Waterloo, Iranians & the Mennonite Dialog

On Memorial Day, American and Iranian diplomats finally managed to “talk” in Baghdad, Iraq — as we noted here with approval. The same day, by contrast, protesters forced the cancellation of public sessions of a conference on “spirituality” between Iranian Shia Muslim and Mennonite Christian scholars in Waterloo, Canada.
Since when is talking with Mennonites — that’s right, pacifistic Mennonites – such a perfidious affront that it needs to be forcibly stopped? Is this 2007 or 1527?
While I am still seeking documentation from both sides, perhaps this entry might encourage the protesting academics and conference participants to articulate their positions further, in the discussion below. (That’s an open invitation.)
Let me first try to recount the basic outlines of the dialog and the protests:
The dialog:
1. The conference in question was sponsored by the Mennonite Central Committee and by humble Mennonite Conrad Grebel University College. Conrad Grebel is affiliated with Canada’s University of Waterloo. While the conference convened on the UW campus, the larger University was not the sponsor.
2. The conference, entitled “Shi’ah Muslim–Mennonite Christian Dialogue III,” continued a series of exchanges between “North American” Mennonite scholars and Shia scholars from Qom, Iran. Papers from two previous conferences, one at Waterloo and one, in Qom, were published in the Conrad Grebel Review. Several Mennonites have studied in Qom, and several Shia have pursued theology Ph.D.’s in Toronto. Shorter-term student delegations have also been part of the mix, including with Mennonite Universities in the US.
3. The dialog has been hosted on the Iranian side for nearly a decade by the Imam Khomeini Education & Research Institute (IKERI). IKERI is reputed to be among the more conservative graduate seminaries in Iran, and its current director, Ayatollah Mesbah-Yazdi, is known as a spiritual adviser to Iran’s current President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
4. The dialog itself may have been the fruit of the Mennonite’s “diaconal method” (from the Greek diakonia or service). In Iran, the Mennonites earned considerable good will for their sustained humanitarian responses to earthquake disasters since 1992. Such “good deeds” helped open doors to exchange of “good words.”
5. As a controversy emerged, Mennonite leaders tried to state clearly the conference purposes. According to Rich Cober Bauman, program director of MCC Ontario, the conference was

“an academic conversation between theologians and philosophers who may not always agree, but seek to better understand each other’s faith… We regard this conference as an effort to foster communication in a time when the refusal to demonize each other is sorely needed. We recognize that there are risks inherent in relating to groups some would label as our “enemies”. But our Christian faith calls us into these conversations which, rather than creating isolation, we believe have the potential to build real and lasting peace…”

Conrad Grebel President Henry Paetkau noted that from the Mennonite faith perspective, inter-faith dialog, particularly with a country that is portrayed in the west as the “enemy”, is a practical expression of the biblical command to be “agents of reconciliation”.
Jim Pankratz, Grebel’s academic dean, characterized the conference as “an important expression of open dialog and freedom of speech. Through such dialog we have learned to understand that all Iranians (like Canadians), and even all members of a single educational institution, do not speak with a single voice.”
The protests:
The protesters had a starkly different image of what the conference represented. I’ll try first to present accurately their concerns. (And I welcome additional material from any who think I misrepresent the complaints.)

As best as I can tell, an alarm was circulated among Iranian-origin scholars by Mahdi Tourage, who currently is a visiting Assistant Professor at Colgate University in New York and a specialist on Sufi Islam (his Toronto dissertation -Rumi’s “Phallocentric Esotericism”). Tourage in early April alleged that

1. the Mennonite dialog with the Imam Khomeini Education and Research Institute (IKERI) is something that has “been kept quiet, almost a secret.”
2. IKERI and its director Ayatollah Mesbah-Yazdi “represent the most violent and intolerant interpretation of Shi’i political Islam. Mesbah-Yazdi is implicated in many instances where dissidents were hurt, jailed, or killed within Iran.”
3. The Mennonites in Canada were “falsely advertising” their conference as being with Shia Muslims, because IKERI “does not represent the people of Iran and Shi’i Muslims.”
4. “To have a most violent and intolerant interpretation of political Shi’i Islam as propagated by Ayatollah Mesbah-Yazdi’s Imam Khomeini Education and Research Institute represent Iran and Islam in Canada is in fact an affront to the Iranian community in Canada, many of whom still carry the wounds of such violence.”

Such complaints became top Canadian news in mid May. On May 16th, Toronto’s The Star newspaper reported on a protest letter by 17 Canadian-Iranians, many from York University (where Tourage was a student) and “spearheaded by Saeed Rahnema, director of York’s School of Public Policy. Focused on IKERI’s director as “the most dangerous mullah in Iran,” Rahnema charged that Conrad Grebel University College is “giving legitimacy to Mesbah-Yazdi’s ideology.”
The Star also quoted Haideh Moghissi, a York University sociologist, who contended that, “We’re not against dialog but the Mennonites are naive if they think they can open one with these people.” By “these people,” Moghissi deems all Mesbah-Yazdi’s followers and scholars affiliated with him as “at the forefront of oppression in Iran,” responsible for silencing all intellectuals who disagree with the regime.
On May 21st, Canada’s leading newsmagazine, Maclean’s, reported that protesters were “demanding that the federal government take action and deny visas” to the Iranian invitees, and doing so armed with considerable “incendiary rhetoric.”
Shahrzad Mojab, director of the University of Toronto’s Women and Gender Studies Institute, likened IKERI’s graduates to Nazi Germany’s Hitler Youth and equated the round-table discussions with the complicity of some European Christians in the Holocaust. “I don’t understand dancing with wolves and calling it a peace dialog.”
Macleans also reported that Payam Akhavan, a professor of international law at McGill University and a former UN war crimes prosecutor, had examined the list of participating clerics, but found none he could identify “for whom there would be some basis for criminal prosecution.”
But Akhavan, who also is the President of the US State Department funded Iran Human Rights Documentation Center, contended that the Mennonites, no matter how well-meaning, are “in bed” with the wrong people. “It’s like inviting the KKK because you want to have a dialogue with the American people.” Instead, Akhavan would have them “reaching out to Iran’s embattled reformists.”
Comment:
I of course have nothing against protesting. As Jefferson (and Mennonite farmers) might say, it’s the “manure that refreshes the tree of liberty.” I’ve been known lately (when I can afford the gas) to do a bit of protest “honking” myself. While my officer son serves in the Virginia Army Guard, I’ll be doing my own duty, as a citizen, to “participate” in our fledgling democracy “down here” south of Ontario.
By way of disclosure, I recently have been visiting with a Mennonite fellowship, amid my consternation over Christian-Likudism. While I personally might make a terrible Mennonite, among them I do find “peace,” kind souls, and leaders I admire, in part, for their own sustained peacemaking efforts in the Middle East — including, yes, in Iran.
Yet speaking for myself only, (and perhaps in ways Mennonites would not) I am puzzled by the protest logic.
1. As a long time Iran observer, I am, of course, well aware, as are the Mennonites and most Iranians, of the intensely “conservative” reputation of Ayatollah Mesbah-Yazdi. Last October, in an ironic poll result taken by the Iranian reformist paper Aftab, over 60% of Iranian respondents identified Mesbah “as the target of the most smear campaigns and allegations.” (which depending on your position in Iran’s factional dynamics, might be deemed an “honor”)
2. It is simply false to claim that the Mennonite dialog with IKERI was kept “secret.” The public record of the previous conferences makes that obvious. Another wild conspiracy theory claims the conference was the work of a Waterloo “hizbollahi” mafia who hoodwinked the UW administration – again, entirely false.
3. Nor was anything “falsely advertised.” The theologians from IKERI surely were (gasp) “Iranians” and “Shia Muslims.” Nobody ever said they represented “all” Shia, or “all” Iranians. What conference anywhere does?
4. Associating the Mennonites with Nazis or the KKK are outrageous (and “hurtful”) slanders, particularly from “scholars.” A quick study of Mennonite history will reveal that Mennonites well understand the horrors of being persecuted and tortured, even unto martyrdom, for one’s convictions and faith. Just because Mennonites are convinced that working for peace is preferable to justifying violence doesn’t make them agents of the favored “Satan” of the day.
5. How does it follow that scholars of any academic institution necessarily subscribe to the views of its director? Would we attribute to all the participating Mennonite theologians the views of the President of Conrad Grebel College? Likewise, if John Ashcroft testifies before Congress soon, will he be held accountable for the views of Pat Robertson? (the President of Regent University, where Ashcroft has been teaching) Or would a scholar from Notre Dame be blamed, say, for the views of the Pope?
6. If readers review this Record account of the fourteen papers presented at the conference, they might ponder just what “threat” was inherent in debating such “hot” topics as mysticism, knowing God, the Trinity, spiritual poverty, prayer, and rituals?

That these theologians are coming from different faith traditions should be obvious in the papers presented by Muhammad Legenhausen and Arnold Snyder, with one emphasizing his tradition’s reliance upon clerical guidance to understand revealed scripture and the other emphasizing, if you will, “sola scriptura.” (sound familiar?) I find it refreshing that such theological exchange can happen at all, wherein people of very different faiths calmly consider points of common ground while nonetheless feeling “safe” enough to share honestly their own views.

7. Regarding the protestors’ methods, consider the May 30th editorial in the Waterloo Record:

“The protesters had every right to make their feelings known and remind Canadians of the victims who have been tortured or executed by the Iranian regime. Indeed, the protesters’ liberty to speak freely is guaranteed by Canada’s Charter of Rights. But these protesters abused that freedom and unfairly denied it to others when their jeers and cheers shut down a gathering that should have gone ahead. This was an unfortunate mistake that should not be repeated. An open, fair debate would have been far better.”

Isn’t it rather ironic that in the land that guarantees their rights to speak freely, the protesters were demanding that the same rights be denied to the Mennonites and their guests?
8. Yet there remains the “dancing with wolves” and “supporting the reformist” arguments. It happens that I am finishing an article on former reformist President Mohammad Khatami and what I deem to be his unfinished “paradigm” or “legacy” for Iran. Khatami’s version of “dialog among civilizations” is surely easier for many westerners to grasp, though I remember vividly that protesters last summer invoked a rather similar mantra to try to block his tour of the US. (e.g., that he too was somehow in league with hizbullah, terrorism, the nazis, the devil, etc.)
Khatami and Mesbah surely do represent different ends of Iran’s current political struggles, beginning with their perspectives on citizen control of the Islamic Republic’s future. A vital debate indeed. Yet I am rather astonished that a Harvard trained international lawyer would presume to tell a small private citizen group with which side they should dialog!
It has taken Condi Rice over six years to recognize that diplomacy isn’t just about talking to people you already find much in common with, but with your adversaries and enemies. The Mennonites, if I understand them, have a similar approach to dialog, that peacemaking is often needed most, not with people who sound more like we do, but with those who sound, and are, most in conflict with us.
As Ed Martin, director of MCC’s Central and South Asia programs puts it, isolation does not bring peace. Increasing dialog helps defuse escalating tensions and conflict. For Mennonites, “dialog, historically, has been the only way to bring peace.”
If Mennonites can build bridges across the most severe chasms, what’s wrong with that? To quote again from the Record’s May 30 editorial:

“Perhaps the critics of the meeting are correct in asserting that the Iranian clerics are simply engaged in a cynical public relations exercise. But what if they’re wrong? What if meeting Canadians and learning more about the West teaches something to these clerics and moderates their views?
What if we learn more about them, and they about us? What if, in a small way, such meetings build bridges over the high barriers of mistrust and animosity that were erected over decades between Iran and the West? And how can we teach Iranians about Western free speech if we do not leave them free to speak to us? If these Iranian clerics go home unchanged, we have lost nothing. Should they return to Iran with a new understanding of our culture, we will all have gained.”

Observers might also note that Mennonite peacemaking has at times produced real fruit. Consider the MCC’s longstanding service work in Vietnam. When the ice between Vietnam and the US finally melted, Mennonites were quietly there in the background. Perhaps Mennonite channels of discussion might help open a similar door to Iran. If it doesn’t, what’s the harm?
A Jeffersonian Perspective
“Harm” gets us to an interesting fall-back argument I’m now hearing from the protesting Iranian/Canadian scholars. That is, “you Americans” don’t understand the Canadian concept of “community rights.” As such, I am told, the “free speech ploy” is merely being “used” to cover up nefarious deeds of “hidden hands”.
Tourage two days ago asserted that the protest was never against dialog, but against the “terms of the dialog,” suggesting that the Mennonites are unwitting fools for not confronting their Iranian counterparts about the human rights abuses in their country. By not condemning them, the conference supposedly “legitimized” such abuse. Worse, Tourage faults the conference focus – for being on the wrong topics, spirituality instead of human rights. Most fundamentally then, because the conference was only with the devil’s agents, not regime critics, and on safe subjects rather than beating them over the head, the conference injured the sensibilities of Canadian Iranians.
On those grounds then, because the protesters deemed the Conference substance and participants to be entirely disagreeable to their viewpoints — and thus injurious to their “community,” the Canadian government should have stopped it.
This line of argument seems to me to be sophistry, on many levels.
First, the insinuation that Mennonites are dumb and mute about Iran’s human rights problems is false. The Mennonite approach to such problems is more of Socratic dialog with their hosts/guests, of learning, asking questions, pointing out differences, seeking understanding and searching for positive answers.
Ironically, when the conference organizers opened up their sessions for public participation, the protesters used that privilege to prevent any discussion from happening. Serious Iran observers have a term for such behavior – “sultanism.”
Maybe I’m clueless about Canadian approaches to “communitarian rights,” but which “Iranian community” right is being defended here? Who gets to define it? Who will speak for the Iranian expatriate community? And do communitarian rights mean that the Mennonites cannot dialog with those Iranians deemed “hurtful” to Canadian-Iranians?
In trying to understand this “communitarian” argument, I came across a revealing teaching statement from Professor Saeed Rahnema, mentioned above as a protest “spearhead:” I can admire much of his defense of “freedom of speech” and the need for tolerance in the Middle East class. Yet Rahnema also writes:

“[T]here is one off limit for free speech. I do not believe in extending the privilege of free speech to those who try to deprive others of such freedoms or those who hurt others through their speech. Thus, there should not be any freedom of expression for hate mongers and fascists of different sorts. No freedom of speech for the likes of Zundel and Pipes.”

Zundel refers to a prominent holocaust denier. Pipes refers to Daniel Pipes, founder of Campus Watch and a prominent neoconservative scholar. (Pipes will no doubt be surprised to learn he’s banned at York University! )
From this logic, I can more readily understand why the protesters of the Mennonite-IKERI conference operate from the premise that “dialog” is ok, but only with those we approve. If somebody on the “other” side of a dialog would crab freedom of speech in their country, then they shouldn’t have it in our country.
Those who know me won’t be surprised that I close with a simple rejoinder from Thomas Jefferson’s founding motto for the University of Virginia: “Here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.”
Juan Cole has a very worthy project for translating Jefferson (and other founders) into Arabic and Persian.
Perhaps we should consider adding the “Canadian-Farsi” dialect to the project.