Religion
‘The Prayer Ban at Michaela Community School Will Not Set a Landmark Precedent’
The High Court’s ruling that a ban on ritualistic prayer at Michaela Community School in Wembley is lawful – following a legal challenge by a Muslim student – has created a storm of controversy in recent days.
Muslims and human rights advocates have bemoaned the outcome, with many seeing it as a flagrant attack on the right to manifest one's religious belief in public, particularly if you’re a Muslim.
Those on the right of the Conservative Party have celebrated the ruling as a win for ‘British values’ – a concept they seem to believe excludes Islam.
Despite their differences, there is one idea that these groups share: the belief that this is a landmark case that establishes a strong legal precedent.
However, as a lawyer with 20 years’ experience and the CEO of the Islamophobia Response Unit, I argue that this is not the case. In fact, I believe that this ruling will soon, and for good reason, fade into distant memory.
Katharine Birbalsingh, founder and headteacher of Michaela Community School. Photo: Paul Davey/Alamy
Last year, a Muslim pupil at Michaela Community School decided to challenge the school’s ban on ritualistic prayer, arguing that it indirectly discriminated against the school’s Muslim cohort, which makes up around 50% of its 700 students.
Some right-wing commentators celebrated the prayer ban. Some also praised headteacher Katherine Birbalsingh for imposing it.
The pupil’s case was, from the beginning, a very narrow one.
Although Muslims are required to pray five times per day, she accepted that strict school rules meant that she would not be able to fulfil this obligation. Nevertheless, she argued that the ban on ritualistic prayer violated her right to religious belief under the European Convention on Human Rights. That it indirectly discriminated against Muslim pupils under the Equality Act of 2010. And that it failed to have 'due regard’ to the need to eliminate discrimination, also under the Equality Act.
In the end, the court surprisingly rejected all three of the pupil’s claims, essentially on the basis that she could, if she chose to, attend a different school that did not hinder her religious practices.
The court said that the pupil "at the very least impliedly accepted, when she enrolled at the school, that she would be subject to restrictions on her ability to manifest her religion”. But this was a strange argument to make considering that the ban was imposed after the girl enrolled at the school.
Michaela Community School’s well-documented strict behavioural regime is so unique to that institution that other schools in England and Wales simply could not rely upon it to deny prayer facilities to their pupils.
The High Court heard an abundance of evidence detailing the strict policies that provided the context making the prayer ban possible. To give just a few examples, pupils are required to move around the school’s building, and enter and exit all rooms, in a single-file formation.
Michaela Community School also maintains a 'rule of four no more’, which means that pupils are not permitted to socialise in groups of more than four.
Lunch break is set at a rigid 25 minutes, and pupils are not allowed to move freely around the school premises during this time.
Constraints on space mean that pupils are not able to move to their next lesson at once, so that the start and end times of each lesson are staggered on a minute-by-minute basis, with movement around the school being heavily coordinated.
These examples are just the tip of the iceberg of what can quite comfortably be described as draconian behavioural regulations. Given these rigid demands on pupils’ time and movements, it is not difficult to see how finding time to engage in group-based, ritualistic prayer at specific times throughout the day – as is required by Islamic precepts – becomes very difficult, if not impossible.
The school contends that these rules are the beating heart of the school’s ethos. This point matters greatly because, if the court had ruled in favour of the girl who brought the case, this would have meant the removal of the prayer ban. Such a decision would have caused widespread disruption to the school’s rigorous – and, some might argue, excessive – behavioural codes of conduct. Muslim students needing to pray would have to violate Birbalsingh’s policies aimed at regimenting student movement around the school.
The court took all of this into consideration and the judgment’s balance tipped in favour of the school. But nowhere else in Britain are you likely to find another case of this nature. It is therefore not a 'landmark’ case because the deciding factor largely came down to the history of Michaela Community School’s uniquely austere rules.
Rather than standing as an example for others to draw upon in order to ban prayer facilities, this case and this school stand very much alone.
Majid Iqbal is the CEO of the Islamophobia Response Unit
Putin and Patriarch Kirill’s Promise of Universal Liberation
Vladimir Putin is on track to be the longest reigning Russian leader since Catherine the Great. The two resilient despots have more in common than one might imagine. ...
‘Keir Starmer’s Condemnation of “Terror” in Gaza is a Step Forward — But Just the Beginning’
During the past 20 years, I've reported many times on the violence and prejudice Palestinians have faced as a result of Israeli occupation. And in 2014, for revealing the role of Gaza's gas in Israel's military assaults my contract at The Guardian was terminated.
It's in that context that I believe Labour Party leader Sir Keir Starmer's recent statements calling for an immediate end to Israeli violence that is killing "innocent Palestinians" represent an important shift. Given that he is likely to be the next British prime minister, the imperative is to leverage this development and hold Labour to it.
Starmer told an audience in London last week that he condemned the “fear and terror” experienced by starving Muslims in Gaza in what was his strongest language yet about the conflict.
Speaking at an Iftar last Thursday hosted by the Concordia Forum, a trans-Atlantic network of Muslim leaders, Starmer explicitly criticised Israel’s policy of forced starvation in Gaza, recognising “those around the world whose fast is not through choice, but through force.” He added: “We know there are Muslims in Gaza who will be mourning rather than enjoying this month. Families who will not have food around the table this evening. The sound of fear and terror rather than laughter and singing. Empty spaces around the table where their loved ones once sat.”
Starmer also demanded a total cessation of violence in Gaza, including an immediate ceasefire and a “permanent end to the fighting.” In addition to demanding that Israeli hostages are returned to their families, he also urged “an end to the killing of innocent Palestinians. No equivocation – that must happen now".
Starmer also said that the planned Israeli military incursion into Rafah must be blocked, while international aid going into Gaza is resumed: “It is absolutely imperative now that humanitarian aid gets into Gaza rapidly, without disruption or blockade. And any offensive into Rafah cannot be allowed to happen.”
Starmer emphasised British Muslims’ positive contributions to UK society and the economy, pointing out that “for generations, Muslims have made Britain a better place. A massive contribution to our social fabric: from our NHS to schools, charities to business.”
He also directly addressed the rising trend in anti-Muslim hatred. Paying tribute to the British Muslim community, Starmer articulated the Labour Party’s zero-tolerance commitment: “I know many people will also be concerned about the sickening rise in Islamophobia we have seen in our country. So let me be clear. A Labour government will never turn a blind eye to that prejudice.”
Commenting on the importance of Ramadan, the Labour leader gave thanks for “the solidarity, community and clarity” of this holy month and for the “generosity of Muslims during Ramadan” which “reminds me of the hugely powerful teachings that the Muslim community invites the world to see during this special time.”
‘A Seismic Shift’
Starmer’s language at the Concordia event which I attended as part of the organising team represents a seismic shift in the Labour Party’s approach both to the Middle East conflict and to questions around anti-Muslim prejudice in Britain.
Many will see this shift as too little, too late. They are right. More than 30,000 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed, while 2.2 million Gazans are facing severe food shortages with over a million experiencing “catastrophic hunger”.
This shift, however, did not come out of the blue - but has been the result of concerted efforts behind the scenes by civil society leaders.
Starmer’s statements demonstrate that Israel has now become increasingly isolated from some of its closest international allies, with the political spectrum across the UK attempting to disassociate from Israel’s current policy.
With a Labour government seen as all but inevitable this year by most political commentators, the challenge for civil society and British Muslim communities is simple. Comprehensive disengagement from Labour, as some activist campaigns within parts of the Muslim communities have demanded, will not help Palestinians but instead guarantee the total retraction of Muslim voters from any semblance of meaningful UK political influence. That would leave a vacuum in government which emboldens potentially dangerous and destructive policies.
The only viable alternative, in my view, is for British Muslim communities to ensure through strategic lines of engagement that the leaders of the incoming government are incentivised to listen to British public opinion, which overwhelmingly is supportive of an end to Israeli’s onslaught in Gaza, as well as the restoration of Palestinian rights and statehood based on international law.
Expert criticises report on proposed changes to anti-discrimination laws – calls for more youth representation
RMIT University Media Release The Federal Government is negotiating how to implement the changes recommended by the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) report on anti-discrimination law reform, with a bill tabled in parliament late last week. Professor Anna Hickey-Moody, expert in youth studies: “A year later than anticipated, this report recommends Australia should ‘narrow the…
The post Expert criticises report on proposed changes to anti-discrimination laws – calls for more youth representation appeared first on The AIM Network.
The eighth day of creation: how the new cultural technologies take us into the posthuman
In Fully Automated Luxury Communism (2018), the British writer Aaron Bastani puts a leftist spin on the Promethean view of technological development. While noting the revolutionary potential of recent genetic innovations, he insists that the latter are no different in kind from the selective breeding practices of the past: they are simply another great leap forward in humankind’s mastery over unruly nature. Referring to the movie Elysium (2013), which depicts a world where biotechnologies are only available to the very rich, Bastani’s only political concern is whether the new genetic technologies will be privately or socially owned. All other questions are beside the point, at least as far as he is concerned. As he puts it, with alarming insouciance: ‘Before editing the human genome at scale such efforts should be subject to vigorous public debate. But how much difference is there between improving nutrition for health outcomes and optimising our biological programming? Not much’. [More here.]
It’s the Conservative Party Which Most ‘Undermines British Values’, Say Voters
A majority of British voters now believe that it's the Conservative Party which truly doesn’t understand British values, an exclusive new poll commissioned by Byline Times suggests.
Rishi Sunak's Government this week set out its new definition of “extremism” with new restrictions to be placed on individuals and organisations it perceives to be “undermining British values”.
However, new polling conducted this week by pollsters We Think for this paper found that 61% of those surveyed do not believe the Conservative Party “understands British values”, with a further 58% saying the same of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak.
By contrast, a majority of those surveyed said that the Labour Party (57%) and its leader Keir Starmer (56%) do in fact understand British values.
Those surveyed were also presented with a list of 21 organisations, political parties, companies and individuals, including the Muslim Council of Britain and Britain First and asked to select all those they believed to be “undermining British values”.
Among the options offered, the Conservative Party was the most picked, with 31% saying the party undermines British values, followed by 29% who picked ‘the Government’.
The third most picked organisation was the Muslim Council of Britain, which was selected by 23% of those surveyed.
Byline Times exclusively revealed his week that the MCB, which represents mosques and Islamic organisations around the UK, had been removed from Michael Gove’s draft list of “extremist” groups amid legal fears among officials.
The list of those set to be targeted by ministers was leaked to this paper on the eve of Gove’s statement to Parliament.
It prompted a formal Government leak inquiry, with Gove telling MPs that such leaks were "fundamentally a challenge to the effective operation of government”.
Voters Want Conservatives to Hand Back Hester Cash
Voters were also asked what they think about the Conservative party’s continued refusal to hand back the £15 million they have received in donations from the businessman Frank Hester.
The Guardian revealed this week that Hester had called for the MP Diane Abbott to be shot, as she made him “want to hate all black women”.
Sunak's Government initially defended Hester, before eventually admitting that his comments had been “racist and wrong”.
However, despite admitting this, the party is still refusing to hand back the money received from Hester, with the Prime Minister telling MPs he was proud to have received donations from him.
This refusal to return the money puts the party firmly out of step with the British public, according to our poll, which found that 63% of those surveyed believe the party should return the money.
The Hester case has also helped to highlight the broader issue of party funding. Hester made the donations to the Conservatives after having received tens of millions of pounds in Government contracts, via his company TPP.
Asked where those who donate to political parties should be banned from receiving Government contracts, 70% of those surveyed agreed, compared to just 30% who disagreed.
This is dark stuff – how the right is controlling politics:
Although effectively none of that narrative is reflected in the views of the British population… This fifteen minutes is I suggest, well worth watching: Peter Oborne shows how the narrative is being swerved and unfortunately (or purposely?) Starmer and the Speaker (certainly the Speaker) have a leading role – we’re being told that Parliament is... Read more
Between Conflict and Collegiality: Palestinian Arabs and Jews in the Israeli Workplace
by Asaf Darr* The ongoing and fierce conflict between Jews and Palestinian Arabs is a daily reality in Israel, the country where I reside. As a sociologist of work and economic sociologist, I became increasingly interested in the ways in which the broader conflict is manifested in daily socio-economic encounters on the shop floor between […]
Is India Becoming a Hindu Majoritarian Autocracy?
Forty countries - from India, the UK and the US to Russia and South Africa - are headed for national elections in 2024, in a highly sensitive geopolitical environment that has not been seen before. Europe is marching to the right, the US could well go the same way.
India, which will have its general elections by May, is the world’s the largest democracy, will it too swing further to the right towards an electoral autocracy as many critics claim, or will its people reclaim its pluralist democracy?
The ruling right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) came to power in 2014, in coalition with parties of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), defeating the grand old Indian National Congress (INC) and its allies of United Progressive Alliance (UPA). In 2019 the BJP-led-NDA won a landslide victory with 353 seats in Lok Sabha (lower house) while reducing the Congress-led-UPA to a mere 91 seats.
Since the BJP came to power, it has held sway over northern states while the southern states have shown a trend towards Congress and Opposition victories during recent state elections, indicating a growing division between the north and the south.
Riding high on its recent victories, the BJP is readying itself for an extravaganza on 22 January – the inauguration of the Lord Rama Temple in Ayodhya in Uttar Pradesh (UP). Given the timing of the event, so close to the elections, it is thought that the temple opening is likely to be used to further garner the Hindu vote which could lead to a highly polarised and divisive election.
In the 10 years of BJP rule, India has seen a conscious rise in religious hatred, where majoritarianism and the Hindutva ideology is reigning supreme. The BJP’s rise began since the demolition of the 16th-Century Babri Masjid (mosque) in Ayodhya on 6 December 1992. In 1990, a political and religious rally tour was started by the then BJP President LK Advani named the Ram Janabhoomi Rath Yatra (Chariot procession) from Gujarat, where the current Prime Minister Narendra Modi was then chief minister, to Ayodhya, which culminated in an ugly takedown of the mosque by members of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) a far-right Hindu nationalist organisation of which BJP is the political wing, alongside its affiliates like Vishwa Hindu Parishad which is a member of RSS and Bajrang Dal, its aggressive youth wing. More than 2,000 people were killed in the nationwide riots that followed, predominantly Muslims.
The nationalist promise was to build a magnificent Lord Rama temple in Ayodhya on the grounds of the 460-year-old mosque where Muslims had offered prayers for generations. Hindus have long believed it to be the birthplace of Lord Rama. According to the mosque’s inscriptions, it was built by Mughal emperor Babur in 1528-29. However, in 1949 Hindus placed idols of Lord Rama inside the mosque, following which no Muslim prayers were ever offered.
In 2010 the Allahabad High Court upheld the claim that the mosque was built on the spot believed to be Lord Rama’s birthplace and awarded the site of the central dome for the construction of the temple while noting that the excavated structure underneath it was not Islamic in nature. In 2019, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the land be handed over to a trust to oversee the construction of a Hindu temple and ordered a separate piece of land to be given to the Muslims.
Behind the BJP’s religio-cultural rhetoric, there have always been clever political calculations. In 2000, the then BJP leader, the late Sushma Swaraj admitted that the Rama Jnambhoomi movement was ‘purely political in nature and had nothing to do with religion.’ Could this Ayodhya event be the final war cry leading to the RSS-BJP dream project of a Hindu Rashtra (nation), destroying the country’s pluralistic democracy woven intricately over the past 75 years?
In the lead-up to 22 January, right-wing organisations have been mobilising their forces to ask for donations for the temple and use the Rama temple card for vote gains. Leaders of VHP have said the temple will be the symbol of Hindutva like the Vatican and Mecca. Modi has asked citizens to celebrate the event as if it was Diwali. But the event and the involvement of the Prime Minister and his party has been fraught with controversy. Opposition leaders have turned down invitations to the consecration ceremony calling it a political event of RSS and BJP.
Some of the Shankaracharyas (head priests) of the four main Hindu religious centres have also refused to attend, as they believe it is a political event and not a religious or spiritual one. They have pointed out that the temple, which is still not complete, cannot have the consecration of its deity, and that the hurry to do so is a clear indication that the BJP wants to capitalise on it for electoral advantage. Clearly Hinduism (the religion) is calling out Hindutva (the political ideology).
Religious hatred has seen an increase since 2014. Cases of lynching Muslims and lower caste Hindus by right-wing mobs on the slightest suspicion have risen. The concept of ‘love-jihad’ has been used to beat and even kill inter-religious couples. For the past eight months, the BJP-ruled north-eastern state of Manipur has been burning due to religious clashes and killings between the Hindu Metei and Christian Kuki Zo communities. Churches have been burnt down, in May two Kuki Zo women were raped and paraded naked on the roads by Meteis. Despite such carnage its chief minister has not been removed.
“The BJP Government’s discriminatory and divisive policies have led to increased violence against minorities, creating a pervasive environment of fear and a chilling effect on Government critics,” said Meenakshi Ganguly, deputy Asia director of Human Rights Watch.
Amidst all this, on 14 January, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi embarked on a socio-political rally tour that promises to stir the soul of the nation, calling it Bharat Jodo Nyay Yatra. Significantly, he began this journey, which will cover 6,713 km from east to west, from Manipur. He will end the journey in Mumbai, on 20 March, covering a total of 355 Lok Sabha seats. A year ago, Gandhi walked 4,080 km from Kanyakumari in the south to Kashmir in the north.
Amidst communal tension, regional disparities, and rising unemployment, Gandhi’s call is for unity and justice. Will it have any electoral dividends for Congress? After all, he will go through the densely populated, BJP-ruled Uttar Pradesh, which boasts of 80 Lok Sabha seats. He has untiringly stood against what he calls RSS’s divisive politics. To further frustrate Modi’s march towards a third term 28 parties with Congress have formed INDIA- Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance.
The mainstream media – termed as ‘godi media’ (lapdog media) – has almost blacked out the entire opposition, so its public reach must be through alternate methods. The Government’s autocratic stance is visible in the curbing of the media, NGOs, and even comedians. Several Government policies are targeting academics who refuse to promote Hindu nationalism in the classroom and in their research. There is a steady introduction of the right-wing agenda in the education curriculum of schools. After months of suspension, the Home Ministry has cancelled the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) registration of the globally renowned public research institute, Centre for Policy Research. Indeed, according to the V-Dem Institute, one of the leading measures of democracy, India now ranks in the bottom 10-20% on its Academic Freedom Index.
Also, for the first time, the Indian Parliament saw the suspension of 141 MPs during last month’s crucial Winter Session of Parliament – 95 from Lok Sabha and 46 from the upper house, Rajya Sabha, for demanding a debate on a Parliament security breach on 13 December. The opposition called it a “mockery of democracy” as, after their suspension, important draconian bills were passed without any debate, undermining parliamentary democracy.
The current buzz in India is that the Ayodhya extravaganza will indeed further bolster the BJP’s chances of sweeping the forthcoming 543-seat-Lok Sabha elections. The danger is that an absolute majority for a single party in a multiparty democracy could precipitate a swift slide to authoritarianism. Can INDIA stop this from happening? Or will religious majoritarianism trump economy and development?
Geopolitically, India is a critically important player given the tensions between China, Russia and the West. But, as is expected after 22 January, the toxic mix of religion and politics in the run-up to the elections could create an electoral autocracy at a time when the world needs a vibrant, confident, pluralist Indian democracy.
Spiritual Contestations: The Violence of Peace in South Sudan – review
In Spiritual Contestations: The Violence of Peace in South Sudan, Naomi Pendle dissects the interactions between Nuer- and Dinka-speaking communities amid national and international peacebuilding efforts, exploring the role of spiritual culture and belief in these processes. Based on extensive ethnographic and historical research, the book offers valuable insights for scholars and policymakers in conflict management and peace-building, writes Nadir A. Nasidi.
Spiritual Contestations: The Violence of Peace in South Sudan. Religion in Transforming Africa Series, Vol. Number: 12. Naomi Ruth Pendle. James Currey. 2023.
Find this book: 
The history of South Sudan includes a series of protracted conflicts and wars, which have attracted the attention of many researchers covering their socio-economic and political dimensions. Following in this vein, Pendle’s Spiritual Contestations explores the interactions between Nuer- and Dinka-speaking communities within the context of national and international peace-making processes. This also includes the role of the clergy and traditional rulers in such processes, which is complicated by politics, sentiments, and the urge to profit from the South Sudan’s protracted conflicts. Pendle also assesses the experiences of ordinary South Sudanese people in peace-making, including their everyday peace-making meetings. The book is divided into three sections and 14 engaging chapters based on the author’s ethnographic and historical research conducted between 2012 and 2022 among the Nuer- and Dinka-speaking peoples.
Pendle’s Spiritual Contestations explores the interactions between Nuer- and Dinka-speaking communities within the context of national and international peace-making processes
Chapter one describes the historical evolution of the hakuma (an Arabic-derived, South Sudanese term for government) in the 19th century and the physical violence which South Sudan has experienced through its mercantile and colonial history, as well as many years of war that influenced contemporary peace-making. It also shows how the hakuma claimed “divine” powers (as a result of god-like rights the government arrogated to itself). Chapters two, three, four and five discuss the contemporary making of war and peace, oppositions to the Sudan government’s development agenda, the 1960s and 1972 Addis Ababa Peace Agreement and South Sudan’s 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement. These chapters also examine the Wunlit Peace Meeting, which was a classic example of what the author calls “the ‘local turn’ in peace-making whereby international actors championed ‘local’ forms of peace-making” (35-119).
Chapter seven largely focuses on the escalation of violence in Warrap State as a result of having an indigenous hakuma alongside ever-evolving ideas of land, property, resources, and cattle ownership. Chapters seven to fourteen then focus on the proliferation of peace meetings in Gogrial and the cosmological crisis brought by the years of war (which involves the disruptions or perceived threats to cosmic order and by overarching beliefs about the universe held by the Nuer- and Dinka-speaking communities), a crisis which was met with a proliferation of prophets. This section also covers wars in South Sudan since 2013, the prevalence of revenge in giving meaning to armed conflicts, the post-2013 power of the Nuer prophets, the post-2013 era in Warrap State, and the role of the church in South Sudan’s peacekeeping through the activities of Dinka priests who are popularly known as the baany e biith.
Although the title of the book appears oxymoronic, the author argues that peace remains violent when understood in a context wherein the methods employed to establish or foster peace involve force, suppression, and coercion
Although the title of the book appears oxymoronic, the author argues that peace remains violent when understood in a context wherein the methods employed to establish or foster peace involve force, suppression, and coercion. This is especially true in the context of South Sudan’s “unsettled cosmic polity”; a polity characterised by periods of questioning, restructuring or conflict in response to perceived disruptions of cosmic order and balance, which further push the boundaries of contemporary discourse on the meaning and conceptualisation of peace and peace-making (179-189).
The author further explains how […] religious connotations are used to contest the moral logic of government, particularly in the rural areas of South Sudan
Pendle bases her arguments on the “eclectic divine” and religious influences among communities located around the Bilnyang River system. The author further explains how these religious connotations are used to contest the moral logic of government, particularly in the rural areas of South Sudan. Through this means, the author clarifies how religion and religious assertions shape the peoples’ social and political life. This includes issues such as spiritual and moral contestations, as well as the making and unmaking of norms within the “cultural archive” (including traditional, economic and historical recollections) that reshape the violence of peace, feuds, and its associated political economies. She advances this argument in her study of conflicts over natural resources and cultural rights that are understood as cosmological occurrences by the people of South Sudan, the meanings of war and peace, and the assertion of power within these events.
Pendle states that to understand the real politics and violence of peace-making, one must also understand ‘how peace-making interacts with and reshapes power not only in everyday politics’, but also ‘in cosmic polities’
Pendle states that to understand the real politics and violence of peace-making, one must also understand “how peace-making interacts with and reshapes power not only in everyday politics”, but also “in cosmic polities” (75-99). Looking at the nature of human societies, she concludes that they are largely hierarchical, mostly located within the purview of a cosmic polity that is populated by “beings of human attributes and metahuman powers who govern the people’s fate” (7).
Basing her arguments on Graeber and Shalins’ research, Pendle observes that South Sudanese society’s secular governments and self-arrogating divine powers can pass for a cosmic polity. It is within this context that the South Sudanese Arabic term for government, ‘hakuma’ operates; the term refers not only to government, but to a broad socio-political sphere including foreign traders and slavers.
Pendle also documents the various ways in which South Sudanese people use cultural symbols, rituals, norms, and values, as well as theology, to contest ‘predatory power and to make peace’
Pendle also documents the various ways in which South Sudanese people use cultural symbols, rituals, norms, and values, as well as theology, to contest “predatory power and to make peace” (75). Examples include the Dinka use of leopard skin (which is used for conflict resolution between two warring factions), cultural diplomacy through festivals, as well as the ceremonial blessings of cattle as a symbol of wealth.
The book is not without flaws. The author often oscillates between the use of ordinal and cardinal numbers when a chapter is mentioned Even if this is done for convenience, it is at the expense of chronology and consistency. Although written in plain and straight-to-the-point language, the author’s use of compound-complex sentences throughout the book makes it difficult for readers to comprehend easily.
Considering the ongoing conflicts and wars in and around the South Sudan region, Pendle’s Spiritual Contestations is a timely work. Using a close analysis, the author provides incisive insights into the changing nature of wars and conflicts, as well as the violence of peace among the Nuer- and Dinka-speaking communities. The book is a significant resource for scholars in the field of conflict management and peace-building, international organisations, policymakers and anyone interested in considering the interplay of religion, governance, tradition, peace-making, and conflict management.
This post gives the views of the author, and not the position of the LSE Review of Books blog, or of the London School of Economics and Political Science. The LSE RB blog may receive a small commission if you choose to make a purchase through the above Amazon affiliate link. This is entirely independent of the coverage of the book on LSE Review of Books.
Image Credit: Richard Juilliart on Shutterstock.