Marginality and Religious Difference in Islamic Seminaries

2021 ◽  
pp. 137-176
Keyword(s):  
2005 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 366-382
Author(s):  
Dina Sensi

The European action named “Faiths and Social cohesion”. Building up Social Participation in Religious Difference: Local Muslim Communities inEurope» was assessed during the last six months of the project. The objective was to assess the impact of the actions taken. 


Author(s):  
Elizabeth Shakman Hurd

In recent years, North American and European nations have sought to legally remake religion in other countries through an unprecedented array of international initiatives. Policymakers have rallied around the notion that the fostering of religious freedom, interfaith dialogue, religious tolerance, and protections for religious minorities are the keys to combating persecution and discrimination. This book argues that these initiatives create the very social tensions and divisions they are meant to overcome. It looks at three critical channels of state-sponsored intervention: international religious freedom advocacy, development assistance and nation building, and international law. It shows how these initiatives make religious difference a matter of law, resulting in a divide that favors forms of religion authorized by those in power and excludes other ways of being and belonging. In exploring the dizzying power dynamics and blurred boundaries that characterize relations between “expert religion,” “governed religion,” and “lived religion,” the book charts new territory in the study of religion in global politics. The book provides new insights into today's most pressing dilemmas of power, difference, and governance.


Author(s):  
Devorah Schoenfeld ◽  
Jeanine Diller

The traditional method of study known as hevruta is the foundation of traditional Jewish methods of learning as practiced in the yeshiva. This method has been articulated as Scriptural Reasoning in a way that emphasizes the practice of engaged reflection on a text. In this chapter, the authors will attempt a different articulation based on the use of this method in their classrooms, an approach that emphasizes disagreement. When disagreement is placed at the center of the process, the hevruta method becomes a tool for encountering and learning from religious difference. The chapter provides an overview of and rationale for using hevruta, a treatment of learning objectives, suggested steps for classroom use, sample questions, and a discussion of hevruta and comparative theology.


2006 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 269-303 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeroen Temperman

AbstractThis article suggests a signicant correlation between the notions of state neutrality and religious freedom. The absence of a considerable degree of state neutrality has a detrimental effect on human rights compliance. Under states which identify themselves strongly with a single religious denomination as well as under states which identify themselves negatively in relation to religion, there is no scope for human rights compliance. Both extreme types of state–religion identication are characterised by repression of all beliefs and manifestations thereof which do not correspond with the state sanctioned view on belief. This may be either the upholding of a specic religious denomination or of militant ideological secularism. Consequently, discrimination and marginalisation rather than compliance with the norms of freedom of religion and the promotion of non-discrimination comprise policy and practice under these regimes. Intermediate forms of state–religion afliation, i.e. types of identication in which the state is not drenched with the excluding ideals of a single denomination or with anti-religious sentiments, allow for a degree of democratic inclusion of religious difference and of religious tolerance. The most substantial scope for full compliance, however, lies in the combination of democratic inclusion of people from different religions and the indispensable political commitment characterised as state neutrality with respect to all people. State neutrality refers to a regime of state–religion identi cation that can best be understood as 'accommodative non-partisanship'.


Religions ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (6) ◽  
pp. 410
Author(s):  
Ian A. Morrison

Towards the end of the twentieth century, religion re-emerged as a topic of pressing concern in a number of the most self-consciously secularized states of the global north. From disputes over the wearing of headscarves in schools to debates over accommodations for religious practices in the public sphere, religion, particularly the ‘foreign’ religiosity of migrants and other minority religious subjects, appeared on the scene as a phenomenon whose proper place and role in society required both urgent and careful deliberation. This article argues that in order to account for the affective potency produced by the immanence of the figure of the ‘foreign’ religious subject, it is necessary to understand secularization as fantasy. It is within the fantasy of secularization that the secular emerges as an object of desire—as something that, if attained, appears as a solution to the problem of ‘foreign’ religiosity—and figures of inassimilable religiosity assume the role of scapegoats for the failure to resolve these concerns. In this sense, within this fantasy scene, the secular promises to provide ‘us’ with something that we are lacking. However, this promise has been undermined by the apparent persistence of religious difference. As such, as a result of their continued religiosity, ‘they’ appear to be taking something from ‘us’.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document