When King Abdullah II bin Al Hussein of Jordan spoke to a packed auditorium today at the University of Mississippi in Oxford, his message was clear: Christians, Jews and even Muslims, such as himself, should learn to live in unity and with solidarity. Those individuals who alter the meanings of teachings from their own holy books are not true followers of their religions, he said, as each religion in reality places top value upon peaceful coexistence, rather than scripture-based violence.
“My religion, Islam, is why traditional Muslims decisively reject extremist violence and hatred,” the king said in his address. “The Koran says ‘O you who believe, enter into peace entirely,’ and it admonishes: ‘Do not transgress, truly God does not love the transgressors.’”
He went on to discuss acts of terrorism that have taken place worldwide and within Jordanian borders, such as the Amman bombings of last November, where the joyous celebration of a wedding turned quickly into a horrifying scene of violence.
The king said in thanks to the international community: “[W]hen Jordanians defied the terrorists; when thousands of our citizens marched in solidarity, Muslim and Christian, arm in arm, saying no to terror; when our country’s path of progress did not stop–people everywhere supported us.”
Notably, the king also espoused what some of what have become very unpopular opinions in the United States over the past few weeks. He said, for example, that the international community should respect the Palestinian decision to elect Hamas to lead their parliament, stating: “We have to respect their choice. For years the Palestinian people have expressed their desire for peace, and their respect for the legitimacy of international resolutions. Both peoples, Palestinian and Israeli are fed up with violence.”
“Establishing a viable, sovereign Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel,” he continued, “is the only way to restore stability and security.”
When it came to Iraq, Abdullah said that the international community as a whole has a responsibility to support the Iraqi people as they restore the stability and security of their country during this crucial rebuilding process.
Likewise, in order to prevent further violence and bloodshed, he said that it is the responsibility of world leaders to ensure that Iran will not acquire nuclear weapons.
Before I continue on with an analysis, I will provide for you the king’s speech in three forms:
[KING ABDULLAH SPEECH IN TEXT: (.PDF | .Doc); IN SOUND: 02032006abdullah.mp3 (00:14:01)]
Now to set things up so that we might move on to the subtext.
Long thought of as a bringer of peace politically and theologically akin to his father, the late King Hussein bin Talal, Abdullah has been a friend to the United States since his ascent to the throne in 1999.
It was under his reign that Jordan was admitted into the World Trade Organization. Likewise, his “Interfaith Message,†fashioned as a guide to create a pathway not just toward peace, but toward full acceptance and goodwill among the three major monotheistic religions (Islam, Christianity and Judaism) is considered one of the most forward-thinking statements on religion developed in recent years.
With that said, Abdullah is certainly not considered to be all that forward-thinking by the Jordanian press. He has amended his nation’s penal code to punish dissidents, and has been accused by many of his countrymen of being an opponent to free speech. Current Jordanian law prohibits all public criticism of the king and/or his policies, and violators can face up to three years in prison and fines as high as $7,000 (U.S.) Many journalists critical of Abdullah’s policies have been imprisoned for extended periods of time.
According to the Human Rights Watch in an article written last month, Jamil Abu Bakr, an editor for an opposing political party’s website, faces charges in relation to national security for posting articles that illustrate dissent from the king’s and current government’s policies.
According to Abu Bakr, prosecutors brought upon him charges early last month of “belittling the dignity of the Jordanian state.”
An article on the Human Rights Watch website states: “The charge refers to articles he posted in December 2004 on the website of the Islamic Action Front, a legal political party that has 17 members in the lower house of parliament. The articles, which criticized favoritism in the appointment of senior government officials, were written by two IAF parliamentarians, `Azzam al-Hunaidi and `Ali Abu Sukkar.”
Just months prior to these charges, in July 2005, the article claims that “senior government officials in Amman told Human Rights Watch that the authorities would eliminate press censorship and not apply articles of Jordan’s Penal Code that criminalize ‘insults’ to the king, or ‘slander’ of government officials or institutions. The state security court tries most of these offenses criminalizing free speech.” (“Jordan: Editor Prosecuted for Posting Articles by MPs”)
It might be because of these free speech issues that the king declined to take any questions from the audience. All questions, in fact, came from “student polls” and were asked by a moderator. According to the students I spoke with, however, from regular undergraduates to those enrolled in the Sally McDonnell Barksdale Honors College and the Trent Lott Leadership Institute, no such student polling was ever conducted. If it was, they told me, then they were not aware of it.
Similarly, as you can see from the PDF linked above, journalists were instructed to strike a few sentences from the transcript of the king’s speech prior to his arrival this afternoon. The marked-out phrases read as follows:
“We behold with horror and disgust the recent targeting of Christian churches in Iraq, breaking with a 1,400-year tradition of Christian-Muslim friendship and mutual acceptance amongst the Arabs of the Levant. Equally, whilst we respect and revere freedom of speech, we condemn needless desecration and injury of Islamic sensibilities, such as the recent cartoons misrepresenting and vilifying my ancestor the Prophet (may peace and blessings be upon him).”
Abdullah did not address, and was not asked to address, his thoughts on free expression versus the dozen Danish cartoons depicting anti-Islamic themes. It is quite possible that the king’s advisors had instructed him to leave these comments out, and that the leader chose to comply. The simple fact is that we know what was left out, but we cannot say with certainty why.
All in all, despite the issues of free speech and expression going all but entirely unaddressed, the king–one of the world’s last sitting and effective monarchs–did bring to Mississippians a message that warrants repeating: the people who abuse religion, and not the relgions themselves, are responsible for belief-based terrorism.
In order to heal and to survive, it is imperative that we look beyond our differences and embrace our neighbors as our equals.
Rima Chaddha Mycynek is a writer, reporter, editor, photographer, videographer, former talk show host, and all-around journalism nerd. She currently teaches multimedia journalism at Boston University. [
Related Articles
4 users responded in this post
Jordan’s King Abdullah II Visits New Orleans, Mississippi…
King Abdullah II of Jordan was in the Deep South on Friday, touring parts of New Orleans devastated by Hurricane Katrina. The king said he had spoken with Mayor Ray Nagin, who accompanied him on the tour, and discussed ways Jordan might help the city r…
“[T]he people who abuse religion, and not the relgions themselves, are responsible for belief-based terrorism.”
That’s a very nice and oft-repeated idea, but I don’t know if I entirely agree with that. While I acknowledge that the majority of people who follow any given religion are peaceful (if not necessarily progressive), it seems to me that when volatile political/economic situations meet ancient religions with violent roots (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are the most salient of these), extremism and bloodshed is almost always the unfortunate result.
But what do I mean when I say that these major monotheistic religions have “violent roots”? I mean that, not only are their holy texts fraught with descriptions of martyrdom and violent battles, but that all of these religions have some kind of message to encourage the maintainance and expansion of the faith (often, if we learn by examples in these holy texts, by whatever means necessary). More importantly, though, each of these major religions promotes an “us vs. them” paradigm, wherein the followers of the faith are the good guys, and the non-convertible are “infidels,” “unsaved,” “heathens,” and “enemies of the faith.” In pluralistic, “PC” cultures like ours, the people who cling tooth and nail to this dualistic paradigm are on the fringes of society (i.e. Mike Bray, Timothy McVeigh, etc.), but this is not the case in less economically developed cultures. Even in non-theocracies, the devoutly politico-religious are often a populous and powerful force to contend with.
And then there’s the issue of where faith-based identity ends and political/ethnic/cultural identity begins. In the Middle East especially, that line is extremely blurred. The way many middle easterners see it, they are not “extremists” who “abuse their religion for ideological/political gain,” they simply understand some of the teachings of their religion to mean that they have a god-given duty to protect their people and their way of life.
In fact, some who have resorted to belief-based violence justify their actions by claiming that they are working for the good of all of humankind. Jewish and Christian “extremists”/”activists” come to mind. Some Jews believe that, until they restore the holy land to Jewish control, and erect a temple on a certain spot, the Messiah cannot come and save mankind. Similarly, Christian “postmillinealists” believe that they as Christians are responsible for creating the political conditions necessary for a 1,000-year reign of a worldwide Christian theocracy, which they understand to be a pre-requisite for Christ’s second-coming.
So yes, IMHO religion itself is largely, if not exclusively, responsible for the violent acts of its devoted followers. Organized religion (which will ALWAYS be its prevalent manifestation- collective action and group identity are powerful things) provides an unmistakable “us and them” dichotomy that is all too easy for people to exploit or misinterpret. And are these “extremists” really misinterpreting their religion? I could get into a classic materialist justification for religion and how it’s outlived its practical purpose, but that’s another rant for another day. So I leave you with this:
“Imagine there’s no heaven,
it’s easy if you try,
no Hell below us,
above us only sky…
Imagine all the people
living life in peace…”
each time you refer to him as the king , i think elvis and jerry lawler
Sorry, Sox.
Leave A Reply