deeper internal differences. Globally, our community is chiefly linked by objects and resources, whether that means foodstuffs, armaments or information technology. The global communication system is one of markets and security. When our capacity to feel global fellowship is defined according to only material criteria, no wonder that material differences - in wealth, in language, in connectivity - can divide us. We have ended up with a world in which it is easy to communicate with material violence. But that violence begets further violence in response. As yet, there is no agreement upon a common fellowship of values which will stand behind and above our material connections. There is, therefore, an urgent need to find cultural bridges and new foundations upon which to build such bridges. Turkey today is a perfect example of a culture in which ‘Islam’ and ‘the West’ are clearly not monolithic and irreconcilable opposites. Yet differences between Ankara and Brussels continue to demand negotiation and dialogue in terms of inclusion in the European Union. The question, perhaps, is not whether 'European' is or is not an exclusive term. It is a question of how people and leaders come to understand and implement systems of values. <b> Economically and politically, it is comparatively simple today to define what the EU is, although perhaps it may turn out to be less simple in the future - depending on the enlargement process and the list of candidates drafted at any one time. The problem is more complex when considered in cultural terms. Europe cannot be understood as a ‘Christian Club’ when its culture is the outcome of centuries of mutual influence and living together among major communities of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The histories of the Catholic, Lutheran and Anglican Churches in relation to the Mozarab and Islamic communities of southern Spain and the financial and educational successes of the various Jewish communities remind us that the European Union as it stands today possesses strengths of diversity, coexistence, innovation and clear cross-cultural values which result from its long history of rich relationships between 'self' and ‘other’. A few weeks ago I addressed the annual meeting of the Bundestag Christian Social Union group in Bavaria. There, I made the point that ‘Islam’ and ‘the West’ are false terms of reference. Islam is in the West. In the Arab world, Indonesia, and Turkey, people benefit from the implementation of institutions which are embraced by a Western values-system - civil society, equality, political representation, freedom of speech. </b> As a Mediterranean nation, as a nation predominantly Muslim with secular government, as a nation straddling the traditional geographic divide between Europe and Asia, Turkey enjoys a richness of identity that is enviable and, at the same time, potentially divisive. As a candidate for EU membership it looks towards recognition of a high level of development, both politically and economically. The existence of a support and point of reference from Brussels is essential in helping to exert the necessary efforts and, to a certain extent, palliate the costs incurred. The target of membership should be presented such as to give a well defined horizon for the efforts of the Turkish authorities and society as a whole. It is not only about economic reform but about international norms and a capacity to agree upon common values. Islam is a universal message. It is not limited to any one region or culture. The values of equality, civil society, freedom of speech and representation do not clash with Islamic values - indeed, Muslims would argue that they are Islamic values. At the same time, transparency of government, civil liberties and commitment to individual welfare are sadly lacking in so many regions of the world. For anybody to suggest that the adoption of such principles is adopting 'Western values' is irrational. Such principles are human values. It is time to acknowledge that there is no single monopoly upon truth. Systems and traditions are complementary. The value judgments we make cannot be based upon this or that idea of cultural superiority but must be based upon the central principles of human welfare and human opportunity. .....Literalist interpretations and extreme interpretations of any local expression of norms will lead to parochial statements on international values. In the question of a code of ethics, it must be asked: is one involved and contributive, or isolationist and defunct? The challenge in building bridges, in preventing fault-lines, is to develop a centrist political platform, a centrist economic platform, a centrist security platform which is sharable by others. The importance of pluralism lies in enhancing the universal whilst respecting differences. How is this to be achieved unless by sustained dialogue? Policies, economics and security should work for everybody. Therefore it is the cultural aspects and the aspects of involvement that we need to address. When I spoke two months ago at the European Parliament in Brussels, I suggested that the third ‘basket’ of the Barcelona Process - the cultural basket - should have been the first, before security and economics. After September 11, security is foremost in everyone's minds. Security and intelligence cooperation have characterised the international struggle against terrorism to date. When are we going to consider the 'soft security' or security of human dignity which is security of culture? Where is the call for cultural and ideological cooperation as a precursor to security? Trust is a necessary precondition for any relationship to benefit and here we have to consider the promotion of international trust between nations and also intranational trust between a people and its government. If the legitimate demands of a population are ignored or set aside by its leaders, those demands will not vanish. They reappear on the agenda of any group which wishes to gain popular support. Government that does not meet the needs of its constituents opens the door for extremists to win control of people and resources. Attempts to divert internal problems or inadequacies by blaming them upon a third party - whether a minority group or an external community - tend to rebound violently. They lead to antagonism and mistrust at best, both at home and abroad - and at worst, disaster. The resulting racism and xenophobia add further problems and unforeseen consequences. This is a problem experienced even in advanced democracies of the developed world. The fight against terrorism can only be conducted in an atmosphere of cooperation and respect for each other's valid concerns. This involves interfaith dialogue; and conversations between the religions have increased in scope and frequency. Yet dialogue between religions, though it is crucial, is only part of the picture. There must be a broader context of dialogue between cultures and also, necessarily, dialogue within cultures. Without visible justice, peace and stability can never be achieved. Without an international 'culture of compliance' with international humanitarian norms, there is no semblance of justice. Whether or not there is a 'democratic deficit' in world affairs, it cannot be the case that some are exempt from the rule of law. A critical legal obligation today is to establish such an international culture of compliance with the norms prescribed by shared human values. This would amount to the implementation of a new international humanitarian order, as I proposed in 1981 at the 36th Session of the United Nations. The Independent Commission on International Humanitarian Issues was formed as a result and its final report was adopted as a resolution at the 42nd General Assembly. Now I think it is time to go further along this route. Trust amounts to a sharing of values. Respect for person and property, respect for justice and the rule of law, respect for human dignity and the opportunity to work freely for one's own better future; all of these are basic standards of the human condition and can be recognised as such by all. It is now a question of awareness, education and implementation. It is a question of stepping up the exchange of ideas and making dialogue between cultures an institutional priority. The principles according to which we may prevent the political and cultural fault-lines are to ensure the opportunity: • to be able to uphold the principle of no coercion; • to be able to uphold the right to proclaim one's own religion -and I think we have to consider the content of education to ensure that we do not rediscover each other politically and culturally every time we meet; • to ensure a free flow of information; • to be courageous in looking afresh, at first our own and next each other's texts, heritage and history; • so that we can be courageous in developing a civilised framework for disagreement. Unfortunately, dialogue between cultures has only become fashionable since September 11. But in Jordan we have been working on dialogue for over thirty years: interfaith dialogue between Jews, Christians and Muslims; conversation between Arab intellectuals and politicians in the Arab Thought Forum; and intercivilisational studies have been a focus for the Al Al-Bayt Foundation. Recently, His Majesty King Abdullah II has emphasised the importance of reinvigorating the intercivilisational project to build on the results of previous years. In the current world climate, problems of integration and conflict face us at every turn with increasingly horrific potential for harm. If the globe is not to fracture and erupt under the tensions between universal communication and parochial mentalities, we need to talk. To build the cultural bridges that facilitate trust, that lead to comprehension and cooperation, we need institutions dedicated to cultural dialogue. I have referred to the model of such an institution as the ‘Parliament of Cultures,’ as outlined by the late violin virtuoso, Yehudi Menuhin. This would be an intra-regional effort towards conversation. It would become a platform for dialogue between regions worldwide. It would be the foundation for building bridges between entire cultures because it would provide the means to locate and emphasise the values that all civilisations have shared and will continue to share. It is my hope that the institution of the first Parliament of Cultures in this noble and ancient city of cultures will lead to a prominent cultural dialogue between communities and traditions worldwide. That dialogue is the best hope we have today of realising the human solidarity and inclusivity that bring peace and understanding </i> <A HREF="http://www.rss.gov.jo/phassan.html">Prince El-Hassan bin Talal</A> <i>His Royal Highness Prince EL- Hassan bin Talal is the 42nd generation direct descendant of the prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him) through the male line of the prophet's grandson EL-Hassan. </i>
