|
Excellencies,
Distinguished Participants,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I am privileged to share
some thoughts with you on “Challenging Stereotypes in
Europe and the Islamic World.” I therefore wish to
thank the International Centre for Islam dan Pluralism
(ICIP) and the
Embassy of Finland for organizing this seminar, thereby
contributing to the enhancement of the relations between
Europe and the Islamic World. This is a unique opportunity
for all of us to learn more about the problems and
challenges in that relationship and possible ways of
solving them.
Since five years ago a
mental picture has been formed in the minds of many
Westerners: an image of the world of Islam as the breeding
ground of terrorists and abode of religious
fundamentalism; of women who are oppressed, veiled and
traded like cattle; and of theocratic rulers who are
always ready to inflict violence in imposing their will on
their constituents.
On the other hand, there
is also a mental picture that is prevalent in the Muslim
world—of a global West that is brazenly materialistic
and deficient in morals, steeped in political and military
triumphalism, with an unexplainable animosity to Islam and
total insensitivity to the cultural and religious
sensitivities of other peoples.
Neither of these two
views is accurate and I am sure no one in this audience
holds either of them. They are sweeping generalizations
born of ignorance of a complex and nuanced truth. But they
are widespread and they are often the cause of tension and
conflict. People often judge other people on the
basis of indelible but often wrong impressions—mental
pictures or stereotypes—created by their environment,
education and upbringing, cultural background and local
media.
Stereotypes are radical
simplifications of complex realities. They are not
necessarily negative and their function is to enable us to
respond to an event when we would otherwise be paralyzed
by lack of information. But when they are negative and
they lead to hostile attitudes and actions, they do a
great deal of damage to harmony among human beings. At the
very extreme they could bring about Professor Samuel
Huntington’s scenario of global catastrophe, the
“Clash of Civilizations.”
Our presence here today
shows our concern at the damage that negative stereotypes
can inflict on human relationships, and our firm adherence
to the positive values of harmony and mutual tolerance. We
are particularly concerned at the challenge of negative
stereotypes between Europe and the Islamic world. Let us
now take a look at some of the sources of these negative
stereotypes.
Negative stereotypes can
emerge as a result of historical, perceived injustice that
are experienced politically, economically and socially by
individuals as part of a group. If the world were just and
fair or at least seem to be just and fair in everybody’s
mind, there would be so much less negative stereotypes in
the world today. There would be so much less communal
tension and conflict.
When a group or a person
has a sense of grievance or when their common sense of
justice is violated, the injustice—if it is real—must
be redressed. And in any case the grievance must be
addressed. That means dialogue.
Negative stereotypes can
also be the result of simple ignorance. And ignorance
breeds intolerance. People have negative impressions of
each other because they do not know each other. We
fear what we do not know and we hate what we fear. The
antidote to ignorance is the spread of knowledge, the
growth of understanding. Again, this is achieved through
dialogue.
Through dialogue we can
build a bridge between the faiths, between cultures and
between civilizations. Through dialogue, Europe and the
world of Islam can learn about each other and get to
understand each other better and more deeply—so that
there is a concomitant growth in goodwill and the capacity
to work together to solve common problems and achieve
shared goals. It is important, though, that everyone is
included and every point of view is represented in that
dialogue.
If we are able to
institutionalize that dialogue, then the bridge becomes
even stronger. And if the moderate elements are included
in that dialogue, they are given a voice which is often
denied them through the sheer assertiveness of radical and
militant groups. When the moderates are empowered, the
better angles of human nature have a tendency to prevail
over impulses toward violence.
There is already some
dialogue going on among the faiths today at the level of
intellectuals—which is important because intellectuals
do exercise opinion leadership in their own communities
and societies. But it is also important that there be
intensive dialogue at the grassroots levels, for it is at
that level that the most constructive forms of community
building can be carried out. It is also at that level that
massive violence born of prejudice can break out and
spread.
Let us remember, too,
that negative stereotypes arise not only between religions
but also within religions—or between factions within the
same religion. Let us therefore encourage and support
interfaith dialogues to foster harmony among those who
profess the same religion for tension and violence often
do occur between them.
We should also tap the
educational system, for schools should teach the rising
generation so that they become more aware of the common
thread that runs through all religions, and become more
understanding and tolerant of differences in faith and
culture.
It is highly important
that people in the West learn to tolerate and appreciate
Islamic values and to take into account cultural and
religious sensitivities in expressing their opinions. And
Muslims all over the world should learn to understand and
appreciate the Western practice of democracy, freedom of
speech and laicism—the separation of church and
state.
It may be worthwhile for
governments in the West and in the Islamic world to
undertake joint efforts to train teachers and equip them
with the skills and tools to fight intolerance and
misunderstanding, and to meet the challenges of a world
sensitive to religious topics.
In Indonesia, interfaith
dialogue and cooperation has always occupied a high place
on our national agenda. It is an integral part of our
nation-building process and, in essence, it is the way we
manage our immense diversity. The Ministry of Religious
Affairs, for example, is conducting seminars for teachers
of Islamic boarding schools, called ‘Pesantren’, to
discuss religious and cultural diversity and tolerance so
that they may be able to instill in the impressionable
minds of their young students a positive and supportive
view of Indonesian pluralism.
As to the process of
dialogue itself, we have a centuries-old tradition called
‘musyawarah’, meaning consultation, and mufakat, which
stands for consensus. Through this process we promote
moderation. And we sustain our national unity. That is how
we have peacefully resolved one internal conflict, the
decade-long separatist rebellion in Aceh. In the same way,
we are addressing separatist sentiments in some circles in
Papua and communal tensions elsewhere in the country.
At the regional and
international levels, we are also promoting and taking
part in interfaith dialogues. Until the year 2004,
interfaith dialogues in Indonesia were initiated and
conducted only by non-governmental organizations. But
because of the importance that we attach to harmony among
the faiths, and as part of our response to the challenges
of international terrorism, the Government of Indonesia
has, since then, organized and taken part in a series of
interfaith dialogues, including the Regional Dialogue on
Interfaith Cooperation in Yogyakarta in December 2004, the
ASEM Interfaith Dialogue at Bali in July 2005, and the
APEC Intercultural and Faith Symposium at Yogyakarta in
October 2006. The first two initiatives have now became an
annual and institutional process.
In such worthy
endeavours, we are willing and eager to cooperate with
other countries and with regional and international
organizations or groups. We were therefore very much
encouraged that in October 2005 the EU Commission declared
2008 the “European Year of Intercultural Dialogue”. In
fact, the EU Commission is already a close partner of ours
in the promotion of interfaith dialogue, having been
deeply involved in the ASEM interfaith dialogues in Bali
in 2005 and in Cyprus earlier this year. And as you very
well know today’s seminar is co-organized by the country
holding the EU Presidency, Finland.
We must pursue these
efforts at dialogue with creativity and devotion. One of
such creativity is to focus on the messenger: the mass
media, for the media practitioners can spread the message
of peace and tolerance or the message of misunderstanding
and hatred. Publications of cartoons depicting Prophet
Mohammad are the case in point. Against this background,
the Indonesian Government sponsored the Global Intermedia
Dialogue last September for media practitioners of five
continents. They agreed that in exercising their freedom
of expression they too have to be sensitive to differences
of value system of other religions, and of course
stereotyping
For it is only through
the process of dialogue—which is basically a process of
mutual education on the reality of other human
beings—that we can dispel the negative stereotypes
that alienate us from one another.
If we can effectively
pursue this process, widen and intensify it and then bring
it down to the level of the grassroots, there would be so
much less ignorance and prejudice in this world. Not
only Europe and the world of Islam will be the more
peaceful and prosperous but also for the rest of
humankind.
I thank you.
--00--
|
