BUILDING BRIDGES OF UNDERSTANDING:
Overcoming youth’ stereotypes regarding religious differences, and barriers to friendship in our communities
Perspective of a Ugandan Muslim
omar kalinge-nnyago
Paper Presented at Makerere, on the occasion of the NATIONAL MULTI-FAITH YOUTH DAY OF SERVICE, Organised by the Muslim Centre for Justice and Law, October 7, 2011
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Kalinge Omar is a member of UMBS in Kampala
Omar Dawood Kalinge-Nnyago, 48, is an Engineer (Electrical) by first training. He has done graduate studies in Management Information Systems, Communication, Training and Distance & Open Learning. His special interest is in e-learning. He is a private consultant. As a hobby, he is a columnist for the Nation Media Group’s Daily Monitor of Uganda, and regularly comments on political and social affairs at various radio talk shows. He is an author of Open Democracy, UK. Politically active since 1996, he is the Deputy Secretary General and National Coordinator, Justice Forum (JEEMA), a registered political party with representation in Parliament. He is also the Head of the Interparty Cooperation Bureau. Much of his published works and articles can be seen through web search: “Omar Kalinge Nnyago”. He takes keen interest in interfaith dialogue – intercultural understanding.
He can be contacted at: omarkalinge@gmail.com, 0701 479 583
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Chief Guest, Chairman, Friends,
Let me tell you how delighted I am, to be part of today’s interfaith youth volunteer program organised by the Muslim Centre for Justice and Law. Interfaith understanding is a very important element in ensuring peace, and peaceful co-existence. A society at war with itself endangers the lives of its members and cannot realize its full potential. But today’s program has even greater significance. It has targeted the youth, who are the future of our society. The youth represent more than 50% of Uganda’s population. This is a significant number. If the youth learn early in life that Uganda is a multi-faith, multi cultural society and that they must co-exist with fellow Ugandans irrespective of which denomination, religious sect they belong to, or even tribe, then we can be assured of a peaceful future Uganda. The reverse is true.
This program is also important because in a general sense, religious rivalry has been part of our history. To secure Uganda’s future, young Ugandans must determine to understand the past and present realities of their society, so that past mistakes are not repeated.
I stand here as a Muslim Ugandan devoted to inter-faith understanding, and it is important to place me in that context. This is why I devote some few minutes to the history and analysis of the Muslim Ugandan situation for those who have not benefited from it before, and perhaps to remind those who have.
Officially, Muslims are said to constitute between 12.5% of the Ugandan population. (Uganda National Population and Housing Census 1992). Quoting the CIA factbook, The United States Institute of Peace records the Muslim population as 16% (United States Institute of Peace Special Report 140, May 2005). The Islamic website Islamic Web.com puts the figure at 36% of the population. There has not been an independent census of Muslims in Uganda even by the Uganda Muslim Supreme Council the Muslim apex organisation established in 1972. Some Muslims, however, have tended to dispute the official (government) statistics. They think their numbers are higher than the official estimate.
Islam was introduced in various parts pre-colonial Uganda by a merchant class at different periods. In West Nile and some parts of the North it was introduced largely from The Sudan much earlier in the 19th Century. In the South, especially in the Kingdom of Buganda, it was introduced from the East African coast in 1844. It was during the reign of Kabaka Mutesa I that Islam reached its highest peak in pre-colonial Buganda. Indeed, the period between 1862-1875 has been called the golden age of Islam in Buganda.
Much as Islam was introduced as a state religion from above with the objective of using it as an ideology for strengthening Kabaka Mutesa I’s control over his subjects, by the 1870s people had started identifying certain aspects of the faith which they could use to question some autocratic tendencies of the king. The Muslim youth in particular were critical of the hereditary aspects of the king which in their view, did not conform to the teachings of Islam.
By 1875, the impact of Islam in Buganda had become great enough to cause concern for the Kabaka. Islam had become a basis on which the legitimacy of the King of Buganda was being questioned. In 1876, Mutesa I ordered the death of 200 Muslims. In the long run, however, he sought to neutralize the revolutionary force being created by Islam from below by inviting Church Missionaries through the European explorer, Sir Henry Morton Stanley in 1872. The Church Missionary Society missionaries were to arrive three years later in 1875. (The Roman Catholic Missionaries, the White Fathers arrived four years on, in 1879).
Even before the colonial period Religious violence probably caused more devastation to human and animal life in Buganda than the kingdom had experienced since its foundation in the fourteenth century. Beginning in 1888, political parties based on religion- Bafransa (Roman Catholic), Bangereza (Anglican Protestants, Bawadi (Muslim)- armed themselves, united and overthrew the king of Buganda, Mwanga II.
Their aim was not only to survive (they claimed that the king wanted to eliminate them), but to grab power and formulate laws derived from their new religious beliefs. From then on, foreign religions in Buganda became a springboard for political mobilisation. (Kasozi, ABK The Social Origins of Violence in Uganda, Fountain Publishers, Kampala, Fountain Publishers), 1994: 27). Kasozi urges further that in post colonial Uganda- the unequal distribution of the country’s meager resources is the main cause of violence in Uganda. There was, and still is, inequality based on region, ethnicity, class, religion, and gender, and these forms of inequality were entrenched during the colonial period. (ibid, 30).
Formal education was introduced in Uganda by missionaries to enable their converts to read the Bible and prayer books. Perhaps due to lack of funds, or expediency, the early British colonial administrators allowed the missionaries to control the supply of education and so facilitated the building of a Christian society in Uganda. Moreover, the government recruited functionaries – clerks, interpreters, policemen and other workers – from missionary schools. Most novices attending school were being prepared for baptism. Many of the schools shared the same grounds, if not building with churches.
Muslim parents were afraid of this kind of education because it exposed their children to Christian ideas and values and had the potential to lead to Christian conversion. On the other hand, Muslims had no missionaries. This was the same in w the whole of East Africa. A report on Muslim Education by Dr. Sergent found that Muslims all over East Africa were so backward in education that they needed special help (Ahmed Abdallah, “Ambivalence of Muslim Education” East African Journal, February 1965).
Writing in the Uganda Journal (1965) Felice Carter stated that by 1960, Muslims had only one university graduate. When in 1964, two years after independence the African government opened all secondary schools to everyone irrespective of religious denomination, Muslims had only one secondary school as compared to 16 for Catholics and 10 for Anglicans (Kasozi, 1996).
Over the years Muslims achieved positive disproportionate influence on economic, social and political activity in comparison to their numbers. However, relations with the government have ebbed and flowed. A combination of historic transgressions combined with the current backdrop of the global war on terror and Uganda’s activities in regional politics drive a perception by the Muslim community that it is marginalised and often harassed by the government and the majority non Muslim population.
Even before the colonial period, Religious violence probably caused more devastation to human and animal life in Buganda than the kingdom had experienced since its foundation in the fourteenth century. Beginning in 1888, political parties based on religion -Bafransa (Roman Catholic), Bangereza (Anglican Protestants, Bawadi (Muslim)- armed themselves, united and overthrew the king of Buganda, Mwanga II.
Their aim was not only to survive (they claimed that the king wanted to eliminate them), but to grab power and formulate laws derived from their new religious beliefs. From then on, foreign religions in Buganda became a springboard for political mobilisation. (Kasozi, ABK, The Social Origins of Violence in Uganda, Fountain Publishers, Kampala, Fountain Publishers), 1994: 27).
Kasozi urges further that in post colonial Uganda- the unequal distribution of the country’s meager resources is the main cause of violence in Uganda. There was, and still is, inequality based on region, ethnicity, class, religion, and gender, and these forms of inequality were entrenched during the colonial period. (ibid, 30).
Divisions persist in the country, based on ethnicity, tribe and religion. These divisions threaten the country’s nation building objective. The country has been at war with itself in different parts and times.
The need for dialogue
To build bridges of understanding and to develop sustainable peaceful co-existence Uganda’s youth must embrace the idea of interfaith dialogue. But what is dialogue?
In this context, it is important to note that the etymology of the word “dialogue” is “dia” in Greek, referring to the act of seeing through.
Dialogue should empower us to ‘see through’ the faith of others, and enable us to re-examine our assumptions of the other based on the other’s definition of itself. Each group is able to better express what it believes and, in the process, to understand more deeply the meaning of what it means to be committed to a particular faith tradition.
The process of self-definition also requires that each group express itself based on its own terms and for the partner in dialogue to accept and respect that self-definition. In the process, our preconceived notions of the other are challenged and often dramatically altered. This is the first step to moving beyond the stereotypes and misrepresentations of the past.
It is improper for Muslims, for example, to assume that their often-distorted image and understanding of Christianity is how Christians understand themselves. The ability to change one’s views and perceptions about the other is an important component if interaction between people of different religious backgrounds is to lead to a more peaceful co-existence between them.
The purpose of engaging in interfaith dialogue is not to reach doctrinal agreement but to increase sensitivity to others. As the Parliament of the World’s Religions affirmed in Chicago in 1993, “The earth cannot be changed for the better unless the consciousness of the individual is changed first.”
Dialogue provides access to windows of understanding of how others define themselves and challenges us to grow in our own faith through the experience of the other. It necessitates a shift in paradigm, asking us to embrace those we have previously excluded or demonized. We tend to exclude or marginalize others in different ways.
These range from assimilation, abandonment, indifference, and domination of the other. Exclusion is also conjoined with the distortion of rather than simply ignorance of the other. As Miroslav Volf states, “it (exclusion) is a willful misconstruction, not mere failure of knowledge [Miroslav Volf, Exclusion and Embrace, A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness and Reconciliation (Nashville: Abingdon, 1996), 75]. On the different forms that exclusion and othering can take see Marc Gopin, Holy War, Holy Peace: How Religion Can Bring Peace to the Middle East (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 67.]
Sulayman Nyang, one of the world’s most respected scholars of interfaith understanding defines dialogue as “a process by which members of two religious communities try to build bridges between their respective groups as they jointly and separately grapple with the basic issues of life, individually and collectively, and seek to bring about greater understanding between the two communities not only in terms of their different definitions of self and community, but also in terms of their attitudes toward each other’s beliefs, rituals and festivals, and behavioral patterns.” (Sulayman Nyang, “Challenges Facing Christian-Muslim Dialogue in the United States,” in Christian-Muslim Encounters, ed. Y. Haddad, 328).
According to Martin Buber, “true dialogue expresses an essential aspect of the human spirit, when we listen and respond to one another with an authenticity that forges a bond between us.”
[Douglas Johnston, Faith-Based Diplomacy: Trumping Realpolitik (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 56.]
Dialogue is a tool that fosters a better understanding between different faith groups, and promotes peaceful co-existence. However, dialogue needs to progress beyond negating misconceptions and understanding the beliefs of others.
Dialogue is also interwoven with understanding in a fundamental way what it means to believe in a particular religious tradition, and to attempt to enter the heart of the partner in dialogue. Those who engage in dialogue not only relate their tradition but also what is meaningful in it, and how they experience and relate to the sacred within their tradition.
An essential component in dialogue is the willingness to re-examine one’s faith in the light of how others relate to their tradition and the ability to strengthen or adjust one’s own engagement and interaction with the sacred, based on the experiences of the other. Understanding the faith of others should strengthen rather than weaken a person’s commitment to his or her tradition.
Principles of Dialogue
We shall borrow noted Chinese philosopher Ru Xin’s four principles of dialogue.
Ru, Vice President of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS), outlined these principles at a Conference on Cultures and Civilisations of the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) in December 2003.
He argued that the conflicts brought by diversified cultures should be solved through dialogue.
His first principle is that all countries should have the awareness of globalization. When facing global issues, all parties should consider the interests of the whole world prior to their own.
The second principle is to be aware of the diversity of culture. Ru thinks that all civilisations and cultures have made a contribution to the world civilization and culture, and each nation and country has the right to preserve and develop its own civilisation and culture.
Ru’s third principle is that mutual understanding and respect are needed in dialogues between different civilizations and cultural communications. He argues that if the both sides treated each other as rivals and potential enemies rather then equal partners and friends, the dialogue and communication would hardly succeed. All parties should, on the one hand, be proud of their cultures, but on the other hand be clear about their shortcomings, so as to prevent self-worship.
The last principle, he said, is to admit and tolerate the gaps between different civilisations and cultures.
Ru adds that today the world is facing a series of problems with resources, environmental protection, anti-terrorism, population, drug smuggling and infectious disease. Therefore, cultural dialogue and communication may not only increase mutual understanding, but also help promote international cooperation and world peace.
Obstacles to interfaith understanding
There are many obstacles to interfaith understanding, including power struggles, selfishness and other forms of elite manipulation. In my view I think Stereotyping is the most difficult obstacle to overcome.
Media and stereotype
What is a stereotype?
Stereotypes are qualities assigned to groups of people related to their race, religion, nationality and sexual orientation, to name a few. Because they generalize groups of people in manners that lead to discrimination and ignore the diversity within groups, stereotypes should be avoided.
Stereotypes vs. Generalizations
While all stereotypes are generalizations, not all generalizations are stereotypes. Stereotypes are oversimplifications of people groups widely circulated in certain societies. In Uganda, for example, tribal groups are linked to stereotypes such as being dishonest, arrogant, greedy, hypocritical, violent, stupid, obstinate, stubborn, simple minded, meek, morally loose, jealous, etc.
The role of the media in creating and sustaining stereotypes (stereotyping) of certain people, organisations and groups (for example of women, tribes, white people, black people, political parties, politicians, professions, religions etc) is critical.
Through stereotyped portrayals, the media reinforce existing patters of attitudes and behaviour toward specific individuals, groups and institutions, especially minority groups. This is a hindrance to dialogue and mutual understanding.
DeFleur and Dennis (1994) express the essential ideas of this theory:
“In entertainment content, and in other media messages, for instance in the way social and political journalism portray an event related to a specific group, the media can repeatedly present us with negative portrayal of, of instance, a specific ethnic group”.
“These portrayals tend to be consistently negative, showing such people as having undesirable attitudes and fewer positive characteristics than members of the dominant group in which the media function”. [DeFleur ML & Dennis EE 1994: Understanding Mass Communication: a liberal arts perspective, 5e, Boston MA: Houghton Miffin]
Such portrayals are similar among various media – thus providing corroboration.
These portrayals provide constructions of meaning for media users, particularly for those who have only limited contact with actual people of the stereotyped group.
Viewers, readers and listeners incorporate these meanings into their memories as relatively inflexible schemata – stereotyped interpretations – they use when thinking about or responding to any individual of a portrayal category, regardless of his/her actual personal characteristics.
From the above, it is clear that stereotyping is one of the most dangerous forms of media practice, which does not help in dialogue and building bridges of understanding. The media has chosen to work with caricatures of people and groups instead of presenting the true portrayals of them. The media has continued to sustain lies about people, misconceptions about cultural groups thus fostering tensions in society.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is important for the youth that have participated in today’s interfaith program to commit themselves to furthering it. Through subsequent similar or related programs they should build the habit of tolerance, peaceful co-existence and place the country’s shared goals above petty group and personal interests. They should be on the look out for stereotypical media images of groups or individuals in their society, so that they can make an independent assessment of issues and circumstances. Today the construction of the bridge of understanding has just begun.
I am proud to be associated with this innovative and noble effort. I thank and commend the organisers of this event for bringing the youth together, to forge a new Uganda, especially as we mark 50 years of independence. I hope such programs will be repeated – and even institutionalised in the different regions of Uganda.
Thank you very much for your kind attention.
Uganda Muslim Brothers and Sisters(UMBS) Marhaban مرحبا 