Background:

Randa Muqhār and the Deputy Director, Khaīrī Janbek are one of the first members of the Royal Institute for Interfaith Studies in Jordan which established in July 1994. The purpose of the institute is to provide credible academic material regarding interfaith studies. Thus, the objective is to set the historical records straight as far as the Muslim outlook of Christians and vice versa by means of exposing fallacious material. The institute was initially solely concerned with Christianity and Islam but since the peace settlements between Israel and Jordan on 28 October, 1994, Judaism has been added to the equation, although it has been reported that there are no Jews in Jordan.

Side A:

Muqhār says the institute spreads quite far; they are not merely concerned about the Muslims (or Christians) in Jordan, but also those in Malaysia, Indonesia and Pakistan to name a few. The idea is to incorporate a more global and objective outlook. Members of the institute are generally academics, not people who subjectively represent their community. The institute also has contacts in Egypt with certain researchers and professors at several universities. Muqhār believes Jordan is a great example of intercommunal living in contrast to Egypt, where there are more reports of isolation. Egypt also has different objective realities in comparison to Jordan, and thus religion is more sensitive there. According to Cornelis Hulsman, it is not uncommon for Egyptian academics to take positions; this is what the institute says to be against. The institute does not aim to convert people, but rather provide channels for better understanding and improve relations of the three monotheistic religions; Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The common values between the three religions offer a basis from which they can start building relations.

Randa Muqhār is a Jordanian Orthodox Christian but says she has an Arabic Islamic heritage, thus one cannot separate the two. It is because of this that Jordanians are good at intercommunal living and a great example to the rest of the Arab world says Muqhār. It is also common for Muslims to go to Christian schools, says Khaīrī Janbek. Janbek is a Jordanian Muslim and has had Catholic education.

Muqhār furthermore comments upon the intercommunal living styles in Jordan. She says that Jordan held an interfaith conference in 1980, whereby many big names were present including the Egyptian Dr. Sa‘d al-Dīn ʾĪbrāhīm. In Egypt, delicate issues are often not discussed, but Muqhār argues this is not the case in Jordan, which has always been an open country. The interfaith conference is proof of just that, she says. Issues regarding Church building, for instance are not discussed publicly in Egypt, the members of the institute argue that if such issues were to exist in Jordan in the first place, they would be discussed openly. Church building has allegedly never been rejected in Jordan, with the exception of reasons concerning finance.

Side B:

Jordanian prince Ḥassan Bin-Ṭalāl is the author of the book Christianity in the Arab World (1995), which was published by the Royal Institute of Interfaith Studies. The book was very well received by the Jordanian public according to Muqhār. Several people had written reviews of the book, including the editor of al-Dustūr Newspaper in Jordan; Nabīl al-Sharīf. Al-Sharīf wrote a review on the prince’s book and praised his efforts. Dr. Kamāl Sulaymān al-Ṣalībī, former Minister of Foreign Affairs in Jordan who is also a Christian and the director of the institute, reviewed the book and welcomed it very much. So far, Hulsman notices only positive feedback of Bin-Ṭalāl’s book, and asks Muqhār if anyone had dared to criticise the book. She replies by saying of course there were people who might have not agreed with the ideas of the prince, and argues any publicated book will receive positive and negative feedback. This is only human and it is encouraged to question what has been put before you, says Muqhār.

Aside from the academic work that the institute provides, it is also actively involved in interfaith dialogue. Their initial priority had been academic research, whereby academics would discuss certain issues related to interfaith studies and the institute would publish it. However, more recently, the institute has been involved in interfaith dialogue themselves. Both Muqhār and Janbek argue the institute represents all Christian denominations ranging from the Armenians to the Protestants, as well as the Muslim denominations; Sunnis and Shiites, although Janbek states Jordan is predominantly Sunni.

As for the board of the institute; the members range from academics to researchers and conservatives to liberals. Even conservative Muslims and Christians are part of the board of trustees. Janbek argues the institute is strictly apolitical and does not represent any other factions or political groups or what some people claim Islam to be. The institute provides the true essence of religions according to Janbek and opens doors for dialogue. Hulsman praises the institute for this reason and mentions that in the West, it is mainly the activities and thoughts of convervative/political Islamists that are known and presented. Muqhār says that the West internalises what is represented through the media, and that this is a misconception of Islam. Even some terms are misused by the Westerners, including the term ‘fundamentalist’. Janbek argues that he is a fundamentalist Muslim, in the sense that he does not stray away from Islam, but in the West, the term fundamentalist has a negative connotation, often used as a synonym for the term ‘extremist’. Political Islam, on the other hand is a different terminology and both Janbek and Muqhār believe that fundamentalists and political Islam do not necessarily go hand in hand as what is often believed in the West. The West creates a terminology and the entire wolrd abides by it, even Janbek and Muqhār admit to having done so, but they believe that this is not right. Janbek advocates that if one would to approach a Muslim and tell them that they are not fundamentalist, the Muslim would be offended because this would in turn mean that they have drifted away from Islam.

Additionally, they believe that the rise in Islamophobia has not neccesarily derived from extreme Islamism, but rather from misinterpretations by the West. The media only report on bomb explosions or Kalashnikovs because it is more sensational than reporting on a Muslim with a typewriter working on interfaith dialogue. Muqhār believes Islamophobia has derived from the after math of the Cold War. The West was looking for a new villain to blame and so they found the “extreme Islamists”. She says she is not denying the presence of political Islam, but believes the West is pulling it out of proportion and perceiving it as a direct threat to them. Janbek builds on that, by arguing that The Clash of Civilizations? (1993) is not a very good prediction, and believes that the civilizations could live together in peace through dialogue instead. Hulsman argues that not just Samuel Huntington but also Shaykh Yūsuf al-Badrī believe in the idea of the clash of civilizations or some kind of a new world order. Al-Badrī for instance, has argued that Islam will rule the 21^st century and thus take over the world. The members of the institute say that people will talk and come up with different theories and predictions, but these will most probably not be executed. People will not internalise these theories and predictions without first questioning the information.