http://www.abrahamsvision.org/unitynycweblog2007-08/index.php http://www.abrahamsvision.org/unitynycweblog2007-08/index.php?entry=entry080612-142215
Honestly, without these interfaith classes, I would still have that stereotype in my head, but after our teacher told us that there are black Jews we were amazed. I couldn't really believe it because the only kinds of Jews I've seen are the ones that wear suits with curls. This made me wonder how come Jewish diversity is not well known amongst people. What causes this? Is it because of the assimilation phenomena? Are Jews not aware that there is diversity? Is it lost contact? Or is it that Jews of different ethnicities tend to disregard the existing Jews?

Assimilation into neighboring societies is one reason that causes unawareness of the diversity within Judaism. A current study shows how the Jews of Cochin and other towns of the region gradually adopted Hindu practices, without abandoning Judaism. The study calls their language a sort of Malabar Yiddish, in which Hebrew, Tamil, Spanish, Dutch and English basics were infused into Malayalam. The Cochin Jews social and religious customs and their small caste system portrayed the successful integration of the Cochin Jews, both white and black, into the surrounding society. Yet some important attachment to Jewishness appeared to remain.

Aside from the Cochin Jews, the European Jews tired to assimilate into western societies. They discarded unique Jewish clothing. They adopted French, German, Dutch, English or Hungarian as their first language and, in many cases, stopped using Jewish languages altogether. Even Hebrew as a language of ritual declined, considering it as a language of prayer by the more advanced reformers and is still hard to comprehend properly even by many of those who still used it in the synagogue. Jews moved out of formerly typical Jewish occupations such as tailoring, money lending, and horse dealing into the liberal professions. Some became property-owners, capitalists, and acquired titles of nobility. In Germany and Hungary in particular, large numbers gave up Judaism and wanted to join into Christian society.

Though not all succeeded, a certain spot of Jewishness seemed impossible to discard. In Berlin, for example, descendants of upper-class Jewish converts lived in a kind of social uncertainty outside the Jewish community but not yet fully integrated into German society — tending to mingle socially and to marry largely within their restricted ex-Jewish group.

Going on the same line of assimilation, we might ask ourselves if European Jews, better known as Ashkenazi Jews, are aware of the other non-European Jews. While researching this question online, I found various different answers. One side feels superior such as the Ashkenazi’s living in Israel- they feel more superior then the immigrant Jews of different descent. Some believe that Jews of different ethnicities aren’t really Jewish because they might be descendants of Christian converts. But on a positive note, some regions try to create multi-cultural societies. But these attempts disappear over time because of the concept of “Sabra.” Sabra was defined as a Jew born in the Land of Israel. In reality the concept represented an attempt to reshape Jewish ethnicity itself.

One possible cause is lost contact between Jewish nations. Some Jewish communities, for example that of Yemen, were completely cut off from contact with larger Jewish centers for many centuries, and others almost just blended in with the societies in which they dwelt — for example, the small Jewish settlement at Kai-feng in China. By the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries significant cultural and social differences, amounting to quasi-ethnic divisions, had developed among Jewish communities. Thus, the lost of contact among the nations may have suppressed the knowledge of their diversity.

Another possibility is to know that different Jews exist, but not including them in the same circle altogether. For example, the Jews of Germany and the Jews from Spain shared common religious traditions, observed customs and etc. Along with having so much in common, sometimes they even lived in the same place but ignored each others presence. For example in Amsterdam, each ethnic group had its own community structure and remained distant from one another.

These are just numerous possibilities about why Jewish diversity has remained unheard of. It’s up to you to decide which one you feel satisfies your curiosity. For me, I am just glad I took this class or else my thoughts would still be overruled by stereotypes.
]]> http://www.abrahamsvision.org/unitynycweblog2007-08/index.php?entry=entry080610-145342
Religion, once employed by a person, may also tend to govern the life of the individual through set guidelines and even preserve law and order in the society at large. However, religion itself has much more to it, taking into consideration that it is a comprehensive system of ideology that includes beliefs and practices and rules and regulations that may relate to any aspect of life.

Religion, comparatively, is given a higher rank in the fabric of society. Due to its spiritual nature, religion is respected and revered more than politics, of course, considering that politics is only a materialistic tool used by man for the purpose of managing and governing affairs. These two elements hold separate standards within society and due to that fact their combination culminates in an unnatural effect which corrupts both elements and leaves you with neither.
The plane where the institutions of religion and politics often collide in society is where the establishments of the church and the state are found. Ideologically, church and state are separate establishments, the church being an institution of religion and the state being a political institution. Their combination results in what may be known as a theocracy.
James Madison, the principal drafter of the United States Bill of Rights, often wrote of total separation of the church from the state. Madison wrote, “Practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.”

Interesting to note is Confucius' political thought which is based upon his ethical thought. He argues that the best government is one that rules through "rites" and people's natural morality, rather than by using bribery and coercion, thereby attempting to purify the institution of politics itself. He explained that in one of his important analects: "If the people be led by laws, and uniformity sought to be given them by punishments, they will try to avoid the punishment, but have no sense of shame. If they be led by virtue, and uniformity sought to be given them by the rules of propriety, they will have the sense of shame, and moreover will become good." This "sense of shame" is an internalization of duty, where the punishment precedes the evil action, instead of following it in the form of laws.

However virtuous this idea may be, the presence of corruption in every context of politics has proven to us time and again that purification of this institution would be, if possible, an ambitious endeavor. Separation of church and state is a political and legal doctrine that government and religious institutions are to be kept separate and independent from each other. The term most often refers to the combination of two principles: secularity of government together with the freedom of religious exercise.

In the letter written in 1802 to a group identifying themselves as the Danbury Baptists, referencing the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, Thomas Jefferson writes:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

The alliance of religion and politics has an effect on both elements, however the subsequent examples will explore the detrimental effect on religion. Israel is considered one of the “progressive” nations in that it promotes democratic ideals and freedoms and upholds them. Despite that, on May 6, 2008, the WSJ reported that “Between January 2003 and March 2008, tiny Israel – its population not half that of metropolitan Cairo's – was condemned (for human rights violations by UN resolutions, decisions, and reports) no fewer than 635 times. The runners-up were Sudan at 280, the Democratic Republic of the Congo at 209, and Burma at 183. North Korea was cited a mere 60 times, a third as many as the United States.”
Saudi Arabia is another rapidly growing economy. However, similar violations and infringements are still present. Human rights groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have repeatedly expressed concern about the state of human rights in Saudi Arabia. They claim that Saudi Arabia fails to provide minimum due process and criticize it’s legal system and its human rights record in various political, legal, and social areas, especially its severe limitations on the rights of women.

Considering that Israel is a secular state in that separation of church and state is upheld in the country and that Saudi Arabia may be considered theocratic in that it is run according to their interpretation of the Shari’a (Islamic legislation), we may easily conclude that it is the Political institution of the state that causes violations such as the afore mentioned ones and not religion. However, religion does become the victim in the case of Saudi Arabia because it is unnaturally enforced by the state and therefore perceived by the public to be responsible for the violations which are due only to politics.
]]> http://www.abrahamsvision.org/unitynycweblog2007-08/index.php?entry=entry080528-165251

Sarah Margles, Education Officer for American Jewish World Service ended the Guest Speaker Series for the 2007-08 Unity Program. She spoke about her work experiences for a Jewish agency which focuses on global issues and support in the developing world. Sarah also presented her personal experiences with individuals in both Jewish and Muslim communities abroad and locally relating it to her inner growth and mission.


]]> http://www.abrahamsvision.org/unitynycweblog2007-08/index.php?entry=entry080502-201731

Mark Rosenblum, History professor at Queens College and founder and political director of Americans for Peace Now visited Al-Iman to speak about his involvement in numerous Middle East conflict resolution initiatives. The students enjoyed hearing about the courses offered through his program in which Jewish, Muslim and Christian students act as the 'other' to develop peace making strategies.]]> http://www.abrahamsvision.org/unitynycweblog2007-08/index.php?entry=entry080502-144716
In a country of more then thirty million Muslims, the Jews of Morocco are indisputably a tiny minority. However, the tolerance and understanding practiced by both sides exemplify the potential of a successful transformation that has reversed centuries of detestation. In chapter one, lesson two, a conflict theorist and practitioner, John Paul Lederach provides a definition for conflict transformation, “Conflict transformation…does not suggest that we simply eliminate or control conflict, but rather recognize and work with its “dialectic nature.””1 According to his definition, a social conflict originates naturally from human interactions and then changes people’s perception of themselves and of the other, resulting in misunderstandings which fuel the disagreement. Thus, it is essential for both sides to have a dialogue and discuss the differences, address the origins of the conflict, and listen to the other group. King Hassan of Morocco has been a supporter of dialogue facilitation between the leaders of Jewish and Muslim communities for approximately forty years. A combination of friendly policies and dialogue has resulted in peaceful coexistence between the Jews and Muslims in Morocco.

Although there were periods of stability and peace for Jews in Morocco, since ancient times, Jews experienced discrimination and second class treatment. After the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, a group of Jews settled in the area in the northern region of Africa called Mauritania – present day Morocco. Under Roman leadership, the Jews were treated on the same basis as their neighbors and were allowed to prosper. After the advent of Islam, in the 7th century, Morocco came under the control of the Caliph of Baghdad. Under the Arabs, the Jews were given the dhimmi status and were subject to the Pact of Omar. The dhimmi status enabled the Jews to retain their Jewish identity, religious laws and practices in exchange for a poll-tax, jizya. This status granted protection to the Jews, but also forbid Jews from holding high administrative positions, displaying wealth, testifying in a Muslim court, erecting places of worship and other restrictions.2 Although the dhimmi status enabled the Jews and Muslims to exist next to each other, the various prohibitions for dhimmis formed a class breach between the two groups, resulting in the second-class treatment towards dhimmis. For this reason, the dhimmi status can not be considered as a successful solution to the Muslim-Jewish conflict.

In 1492, the North African region experienced an influx of Jews escaping the explosion from Spain and Portugal. Many Jews settled in Morocco because it had a strong Jewish presence. In the beginning, the Jews had a positive contribution to the society because many had previously been doctors, poets, scientists, and other intellectual careers. However, as Jews began to settle in big cities and take jobs away from Muslims, the Muslim neighbor began to resent their Jewish friends. It resulted in series of pogroms and anti-Semitic sentiment in order to thwart the growth of Jewish expasion in Morocco. Although there were brief periods of peace and non-violence in the history of Morocco, there was no real progress in the Jewish-Muslim relations until the mid-twentieth century. In 1940s, the Nazi Vichy government issued a series of anti-Semitic laws against the Jews, forcing the Jews to wear the yellow Star of David and excluding Jews from holding administrative positions. In 1948, when the Jewish State declared independence, many of the 265,000 Jews immigrated to Israel. However, when Morocco declared independence in 1956, the emigration to Israel was halted until 1963. In 1961, when the Sultan Muhammad V died, he was replaced by his son King Hassan. After many efforts by Zionist organization and political pressure from the United States and France, the government allowed Jews to leave Morocco. This was the turning point of the Moroccan Jewish-Muslim relations.

The friendly attitude of King Hassan towards the Jews of Morocco and the State of Israel began the transformation of a century old conflict between the Jews and Muslims. Hassan has been an avid supporter of the Arab-Israeli peace process. He has passed various policies to preserve the Jewish community in Morocco and has facilitated interfaith dialogues between leaders of both communities. According to the Report on International Religious Freedom, “The Government continued to encourage tolerance, respect, and dialogue among the religious groups [in 2007].”3 There are two sets of laws and courts pertaining to marriage, inheritance, and family matters--one for Muslims and another for Jews. This report also revealed that over the course of past 13 years, the government organized the annual “Fez Festival of Sacred Music,” which gathers musicians from Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, and Buddhist spiritual traditions. Also, during the holy month of Ramadan, the King hosts a conference of Muslim religious scholars who discuss ways to promote tolerance and mutual respect between Islam and other religions. The success of Moroccan leaders, in transforming a thousand old conflict, is self-evident. In fact, Morocco is the only Arab nation with a Jewish museum.

The evolution of the Muslim-Jewish conflict in Morocco is a great milestone to the Muslim-Jewish relations around the world. It showed that with the proper desire and attitude, even a conflict as difficult as this can be resolved. The case of Morocco is extraordinary because in the country of over 30 million Muslims, a small religious group of approximately five thousand members enjoys the religious freedom to practice its traditions and worship their God. The conflict transformation groups can now study the successful tactics employed in the management of this conflict and help resolve religious conflicts around the world. The tools such as facilitation of dialogue, conflict transformation and creative communication, as introduced by the Unity course packets, have incredible potential to transform the mindsets of the conflicting groups and to resolve their disagreements. The success of Moroccan coexistence project showed that if those techniques are conducted properly, the possibilities for peaceful coexistence are infinite.]]> http://www.abrahamsvision.org/unitynycweblog2007-08/index.php?entry=entry080430-232205

Film maker Laura Wiessen spoke to the Al-Iman students about her interfaith journeys throughout Israel and Africa. She also presented on her life as an American Jewish woman, comparing her experiences to those of Jews in the Middle East as well as referencing her encounters with Palestinian Israeli's while abroad.
]]> http://www.abrahamsvision.org/unitynycweblog2007-08/index.php?entry=entry080427-111516



Jo Hirschmann, Rabbinical student at Hebrew Union College spoke to the Al-Iman students about her experience as a Jewish female in the Reform tradition. She presented an activity which provided Biblical text depicting women and their roles in early Judaism as significant to the faith. The students thoroughly enjoyed hearing her unique perspective.]]> http://www.abrahamsvision.org/unitynycweblog2007-08/index.php?entry=entry080425-151222
Politics is a term that has developed a negative connotation in today’s society. The natural need of a society to be governed and managed through a set of guidelines requires politics. It is in fact innate at all levels of society including corporate, academic, as well as religious. Being a natural part of life, politics can and may exclude the influence of any particular religion. However, religion being such a comprehensive system cannot exclude politics. Therefore politics becomes a sub-constituent of religion.

Religion, being an individual’s connection with the divine, makes politics seem almost at a subservient level and not so much at a par. Politics appears to be only a materialistic tool for man. The phrase “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's,” makes this distinction precisely. Furthermore, when Jesus made a claim about religion by saying, “My kingdom is not of this world,” he clarified that politics is only a worldly measure that should not be allowed to influence religion.

-Syed M. Razvi]]> http://www.abrahamsvision.org/unitynycweblog2007-08/index.php?entry=entry080423-103852
Conflict is defined in many ways. The most obvious is a fight, battle or war. Often, it is more subtle, and is a “competitive or opposing action of incompatibles: antagonistic state or action (As of divergent ideas, interests, or persons) and mental struggle resulting from incompatible or opposing needs, drives, wishes, or external or internal demands.” There are several ways of dealing with conflict, including Conflict Management, Conflict Resolution, and Conflict Transformation.

Conflict Management is a “systematic process geared toward finding mutually satisfying outcomes for two or more conflicting parties” that can help the two parties “function more effectively.” The goal is to “reduce the incidence of dysfunctional conflict (conflict that hinders group performance) and to increase the likelihood that any conflicts that take place will be resolved efficiently and effectively.” Conflict Management is a temporary way of dealing with conflict, and does not address the root of the conflict, but rather aims to eliminate the negative results of the conflict. Conflict Management is often the most effective in small groups that are trying accomplish something other than resolving conflict. In an office setting, for example, conflict management is often used so that the group or team can accomplish their goal without conflict hindering them.

Conflict Resolution is a “collaboration towards a compromise or consensus decision,” and a “process of resolving a dispute or a conflict, by providing each side’s needs, and adequately addressing their interests so that they are satisfied with the outcome. Conflict resolution aims to end conflicts before they start or lead to physical fighting.” Conflict resolution treats conflict as “short term phenomenon that can be ‘resolved’ permanently through mediation or other intervention processes” This way of treating conflict often overlooks the complexities of the situation by assuming that a definite resolution exists. It does not seek to eliminate the roots of the conflict, but rather prevent the conflict from continuing. Conflict resolution is often used on a larger, political scale. It is the most practical for international conflict because it usually involves formal negotiations and mediations, and, if done successfully, results in clear plans and protocols for peace. It often requires cessations of violence and other actions that cause conflict, and thus is more practical on a political level.

Conflict Transformation goes beyond managing and resolving the conflict, and instead aims to change the nature of the conflict itself. According to this theory, “social conflict is naturally created by humans who are involved in relationships, yet once it occurs, it changes (i.e. transforms) those events, people, and relationships that created the initial conflict.” Conflict Transformation sees conflict as “dialectic.” It seeks to change the people involved in conflict, which will then change their relationship to each other and to the conflict, and which will in turn change the people involved, thus changing the nature of the conflict itself. Conflict transformation is often best on a personal scale, or between groups trying to break a cycle of conflict and violence, because it addresses the roots of the conflict and the nature of the conflict itself, rather than the results of the conflict.

Religion plays a very large role in Jewish-Muslim relations. Ninian Smart, a religious studies scholar and author of The Religious Experience of Mankind, identifies six dimensions of religion. The Ritual Dimension includes rituals such as worship, prayer, and other often symbolic offerings. The Mythological Dimension is the stories within the religion. Often these stories are the stories of creation and stories about a people’s and religion’s history. The third dimension is the Doctrinal Dimension, which, although very similar to the mythological dimension, is a system of beliefs shared by believers. Often, these beliefs come from the myths and rituals of the particular religion. The Ethical Dimension is the code of ethics of the religion that influences the behavior of the individual, which in turn influences the daily life of the community. The Social Dimension of religion is the social and communal significance, which is often determined and enhanced by a set of common rituals, beliefs, and practices. The final dimension is the Experiential Dimension, which is the personal religious experience a person has, whether that be an other-worldly, out of mind, mystical, or divine/supernatural experience, or a life situation that is experienced through the lens of religion. It is the variations within each dimension that make each religion unique, and the overlap of the dimensions that make many religions so similar.

Religion has often been used to further conflict, particularly the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and especially in violent ways. Examples include Hamas and Islamic Jihad, Jewish assassins, nationalist religious parties, land-grabbing in the name of God, and suicide mass-murder in the name of God. But the role of religion in transforming conflict is often overlooked. In particular, the concepts of forgiveness, repentance, compassion, reconciliation, and patience, all of which are central in both religions, can provide a religious framework for conflict transformation.

There are many concepts in Judaism that promote peacemaking. Teshuvah is the term for repentance, and highlights the Jewish belief in an individual’s and community’s ability to change and transform, as well as the belief in a merciful, forgiving God. There are several aspects to a true repentance. The first is viduiy, confession, which involves acknowledging the wrongs done, regret (haratah), and a drive to changing the future (kabalah le’habah). This process is especially challenging in a conflict where both sides have wronged and been wronged. It is difficult for one side to admit they have wronged when they themselves have had crimes committed to them, but at the same time, acknowledgment of crimes is necessary for the victims to forgive them. While an extensive acknowledgment is not always possible, the sentiment and effort is a step forward.

There is a rabbinic idea that true and complete repentance, teshuvah gemurah, is fulfilled when a person is faced with the same situation as when he or she sinned or committed a crime the first time and the person resists the impulse to do it again. These actions (or rather, lack of actions) are especially important as testimony to the perpetrators’ words of repentance, and help build trust between the two sides. This is especially important in violent conflicts. If retaliation for a wrong is viewed as a crime, which to many people seeking peace it might be, true repentance is when a person is able to restrain him or herself by not seeking revenge the next time a tragedy befalls them or their community. Teshuvah is so powerful in Judaism that there is a rabbinic idea that true teshuvah brings healing to the world.

The process of Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement and the holiest day for Jews, is very revealing and relevant for conflict transformation. The fact that this day is one of the most observed Jewish holidays, and that it is considered the holiest day of the year, is tribute to the Jewish belief of the importance of forgiveness and the abilities of humans to change. Fasting on Yom Kippur is, in some ways, a personal sacrifice that then leads to renewal and purification. This idea of rebirth is also key in breaking a cycle of violence and building a more positive future.
There are several ways of expressing Teshuvah in a more physical, tangible way. Showing emotion, such as through crying, especially to the ‘other’ is often overlooked. It can be a powerful tool for showing authenticity, trust, and humanness, and can help in building relationships that are far from hostile and antagonistic. Other important acts include chesed, acts of loving kindness, and tzedakah, charity. These are actions encouraged by Judaism that go beyond verbal repentance.

Another demonstration of repentance is changing one’s identity. This notion stems from Abraham, whose name is changed by God from Abram to Abraham in order to show a new level of commitment to God and monotheism. This tradition was also followed by his grandson, Jacob, who changed his name to Israel after he struggled with both God and humans. A transformation in identity, is also important in transforming conflicts, especially the Israel/Palestinian one. Dr. Dan Bar-Or of Ben Gurion University believes that “The Israelis and Palestinians run the risk of losing their own identity, an identity that is shaped in many ways by defining their adversary. Thus, the peace process will ultimately serve as a mechanism to redefine oneself.”

There are also several other related concepts. On an inter-personal level, there is piyyus, in which one apologizes until the victim forgives the perpetrator. Although within piyyus there is the danger that the perpetrator does not mean what s/he says, there is also the extremely powerful notion that the victim must rely on trust for the offender, something that is often difficult for victims. Other concepts include mehila, forgiveness, and sliha, which is forgiveness or pardon, and in certain cases, “the power to forgive.” (Psalms 130:4, according to the JPS Tanakh translation). Kapparah is the process of atonement, and the hope that sins will be pardoned and wiped away. These concepts all imply a merciful, forgiving God, one who easily forgives the sins of humans. Indeed, this is mentioned in various forms in Jewish literature. The Amidah refers to God as mohel ve’soleakh, a God who forgives and pardons. God is given qualities such as over al pasha, one who passes over sin, and noseh avon, one who carries the burden of sin. God is described as an omnipotent, all-knowing, divine being, one who clearly is aware of all of the sins of mankind, and yet has all of the above forgiving qualities.

There are also many concepts in Islam that promote peacemaking and forgiveness. Like the merciful God of Judaism, Allah is referred to as “oft forgiving”, especially to minor sins. While the Quran says that Allah does not forgive people for worshipping other gods or associating them with Allah, in practice, Allah forgave the Jews after they built a golden calf, and was very patient with Abraham as he discovered monotheism. There is also the instance of angels praying for forgiveness for all human beings, implying even non-Muslims. However, Allah does not see repentance near death after a life time of sinning as authentic. And of course, all divine forgiveness relies on human efforts of repentance.

In addition to divine forgiveness, human forgiveness is also encouraged. The Prophet Muhammad received the instruction to “Hold on to forgiveness”. The Quran also says that forgiveness is better than retaliation. It acknowledges that people’s natural tendencies are for retaliation and revenge, and while there is no punishment for retaliation, the highest reward goes to those who can forgive even when they are angry. In fact, forgiveness is seen as an act of a “courageous will.” In Malik’s Muwatta, an early collection of hadith or oral tradition, it says “A strong person is not the person who throws his adversaries to the ground. A strong person is one who contains himself when he is angry.” It also says, “What is better than much prayer and sadaka [charity]? …Mending discord. And beware of hatred—it strips you of your deen [religion].” One thing that is perhaps overlooked by this hadith is that charity can be an effective means of repentance. The idea that one of the most basic principles of Islam, one of the five pillars, Zakat, is a means of reconciliation and peace-building is extremely powerful.

Sulha is one of the main methods of reconciliation in Islam. It literally translates as “settlement,” and is legally binding. It is generally conducted between Muslims, and is very action and ritual oriented. Public sulha often occurs between two groups, such as tribes, and can include compensation for past wrong doings, even those done historically, and a commitment to moving on from the past and beginning a new future. Private sulha is usually between specific people, and is intended to avoid further conflict and violence. Often, families will go to muslihs or jaha, people with esteem in the community, and a hodna, or truce, will be declared. Sulha is so highly ritualized, in fact, that in many societies, it is a “quasi legal phenomenon,” in that in some societies it is built in to the legal system. In some ways, it can make it less effective, because it is not as genuine and heartfelt. On the other hand, it is perhaps more personal and effective than other justice and legal systems.

Muslaha is often considered the ritualized aspect of sulha, and is translated as reconciliation. In the highly ritualized and bilateral process, families line up, shake hands (Mustafa), the family of the perpetrator visits the family of the injured, they drink bitter coffee, and the family of the perpetrator hosts a meal. There is also a version of sulha in which the offender goes to the house of the victim, takes off his shirt, bows his head, and places a dagger on the folded shirt. This act is particularly striking; the symbolism is extremely powerful, there can be no ambivalence about what the perpetrator is trying to say, and the actions go far beyond any words.

There are, however, limitations and shortcomings to both the Jewish and Islamic concepts of peace and reconciliation. Primarily, there is the issue of “selective application of religious values” in which notions of reconciliation and peace-building are only applied to members of the same faith; there is the problem that “forgiveness can be selectively withdrawn from the enemy groups who need most to be engaged.” In Judaism, it is permitted to deal harshly with those who are considered “wicked,” namely, non-Jews. In Islam too, sulha is generally only applied to other Muslims. The question arises of who decides when the peaceful concepts are applied, and when it is permitted to deal harshly with enemies. Members of each religion often feel the need to explain the violent, un-peaceful concepts, a phenomenon Marc Gopin titles “apologetics.” If there are two contradictory concepts, peace and violence, how does one decide which takes precedence? Another limitation is that in many conflicts, the role of the perpetrator and victim is not clearly defined, especially when both sides have committed wrongs and have been wronged. Invoking Teshuvah and sulha is made all the more challenging because both these concepts assume there is only one guilty party.

In a religious conflict, religion cannot be removed. For example, in the context of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, it is, among other things, holy, desirable land that is being fought over. Both sides of the conflict have given up parts of their land; Israel has lost much of the Promised Land, and Palestinians have lost their homes. People on both sides, especially the more religious people, have sacrificed land that is precious to them. It is much easier for secular people, especially Israelis, to be willing to exchange land for peace. “The real heroes of this process of transformation from war to peace will be those who deeply cherish the land, who feel that they own it and that God gave it to them but are willing to give up part of it, out of a sense of justice and a commitment to peace.”

In Muslim-Jewish relations in general, religion is key in transforming conflict, especially through teshuvah and sulha ceremonies, and religious leaders should be at the forefront of this endeavor. Because religion is at the origin of the conflict, religion must be used to address it by changing the people and the relationship of the people involved, and changing the nature of the conflict itself. The family metaphor is often used to describe the relationship between Jews and Muslims. In both religions, Abraham is viewed as the father of this family, representing cultural and religious origins. Members of the family are joined together by their belief in a single God, and both religions share a common story or myth, that of Abraham and his immediate family. It is not unusual for family members to fight on occasion, but they almost always reconcile their differences and return to a place of love and respect. Religion has the power to transform the conflict and the complex relationship between Jews and Muslims. There are theologies and methodologies in both Islam and Judaism that encourage its believers to seek peace in various ways. In a religious conflict, religion should be a tool for transformation.

]]> http://www.abrahamsvision.org/unitynycweblog2007-08/index.php?entry=entry080423-103312
When I was reading the text on almsgiving I stumbled upon words that really astounded me more for their power than the phrase’s meaning. The sentence read, "These two basic religious activities are clear indicators of the importance of the vertical relationship between humankind and God through prayer and obedience, on the one hand, and the horizontal relationship of Muslims with one another through the giving of one’s wealth, on the other."

The words “vertical relationship” and “horizontal relationship” were a significant inspiration for the board game because before we could talk about Jewish and Muslim vertical connection to God, it was important, in my mind, to establish a horizontal relationship within the group. During the first two inter-school meetings our topics of conversation were structured by the facilitators geared towards getting to know each other cultures and lifestyles. However, many times throughout the meeting we would hit awkward moments of silences because students felt obligated to answer the questions when they did not necessarily had anything to share. Even though the board game would require physical and vocal contribution from the participants, certain tasks and questions would be posed to a group of students where anyone in that group could take on the response.

Ideally, the Jewish and Muslim students would be put in two intermixed groups with both teams having Muslim and Jewish participants. The students then would use the board game as a guide to answer questions about religious texts, their cultures, and their opinions on various topics. Moreover, the teams would engage in trust games along the way to establish comfort in the group through fun and learning. The questions answered correctly would be awarded with points allowing that team to move forward in the game, and questions unanswered would back track the team giving them an opportunity to regain the lead on the next turn. Playing the game would create a competition to a certain degree between the two teams motivating the students to contribute and pay attention, but at the same time, having no tangible prizes for the winning team, would ensure that students realize that their main goal is not to win but to become friends and enjoy the experience.

Amongst the different ways of dialogue, creative communication ultimately prevails. Where banal communication feels boring and avoids intimacy or surprises, antagonistic communication engages in heated debates and discussion that in a way counters the purpose of dialogue. The middle path between boring and defensive conversation is creative communication, which promotes diversity and imagination pursuing understanding and meaningful connections.

This project in essence incorporates my personal experience from the inter-school meetings as well as my understanding of the text over the course of the year. I have learned that, we, as Jewish and Muslim teenagers who live far from the “Middle Eastern Conflict” have little to dispute, and in order to bring two communities closer in America we need to engage in dialogue. The only way our feelings and subconscious reservations about each community could be transformed is by sole interaction, something no book or media can achieve. Therefore, the board game has the potential to separate individual religious views and instead create understanding of inter-group liking and love, or what Todd L. Pittinsky calls allophilia. There is no doubt that creative communication is the key to changing people’s minds and beliefs. In a game with no prizes, where each team enjoys the interaction and the competition with in it, each individual is a winner. ]]>