One World
Prof. Dr. Hans Küng © weltethos.org
Weitere Informationen
"EUROPEAN HOPE - Towards a World in Balance"
Strategy of Partnership + A Virtual Congress for a Better Balanced World
more articles to the topic Spirituality/Ethics at the sonnenseite:
Print contents
Send contents
|
Article 77 from 110
:: Europe and the challenge of Islam
Prof. Dr. Hans Küng is a Catholic theologian and journalist from Switzerland. He is also the initiator and president of the ”Global Ethic Foundation.” The pioneer in things concerning the dialogue of cultures shows in his books and articles that without a dialogue with the Islam a world in peace is not possible.
Two very different concepts of Europe are rivaling today as has been shown in the discussion on the preamble of the European Constitution. On the one hand is the concept of a functionalist economy and laical policy as propagandized by many technocrats and interest groups in Brussels.According to this idea Europe is first of all market, organization, economic integration. Europe – a giant financial, economic and social area which has to be effectively designed using all modern techniques and possibilities of management.
The Europe concept of a functionalist economy and laical policy raises so many questions, that one might agree with the former president of the Commission, Jacques Delors, who inculcated in the 1990s, speaking of the spiritual situation of Europe: Europe needs a ”soul”, a spiritual foundation! However, it depends on how one interprets this spiritual foundation.
Already in 1982, while staying in the medieval place of pilgrimage of Santiago de Compostela, pope John Paul II developed a totally different concept of Europe: a restaurative utopia of a “spiritual unity of Europe” and “a program of a reevangelization of Europe,” the latter to be geared to Catholic Poland. “Spiritual unity of Europe.” “New evangelization” are the central words on the papal agenda. This restaurative concept raises critical questions as well: since the papal mission of Re- Christianization is accompanied by an obtrusive denunciation of the western democracy as consumerism, hedonism and materialism. A close observation reveals that an unequivocal affirmation of the modern values freedom, pluralism and tolerance – above all throughout the own sphere of the church – is not given.
Test cases are over and over again questions of morality, from contraception over abortion to euthanasia. An impression imposes itself: Europe is aimed to be renewed by a pre-modern-medieval spirit. A spiritual renewal of Europe which virtually boils down to a recatholicization where believers of a different faith and nonbelievers, Protestants, Orthodox’ and members of other religions, where skeptics and dissenters are abided at best.
As far as Europe is concerned it is about more than just market and technology, and a third way between secularist-technocratic idea of Europe, and a pre-modern-sacralistic idea. The ”soul” of Europe requires a basis of values which is assembled of all religious and ethic traditions and thus be supported and accepted by all individuals – religious like nonreligious. Today this applies particularly to Muslims, whose role in Europe is growing significantly. But, will many contemporaries ask, is Islam actually able to offer any contributions to the dialog of cultures and the interreligious understanding in Europe?
Crossing the Divide
Already in 1998, almost right of the day three years before September 11th, 2001, the General Assembly declared in a resolution its firm determination to facilitate and promote dialogue among civilizations1 and decided against all prophecies of doom of a clash of civilizations to declare 2001 as the ”United Nations Year of a Dialogue among Cultures.” Surprisingly the impulse to this specific resolution was initiated by the Muslim side, namely by the Islamic Republic of Iran, and eminently by her president Sayed Mohammad Chatami (elected by a landslide majority in his own country, increasingly disputed and impeded by conservatives), who announced in his speech before the United Nations General Assembly on September 21th, 1998:“I would like to propose, in the name of the Islamic Republic of Iran, that the United Nations, as a first step, designate the year 2001 as the “Year of Dialogue Among Civilizations,” in the earnest hope that through such a dialogue the realization of universal justice and liberty may be initiated.
Among the worthiest achievements of this century is the acceptance of the necessity and significance of dialogue and the rejection of force, the promotion of understanding in the cultural, economic and political fields, and the strengthening of the foundations of liberty, justice and human rights. The establishment and enhancement of civility, whether at the national or international level, is contingent upon dialogue among societies and civilizations representing various views, inclinations and approaches. If humanity, at the threshold of the new century and millennium, devotes all its efforts to institutionalizing dialogue, replacing hostility and confrontation with discourse and understanding, it will leave an invaluable legacy for the benefit of future generations.”2
The events of September 11th, 2001, the war against Afghanistan and the escalating situation in the Middle East, approve in a tragic manner the enormous exigency of an initiative similar to the International Year of Dialogue among Civilizations. On November 8th and 9th, 2001, the UN General Assembly gathers once again, to deliberate the Dialogue among Civilizations and the ongoing activities of the Year, the report of group of experts and the continuing agenda. Under the lead of the former Secretary General of the United Nations, a printed version of the original American issue of their report Crossing the Divide. Dialogue among Civilizations, was presented to the Secretary General of the UN Kofi Annan by the “group of eminent persons,” a group appointed by the Secretary General, joined by Dr. A. Kamal Aboulmagd (Egypt), Prince El Hassan bin Talal (Jordan) and Dr. Javad Zarif (Iran)3 as Arab representatives. This manifesto aims at pointing out a new paradigm of international relations which bases upon a global ethic. Unfortunately neither the motto of the International Year nor the publications were absorbed by the media, public or politicians in the United States of America, although it would have been of high topicality and politically explosive nature especially in the US.
Following a two-day debate in the General Assembly, the delegations of all different nations, among those several of Islamic origin, argue against the clash and in favour of the dialogue of civilizations. Finally, on November 9th, the General Assembly adopts a resolution (mainly initialized from Muslim side) implying a Global Agenda for the dialogue among civilizations.4
It recalls all precedent resolutions and emphasizes the eminent importance of a dialogue of civilizations for today’s world. Nine articles describe in detail goals, principles and participants of this dialogue: article one depicts programmatically the dialogue among civilizations as “a process between and within civilizations, founded on inclusion, and a collective desire to learn, uncover and examine assumptions, unfold shared meaning and core values.”5, and article two postulated more precisely the “development of a better understanding of common ethical standards and universal human values.”6
Common ethical standards and universal human values
In its resolution, the General Assembly phrases what the group of experts elaborates on in their manifesto, stating that a true living together, a real community on this globe will only exist if “individuals live together, represent a common ethic, cultivate a feasible sense of citizen as well as aspire a general welfare.”7
What does this mean? In any case not, what is sometimes feared in the Muslim world, a western cultural imperialism: neither a single world-religion nor a worldwide uniform culture is the target. Instead, a conflict-free coexistence of “different lifestyles and religious creeds” which is only possible ”as long as varieties and differences do not violate the fundamental rights and liberties of others,”8 is meant. In line with the 1993 Chicago Parliament of the World’s Religions, it is evident to the authors to stress the Golden Rule, which is rooted in all religious and humanistic traditions, as the first common ethic value of humanity.
This rule claims “the percipience, the acknowledgment, the acceptance and the high esteem of the other person as integral part of our own self-conception,” it might help us”to learn, how to be humane.”9 Humanity, reciprocity and trust – these are the tenors which need to be practiced to live a life in the spirit of the Golden Rule:“Without humanity and trust there is no common basis for the identification of values as mutual spiritual effort of like-minded partners in dialogue.”10
Finally, bound to the aspect of reconciliation as an answer to the vicious circle of hatred and violence, those four immovable directives are commemorated, which form the quintessence of a world ethic: the call for non-violence, justice, truthfulness and partnership between men and women.11 How is it then possible to reason, to approve and to reinforce these values and standards from a viewpoint based upon the Islamic tradition?
Islamic reasoning of a world ethic
Asghar Ali Engineer, a leading Muslim erudite from India, has bothered to compare the 1993 Declaration of a Global Ethic of the Parliament of the World’s Religions with the message of Islam. His lapidary conclusion is “that the declaration toward a global ethic is in conformity with the spirit of Islam.”12 Taking into consideration the findings of this work I shortly demonstrate, how the four fundamental ethic obligations, which can be found in all large religious und philosophical traditions, are also an integral part of the holy book of Muslims – the Quran. I would like to stick to the key sentences of the 1993 declaration toward a global ethic, confirmed by the Call to our Guiding Institutions on the occasion of the 1999 Parliament of the World’s Religions in Cape Town, South Africa and finally by the manifesto Crossing the Divide. Dialogue among Civilizations in 2001.
A culture of non-violence and respect for life:
“Have respect for life” – “You shall not kill,” torture, tantalize, hurt! The respect for life, indeed for all life, is deeply rooted in the Islamic ethic. The Quran says, that the killing of an innocent person is equal to the killing of all persons alive.13 And the Óad/Éen reveals that the Prophet had concerns for animals and nature.
A culture of solidarity and a just economic order:
“Deal honestly and fairly” – “You shall not steal,” exploit, bribe and corrupt!
For the ethic of the Quran justice is such a central element, that only a just person can be orthodox/catholic/truly faithful: “O you who believe! Be upright for Allah, bearers of witness with justice, and let not hatred of a people incite you not to act equitably; act equitably, that is nearer to piety.”14 An unjust order of society can never be an Islamic order. The Quran demands that all surpluses, which exceed the actual needs, be distributed to the needy and poor. Against this background the obligatory social contribution is even one of the five pillars of Islam.
A culture of tolerance and a life of truthfulness:
“Speak and act truthfully” – “You shall not lie,” cheat, counterfeit, manipulate!
The ethic of Quran is essential based upon truthfulness: Truth (aaqq) is one of God’s names and as an Islamic value of the same importance as justice. A just social order is not realizable without the fundamental postulate of truthfulness.
A culture of equal rights and partnership between men and women:
“Respect and love one another” –“ Do not abuse Sexuality,” betray, humiliate, debase!
In principle, the Quran offers the same status to women and men: “and they have rights similar to those against them in a just manner.”15
The principle of humanity, the most essential principle of a global ethic, human dignity, is written down in the key sentences of the Quran: God has conferred on humans special favors, above a great part of our creation.16 and has appointed him as his vicegerent on earth.17 However Golden Rule of reciprocity is bequeathed by the Sunnah: No one is a believer as long as he does not wish for his brother what he wishes for himself.18 Obviously all this is a common heritage of all three Abrahamian religions and therefore a basis to overcome numerous grim conflicts of the past is given. Historically the famous Islamic codex of duties of Surah 17, 22-38 has large analogies with the Decalogue of the Holy Bible.
Basis of an understanding between Islam and the West
In the course of the debate and decision of the United Nations General Assembly, the dialogue among civilizations and consequently the idea of a global ethic has entered the fundamental considerations of the United Nations, and has above all received the support and commitment of the Secretary General and Nobel Peace Prize winner Kofi Annan. The Secretary General has personally confirmed his commitment in a broad speech on global ethic under the topic – Do we still have universal values? – which he delivered at the University of Tuebingen (Germany) on December 12th, 2003 following an invitation of the Global Ethic Foundation.
Kofi Annan is convinced, that “universal values are also more acutely needed, in this age of globalization, than ever before. Every society needs to be bound together by common values, so that its members know what to expect of each other, and have some shared principles by which to manage their differences without resorting to violence. That is true of local communities and of national communities.”19
To a very important degree this is also true for the relations between the West and Islam: the attacks against the United States on September 11th, 2001, have to be clearly condemned, however we “must not allow them to provoke a ”clash of civilizations,” in which millions of flesh-and-blood human beings fall victim to a battle between two abstractions – ”Islam” and ”the West” - as if Islamic and western values were incompatible.”
“They are not, as millions of devout Muslims living here in Germany, and elsewhere in the West, would be the first to tell you. Yet many of those Muslims now find themselves the objects of suspicion, harassment and discrimination, while in parts of the Islamic world anyone associated with the West or western values is exposed to hostility and even violence.“20
Kofi Annan emphasizes, “what should be clear is that the validity of universal values does not depend on their being universally obeyed or applied. Ethical codes are always the expression of an ideal and an aspiration, a standard by which moral failings can be judged rather than a prescription for ensuring that they never occur.” For Christianity as well as for Islam it is true, “that no religion or ethical system should ever be condemned because of the moral lapses of some of its adherents. If I, as a Christian, for instance, would not wish my faith to be judged by the actions of the crusaders or the inquisition, I should be very careful to judge anyone else’s faith by the actions that a few terrorists may commit in its name.”
It is therefore wrong, “to condemn a particular faith or set of values because of the actions or statements of some of its adherents.” But “it must also be wrong to abandon the idea that certain values are universal just because some human beings do not appear to accept them. Indeed, I would argue that it is precisely the existence of such aberrations that obliges us to assert and uphold common values. We need to be able to say that certain actions and beliefs are not just contrary to our own particular morality, but should be rejected by all humanity.” Kofi Annan is well aware, that norms and values can never be applied abstractly, but only with concrete respect to individual and cultural situations and therefore allow a certain range of different interpretations and realizations:“Of course having such common values does not solve all problems, or eliminate the scope for different societies to solve them in different ways.”
The Secretary General renders this more precisely using the four directives of the Declaration toward a Global Ethic of the Parliament of World’s Religions:
The Europe concept of a functionalist economy and laical policy raises so many questions, that one might agree with the former president of the Commission, Jacques Delors, who inculcated in the 1990s, speaking of the spiritual situation of Europe: Europe needs a ”soul”, a spiritual foundation! However, it depends on how one interprets this spiritual foundation.
Already in 1982, while staying in the medieval place of pilgrimage of Santiago de Compostela, pope John Paul II developed a totally different concept of Europe: a restaurative utopia of a “spiritual unity of Europe” and “a program of a reevangelization of Europe,” the latter to be geared to Catholic Poland. “Spiritual unity of Europe.” “New evangelization” are the central words on the papal agenda. This restaurative concept raises critical questions as well: since the papal mission of Re- Christianization is accompanied by an obtrusive denunciation of the western democracy as consumerism, hedonism and materialism. A close observation reveals that an unequivocal affirmation of the modern values freedom, pluralism and tolerance – above all throughout the own sphere of the church – is not given.
Test cases are over and over again questions of morality, from contraception over abortion to euthanasia. An impression imposes itself: Europe is aimed to be renewed by a pre-modern-medieval spirit. A spiritual renewal of Europe which virtually boils down to a recatholicization where believers of a different faith and nonbelievers, Protestants, Orthodox’ and members of other religions, where skeptics and dissenters are abided at best.
As far as Europe is concerned it is about more than just market and technology, and a third way between secularist-technocratic idea of Europe, and a pre-modern-sacralistic idea. The ”soul” of Europe requires a basis of values which is assembled of all religious and ethic traditions and thus be supported and accepted by all individuals – religious like nonreligious. Today this applies particularly to Muslims, whose role in Europe is growing significantly. But, will many contemporaries ask, is Islam actually able to offer any contributions to the dialog of cultures and the interreligious understanding in Europe?
Crossing the Divide
Already in 1998, almost right of the day three years before September 11th, 2001, the General Assembly declared in a resolution its firm determination to facilitate and promote dialogue among civilizations1 and decided against all prophecies of doom of a clash of civilizations to declare 2001 as the ”United Nations Year of a Dialogue among Cultures.” Surprisingly the impulse to this specific resolution was initiated by the Muslim side, namely by the Islamic Republic of Iran, and eminently by her president Sayed Mohammad Chatami (elected by a landslide majority in his own country, increasingly disputed and impeded by conservatives), who announced in his speech before the United Nations General Assembly on September 21th, 1998:“I would like to propose, in the name of the Islamic Republic of Iran, that the United Nations, as a first step, designate the year 2001 as the “Year of Dialogue Among Civilizations,” in the earnest hope that through such a dialogue the realization of universal justice and liberty may be initiated.
Among the worthiest achievements of this century is the acceptance of the necessity and significance of dialogue and the rejection of force, the promotion of understanding in the cultural, economic and political fields, and the strengthening of the foundations of liberty, justice and human rights. The establishment and enhancement of civility, whether at the national or international level, is contingent upon dialogue among societies and civilizations representing various views, inclinations and approaches. If humanity, at the threshold of the new century and millennium, devotes all its efforts to institutionalizing dialogue, replacing hostility and confrontation with discourse and understanding, it will leave an invaluable legacy for the benefit of future generations.”2
The events of September 11th, 2001, the war against Afghanistan and the escalating situation in the Middle East, approve in a tragic manner the enormous exigency of an initiative similar to the International Year of Dialogue among Civilizations. On November 8th and 9th, 2001, the UN General Assembly gathers once again, to deliberate the Dialogue among Civilizations and the ongoing activities of the Year, the report of group of experts and the continuing agenda. Under the lead of the former Secretary General of the United Nations, a printed version of the original American issue of their report Crossing the Divide. Dialogue among Civilizations, was presented to the Secretary General of the UN Kofi Annan by the “group of eminent persons,” a group appointed by the Secretary General, joined by Dr. A. Kamal Aboulmagd (Egypt), Prince El Hassan bin Talal (Jordan) and Dr. Javad Zarif (Iran)3 as Arab representatives. This manifesto aims at pointing out a new paradigm of international relations which bases upon a global ethic. Unfortunately neither the motto of the International Year nor the publications were absorbed by the media, public or politicians in the United States of America, although it would have been of high topicality and politically explosive nature especially in the US.
Following a two-day debate in the General Assembly, the delegations of all different nations, among those several of Islamic origin, argue against the clash and in favour of the dialogue of civilizations. Finally, on November 9th, the General Assembly adopts a resolution (mainly initialized from Muslim side) implying a Global Agenda for the dialogue among civilizations.4
It recalls all precedent resolutions and emphasizes the eminent importance of a dialogue of civilizations for today’s world. Nine articles describe in detail goals, principles and participants of this dialogue: article one depicts programmatically the dialogue among civilizations as “a process between and within civilizations, founded on inclusion, and a collective desire to learn, uncover and examine assumptions, unfold shared meaning and core values.”5, and article two postulated more precisely the “development of a better understanding of common ethical standards and universal human values.”6
Common ethical standards and universal human values
In its resolution, the General Assembly phrases what the group of experts elaborates on in their manifesto, stating that a true living together, a real community on this globe will only exist if “individuals live together, represent a common ethic, cultivate a feasible sense of citizen as well as aspire a general welfare.”7
What does this mean? In any case not, what is sometimes feared in the Muslim world, a western cultural imperialism: neither a single world-religion nor a worldwide uniform culture is the target. Instead, a conflict-free coexistence of “different lifestyles and religious creeds” which is only possible ”as long as varieties and differences do not violate the fundamental rights and liberties of others,”8 is meant. In line with the 1993 Chicago Parliament of the World’s Religions, it is evident to the authors to stress the Golden Rule, which is rooted in all religious and humanistic traditions, as the first common ethic value of humanity.
This rule claims “the percipience, the acknowledgment, the acceptance and the high esteem of the other person as integral part of our own self-conception,” it might help us”to learn, how to be humane.”9 Humanity, reciprocity and trust – these are the tenors which need to be practiced to live a life in the spirit of the Golden Rule:“Without humanity and trust there is no common basis for the identification of values as mutual spiritual effort of like-minded partners in dialogue.”10
Finally, bound to the aspect of reconciliation as an answer to the vicious circle of hatred and violence, those four immovable directives are commemorated, which form the quintessence of a world ethic: the call for non-violence, justice, truthfulness and partnership between men and women.11 How is it then possible to reason, to approve and to reinforce these values and standards from a viewpoint based upon the Islamic tradition?
Islamic reasoning of a world ethic
Asghar Ali Engineer, a leading Muslim erudite from India, has bothered to compare the 1993 Declaration of a Global Ethic of the Parliament of the World’s Religions with the message of Islam. His lapidary conclusion is “that the declaration toward a global ethic is in conformity with the spirit of Islam.”12 Taking into consideration the findings of this work I shortly demonstrate, how the four fundamental ethic obligations, which can be found in all large religious und philosophical traditions, are also an integral part of the holy book of Muslims – the Quran. I would like to stick to the key sentences of the 1993 declaration toward a global ethic, confirmed by the Call to our Guiding Institutions on the occasion of the 1999 Parliament of the World’s Religions in Cape Town, South Africa and finally by the manifesto Crossing the Divide. Dialogue among Civilizations in 2001.
A culture of non-violence and respect for life:
“Have respect for life” – “You shall not kill,” torture, tantalize, hurt! The respect for life, indeed for all life, is deeply rooted in the Islamic ethic. The Quran says, that the killing of an innocent person is equal to the killing of all persons alive.13 And the Óad/Éen reveals that the Prophet had concerns for animals and nature.
A culture of solidarity and a just economic order:
“Deal honestly and fairly” – “You shall not steal,” exploit, bribe and corrupt!
For the ethic of the Quran justice is such a central element, that only a just person can be orthodox/catholic/truly faithful: “O you who believe! Be upright for Allah, bearers of witness with justice, and let not hatred of a people incite you not to act equitably; act equitably, that is nearer to piety.”14 An unjust order of society can never be an Islamic order. The Quran demands that all surpluses, which exceed the actual needs, be distributed to the needy and poor. Against this background the obligatory social contribution is even one of the five pillars of Islam.
A culture of tolerance and a life of truthfulness:
“Speak and act truthfully” – “You shall not lie,” cheat, counterfeit, manipulate!
The ethic of Quran is essential based upon truthfulness: Truth (aaqq) is one of God’s names and as an Islamic value of the same importance as justice. A just social order is not realizable without the fundamental postulate of truthfulness.
A culture of equal rights and partnership between men and women:
“Respect and love one another” –“ Do not abuse Sexuality,” betray, humiliate, debase!
In principle, the Quran offers the same status to women and men: “and they have rights similar to those against them in a just manner.”15
The principle of humanity, the most essential principle of a global ethic, human dignity, is written down in the key sentences of the Quran: God has conferred on humans special favors, above a great part of our creation.16 and has appointed him as his vicegerent on earth.17 However Golden Rule of reciprocity is bequeathed by the Sunnah: No one is a believer as long as he does not wish for his brother what he wishes for himself.18 Obviously all this is a common heritage of all three Abrahamian religions and therefore a basis to overcome numerous grim conflicts of the past is given. Historically the famous Islamic codex of duties of Surah 17, 22-38 has large analogies with the Decalogue of the Holy Bible.
Basis of an understanding between Islam and the West
In the course of the debate and decision of the United Nations General Assembly, the dialogue among civilizations and consequently the idea of a global ethic has entered the fundamental considerations of the United Nations, and has above all received the support and commitment of the Secretary General and Nobel Peace Prize winner Kofi Annan. The Secretary General has personally confirmed his commitment in a broad speech on global ethic under the topic – Do we still have universal values? – which he delivered at the University of Tuebingen (Germany) on December 12th, 2003 following an invitation of the Global Ethic Foundation.
Kofi Annan is convinced, that “universal values are also more acutely needed, in this age of globalization, than ever before. Every society needs to be bound together by common values, so that its members know what to expect of each other, and have some shared principles by which to manage their differences without resorting to violence. That is true of local communities and of national communities.”19
To a very important degree this is also true for the relations between the West and Islam: the attacks against the United States on September 11th, 2001, have to be clearly condemned, however we “must not allow them to provoke a ”clash of civilizations,” in which millions of flesh-and-blood human beings fall victim to a battle between two abstractions – ”Islam” and ”the West” - as if Islamic and western values were incompatible.”
“They are not, as millions of devout Muslims living here in Germany, and elsewhere in the West, would be the first to tell you. Yet many of those Muslims now find themselves the objects of suspicion, harassment and discrimination, while in parts of the Islamic world anyone associated with the West or western values is exposed to hostility and even violence.“20
Kofi Annan emphasizes, “what should be clear is that the validity of universal values does not depend on their being universally obeyed or applied. Ethical codes are always the expression of an ideal and an aspiration, a standard by which moral failings can be judged rather than a prescription for ensuring that they never occur.” For Christianity as well as for Islam it is true, “that no religion or ethical system should ever be condemned because of the moral lapses of some of its adherents. If I, as a Christian, for instance, would not wish my faith to be judged by the actions of the crusaders or the inquisition, I should be very careful to judge anyone else’s faith by the actions that a few terrorists may commit in its name.”
It is therefore wrong, “to condemn a particular faith or set of values because of the actions or statements of some of its adherents.” But “it must also be wrong to abandon the idea that certain values are universal just because some human beings do not appear to accept them. Indeed, I would argue that it is precisely the existence of such aberrations that obliges us to assert and uphold common values. We need to be able to say that certain actions and beliefs are not just contrary to our own particular morality, but should be rejected by all humanity.” Kofi Annan is well aware, that norms and values can never be applied abstractly, but only with concrete respect to individual and cultural situations and therefore allow a certain range of different interpretations and realizations:“Of course having such common values does not solve all problems, or eliminate the scope for different societies to solve them in different ways.”
The Secretary General renders this more precisely using the four directives of the Declaration toward a Global Ethic of the Parliament of World’s Religions:
- “We may all be sincerely committed to non-violence and respect for life, and yet disagree about whether it is legitimate to take the lives of those who have themselves taken life, or to use violence to defend the innocent when violence is being used against them.
- We may all be genuinely committed to solidarity with our fellow human beings and a just economic order, and yet not agree which policies will be most effective in bringing about that order.
- We may all be deeply attached to tolerance and truthfulness, and yet not agree how tolerant we should be of states or systems that seem to us intolerant and untruthful.
- And we may all be genuinely committed to equal rights and partnership between men and women, without agreeing on how far the social roles of men and women should be differentiated, or whether it is the responsibility of society to enforce the sanctity of the marriage bond.”21
References
1 UN-Resolution A/RES/53/22
2 Seyed Mohammad Chatami in his speech before the UN General Assembly on September 21st, 1998: UN-Document A/53/PV.8 accentuations in this and following UN Documents from H.K
3 additional group members were: Professor Lourdes Arizpe (Mexico), Dr. Hanan Ashrawi (Palestine), Professor Ruth Cardoso (Brasil), Jacques Delors (France), Dr. Leslie Gelb (USA), Nadine Gordimer (South Africa), Professsor Sergey Kapitza (Russia), Dr. Hayao Ka-wai (Japan),Ambassador Tommy Koh (Singapore), Professor Dr. Hans Küng (Suisse), Dr. Garça Machel (Mozambique), Professor Amartya Sen (India), Dr. Song Jian (China), former President of the German Federal Republic Richard von Weizsäcker (Germany)
4 cp. UN resolution A/RES/56/6 from November 9th, 2001.
5 l.c. art.1
6 l.c. art.2, cp. to the over all process S. Schlensorg,Weltethos bei den Vereinten Naionen, in: H.Küng (ed.), Dokumentationen zum Weltethos, München 2002, S. 251-266.
7 free translation into English from a German version;G. Picco, R.Weizsäcker,H. Küng (et al.), Brücken in die Zukunft. Ein Manifest für den Dialog der Kulturen. Eine Initiative von Kofi Annan, Frankfurt/M.2001, p.73; american.: Crossing the Divide. Dialogue among civilizations, South Orange, N.J. 2001.
8 ibid.
9 l.c. p. 81
10 l.c. p.85
11 l.c. p. 225
12 A.Asghar Engineer, Die „Erklärung zum Weltethos“ – eine islamische Antwort, in K:H. Schreiner (ed.), Islam in Asien, Bad Honnef 2001, S.114-122. Dr. Ali Asghar Engineer is head of the Center for Studies of Society and Secularism (CSSS). His main research focuses on Islam and its cultural and political aspects.
13 cp. Surah 5, 32
14 Surah 5,8
15 Surah 2,228
16 cp. Surah 17,70
17 cp. Surah 2,30
18 cp. 40 Óad/Éen of an-Nawaw/ No. 13
19 Kofi Annan, UN Secretary General, 3. speech on a global ethic,Tuebingen, December 12, 2003, source: www.weltethos.org
20 ibid.
21 ibid.
Source:
Professor Dr. Hans Küng 2007
Stiftung Weltethos 2007
Professor Dr. Hans Küng 2007
Stiftung Weltethos 2007
|
Article 77 from 110
