“Thinking in terms of black and white is dangerous”

Is it true that the big monotheistic religions are currently carrying out missionary work in Africa with particular fervour, and also with success?
There is a real competition going on to win souls in sub-Saharan Africa. However, this is not only true of monotheistic religions. There is also a revival of ‘traditional’ religions, a more general revival of spirituality.

Why are people drawn to religion?
Religions give people comfort, and have done so since time immemorial. Moreover, when someone joins a faith, she or he also becomes a member of a community. Joining a faith has spiritual dimensions, but it also provides a degree of security in material terms. And let’s not forget that many mundane promises of salvation, or at least a better future, have not materialised. Socialism, nation-building, market-led development have come to naught. In such a situation it is perfectly normal for people to turn to religion, and Christianity and Islam are both particularly prone to attract converts. These are two world religions with global networks, based on the principle that all souls are equal. They are fundamentally prepared to accept anyone, even the poor and the marginalised. And they are able to mobilise support from outside.

How significant is support from outside?
It is always helpful. In some respects, Muslim organisations have begun to copy the methods of Christian missionaries, they organise campaigns and use the media in similar ways. However, “born again Christians”, Evangelical churches, are the most active.

So there is probably a lot of money flowing in from the USA?
It is true that Evangelical Christians in the USA make generous donations. Unrelated to that, however, there is a genuinely African religious boom going on. Not everything is imported. In Nigeria, for instance, indigenous churches have mushroomed, spreading from that country to the entire continent. Their worldview is similar to those of other Evangelical churches, but they do not depend on American or European donors. Indeed, it is remarkable that there is even Evangelical money flowing out of Africa. Reinhard Bonnke, a German Evangelist, is running the US-based organisation “Christ for all Nations”. On tours of Africa, which he calls “crusades”, he mobilises huge crowds – as well as considerable funds, which he then uses elsewhere.

How important is support from the Gulf States to Muslim missionaries?
The situation is similar. There is a lot of money, but it would be wrong to think that everything is remote-controlled by Arabs. Christians and Muslims alike have a wide variety of leaders and organisations. However, for Muslims, things have become tougher since the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. The USA considers some organisations dangerous. Washington has put pressure on Saudi Arabia and on African governments to control their activities, or even ban them completely. Missionary activity suddenly became highly political. Making matters more complex, informal funding channels link Africa to the Gulf countries. In Saudi Arabia, in particular, there are some immensely rich individuals, so called "philanthropists”. These people donate money for schools, social activities and also the building of mosques in Africa. The money is not disbursed to private individuals in Africa. Instead, and I know this from Kenya, it goes to independent Muslim organisations, local non-governmental organisations with a lot of autonomy.

Does the conflict between Shiites and Sunnis play a role?
To a limited extent, it does. But that is certainly not the main issue. Some Shiites of Indian descent live in Eastern Africa, and there is some movement among Africans to convert from Sunni Islam to Shia Islam. Iran funds an organisation called “Bilal Muslim Mission”, with the aim of winning over African Muslims and non-Muslims for the Shiites. This organisation is quite successful, though it does not amount to a mass movement. Occasionally, tensions erupt at the local level, because organisations receiving funds from Saudi Arabia tend to practice and preach the puritan variety of Sunni Islam, known as Wahhabism. In Africa so far, the big rift is not so much between Sunnis and Shiites, but rather between those Muslims who identify with the more spiritually oriented Sufi orders and those who want to purify the faith in line with Wahhabi puritanism. Characteristic for the Sufis are their rituals, for instance group recitations of certain prayers or the celebration of the Prophet’s birthday. The Wahhabis oppose such rituals, they consider them bid’a, “unislamic innovations”. It is remarkable that recently Sufis and Shiites have begun to form alliances in order to counter the Wahhabi challenge together.

In the West, many believe that Middle Eastern funds for missionaries serve to boost fundamentalism – is that so?
The question arises out of Western fears, but it does have some justification. But, as I said, Christian missionaries in Africa tend to preach Evangelical, fundamentalist doctrines, whether they come from Africa or from outside. Islamic organisations that are active in social welfare and proselytisation with money from the Gulf States also appear to be very dogmatic. But what exactly does “fundamentalism” mean? And at exactly what point does it turn into something politically unacceptable? Among the Muslim states, Saudi Arabia is Al Kaida’s greatest enemy. After all, Osama Bin Laden wants to topple the authoritarian Saudi dynasty. Saudi “philanthropists” will hardly sympathise with Al Kaida. On the other hand, their worldview is rooted in the same puritan Wahhabi ideology as the one promoted by the terrorist network.

To Europeans, who like to consider themselves enlightened, the religious rhetoric of many US politicians seems strange. President George Bush once said that, before the invasion of Iraq, he did not consult with his own father (and former president) but with a “higher Father”. Is it possible to draw a clear line between religious commitment or puritanism and politically dangerous fundamentalism?
Doing so is indeed very difficult. It has become common to distinguish between “moderates” and “radicals”, but that distinction is often questionable. Matters are relatively obvious as long as an organisation or movement has an explicitly radical agenda, for example, calling for violence. On the other hand, there are very devout Muslims who have no immediate interest in establishing an Islamic state and enforcing the Islamic penal code. I am afraid that attempts to distinguish between “good” and “bad” Islam do more harm than good.

Why do you think so?
There is an implicit stigmatisation, and it creates resentment, which, in turn, is more likely to lead to radicalisation rather than moderation. Many Muslims feel that they are being marginalised and harassed. In response to US pressure, most sub-Saharan African nations with large Muslim populations enacted new anti-terrorism laws. Civil rights were restricted; often, Muslims were arbitrarily arrested. Where such events add to resentment already bred because of older tensions between various religious communities, the situation can become politically explosive. It is likely that the so-called “moderate” Muslims will then act in solidarity with their “radical” brethren, rather than adopting distinctions made by others between “good” and “bad” Islam.

Christian fundamentalists in the USA share a certain apocalyptic way of thinking with radical Muslims. While I find that troublesome, I do think the notion of a “clash of civilisations” is extremely exaggerated.
I don’t see much empirical evidence of any such “clash” either. There certainly are forces in both the Christian and the Muslim camps that subscribe to such a dualistic worldview, and they do fuel conflicts. On the other hand, we often see in Africa that supposedly religious conflicts have quite complex backgrounds. For the most part, different communities co-exist quite peacefully in Africa’s heterogeneous and religiously pluralist societies. Bloodshed between Christians and Muslims is the exception, not the norm.

But from Nigeria, for example, we often hear that people have been killed in religiously motivated conflicts.
This is true, but the causes are usually not directly linked to religion and, in any event, not of an entirely religious nature. They always involve power structures, which are often embedded in religious or ethnic affiliations. Economic factors also play a major role in Nigeria. In some northern towns, which have long been predominantly Muslim, there was a large influx of Christian migrants. Some of them are very successful traders, and they compete with the local Muslim merchants. Such competition can trigger violence, and, as the saying goes, a single spark can set off an explosion. It would be absurd to try to explain such events with references to the Qur’an or the Bible.

Is there an Arab political agenda for Africa?
There are various Arab agendas. Egypt has always pursued an African policy of its own, as is completely understandable given that this is a populous country on the Nile. What Saudis plan and do in Africa, however, is completely unrelated. At times, the Saudis have tried to thwart Cairo’s activities. Saudis and Egyptians do not coordinate their activities. Quite the opposite, they compete with one another. This has been particularly the case since the early 1970s, when the oil revenues provided the Saudis with the financial means to increase their presence.

How does Libya fit into the picture?
Libya is the third large Arab player, but Ghaddafi does not get along with either the Egyptians or the Saudis. His regime is pursuing its own policy in Africa and, in this context, is also playing the Muslim card. An instrument for doing so is an organisation known as “The Islamic Call”. But on the whole, Libya’s engagement is rather erratic, even though it is apparent that Ghaddafi has always tried to increase his influence in Africa. In any case, the various Arab stakeholders are not acting together. Each country is promoting its own agenda.

Do they perhaps even neutralise one another?
I am not sure about that. The different agendas do not create a situation where, for instance, Libyan-funded Muslims in Niger would take action against Saudi-funded Muslims. However, they definitely do not form a homogeneous group with corresponding interests and a common agenda towards the state or other religious communities. The really big issue among Muslims, including those in Africa, is the lack of unity. The spectrum is very wide, for a number of reasons. History, language, ethnic affiliation, regional traditions and so on – all these aspects have a bearing on individuals and entire societies, going beyond religious affiliation. One should keep that in mind, and not subscribe to the misleading idea of a single, homogenous Islamic threat secretly brewing up in Africa.

What should we make of the Islamic courts in Somalia? The US administration considered them puppets of - or perhaps only forerunners to - fundamentalist terrorists. Washington therefore permitted Ethiopian troops to invade the country. Officially the troops came to the rescue of Somalia’s government. However, that government is not generally accepted in the country itself, nor does it have much influence.
The Union of Islamic Courts was really a grassroots movement. It originated after Somalia had collapsed as a state. For many years there was no legal order at all in the country. Muslim leaders tried to fill the gap, and, quite naturally, turned to Islamic law. These time-honoured norms include forms of corporal punishment, such as flogging and the amputation of limbs, which are completely unacceptable from a modern human-rights standpoint. However, that is not what local people in Somalia worry about most. To be sure, modern Islamic scholars disagree on whether these punishments should be applied - and, if so, how. But this discussion is largely irrelevant in a country like Somalia, where the state has collapsed. Many people welcomed the reestablishment of some kind of legal order that replaced the law of the jungle. The Islamic courts were not tremendously popular, but they were widely accepted. In many regions, they had recreated a degree of stability. In a way, order had been restored bottom-up.

So the Islamic courts did not have any connection to Al Kaida or other terror organisations?
Certainly there were, and are, people in Somalia’s Union of Islamic Courts who had contacts to extremist organisations abroad. No doubt, they were also radicals from outside the country who found refuge in Somalia. However, it would be completely exaggerated to believe that Osama Bin Laden’s brand of radical Islam had taken over Somalia. The question is now, where will the country go? I think it will hardly be possible to rebuild a functioning Somali state unless the forces which supported the Islamic courts are integrated in one way or another. I am afraid the current approach to get things done by using military force is doomed to fail. Thinking only in terms of black and white is dangerous, because it tends to trigger exaggerated reactions. The situation is very complex, and the Ethiopian troops have made it even more complicated. Experience tells us that massive foreign intervention rarely yields the desired results.

Questions by Hans Dembowski.