Please take FOR's 2008 supporter survey!
Ambivalence and Ahmadinejad
The cover of the bulletin said it all, and it was probably too much. "East West Dialogue; Interfaith Encounter, A time of dialogue and prayerful reflection." Dialogue, Encounter, Reflection: the terms suggests the ambivalence of those planning and those party to the convocation, more than 100 representatives of religious communities, congregations, adjudicatories, alliances, mostly Christian. Do we want to explore together, confront one another, or inform our own search for truth?
If it is all of the above and more, what is a sufficient timeframe one needs to dedicate to such goals? How does the size of the group contribute to its potential success? What are the costs of formal settings and events compared to the intimacy of more private gatherings? If this was the third gathering of principals to the conversation, and a step toward enlarging the engagement, why does it seem necessary to rehearse so many of the same basic questions again and again? We are ambivalent about when we can move forward and when we must circle back. It seems that St. Thomas might be the patron saint of this enterprise.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whatever his stature or power in the Iranian political arena to manage or change the directions of that government (and the consensus seems to be that it is limited), is first and foremost a "true believer." That is to say, he has an Islamic worldview which he can articulate and recite in rapid-fire narrative coherence, grounded in a historical simplicity that really offers no surprises.
He represents a familiar Shi'a orthodoxy. He convincingly restated his beliefs, over and over again, that the proper role of mankind is to serve God. This is, he says, the key to freedom. This is the right path, all worshippers of God must follow this demand – serve God first. This is the call to repentance voiced by all prophets in the monotheistic traditions, he argues. This is the obligations of Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike, he claims. This is what he believes. And he believes that it is the 12th Imam, the Madhi, who will return to redeem the righteous, much as many Christians believe a second coming of the Christ will redeem the righteous.
It is difficult to imagine a Western political leader making this his central claim to authority, or his central teaching in a public setting, that social, economic, and political justice will only be achieved through worship and service to God. That is the message for the pulpit, in the sanctuary, not the bully pulpit of the elected head of state. Such an uncompromising public position by a Western political leader would be deeply suspect.
It is not clear to me that these are reconcilable differences of style or belief, between East and West, if it is East and West that they differentiate. The panelists, and many of us who are apologists for peace and nonviolence, want to put the words that would reassure us of the prospect of immediate reconciliation into the mouths of such spokesmen. We seem disheartened when they will not use our words to express their positions, when they condition one position with another, and that with a third.
Make our lives and work easy, say what we want you to say the way we want you to say it.
I think I actually heard reconciling words: The arrogance of power seekers and the impious put all of us at risk. The inequities and suffering of the world's poor, hungry, diseased, homeless saddens us all. Accepting our mistakes is necessary but not sufficient to effect change: to condemn slavery and then market and buy the products of slavery; to condemn genocide and then hesitate to react to genocidal conditions in the world, are unacceptable positions. Just as there is a legitimate concern for the fate of the Jewish people, there is a legitimate concern for the fate of the Palestinians. Those who maintain large arsenals of nuclear weapons may not be the best arbiters of access to nuclear technology. When you see poverty it means somewhere nearby a right has been violated: someone is using more than their share. Hospitality must be the root environment for productive dialogue to blossom and flower.
But maybe I heard these wrong. I also watched the all too familiar dance of dissimulation, the coy and overly cautious segue away from the question on the table, the inability to acknowledge what is well documented and is challenging in the face of a message of affirming human worth, the dignity of all, the image of God in which we each are made. And then I still am confused at times, is it ambivalence or ambiguity that makes us uncomfortable?
Make our lives and work easy, say what we want you to say the way we want you to say it.
For more info on this topic:
- Mennonite Central Committee press release
- New York Times story: "Ahmadinejad Meets Clerics, and Decibels Drop a Notch"
- USA Today story: "Ahmadinejad Leaves After Contentious Visit"
- Pax Christi press release
![[calendar]](http://forusa.org/images/070921/FORcalendar.png)





Mennonite Central committee
Here's another article from MCC about the meeting.
Continuing a conversation
October 1, 2007
http://mcc.org/news/news/article.html?id=256
Another take on the NYC Meeting
If He Can Make It There...:
An Iranian President's Visit to the Big Apple
This was a week full of unusual events:
-- the leader of a country called part of an "axis of evil" by our own president visited New York, at one point nearly sharing the limelight with President Bush at the United Nations.
-- a man who has made it onto the cover of Time as a "threat to the world" did Q&A with not one but several groups, including: university faculty and students, professional journalists, and religious spokespersons. (The questions got a bit repetitious, but some of them were actually important.)
-- a sitting head-of-state was roundly excoriated by the head of a venerable educational institution that had invited him to speak -- and that was just in his introduction. (This was the same institution that had awarded an honorary doctor-of-laws degree to the previous head-of-state, the self-proclaimed King of Kings.)
-- a group of rabbis met with the person who represents "an existential threat to Israel" and found that they were basically on the same page.
As I said, it was a strange week.
During the visit of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinezhad, the prevailing atmospherics were less about any fireworks between Mr. Bush and Mr. Ahmadinezhad in the Hall of the General Assembly, as they were a melee of competing spin and slant in the media, the blogosphere and the political arena. The Iranian leader maintained that single-sex sex was a non-issue in his country, for which he was awarded dismayed derision. But, he also maintained (somewhat more importantly, one would think) that he was prepared to grant that the Holocaust had taken place, that his country neither wished to acquire nuclear weapons nor to attack anyone, and that he was ready to come to the negotiating table to iron out differences between our countries.
Yet, newspaper headlines read "Iran Defiant on Nuclear Program" (or far worse -- the tabloids used words like "Madman" to describe the president), and the stories under them were uncognizant of his more surprising, and potentially much more significant, statements. Moreover, Congress was aflurry with resolutions and legislation to further isolate Iran and punish its perceived intransigence, rather than to call Ahmadinezhad on any of his gestures of conciliation. Most Republicans and increasingly most Democrats seem not to care at all what questions got what answers, for their minds have now been made up. The die appears to be cast and the orders given: we are going to war with Iran unless that government learns how to grovel and say "uncle" in a clear and unambiguous way...and fast.
In contrast with the ungracious performance of university president Bollinger at Columbia, a group of 140 religious leaders Wednesday morning enjoyed an interchange characterized by civility, a spirit of inquiry and anguish over our mutual march toward the abyss. Several of the speakers on the North American side had troubled themselves to actually travel to Iran to meet the man on the street and the woman in the hejab. The meeting itself was possible because the Mennonite Central Committee has been cultivating a relationship of caring -- and candor -- with Iranians over a period of some years, culminating in group meetings in NYC last September, in Tehran last February, and now this week. A number of the questions touched on the same substance as that treated at other venues -- women's rights, the Iranian nuclear program, recognition of Israel and questioning of the historicity of the Holocaust -- but the church-people's remarks evinced mutual respect, shared faith and common humanity, and Ahmadinezhad reciprocated.
Billed as "A time of dialogue and prayerful reflection among the children of Abraham," the gathering lived up to this in its content, if not in its membership; no Jewish groups were in evidence at the Tillman Chapel. (According to a NY Times account, efforts had been made to find some willing to take part, without success. The same article reported that even Ba'hais, the religious group that has been the object of the harshest attention by the Iranian theocracy, support the peace-seeking efforts that include this week's meeting. Leaders of faith traditions across the United States, however, have not all been so supportive.)
Mr. Ahamadinezhad address Wednesday was squarely on the inter-religious theme, as he outlined a continuum of history and belief that started with the creation of Man, and included references to Abraham, Moses, Isaiah and other prophets, Jesus, Mary and Mohammad. (Many may not know that these figures are seen in Muslim teachings as important forebears.) Bringing his thread into our time, he emphasized the potentially critical role of religious leaders in finding paths to peace and the curing of mankind's multiple ills.
Panelists from the United States (Mary Ellen McNish of American Friends Service Committee, Dr. Glen Stassen of Fuller Seminary, Fr. Drew Christiansen, editor of America and Rev. Chris Ferguson, UN representative of the Commission of the Churches on International Affairs) and from Canada (Rev. Dr. Karen Hamilton of the Canadian Council of Churches), responded to the president's remarks. Unlike questioners at the other events held this week, each was clearly invested in how to ensure peace and the meeting of human needs, rather than in scoring rhetorical points for the chattering class. None were apologists for Iranian leadership; but none were insensible to the historical suffering of Iranians to which Ahmadinezhad had eluded. Mary Ellen McNish, general secretary of AFSC, a Quaker group that helped sponsor the event, said, “If we don’t walk down this path of dialogue, we’re going to end up in conflagration.” Stassen said, according to the Times, that "he and other evangelicals would soon circulate a document intended to broaden support for dialogue with Iran, based on the model of dialogue with North Korea."
Unlike the general reaction to Ahmadinezhad's statements on Israel, a group of non-Zionist rabbis, meeting with him this week (for the third time), found much to agree with. The president told them, "Today people of the world have come to realize the fact that Judaism is different from Zionism. Jews are followers of Moses and Zionists are seeking political opportunities." The Neturei Karta group, formed in 1935, presented the president with a silver cup, and thanked him for his relations with Jews. Some of their members were participants in the recent Tehran conference about how to view the Holocaust and took that opportunity to confirm the truth of the Holocaust and the suffering it caused from their first-hand experiences.
His responses on Sixty Minutes, at the UN, at Columbia and before the faith gathering, often took the form of questioning the question itself, and giving his own view of the subject. For example (I am paraphrasing, based on his comments in the several interchanges held this week):
Q: Will you promise not to strike Israel?
A: Israel has 200 nuclear bombs and no IAEA inspections, the United States has thousands of bombs and no IAEA inspections; both have made threats against Iran. Iran has no intention to develop a bomb and is being inspected daily. Why are we being asked this?
Q: Do you deny the Holocaust?
A: If the Holocaust happened, it did not involve the Palestinians -- why are they paying the price for Jewish suffering? And why doesn't the history of that period merit further study, as does every other field, such as physics or literature? Are you afraid to have it studied?
Q: Are Iranian groups sending arms into Iraq?
A: The United States should look to its own actions in Iraq to explain the debacle there. The region's problems need to be solved by those who live in the region, rather than those who live halfway around the world.
Q: Will you take steps to reassure the world about your "civilian-use" nuclear program?
A: We have a right under international law to do what we are doing. Why don't the same rules apply to all nations? Will the United States allow us to do joint nuclear development in the United States, as they ask us to do with outsiders in our country?
Of course, any person debating complex questions only comes off as well as the soundbites in which he is permitted to be heard on the airwaves. The jury is out on whether President Ahmadinezhad helped or hurt himself and his nation's cause, as a result of his trip to Gotham City. I suspect that those who had an axe to grind got theirs ground; those who "had ears to hear" (in the biblical phrase) may have heard some things that were thought-provoking. The doomsday clock may not have skipped backwards, but maybe it slowed momentarily...?
Meanwhile, back in Tehran....an unlikely television drama has reached the "top of the charts" in Iran. An hour-long, 22-episode series called, "Zero Degree Turn," features a WWII-era love story of a Muslim Iranian-Palestinian man and a Jewish French woman. In it, the man saves his love from the Nazi camps, Iranian diplomats in France forge passports and the woman and her family escape on an airplane carrying Iranian Jews to their homeland.
As I said, a strange week...
On Meeting With The "Enemy"
The following article appeared in the Tuesday, October 2nd edition of the Times-Dispatch newspaper in Harrisonburg, West Virginia. The author, Pat Hostetter Martin, participated in FOR's March 2007 peace delegation to Iran.
By PAT HOSTETTER MARTIN
TIMES-DISPATCH COLUMNIST
I met with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, last Wednesday in New York City. Why would I be part of ongoing efforts at "dialogue" with people and institutions that some Americans view as the "enemy"?
The branch of Christianity in which I am rooted, Anabaptist-Mennonite, holds that Jesus calls us to offer love and hospitality even to one's enemy. Further, the professors of conflict studies at my university hold that one must move toward conflict, dealing with it open-heartedly, rather than trying to suppress or skirt conflict.
This is why I was one of about 120 people from a dozen religious groups and institutions who met with Ahmadinejad. Requested by Iranian officials, the meeting was organized by the relief and service agencies of the Mennonites and Quakers, but included Catholics, Episcopalians, Methodists, Christian university leaders, and others.
During the two-hour session, Ahmadinejad addressed the audience for 20 minutes. Then five panel members, selected for their range of perspectives, responded to his speech and asked their own questions. The dialogue covered the differences many of us have with Ahmadinejad, but it was conducted with respect and civility on all sides.
Last February I visited Iran for two weeks as part of a delegation of "civilian diplomats" sponsored by the Fellowship of Reconciliation. In meeting with Iranians from many walks of life, I discovered that their president is not particularly popular. Many Iranians openly and freely criticize him for his more outlandish views, such as his public denial of the full reality of the Holocaust. But they explain he was elected, and they expect he will be voted out of office, given his declining standing in polls.
Iranians we met were quick to point out things they liked and disliked about the policies of the United States, and I welcomed hearing both. Yet in my experience and those of others who have visited Iran recently (including theologians from my university who, by invitation, have given explicitly Christian talks at Islamic institutions), the average Iranian extends warm hospitality to American visitors, regardless of their level of disagreement with our nation's policies.
I would like for us to do the same. To extend hospitality. To be open to dialogue, which means politely listening as well as frankly speaking in a civil manner. I often disagree with positions that President Bush takes, but I would never presume to change his views and behavior through refusing to speak to him or insulting him.
Instead of fanning the flames of hatred, our security may be served better by not adding fuel to the fire.
Pat Hostetter Martin holds a masters degree in conflict transformation from Eastern Mennonite University and is director of its 13-year-old Summer Peacebuilding Institute.
Post new comment